# Transgender is it just me that is totally perplexed?



## The Flying Pig (Sep 14, 2017)

WATCH: Trans Activist Men Attack, Beat Dissenting 60-Year-Old Woman
WTF is going on here?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 14, 2017)

No thanks. Explain or go away.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 14, 2017)

Whatever is going on it involves a handful of individuals, not 'transgender' as an entire concept.


----------



## Sweet FA (Sep 14, 2017)

Christ what a dull and shit thread title/first post.

At least put some fucking effort in The Flying Pig, you lazy cunt.


----------



## belboid (Sep 14, 2017)

MacLachlan - aka Skepticat_uk - is a renowned transphobe who decided to video people at a protest. Someone seemingly objected to her shoving a camera in their face and slapped it away, leading to a kerfuffle. No excuse for violence, of course, but this seems a tad overblown.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 14, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No thanks. Explain or go away.



Trans activists have attacked feminists by the looks of things. It's a first so hardly warrants a 'no thanks'.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 14, 2017)

Sweet FA said:


> Christ what a dull and shit thread title/first post.
> 
> At least put some fucking effort in The Flying Pig, you lazy cunt.



Feminists being physically attacked is acceptable? Um, ok.


----------



## Sweet FA (Sep 14, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Feminists being physically attacked is acceptable? Um, ok.


You're another lazy cunt. Fuck off making shit up. Again.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 14, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Trans activists have attacked feminists by the looks of things. It's a first so hardly warrants a 'no thanks'.


Click here and you'll see what I mean!


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 14, 2017)

Sweet FA said:


> You're another lazy cunt. Fuck off making shit up. Again.



On what basis are you suggesting I'm 'making things up (again)'? 

Here's the fb post doing the rounds about it. I took it at face value which is different from inventing stuff, no?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 14, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Click here and you'll see what I mean!



See above reply.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 14, 2017)

Thread falls silent.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 14, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> See above reply.


I'm clearly being too cryptic. See post 4.


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2017)

A transphobe goes looking for a fight, finds one, complains about it. Gets support from the usual eejits.


----------



## spanglechick (Sep 15, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Feminists being physically attacked is acceptable? Um, ok.


It's no less acceptable than anyone else being beaten up.  That's quite an important bit of feminism, TBH.  And sixty is middle aged.  It's a decade younger than Trump, and I don't think he's so frail as not to be fair game in a street fight.  

And reading her fb post, if those kind of views are typical for her, then I can see why people might be a bit fucked off with her.   Like, if you're a rabid anti-immigration type and you turn up to that place in Croydon where they process people's leave to remain,  filming people and mouthing off about immigration... you can't be too shocked if you get a slap.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 15, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> It's no less acceptable than anyone else being beaten up.  That's quite an important bit of feminism, TBH.  And sixty is middle aged.  It's a decade younger than Trump, and I don't think he's so frail as not to be fair game in a street fight.
> 
> And reading her fb post, if those kind of views are typical for her, then I can see why people might be a bit fucked off with her.   Like, if you're a rabid anti-immigration type and you turn up to that place in Croydon where they process people's leave to remain,  filming people and mouthing off about immigration... you can't be too shocked if you get a slap.



So we've now shifted towards treating feminists we don't agree with as fascists. What a mess is all I can say. Oh, and good luck. Identity politics continues to unravel.


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> So we've now shifted towards treating feminists we don't agree with as fascists. What a mess is all I can say. Oh, and good luck. Identity politics continues to unravel.


Oh look, a complete misrepresentation, quelle surprise.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 15, 2017)

belboid said:


> Oh look, a complete misrepresentation, quelle surprise.



We disagree yet we don't picket each other's events. What a mess. Hopefully this is where the regressive left finally eats itself.


----------



## spanglechick (Sep 15, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> So we've now shifted towards treating feminists we don't agree with as fascists. What a mess is all I can say. Oh, and good luck. Identity politics continues to unravel.


Umm.  Not everyone who is anti immigration is a fascist.   I think it's not bad for a rough analogy.   This women and many like her (a small minority of feminists, btw) look at some of the most vulnerable people in society and tell them that "you can't join our club". No matter how urgent it is, no matter the risk to the trans woman's mental health, they build a wall around "being a woman" and leave people to suffer on the other side.


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> We disagree yet we don't picket each other's events. What a mess. Hopefully this is where the regressive left finally eats itself.


That's a different take to a moment ago. There is nothing wrong with protesting against a meeting promoting a reactionary agenda. 

The organisers of the meeting also attacked a protestor (see action for trans health fb page), but they're not talking about it.  Funny that.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 15, 2017)

I find the issue to be complex. I find myself nodding to both sides of the argument whenever they're given. Obviously it's emotive, hence this. But now we're entering a situation where feminists don't mind feminist meetings being attacked if they're the wrong kind of feminist.


----------



## spanglechick (Sep 15, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I find the issue to be complex. I find myself nodding to both sides of the argument whenever they're given. Obviously it's emotive, hence this. But now we're entering a situation where feminists don't mind feminist meetings being attacked if they're the wrong kind of feminist.


Physical attacks are bad, but a risk you take in any kind of public activism.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 15, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> Physical attacks are bad, but a risk you take in any kind of public activism.



Of course. But what we're discussing here is a case of the left attacking the left. Or maybe not. I'm not entirely sure where either side stands on economic issues and 'left' is now a byword for social justice.


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I find the issue to be complex. I find myself nodding to both sides of the argument whenever they're given. Obviously it's emotive, hence this. But now we're entering a situation where feminists don't mind feminist meetings being attacked if they're the wrong kind of feminist.


The meeting wasn't attacked.


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Of course. But what we're discussing here is a case of the left attacking the left. Or maybe not. I'm not entirely sure where either side stands on economic issues and 'left' is now a byword for social justice.


Just because you're 'left' (and I'm not sure that the organisers would describe themselves thus) doesn't absolve you if you promote a bigoted agenda. No doubt many people attending were quite genuine and just wanted to find out more about the issues, but that isn't true of the organisers.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 15, 2017)

belboid said:


> Just because you're 'left' (and I'm not sure that the organisers would describe themselves thus) doesn't absolve you if you promote a bigoted agenda. No doubt many people attending were quite genuine and just wanted to find out more about the issues, but that isn't true of the organisers.



It's funny though how you weren't arguing their theories were bigoted a decade ago.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 15, 2017)

belboid said:


> The meeting wasn't attacked.



Pedant.


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> It's funny though how you weren't arguing their theories were bigoted a decade ago.


What was I arguing a decade ago?


----------



## kittyP (Sep 15, 2017)

As much as I would love all feminists to be incredibly cool and get along, that's only by my own personal engender. 
Obviously in reality it's much more nuanced and complicated than that.


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Pedant.


No, it's a large distinction. The meeting was protested against. Are you saying that is invalid?

The person who was slightly injured had been trying to provoke the protestors. She had been sticking her camera in there faces, to what purpose? of course it would have been better to rise above her provocations, but it's hardly surprising someone tried to take her camera off her, is it?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 15, 2017)

All we need now is antifascists involved in either protecting the meeting, or supporting those picketing it. And we'll all be a laughing stock all over again.


----------



## Gromit (Sep 15, 2017)

A bunch of people wanted to get together and moan that the world isn't as they they'd like it. 

Another bunch of people turned up to moan that they ain't allowed to moan with them. 

Things got a bit happy slappy. 

Meanwhile the people that rule the world didn't notice any of this taking place and carried on as usual.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 15, 2017)

Here's a video of the incident at Speakers Corner



MacLachlan told_ The Daily Wire_ she estimated her assailants to be males in their 20s, whom she classified as "students virtue signalling." To her knowledge, none of protesters were trans; in fact, MacLachlan suspects "the only trans person was our speaker Miranda, who they were trying to silence."


----------



## The Flying Pig (Sep 15, 2017)

Sweet FA said:


> Christ what a dull and shit thread title/first post.
> 
> At least put some fucking effort in The Flying Pig, you lazy cunt.


Thanks for your reply, it has really helped me understand what was going on in the video.


----------



## The Flying Pig (Sep 15, 2017)

The only thing I have noticed, those middle class numb nuts sisters uncut name is once again involved so most probably nothing to do with politics and all to do with their little me world.


----------



## The Flying Pig (Sep 15, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> It's no less acceptable than anyone else being beaten up.  That's quite an important bit of feminism, TBH.  And sixty is middle aged.  It's a decade younger than Trump, and I don't think he's so frail as not to be fair game in a street fight.
> 
> And reading her fb post, if those kind of views are typical for her, then I can see why people might be a bit fucked off with her.   Like, if you're a rabid anti-immigration type and you turn up to that place in Croydon where they process people's leave to remain,  filming people and mouthing off about immigration... you can't be too shocked if you get a slap.


So 60 is middle aged? On your calculations most grand parents are fair game for a good beating! you really do need to get a grip on reality.


----------



## chilango (Sep 15, 2017)

Since when has been ok to rock up and film a protest without permission?


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 15, 2017)

chilango said:


> Since when has been ok to rock up and film a protest without permission?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 15, 2017)

One of those fights where both sides look like utter twats and you kinda hope they both knock each other out.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Sep 15, 2017)

Odd to see militant anti-fascists like Magnus McGinty and The Flying Pig being so squeamish about political violence. 

I assume that if a lone cameraman from Redwatch got up in their faces they would be warmly embraced these days?


----------



## chilango (Sep 15, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


>


Isn't that what was happening?


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 15, 2017)

chilango said:


> Isn't that what was happening?



The feminists didn't 'rock up', they were having a meeting, where the chanting people 'rocked up' to 'fuck up some TERFS'. 

Since when do you need permission to film protests anyway?


----------



## 1927 (Sep 15, 2017)

chilango said:


> Since when has been ok to rock up and film a protest without permission?


Why would you need permission? public space and all that!


----------



## chilango (Sep 15, 2017)

Hmm. Maybe I'm being a grumpy old man, but back in my day if someone turned up and started filming us they'd be challenged, and the filming would be physically stopped on occasion.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 15, 2017)

chilango said:


> Hmm. Maybe I'm being a grumpy old man, but back in my day if someone turned up and started filming us they'd be challenged, and the filming would be physically stopped on occasion.



'Turned up'

The TRAs tracked down a feminist meeting after forcing them out of their original venue. 

If you don't want to be filmed then it's an idea not to harass people who dare to disagree with you. 

Here's the a tweet from the alleged attacker:


----------



## chilango (Sep 15, 2017)

Tbh. I don't know (or to be frank, care) who did what to who in this particular case. I'm making a point specifically about filming. 

The seemingly ubiquitous presence of cameras (and the subsequent plastering of footage all over the place) is yet another reason why I stay the fuck away from so much of what passes for activism these days. 

Am I alone in this?


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 15, 2017)

chilango said:


> Tbh. I don't know (or to be frank, care) who did what to who in this particular case. I'm making a point specifically about filming.
> 
> The seemingly ubiquitous presence of cameras (and the subsequent plastering of footage all over the place) is yet another reason why I stay the fuck away from so much of what passes for activism these days.
> 
> Am I alone in this?



Modern life is a bit shit, yes


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 15, 2017)

chilango said:


> Tbh. I don't know (or to be frank, care) who did what to who in this particular case. I'm making a point specifically about filming.
> 
> The seemingly ubiquitous presence of cameras (and the subsequent plastering of footage all over the place) is yet another reason why I stay the fuck away from so much of what passes for activism these days.
> 
> Am I alone in this?



Isn't it a good thing that this is in the public domain?  Transparency and all that.


----------



## Lambert Simnel (Sep 15, 2017)

These "feminists" are a bit like the white union men who opposed Asian workers in the 50s and 60s.


----------



## chilango (Sep 15, 2017)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Isn't it a good thing that this is in the public domain?  Transparency and all that.



There's good reason to keep one's protesting out of the "public domain". I'm glad there's very little footage of me "in action" floating around on the internet.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 15, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Odd to see militant anti-fascists like Magnus McGinty and The Flying Pig being so squeamish about political violence.
> 
> I assume that if a lone cameraman from Redwatch got up in their faces they would be warmly embraced these days?



Good point and the live feed fuckers are the worst.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 15, 2017)

1927 said:


> Why would you need permission? public space and all that!



Yeah well the police don't need permission to cctv our every move but that doesn't mean it's necessary, appropriate or ethical for them to do so.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 15, 2017)

What does the title of this thread have to do with the contents of it?


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> What does the title of this thread have to do with the contents of it?


Proving the Flying Pig is a bit of an idiot bigot who just likes hitting people.


----------



## bemused (Sep 15, 2017)

I googled 'terf' and decided it wasn't a rabbit hole I wasn't going to jump down. I'll be wasting my time watching stand up heckler videos.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 15, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Yeah well the police don't need permission to cctv our every move but that doesn't mean it's necessary, appropriate or ethical for them to do so.



I suppose if you're going to follow people round London with the express intent to 'fuck them up', they may want to document your behaviour.


----------



## Sirena (Sep 15, 2017)

Here's another version of the story

Transgender Activist Assaults 60-Year-Old Woman At Gender Debate

It seems the protest was called and the violence enacted by one Tara Flik Wood, a pre-op trans activist.  The women's discussion was going to be on what it means to be a woman....


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2017)

Sirena said:


> Here's another version of the story
> 
> Transgender Activist Assaults 60-Year-Old Woman At Gender Debate
> 
> It seems the protest was called and the violence enacted by one Tara Flik Hunt, a pre-op trans activist.  The women's discussion was going to be on what it means to be a woman....


That's basically the same version of events, just written up by a different paper, ie it takes its info from the same source (the woman who was assaulted). The 'discussion' was billed as a debate, but one where only one side was in attendance, and led by a well known anti-trans rights activist. Hardly a balanced discussion.  As was also shown by the way MM tried to provoke the demonstrators.

Here's a view from the protestors side -


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 15, 2017)

belboid said:


> That's basically the same version of events, just written up by a different paper, ie it takes its info from the same source (the woman who was assaulted). The 'discussion' was billed as a debate, but one where only one side was in attendance, and led by a well known anti-trans rights activist. Hardly a balanced discussion.  As was also shown by the way MM tried to provoke the demonstrators.
> 
> Here's a view from the protestors side -




I assume sirena means another version compared to the comments/assumptions on this thread. 

The discussion only became 'one sided' when certain speakers pulled out following pressure from the protestors.


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> I assume sirena means another version compared to the comments/assumptions on this thread.
> 
> The discussion only became 'one sided' when certain speakers pulled out following pressure from the protestors.


I believe Stonewall pulled out when they saw who the other speakers were, not because of pressure.  And it was still being advertised as a debate after they had pulled out.


----------



## phillm (Sep 15, 2017)

This will play well down at Daily Mail Central - Littlejohn will be feasting on this corpse for many  weeks to come no doubt.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 15, 2017)

phillm said:


> This will play well down at Daily Mail Central - Littlejohn will be feasting on this corpse for many  weeks to come no doubt.


 

Did he survive the hurricane ? he lives out on Vero  beach these days IIRC . Hope his gaff was fucked over properly


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 15, 2017)

phillm said:


> This will play well down at Daily Mail Central - Littlejohn will be feasting on this corpse for many  weeks to come no doubt.



And?


----------



## Jonti (Sep 15, 2017)

One of the most perplexing features of the attack on Maria MacLachlan is that the perpetrators view their violence as justified, citing the example of antifa.

But fascists espouse violence as a matter of principle, which is why they cannot be tolerated. The same is not true of radical feminists.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 15, 2017)

Jonti said:


> One of the most perplexing features of the attack on Maria MacLachlan is that the perpetrators view their violence as justified, citing the example of antifa.



And the radfem/fascist analogy is being alluded on this thread as well. Depressing stuff


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2017)

Jonti said:


> One of the most perplexing features of the attack on Maria MacLachlan is that the perpetrators view their violence as justified, citing the example of antifa.
> 
> But fascists espouse violence as a matter of principle, which is why they cannot be tolerated. The same is not true of radical feminists.


Shoving your camera in someone's face is always going to provoke.  Especially when such photos have frequently been used to harass and intimidate trans women.  I haven't seen anyone say the attack was 'justified', just plenty saying it was hardly surprising.


----------



## Sirena (Sep 15, 2017)

belboid said:


> it was hardly surprising.



It was hardly surprising that one person launches an attack on another.  For what?  For standing there taking photos?  Judging by the coverage, most people were taking photos....

The one who launched the attack was a twat.


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2017)

Sirena said:


> It was hardly surprising that one person launches an attack on another.  For what?  For standing there taking photos?  Judging by the coverage, most people were taking photos....
> 
> The one who launched the attack was a twat.


She wasn't just 'standing there', it's quite obvious - even from the video she released herself - she was shoving herself in peoples faces, repeatedly.  I don't know if she was shouting 'you're Men's Rights Activists' at the trans women - it's something she is fond of - but she was very clearly deliberately trying to provoke. It's why she was smiling straight after the event, she'd got what she wanted.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 15, 2017)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> One of those fights where both sides look like utter twats and you kinda hope they both knock each other out.


Yep this pretty much. The person who recorded the video doesn't do their own side any favours by attempting to make more of this scuffle than it was. 'crowds chant 'when terfs attack we fight back'. Well, it seems to be two people chanting that. And then at the end 'this is trans terrorism. This is male violence'. It's a scuffle involving a couple of people, both of whom were intent on confrontation, not bloody terrorism.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 15, 2017)

"beaten woman gets want she wanted "


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 15, 2017)

I'm waiting to hear Helen Lewis's analysis before I make my decision on the matter.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 15, 2017)

It's pretty sad that a venue will cancel a meeting on the basis of someone tweeting something about causing trouble. Closing down a meeting you don't want to happen appears to be a very simple thing to do nowadays.


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2017)

Jonti said:


> "beaten woman gets want she wanted "


What's that a quote from? Do you have a substantive point?

I have said from the off, she shouldn't have been assaulted (not even in this minor manner), but I am not surprised by the turn of events.

Are you denying she was trying to deliberately provoke a reaction?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 15, 2017)

I've been tangentially involved with the library where the event was to be held so I still see what goes on their FB page. This whole thing has seen more activity than I've ever seen on their page, and whatever the rights and wrongs I do feel for the two women who run the library caught up in the middle of it. They put so much into that place, completely voluntarily, and I just hope once the dust settles this hasn't softened their resolve too much.

In terms of the debate, I've been following it with interest as it's one I'm still quite green on. Instinctively I'm in favour of trans-rights, and can understand the concern of feeling like "their existence is being denied", particularly when a lot of people are saying stuff like "I've no problem with trans people, but you're a man, you'll never be a woman", and worse. I don't think I'd heard the "this is another example of men oppressing women" argument before, although I'm aware of the associated "you never grew up as a girl/woman". It seems to ignore women transitioning to men and all other gender-fluidity, but it's something to be sensitive to, I guess.

I don't know the history of those who were scheduled to speak, but clearly there is a _lot_ of history.

There's been a few calm and reasonable voices, but there's also been a lot of shit flung in all directions and as others have said, few have come out of it particularly well.


----------



## Sirena (Sep 15, 2017)

belboid said:


> What's that a quote from? Do you have a substantive point?
> 
> I have said from the off, she shouldn't have been minorly assaulted, but I am not surprised by the turn of events.
> 
> Are you denying she was trying to deliberately provoke a reaction?


The substantive point may be that you don't prove your existence as a woman by punching a woman.


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2017)

Sirena said:


> The substantive point may be that you don't prove your existence as a woman by punching a woman.


She was deliberately trying to provoke tho, wasn't she? And she IS a bigot, that is pretty undeniable.


----------



## Sirena (Sep 15, 2017)

belboid said:


> She was deliberately trying to provoke tho, wasn't she? And she IS a bigot, that is pretty undeniable.


No.  Taking photos is not provocation.  And, if you're looking for bigotry, look at Tara Flik Wood too.  She was the one hunting the other group down.


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2017)

Sirena said:


> No.  Taking photos is not provocation.


Bullshit.  She shoves her camera in peoples faces, shouts abuse and laughs at them. That is provocative even if you are a cis white man, when it is aimed at people frequently targetted for abuse and assault because of how they look, it's double provocative.



> And, if you're looking for bigotry, look at Tara Flik Wood too.  She was the one hunting the other group down.


Not because of how they were born tho, because of the opinions they hold (loudly). Quite a difference. Tho at least you did manage to correctly identify her gender, something MM refused to do, stating that 'all' her assailants were men.


----------



## Sirena (Sep 15, 2017)

belboid said:


> Bullshit.  She shoves her camera in peoples faces, shouts abuse and laughs at them. That is provocative even if you are a cis white man, when it is aimed at people frequently targetted for abuse and assault because of how they look, it's double provocative.
> 
> 
> Not because of how they were born tho, because of the opinions they hold (loudly). Quite a difference. Tho at least you did manage to correctly identify her gender, something MM refused to do, stating that 'all' her assailants were men.


I did have a problem writing 'she', though, in light of 'her' response.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 15, 2017)

Sirena said:


> I did have a problem writing 'she', though, in light of 'her' response.


Why? Cos real women don't start fights?


----------



## Jonti (Sep 15, 2017)

Not so often as real men (if we must) I'm afraid


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2017)

Jonti said:


> Not so often as real men (if we must) I'm afraid


Do you agree she (MM) was being deliberately provocative?

(One should of course never rise to provocation, I shouldn't need to add, but suspect I do this time)


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 15, 2017)

Sirena said:


> The substantive point may be that you don't prove your existence as a woman by punching a woman.



You don't prove you're a woman by not punching a woman either.  Punching or not punching is not what makes anyone anything other than maybe a bit punchy.  Not being provoked into punching someone is not an innate female quality.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 15, 2017)

A fuckwit hits another fuckwit.


----------



## Sirena (Sep 15, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why? Cos real women don't start fights?


Have a look at table 8.01 on page 140.

It shows the difference in GBH and ABH between men and women.  Something like 90/10

http://iapdeathsincustody.independe...e-criminal-justice-system-statistics-2015.pdf


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 15, 2017)

Sirena said:


> Have a look at table 8.01 on page 140.
> 
> It shows the difference in GBH and ABH between men and women.  Something like 90/10
> 
> http://iapdeathsincustody.independe...e-criminal-justice-system-statistics-2015.pdf


And those ten percent of cases are what? Are they not real women either? Is that the test?

A minority of men are violent. An even smaller minority of women are violent. How about the men who are not violent? Do they fail some kind of man test or does it not work that way round? Or maybe this kind of gender essentialism isn't the right way to look at it.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 15, 2017)

Jonti said:


> One of the most perplexing features of the attack on Maria MacLachlan is that the perpetrators view their violence as justified, citing the example of antifa.
> 
> But fascists espouse violence as a matter of principle, which is why they cannot be tolerated. The same is not true of radical feminists.



Some anti-trans radical feminists come out with a level of vitriol that could easily be described as psychological violence, specifically targetted at one of the most vulnerable groups of people in society.


----------



## Sirena (Sep 15, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And those ten percent of cases are what? Are they not real women either? Is that the test?


Can't you make the logical leap?  That overwhelmingly it is men who do violence.  You can point at the 10% as long as you like, it doesn't alter the general, overwhelming picture.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 15, 2017)

Sirena said:


> Can't you make the logical leap?  That overwhelmingly it is men who do violence.  You can point at the 10% as long as you like, it doesn't alter the general, overwhelming picture.


You're the one setting up a gender test here, not me.


----------



## Sirena (Sep 15, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You're the one setting up a gender test here, not me.


You're the one who asked if women start fights (nearest legal parallel is being found guilty of violent attack).

I merely showed you figures that showed it was men who overwhelmingly (90%) do.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 15, 2017)

Sirena said:


> You're the one who asked if women start fights (nearest legal parallel is being found guilty of violent attack).
> 
> I merely showed you figures that showed it was men who overwhelmingly (90%) do.


So yes, there are women who start fights. You're the one having trouble calling her 'her' because she punched someone. That's also the logic of the person who made that video and characterises it pretty gleefully as 'male violence' following clearly sarcastic 'him?'- style captions.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 15, 2017)




----------



## Lambert Simnel (Sep 15, 2017)

Sirena said:


> You're the one who asked if women start fights (nearest legal parallel is being found guilty of violent attack).
> 
> I merely showed you figures that showed it was men who overwhelmingly (90%) do.



You're picking a fight on this thread. I therefore assume you are a man.


----------



## joustmaster (Sep 15, 2017)

Theres a lot to choose from, but I think this is the most stupid post on the thread so far:



Sirena said:


> I did have a problem writing 'she', though, in light of 'her' response.


----------



## Sirena (Sep 15, 2017)

Lambert Simnel said:


> You're picking a fight on this thread. I therefore assume you are a man.


I'm simply answering a question.


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2017)

Sirena said:


> I'm simply answering a question.


Badly


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 15, 2017)

Sirena said:


> I'm simply answering a question.



No, no.  You're disagreeing with a man.  Therefore you are "picking a fight".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 15, 2017)

chilango said:


> Hmm. Maybe I'm being a grumpy old man, but back in my day if someone turned up and started filming us they'd be challenged, and the filming would be physically stopped on occasion.



Pity this doesn't hold true of how FIT cunts should be treated.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 15, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> 'Turned up'
> 
> The TRAs tracked down a feminist meeting after forcing them out of their original venue.
> 
> ...



I suspect that Tara has not had much engagement with actual fascists, or she wouldn't make such a facile comparison.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 15, 2017)

belboid said:


> ...correctly identify her gender, something MM refused to do, stating that 'all' her assailants were men.



Wow. Not sure which is worse: criticising an assault victim for 'incorrectly' identifying someone's gender; or criticising her for referring to her attacker by their sex (rather then their 'gender identity')


----------



## Sirena (Sep 15, 2017)

belboid said:


> Badly


How badly?  I showed it was overwhelmingly men that start fights.  I merely supplied figures.

You chip in with a one word attempted put-down.  That's what I call a poor response.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 15, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Wow. Not sure which is worse: criticising an assault victim for 'incorrectly' identifying someone's gender; or criticising her for referring to her attacker by their sex (rather then their 'gender identity')


That might be a fair comment if the people in question didn't have a clear agenda in the way they are presenting the incident. But they do. It is their agenda to present this as a case of male-on-female violence - an incident of 'trans terrorism' from a group of men who are intent upon invading women's spaces by falsely claiming to be women. That's their agenda here - they don't hide the fact.


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Wow. Not sure which is worse: criticising an assault victim for 'incorrectly' identifying someone's gender; or criticising her for referring to her attacker by their sex (rather then their 'gender identity')


oh piss off, she was deliberately misgendering because she knows it's offensive and provocative.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 15, 2017)

belboid said:


> because of the opinions they hold (loudly).



And this is a justification for hunting them down and 'fucking them up'?

Women need to learn to have the correct opinions? Or just be quieter about them?


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2017)

Sirena said:


> How badly?  I showed it was overwhelmingly men that start fights.  I merely supplied figures.
> 
> You chip in with a one word attempted put-down.  That's what I call a poor response.


All that I considered worthy.

Slightly longer version - just because it is mostly men who start fights (which is undoubtedly true) has no bearing on whether any particular fight is started by a woman or a man.


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> And this is a justification for hunting them down and 'fucking them up'?
> 
> Women need to learn to have the correct opinions? Or just be quieter about them?


_Bigots _need to shut the fuck up. MM IS a bigot, isnt she?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 15, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> And this is a justification for hunting them down and 'fucking them up'?


Who here has defended that, though? The majority opinion on this thread has been that both sides are dicks.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 15, 2017)

Sirena said:


> I did have a problem writing 'she', though, in light of 'her' response.


This suggests that you have some notion of "things a man does" and "things a woman does".





Sirena said:


> How badly?  I showed it was overwhelmingly men that start fights.  I merely supplied figures.


_This_ does not prove that throwing punches is something just a man does. In fact, it clearly proves that women do it too. So, the question is why do you have a problem using "she" because someone threw a punch, when you've proven yourself that hes and shes both throw punches.

Would you have difficulty using "she" about a cis-gendered woman throwing a punch?


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 15, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That might be a fair comment if the people in question didn't have a clear agenda in the way they are presenting the incident. But they do. It is their agenda to present this as a case of male-on-female violence - an incident of 'trans terrorism' from a group of men who are intent upon invading women's spaces by falsely claiming to be women. That's their agenda here - they don't hide the fact.



And the behaviour of the protestors shows how wrong those terfs are


----------



## Gromit (Sep 15, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> And this is a justification for hunting them down and 'fucking them up'?
> 
> Women need to learn to have the correct opinions? Or just be quieter about them?


If you are outspoken dont moan when others are outspoken too. The problem with being allowed to have an opinion is that gosh darn it everyone else is allowed to have one too. How unfair is that?!


----------



## Jonti (Sep 15, 2017)

Lambert Simnel said:


> You're picking a fight on this thread. I therefore assume you are a man.


I think that finger maybe pointing back at you. Happy to be corrected of course.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 15, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Who here has defended that, though? The majority opinion on this thread has been that both sides are dicks.



Yep. There's no one here defending/mitigating the assault. 

Just bringing up how awful the victim is. Repeatedly


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Yep. There's no one here defending/mitigating the assault.
> 
> Just bringing up how awful the victim is. Repeatedly


She IS a bigot though, isn't she?


----------



## Sirena (Sep 15, 2017)

Gromit said:


> If you are outspoken dont moan when others are outspoken too.



It's not about being ouspoken back.  It's about resorting to violence.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 15, 2017)

belboid said:


> She IS a bigot though, isn't she?



Not from what I've seen. Unless you can point me to something bigoted she's said/done


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 15, 2017)

Shocking how many leftists will bend over backwards to justify the totally indefensible actions of a wild identity politics movement, which is frankly out of control.

'No platforming tactics' used against old feminist groups is totally and utterly disproportionate to _any_ perceived insult or slight. I'd say you should be ashamed of yourself belboid but after all, these are your people... spent too much time drinking the Koolaid whilst you were hanging around with the ISN.

Whether it's pursuing campaigns to close down iconic leftwing institutions like the Working Class Movement Library in Salford, forming up mobs to physically attack unarmed and non-violent groups such as this one, the habit of slandering all those who oppose you as transphobic and bigoted (regardless of their history of activism and commitment to the left), doxxing, spamming and twitter-swarming opponents, gloating over the suicides of prominent socialist writers, attacking their own side - maoist-style - for lack of ideological purity, trying to get liberal college tutors sacked for no good reason, supporting authoritarian top-down encroachments of the state and the justice-system to persecute those who disagree, the current Identity Politics movement which seems to have a hegemonic role over all non-Labour Party related activism is utterly disgusting.

If you buy it, you are not a socialist. You are not on the left. You're a part of a cancerous cult of bullying and persecution and to be honest you need to fuck right off.


----------



## Gromit (Sep 15, 2017)

Sirena said:


> It's not about being ouspoken back.  It's about resorting to violence.


I agree with that. The logic of winning an argument via violence is the fall back of people too dumb to win it by words. It's also stupid because just cause you won a fight doesn't make the sky green when it is in fact blue.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 15, 2017)

Your links are rubbish Das Uberdog


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 15, 2017)

I spend as much time looking up acronyms on these threads as I do reading them.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 15, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> Shocking how many leftists will bend over backwards to justify the totally indefensible actions of a wild identity politics movement, which is frankly out of control..


I'd class the movement to which the speaker Julia Long belongs as a wild identity politics movement, one that is also intent on shouting down its opponents. 



> As I gave my speech, a group of 6 protestors started trying to shout me down, and distributed leaflets amongst the gathered crowd calling me a “lesbian hating man”, claiming that I was part of a “male” takeover of lesbian spaces, and accusing me of appropriating a lesbian identity.
> 
> Two of the protestors have since been identified as Dr Julia Long of Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridge, and Dr Lynne Harne, of Bristol University. Both lecture in women’s studies and both are involved in developing equalities policy.



Open Letter to Academic and Media Feminists – Deal with the Transphobia in your Ranks


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 15, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> I spend as much time looking up acronyms on these threads as I do reading them.



This has been covered upthread 



MadeInBedlam said:


> Modern life is a bit shit, yes


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 15, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> This has been covered upthread


Not to my satisfaction.


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Not from what I've seen. Unless you can point me to something bigoted she's said/done


As I have already said (several times) she refers to trans women campaigners as 'Mens Rights Activists,' is a bit of a clue. Frequent references to 'the trans cult' is another. The video of her shoving her camera in peoples faces is a third.


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> Shocking how many leftists will bend over backwards to justify the totally indefensible actions of a wild identity politics movement, which is frankly out of control.
> 
> 'No platforming tactics' used against old feminist groups is totally and utterly disproportionate to _any_ perceived insult or slight. I'd say you should be ashamed of yourself belboid but after all, these are your people... spent too much time drinking the Koolaid whilst you were hanging around with the ISN.


That would be when you were still in the SWP defending a rapist, wasn't it?

As I said repeatedly earlier in the thread, this was a _protest _against a falsely advertised meeting with a bigoted agenda. They (the meeting organisers) were not there for an honest debate, but to promote an anti-trans agenda.  There is a big difference between protesting at a meeting and no platforming. I have not supported the latter in this thread or anywhere else, so please dont mis-represent what I've said.



> Whether it's pursuing campaigns to close down iconic leftwing institutions like the Working Class Movement Library in Salford, forming up mobs to physically attack unarmed and non-violent groups such as this one, the habit of slandering all those who oppose you as transphobic and bigoted (regardless of their history of activism and commitment to the left), doxxing, spamming and twitter-swarming opponents, gloating over the suicides of prominent socialist writers, attacking their own side - maoist-style - for lack of ideological purity, trying to get liberal college tutors sacked for no good reason, supporting authoritarian top-down encroachments of the state and the justice-system to persecute those who disagree, the current Identity Politics movement which seems to have a hegemonic role over all non-Labour Party related activism is utterly disgusting.
> 
> If you buy it, you are not a socialist. You are not on the left. You're a part of a cancerous cult of bullying and persecution and to be honest you need to fuck right off.


And learn how to post links.  Preferably coherent ones that make a point.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 15, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Yep. There's no one here defending/mitigating the assault.
> 
> Just bringing up how awful the victim is. Repeatedly


I would rather concentrate on the agenda of the people who made and released the video of the incident. That group's agenda is very clear and very nasty.


----------



## chilango (Sep 15, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Pity this doesn't hold true of how FIT cunts should be treated.



It did when we could.


----------



## The Flying Pig (Sep 15, 2017)

chilango said:


> Since when has been ok to rock up and film a protest without permission?


What planet are you on?


----------



## Wilf (Sep 15, 2017)

Oh, fuck, what to say?  Don't think an attack on a 60 year old/middle aged/whatever label you like, is all that great. Maybe it is being minimised on this thread, but then it's not quite a severe beating. I don't have a problem with activists confronting other activists, it happens. But this looked to be both petty violence but also spiteful and a bit cowardly.

But the politics... it all looks like a battle between specific politics, an identarian battle to secure the high ground after a minor spat*. Most of all, none of it moves in the direction of solidarity, class politics or confronting the fuckers who really oppress us.

*Edit: I mean this particular case does. Fwiw I fully support trans activists against radical feminists arguing the 'you are not a real woman' line.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 15, 2017)

belboid said:


> I believe Stonewall pulled out when they saw who the other speakers were, not because of pressure.  And it was still being advertised as a debate after they had pulled out.



I spoke to Bex Stinson prior to this. She was never down to attend this meeting. They just put her name on to make it look legitimate.

We don't talk to fascists and we certainly don't talk to TERFs. Before the meeting a load of us discussed this and decided not to make their lies look like legitimate opinions. There is no good way to talk to fascists.

While everyone has a right to speak freely, no one has a right to an audience.

Also - there were no threats made to get the meeting cancelled. These morons - including the extremely abusive Miranda Yardley, reviled among trans community - lied to everyone. they lied to the venue, they lied on the poster, they made it look like this was a New Cross Learning event, and it wasn't, they attempted to show that this was a balanced debate and it wasn't. We merely decided to stay away.

The person that I am aware of who managed to get this event stopped wasn't a trans person, was a local, and was concerned that such an event would be detrimental to the community at large. All he did was approach the owners of the venue and told them about what MY was all about - the doxing, the abuse and the constant lies.

It was MY who put up a website - when I stood for parliament - implying that I was a sexual abuser of children. It was actionable but I can't afford that sort of legal action so I just had to ignore it.

Anyway- those who want to believe that all trans women are violent men on the basis of this one event - which was far from as clear cut as some of you seem to be saying - go ahead. you've made your minds up - mostly the usual suspects I see.

That's my last word on this.

ETA - I lied. The truth outs.

The TERF was filming and was challenged. But you know that...

The next bit was the TERF grabbed someone and held them in a headlock.

The punch came from a trans woman in an attempt to free the person in a headlock.

The person in the headlock was an assigned female at birth non binary person.

And despite all this, the TERFs called all the protesters men. Clearly not. Not in any sense.


----------



## The Flying Pig (Sep 15, 2017)

belboid said:


> She wasn't just 'standing there', it's quite obvious - even from the video she released herself - she was shoving herself in peoples faces, repeatedly.  I don't know if she was shouting 'you're Men's Rights Activists' at the trans women - it's something she is fond of - but she was very clearly deliberately trying to provoke. It's why she was smiling straight after the event, she'd got what she wanted.


What a weird twisted view you seem to have. I guess you must be another one of the me me me crowd.


----------



## chilango (Sep 15, 2017)

The Flying Pig said:


> What planet are you on?



You're cool with people filming you on protests?


----------



## The Flying Pig (Sep 15, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Oh, fuck, what to say?  Don't think an attack on a 60 year old/middle aged/whatever label you like, is all that great. Maybe it is being minimised on this thread, but then it's not quite a severe beating. I don't have a problem with activists confronting other activists, it happens. But this looked to be both petty violence but also spiteful and a bit cowardly.
> 
> But the politics... it all looks like a battle between specific politics, an identarian battle to secure the high ground after a minor spat*. Most of all, none of it moves in the direction of solidarity, class politics or confronting the fuckers who really oppress us.
> 
> *Edit: I mean this particular case does. Fwiw I fully support trans activists against radical feminists arguing the 'you are not a real woman' line.


I think you hit the nail on the head most of these groups do not appear to be interested in solidarity, class politics or confronting the capitalist class. These groups are put in place to distract us from the real challenges that normal working class people have to contend with.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 15, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> I spend as much time looking up acronyms on these threads as I do reading them.



I'd say "get with it, grandad", but I believe you're slightly younger than me.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 15, 2017)

The Flying Pig said:


> What a weird twisted view you seem to have. I guess you must be another one of the me me me crowd.


Are you saying that this is not what she was doing, or is inclined to do? I've done a quick search to see if I can find stuff on her, but only found things on others in her group, who are recorded doing exactly what belboid says, shouting down various meetings with deliberately hateful words. How many times has she done this kind of thing and how many times has she been punched for it? We're only seeing here one time it's provoked violence - because her group saw fit to publicise it, taking the opportunity to portray it as male-on-female violence and 'trans-terrorism'. And I'm absolutely not justifying the violence here. I agree with Wilf that punching a person then running off is a cowardly thing to do. But not to see how that act of violence is now being used is naive.


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> I spoke to Bex Stinson prior to this. She was never down to attend this meeting. They just put her name on to make it look legitimate.
> 
> We don't talk to fascists and we certainly don't talk to TERFs. Before the meeting a load of us discussed this and decided not to make their lies look like legitimate opinions. There is no good way to talk to fascists.
> 
> ...


As a cis man, I wouldn't compare TERF's to fascists, but I can easily see why any trans person would (both do try to deny your existence). 'decided not to make their lies look like legitimate opinions' is absolutely spot on and why it is right to _protest _such events, not legitimise them.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 15, 2017)

belboid said:


> That would be when you were still in the SWP defending a rapist, wasn't it?



No, moron - I was actually kicked out of the SWP a full 3 years before that debacle for setting up a rogue democratic branch in central Lancashire.



> As I said repeatedly earlier in the thread, this was a _protest _against a falsely advertised meeting with a bigoted agenda. They (the meeting organisers) were not there for an honest debate, but to promote an anti-trans agenda.  There is a big difference between protesting at a meeting and no platforming. I have not supported the latter in this thread or anywhere else, so please dont mis-represent what I've said.



You're defending a bunch of idiots using no-platform tactics against 70s rad-fems. Disgraceful.



> And learn how to post links.  Preferably coherent ones that make a point.



Tell me what you don't like about them


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 15, 2017)

The real point here is that you cannot separate this wild and unprovoked violence from the general culture of identity politics activism which is running amok amongst the left.

It's a disease and if it's not dealt with, it will strangle any of the fledgling hopes given by the recent Corbyn moment that left wing ideas might ever be popularised.


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> No, moron - I was actually kicked out of the SWP a full 3 years before that debacle for setting up a rogue democratic branch in central Lancashire.


fair enough, apologies.



> You're defending a bunch of idiots using no-platform tactics against 70s rad-fems. Disgraceful.


I have explicitly said I do not support 'no platforming,' so don't misrepresent me sunshine. And there were plenty of rad-fems who were reactionary in the seventies (a minority, even amongst rad-fems), they were vicious against socialist feminists back then too. But at least they were mainly being reactionary against men, kicking up as it were. Now they are being reactionary against trans women, they're kicking down. Hence they're bigots. Socialists should always side with the oppressed, pretty basic stuff.



> Tell me what you don't like about them


I did. They are posted incoherently and I have no idea what their point is, a quick look at two of them made things no clearer. Don't just post up links without explanation, please.


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> The real point here is that you cannot separate this wild and unprovoked violence from the general culture of identity politics activism which is running amok amongst the left.
> 
> It's a disease and if it's not dealt with, it will strangle any of the fledgling hopes given by the recent Corbyn moment that left wing ideas might ever be popularised.


Wild and unprovoked?  You have no problem with calling trans campaigners 'Men's Right Activists' then? With shouting about 'the trans cult' or with taking photos of activists in order to 'doxx' them


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 15, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> The real point here is that you cannot separate this wild and unprovoked violence from the general culture of identity politics activism which is running amok amongst the left.
> 
> It's a disease and if it's not dealt with, it will strangle any of the fledgling hopes given by the recent Corbyn moment that left wing ideas might ever be popularised.


'terfs' are fundamentally reactionary. Theirs is id politics of a very strong kind with reactionary ideas about gender essentialism that make it the natural ally of conservative right reactionaries. Insisting on calling trans women men is the kind of thing Richard Littlejohn would do. Their dismissal and belittling of the experiences of others, labelling them delusional or mentally ill, is disgusting, and deserves to be called out as such.

Surely it is such people, who choose to focus much of their energy on attacking trans women (they're strangely silent on the subject of trans men), who are the disease. With all the problems we face at the moment, _this_ is what they are focussing on? wtf?


----------



## The Flying Pig (Sep 15, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> The real point here is that you cannot separate this wild and unprovoked violence from the general culture of identity politics activism which is running amok amongst the left.
> 
> It's a disease and if it's not dealt with, it will strangle any of the fledgling hopes given by the recent Corbyn moment that left wing ideas might ever be popularised.


Agree with most of what you say but lets not get confused! These people are in no way left wing. They are along with other such groups part of the new me me me world.  Give them a few months etc and we find them moving up market into fancy jobs, writing in the grudian, fashion designers etc and then mocking us minnions.


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2017)

The buggers are legal now, what more are they after?


----------



## inva (Sep 15, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> The real point here is that you cannot separate this wild and unprovoked violence from the general culture of identity politics activism which is running amok amongst the left.
> 
> It's a disease and if it's not dealt with, it will strangle any of the fledgling hopes given by the recent Corbyn moment that left wing ideas might ever be popularised.


get a grip


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 15, 2017)

TERF wars .... 

(... are deeply depressing)


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 15, 2017)

Sirena said:


> Can't you make the logical leap?  That overwhelmingly it is men who do violence.  You can point at the 10% as long as you like, it doesn't alter the general, overwhelming picture.


And? Are you implying that that has some bearing on the gender of Flick Wood?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 15, 2017)

The Flying Pig said:


> Agree with most of what you say but lets not get confused! These people are in no way left wing. They are along with other such groups part of the new me me me world.  Give them a few months etc and we find them moving up market into fancy jobs, writing in the grudian, fashion designers etc and then mocking us minnions.


You're talking about trans rights activists here, yes? 

I wonder if there were people saying the same thing back in the 70s about Stonewall and gay rights activists. And people talk about the lack of solidarity.  That's the lack of solidarity right there.


----------



## Sirena (Sep 15, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You're talking about trans rights activists here, yes?
> 
> I wonder if there were people saying the same thing back in the 70s about Stonewall and gay rights activists. And people talk about the lack of solidarity.  That's the lack of solidarity right there.


Were you involved back in the 70s?

Because I was.


----------



## spanglechick (Sep 15, 2017)

Sirena said:


> The substantive point may be that you don't prove your existence as a woman by punching a woman.


If I punch you will my gender identity be in question? 


Sirena said:


> I did have a problem writing 'she', though, in light of 'her' response.


People who use scare quotes around the gendered pronouns of trans people  (or terms explaining transgender people) are twats.  Every time.   It's a rule.  


MadeInBedlam said:


> Wow. Not sure which is worse: criticising an assault victim for 'incorrectly' identifying someone's gender; or criticising her for referring to her attacker by their sex (rather then their 'gender identity')


See what I mean?


MadeInBedlam said:


> And this is a justification for hunting them down and 'fucking them up'?
> 
> Women need to learn to have the correct opinions? Or just be quieter about them?


Oh stop.  You don't get to win this with bullshit chivalry.  

Like everyone on this thread, I don't commend violence.  But being a woman doesn't give you extra rights to be protected from people's reactions to your obnoxious behaviour.  Man or woman, if you spout inflammatory rhetoric to angry people there's a bloody good chance you'll get a slap.  Being sixty doesn't protect you.  Being a woman doesn't (and shouldn't) protect you.  It's not right but it isn't worse because of your age or gender (or biological sex).


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 15, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You're talking about trans rights activists here, yes?
> 
> I wonder if there were people saying the same thing back in the 70s about Stonewall and gay rights activists. And people talk about the lack of solidarity.  That's the lack of solidarity right there.



Gay rights activists didn't launch unprovoked physical assaults against groups of cranky radfems.

It doesn't matter that the Radfems were courting controversy, it doesn't matter that they're also identitarians, what matters is they successfully drew out the worst excesses of their opnonents in the broad light of day. Bang to rights - shown up for exactly what it is, a club for teenage student bullies.

Three men attacked the woman in question and she was lamped - for 'aggravating' them with her camera, apparently. I cannot think of a single other scenario in which so-called leftists would defend this behaviour.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 15, 2017)

Transpeople are murdered and assaulted by men. Men hate women and they hate transpeople. Women - even if some of them are 'TERFs' - aren't actually killing or hurting transpeople. Men are. But somehow it's easier to condemn women. 

Some violent misogynist men are saying they're trans: 
Rapist moved to female jail after sex change
Ian Huntley wants a sex change so he can live in a women's prison
which I think is pretty fucking scary. 

I would like to think that most people would think that violent rapists and paedophile murderers shouldn't be given unfettered access to the women's estate, particularly when the women's prison system isn't set up for violence (because so few of the population is). Where is the outcry? 

Transpeople and women should be working together to decry violence. We should stand united.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 15, 2017)

And I am disgusted that some of you are condoning this bloke punching a woman in the face. It's fucking awful.


----------



## spanglechick (Sep 15, 2017)

The Flying Pig said:


> So 60 is middle aged? On your calculations most grand parents are fair game for a good beating! you really do need to get a grip on reality.


60 years is nearly a decade before state retirement age.  It's a long way from elderly.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 15, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> I
> ETA - I lied. The truth outs.
> 
> The TERF was filming and was challenged. But you know that...
> ...



You're right that the puncher was coming in to pull the other person away. That's clearly seen in the footage - she punches, makes sure the other person is pulled away, and then runs off. 

Having looked at the footage once again, it isn't consistent with the account later given by the woman who was punched. There was no 'piling in' at any point, and you're right that she is clearly holding on to the other person, although that may well be in order to keep hold of her camera. Her comrades seem strangely passive throughout - odd that they continue milling around, singing into megaphones and smiling. That wouldn't be my reaction to a mate getting set upon by a terrifying mob.


----------



## spanglechick (Sep 15, 2017)

trashpony said:


> And I am disgusted that some of you are condoning this bloke punching a woman in the face. It's fucking awful.


It isn't a bloke.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 15, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> It isn't a bloke.


Right. And a punch is a slap


----------



## spanglechick (Sep 15, 2017)

trashpony said:


> Right. And a punch is a slap


I meant in terms of "do you want a slap", but it does seem that the woman who did the punching might have been trying to defend a cis woman in a headlock... I wasn't there. If she wasn't defending someone, then there's no excuse for punching someone... my point is that you don't have special rights not to be punched because you're a woman.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 15, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> People who use scare quotes around the gendered pronouns of trans people  (or terms explaining transgender people) are twats.  Every time.   It's a rule.



This is a bit... cult like, isn't it. Agree with our assertions in spite of the observable facts or you're a wrong un. 



spanglechick said:


> Oh stop.  You don't get to win this with bullshit chivalry.



Where as you coming along to rescue gender dysphoric men is genuine chivalry


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 15, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> Three men attacked the woman in question and she was lamped - for 'aggravating' them with her camera, apparently. I cannot think of a single other scenario in which so-called leftists would defend this behaviour.


First, few if any people on here are condoning the violence. Second, you might want to revisit the idea that it was 'three men'. Kind of shows up one of the prejudices on display here - a trans woman is a man, and a trans man is a man. Third, the punch did come as part of an effort to pull the person away. Watch the footage again - it's clear enough.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 15, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> my point is that you don't have special rights not to be punched because you're a woman.



Who here has argued to the contrary?


----------



## spanglechick (Sep 15, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Who here has argued to the contrary?


The gender of the victim has been mentioned by lots of people.  I'm not sure why, but her womanhood seems to for part of their objection to the punch.


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> Gay rights activists didn't launch unprovoked physical assaults against groups of cranky radfems.


And there was no _unprovoked_ attack here, either.
Radfems weren't generally attacking gay rights activists in the seventies (the bisexuals came in for a lot of grief), but it did happen. There were certainly fights with 'gender traitors'.



> Three men attacked the woman in question...


Three _men_ did not do so. Your attitude towards trans people is apparent[/quote][/QUOTE]


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 15, 2017)

Yeah gender pronouns are more important than physical assault


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 15, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> Yeah gender pronouns are more important than physical assault


Come off it. At least have the grace to admit a mistake.


----------



## spanglechick (Sep 15, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> This is a bit... cult like, isn't it. Agree with our assertions in spite of the observable facts or you're a wrong un.
> 
> 
> 
> Where as you coming along to rescue gender dysphoric men is genuine chivalry


Observable facts disagreed with by the medical establishment and the lawmakers of this country.  Neither medical consensus nor the wheels of the legislature are known for moving fast or subscribing to the whims of non-establishment minorities.  If people who know a fucliad more about it than you are convinced that trans gender is "real" (for want of a less clumsy term), I'm not sure where you get off calling trans women "gender dysphoric men", or calling the views of the medical community "cult like".


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> Yeah gender pronouns are more important than physical assault


You could at least learn what a pronoun is. 

You are defending a bigot being a bigot. You support her bigotry. 

I (along with everyone else in the thread) have condemned the assault. Repeatedly. You've just gone 'fucking identity politics bullshit' and dodged every response.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 15, 2017)

What the hell is this mad, mad shit. How are such a large number of people so far down the rabbit-hole.

Why could belboid not comprehend the meaning of the links I shared earlier? How many instances of rabid pirhana-pack mentality and flagrant abuses of decency do the ID-pol kiddies need to perform before the eponymous 'call-out culture' is turned on them?

How in bloody fuck have we got so-called socialists supporting three individuals physically assaulting a woman, something they would entirely condemn if everything else were entirely equal but those three individuals self-identified as men?


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> Observable facts disagreed with by the medical establishment and the lawmakers of this country.  Neither medical consensus nor the wheels of the legislature are known for moving fast or subscribing to the whims of non-establishment minorities.  If people who know a fucliad more about it than you are convinced that trans gender is "real" (for want of a less clumsy term), I'm not sure where you get off calling trans women "gender dysphoric men", or calling the views of the medical community "cult like".


It's getting mad. We won't be able to call people n*****s next.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 15, 2017)

belboid said:


> You could at least learn what a pronoun is.
> 
> You are defending a bigot being a bigot. You support her bigotry.
> 
> I (along with everyone else in the thread) have condemned the assault. Repeatedly. You've just gone 'fucking identity politics bullshit' and dodged every response.



You haven't condemned the response, you've gone out around the houses to justify why it happened including going on about how she was 'provoking' them with her camera. Don't make me pull out the quotes!


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 15, 2017)

belboid said:


> It's getting mad. We won't be able to call people n*****s next.



You just want to self-identify as a woman so you can twat women, edvidently


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> What the hell is this mad, mad shit. How are such a large number of people so far down the rabbit-hole.
> 
> Why could belboid not comprehend the meaning of the links I shared earlier? How many instances of rabid pirhana-pack mentality and flagrant abuses of decency do the ID-pol kiddies need to perform before the eponymous 'call-out culture' is turned on them?
> 
> How in bloody fuck have we got so-called socialists supporting three individuals physically assaulting a woman, something they would entirely condemn if everything else were entirely equal but those three individuals self-identified as men?


Because you are completely misrepresenting my argument. Repeatedly and deliberately. And your links were shit.


----------



## spanglechick (Sep 15, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> Yeah gender pronouns are more important than physical assault


Can you imagine calling women "sluts" when discussing issues around rape convictions? Or referring to black people with the N word when discussing stop and search? Language choices absolutely matter.


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> You just want to self-identify as a woman so you can twat women, edvidently


Fuck off you lying bigoted shit.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 15, 2017)

belboid said:


> Because you are completely misrepresenting my argument. Repeatedly and deliberately. And your links were shit.



there's no misrepresentation here. you are defending the use of no-platform tactics against some cranky radfems. do i have to repeat this all night? these kind of opinions, now current on the left, are fucking appalling and utterly indefensible. maybe in 10 years time after the ID-pol idiots have more solidly discredited themselves and burned through their left support, you'll look back and feel ashamed of this kind of mad positioning.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 15, 2017)

Straight men are boringly invested in demonising women.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 15, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> Can you imagine calling women "sluts" when discussing issues around rape convictions? Or referring to black people with the N word when discussing stop and search? Language choices absolutely matter.


 very true. sometimes they're also used instrumentally in arguments to deflect attention from the real issues, such as a woman being punched in the face after being assaulted by three self-identified women who physically had the strength of men


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 15, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> This is a bit... cult like, isn't it. Agree with our assertions in spite of the observable facts or you're a wrong un.
> 
> 
> 
> Where as you coming along to rescue gender dysphoric men is genuine chivalry


I don't get your nastiness. I really don't. What the fuck have you got against people, and why?


----------



## Sirena (Sep 15, 2017)

Can we just agree that some punchy little oik (no gender pronouns) went out looking for trouble and didn't stop till they found some?

And, in the process, set back the transgender cause and further solidified the reasons why some feminists have a problem with m/f transgenders?


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> there's no misrepresentation here. you are defending the use of no-platform tactics against some cranky radfems. do i have to repeat this all night? these kind of opinions, now current on the left, are fucking appalling and utterly indefensible. maybe in 10 years time after the ID-pol idiots have more solidly discredited themselves and burned through their left support, you'll look back and feel ashamed of this kind of mad positioning.


Fuck off


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2017)

Sirena said:


> Can we just agree that some punchy little oik (no gender pronouns) went out looking for trouble and didn't stop till they found some?
> 
> And, in the process, set back the transgender cause and further solidified the reasons why some feminists have a problem with m/f transgenders?


Do you agree MM is a reactionary TERF who goes out looking for trouble?


----------



## Sirena (Sep 15, 2017)

belboid said:


> Do you agree MM is a reactionary TERF who goes out looking for trouble?


I don't think you proved that yet.  Though you were asked.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 15, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You're right that the puncher was coming in to pull the other person away. That's clearly seen in the footage - she punches, makes sure the other person is pulled away, and then runs off.
> 
> Having looked at the footage once again, it isn't consistent with the account later given by the woman who was punched. There was no 'piling in' at any point, and you're right that she is clearly holding on to the other person, although that may well be in order to keep hold of her camera. Her comrades seem strangely passive throughout - odd that they continue milling around, singing into megaphones and smiling. That wouldn't be my reaction to a mate getting set upon by a terrifying mob.



I'm back again. But all in the name of trying to get some balance here.





anyway - there's a whole thread of pics that show a different story from the one that the TERFs are telling. Can't work out how to post the bits i wanted to post but you should find it by clicking through


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 15, 2017)

belboid said:


> Fuck off



Ok, allow me to bring out your quotes:

*NUMBER ONE*




			
				belboid said:
			
		

> MacLachlan - aka Skepticat_uk - is a renowned transphobe who decided to video people at a protest. Someone seemingly objected to her shoving a camera in their face and slapped it away, leading to a kerfuffle. No excuse for violence, of course, but this seems a tad overblown.



*NUMBER TWO*




			
				beloid said:
			
		

> A transphobe goes looking for a fight, finds one, complains about it. Gets support from the usual eejits.



*NUMBER THREE*




			
				belboid said:
			
		

> The meeting wasn't attacked.



*NUMBER FOUR*




			
				belboid said:
			
		

> Just because you're 'left' (and I'm not sure that the organisers would describe themselves thus) doesn't absolve you if you promote a bigoted agenda. No doubt many people attending were quite genuine and just wanted to find out more about the issues, but that isn't true of the organisers.



Should I continue?


....


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 15, 2017)

Here's a good one!




			
				belboid said:
			
		

> No, it's a large distinction. The meeting was protested against. Are you saying that is invalid?
> 
> The person who was slightly injured had been trying to provoke the protestors. She had been sticking her camera in there faces, to what purpose? of course it would have been better to rise above her provocations, but it's hardly surprising someone tried to take her camera off her, is it?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 15, 2017)

fucking disgusting, desperate rationalizations


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2017)

Sirena said:


> I don't think you proved that yet.  Though you were asked.


I responded. You didn't reply. A couple of others have said they were fine with her bigoted language (and they can just fuck off). You have read my points, I know, so don't pretend you didn't.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 15, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't get your nastiness. I really don't. What the fuck have you got against people, and why?


I don't see any nastiness.

Gender dysphoria is a value-free medical diagnosis.  Its current treatment is gender reassignment surgery and/or hormone treatment.  Also popular in Iran, so probably not a particularly socially enlightened approach as such.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 15, 2017)




----------



## Sea Star (Sep 15, 2017)




----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2017)

If you think I am going to respond to you after the below, you're a bigger idiot than I thought.  



Das Uberdog said:


> You just want to self-identify as a woman so you can twat women, edvidently


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 15, 2017)

Sirena said:


> Can we just agree that some punchy little oik (no gender pronouns) went out looking for trouble and didn't stop till they found some?


After watching the video again, I don't agree with that, no. Right or wrong, she waded in to defend her mate. Her mate may very well have been in the wrong, but there was a holding-on and the punchy little oik waded in to break that up.


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2017)

Jonti said:


> I don't see any nastiness.
> 
> Gender dysphoria is a value-free medical diagnosis.  Its current treatment is gender reassignment surgery and/or hormone treatment.  Also popular in Iran, so probably not a particularly socially enlightened approach as such.


Ohh and now we're getting back to the days of 'bourgeois deviation'. 

Are trans women women?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 15, 2017)

belboid said:


> If you think I am going to respond to you after the below, you're a bigger idiot than I thought.



oh yeah you've such the high-ground after accusing me of wanting to call people n****rs


----------



## Jonti (Sep 15, 2017)

belboid said:


> Ohh and now we're getting back to the days of 'bourgeois deviation'.
> 
> Are trans women women?


Every cell of their body has XY chromosomes, just like yours.  I trust that answers your question.


----------



## campanula (Sep 15, 2017)

Is there any significant woman to man transgender activism? The bathroom wars which loomed large in the US recently all seemed to provoke a massive outcry against man to woman trans people while. It seems very hard to give up cultural and social mores (as a woman who protested loudly and long during the turbulent early feminist years in the 70s) so I do see where TERFS are coming from (although I don't agree with their premise)...but there are also attitudes visible here which are actually even more intransigent than biology (politics, power, fear.) I find it hard to be particularly sympathetic to either groupings in the video.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 15, 2017)

belboid said:


> It's getting mad. We won't be able to call people n*****s next.



Why would you want to call people noodles?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 15, 2017)

Jonti said:


> I don't see any nastiness.
> 
> Gender dysphoria is a value-free medical diagnosis.  Its current treatment is gender reassignment surgery and/or hormone treatment.  Also popular in Iran, so probably not a particularly socially enlightened approach as such.


What the hell has the fact that gender reassignment surgery is done in Iran got to do with anything? 

'popular'

Love that. Modern fad. get over yourselves already. What would a socially enlightened approach to gender dysphoria be? That's crap logic anyway - Iran does it therefore it's not enlightened. Iran is also a world-leader in stem cell research, fwiw. You're just displaying your prejudices about Iran there.


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2017)

Jonti said:


> Every cell in their body is has XY chromosomes, just like yours.  I trust that answers your question.


Your human biology is a decade out of date at least. 

But at least you're being almost honest. You don't think trans women are women.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 15, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What the hell has the fact that gender reassignment surgery is done in Iran got to do with anything?
> 
> 'popular'
> 
> Love that. Modern fad. get over yourselves already. What would a socially enlightened approach to gender dysphoria be? That's crap logic anyway - Iran does it therefore it's not enlightened. Iran is also a world-leader in stem cell research, fwiw. You're just displaying your prejudices about Iran there.


At a guess, less rigid sex roles would help a lot. Hence the relevance of the Iranian experience.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 15, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> Three men attacked the woman in question


It's this sort of blatant lying/ misgendering/ misreprentation of the truth that enables me to disregard everything else you say.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 15, 2017)

belboid said:


> Your human biology is a decade out of date at least.
> 
> But at least you're being almost honest. You don't think trans women are women.


Lol. You think gender reassignment treatment alters a person's genetic code. Too much!


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 15, 2017)

Jonti said:


> At a guess, less rigid sex roles would help a lot. Hence the relevance of the Iranian experience.


stop guessing. It wouldn't. Even if it did how does that help anyone around now?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 15, 2017)

belboid said:


> Ohh and now we're getting back to the days of 'bourgeois deviation'.




Talking about _bourgeois_ deviation is a _bourgeois_ deviation.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 15, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> It's this sort of blatant lying/ misgendering/ misreprentation of the truth that enables me to disregard everything else you say.



shut uuuuuuuup


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 15, 2017)

Jonti said:


> Lol. You think gender reassignment treatment alters a person's genetic code. Too much!


oh, Conservative Christian rubbish. Puts you in really good company.


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2017)

Jonti said:


> Lol. You think gender reassignment treatment alters a person's genetic code. Too much!


No. I mean gender is not determined by possession of XY or XX chromosomes. It's far more complex than that.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 15, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> stop guessing. It wouldn't. Even if it did how does that help anyone around now?


I'll make my educated guesses and share them as I please.

This shouldn't need saying, but whether or not a person as XX or XY chromosomes has nothing to do with their dignity and rights as a human being.  Nor should their gender identity.  Just to be clear.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 15, 2017)

kind of hysterical how all the ID-pol defenders first port of call in any defence of some physically/emotionally abusive behaviour is to go on about other people not using the correct language

the stupefying absence of any recognition of their own intolerable behaviour never ceases to be staggering


----------



## Jonti (Sep 15, 2017)

belboid said:


> No. I mean gender is not determined by possession of XY or XX chromosomes. It's far more complex than that.


No argument from me there.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 15, 2017)

Jonti said:


> I'll make my educated guesses and share them as I please.
> 
> This shouldn't need saying, but whether or not a person as XX or XY chromosomes has nothing to do with their dignity and rights as a human being.  Nor should their gender identity.  Just to be clear.



Say there is literally no physical difference between a transitioned woman and a non-transitioned woman!

Say it!

Say it!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 15, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> kind of hysterical how all the ID-pol defenders first port of call in any defence of some physically/emotionally abusive behaviour is to go on about other people not using the correct language
> 
> the stupefying absence of any recognition of their own intolerable behaviour never ceases to be staggering


From where I'm sat it's this particular strand of rad feminism that is the ID politics. They are the ones setting themselves up as the arbiters over who is allowed to join their club.


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2017)

Jonti said:


> No argument from me there.


So your previous statement about them all having XY chromosomes is wrong.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 15, 2017)

2 + 2 = 5
2 + 2 = 5
2 + 2 = 5
2 + 2 = 5
2 + 2 = 5
2 + 2 = 5

Come on everybody, chant with me


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 15, 2017)

Wow. This thread really is bringing out the wankers.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 15, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> From where I'm sat it's this particular strand of rad feminism that is the ID politics. They are the ones setting themselves up as the arbiters over who is allowed to join their club.


it is definitely a form of ID-politics, one which was well discredited back in the day and now sees a parallel mirror resurgence amongst the recent wave too.


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Wow. This thread really is bringing out the wankers.


Isn't it just? The vehemence of a couple of them (tho not all) is positively disturbing.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 15, 2017)

such lofty cunts arbitrating over decency whilst defending the physical assault of a woman by three pre-op trans women with the strength of men


----------



## Jonti (Sep 15, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> oh, Conservative Christian rubbish. Puts you in really good company.


No, I don't think so


belboid said:


> So your previous statement about them all having XY chromosomes is wrong.


No, you misunderstand.  One's gender identity is not necessarily determined by one's chromosomes.  That's what this whole ruck is about.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 15, 2017)

why is it that a man hitting a woman is such a bad thing again? can you explain it? is it something to do with strength or something?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 15, 2017)

i guess it must just be some magic rule about self-identification


----------



## Crispy (Sep 15, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> why is it that a man hitting a woman is such a bad thing again? can you explain it? is it something to do with strength or something?


No, it's something to do with power. Man > Women, Boss > Worker, White > Black


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 15, 2017)

Crispy said:


> No, it's something to do with power. Man > Women, Boss > Worker, White > Black



that's some weird Marxist extrapolation which has zero to do with the actual social history of the development of a social aversion against violence towards women


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 15, 2017)

Crispy said:


> No, it's something to do with power. Man > Women, Boss > Worker, White > Black


I think it's something to do with strength, tbf. 

I'm very uneasy with the idea of hitting a woman, and nobody has condoned this woman being punched, despite what DU is claiming.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 15, 2017)

also the idea that through the magic of self-identification one can simply take on a new power-position within society is frankly mad


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 15, 2017)

belboid said:


> No. I mean gender is not determined by possession of XY or XX chromosomes. It's far more complex than that.


and chromosomes have no active part in sexing the body once it's developed. All the heavy lifting is done by hormones. I actually don't give a frig about my chromosomes. And apart from the probability that they are indeed XY - this is by no means a certainty and I've never been able to get them tested. Who knows for sure what chromosomes they have?

After taking estrogen for nearly 4 years i am identified as female. That's all i ever wanted. So the whole you can't change your chromosomes is so wide of the mark of being a valid point. It's like shouting at a recently converted building - but you can't change your blueprints! Who gives a fuck?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 15, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think it's something to do with strength, tbf.
> 
> I'm very uneasy with the idea of hitting a woman, and nobody has condoned this woman being punched, despite what DU is claiming.



Please read quotes from Belboid posted above


----------



## spanglechick (Sep 15, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> very true. sometimes they're also used instrumentally in arguments to deflect attention from the real issues, such as a woman being punched in the face after being assaulted by three self-identified women who physically had the strength of men


Physical strength is a starting point, but doesn't hold water as a binary approach.  I'm a cis woman but I'm hefty.  I reckon I could take a skinny bloke in a fight.  If a trans woman has had hormonal treatment since the onset of puberty, is it ok for her to hit a woman? What about small bilked getting hit by big blokes? Is that as bad? What about if the attacker has got a really bad earache and as a result their balance is off? 


Unless you're going to condemn or condone fights based on a detailed medical exam of each participant, sex and gender are too broad a brush to moralise upon.  

Male violence is a huge problem.  Men are far more frequently violent to other men than to women.  

Male violence against women is a specific concern when it is sexual violence, and when it is domestic violence.  Neither are the case here, I'm sure you'd agree.


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2017)

Jonti said:


> No, you misunderstand.  One's gender identity is not necessarily determined by one's chromosomes.  That's what this whole ruck is about.


You're contradicting yourself.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 15, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> also the idea that through the magic of self-identification one can simply take on a new power-position within society is frankly mad


Do go on...


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 15, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> Physical strength is a starting point, but doesn't hold water as a binary approach.  I'm a cis woman but I'm hefty.  I reckon I could take a skinny bloke in a fight.  If a trans woman has had hormonal treatment since the onset of puberty, is it ok for her to hit a woman? What about small bilked getting hit by big blokes? Is that as bad? What about if the attacker has got a really bad earache and as a result their balance is off?
> 
> 
> Unless you're going to condemn or condone fights based on a detailed medical exam of each participant, sex and gender are too broad a brush to moralise upon.
> ...



it's a crude measure and it doesn't hold true in all circumstances - i remember seeing small guys physically taunted and bullied by heftier girls at school but knowing they couldn't hit back, 'cos of convention... but the reason the taboo is there is because of a generalised disparity in strength.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 15, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> also the idea that through the magic of self-identification one can simply take on a new power-position within society is frankly mad


Come off it. What 'power-position' do trans women occupy?


----------



## Jonti (Sep 15, 2017)

belboid said:


> You're contradicting yourself.


How's that then?


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> Please read quotes from Belboid posted above


None of which condone violence however much you try to say otherwise. 

You do support TERF bigotry tho


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 15, 2017)

its not a very effective taboo is it. I'd say 'don't sleep with your siblings' is honoured with more frequency than 'don't hit a woman'


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 15, 2017)

also spanglechick - i don't think the concern is only there for domestic/sexual abuse. people are pretty angsty about blokes fighting with women in pubs like they might do with other men. understandably.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 15, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> also the idea that through the magic of self-identification one can simply take on a new power-position within society is frankly mad


If you were talking about some sort of voluntary change I'd agree. "I've decided to be an aristocrat, therefore I own half of Mayfair." is plainly ridiculous.

"I was born in a male body, but I feel like a woman." has a pretty solid evidential basis and can't be brushed away like that.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 15, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> its not a very effective taboo is it. I'd say 'don't sleep with your siblings' is honoured with more frequency than 'don't hit a woman'



i'd say it's broadly effective


belboid said:


> None of which condone violence however much you try to say otherwise.
> 
> You do support TERF bigotry tho



Your posts say she was asking for it. Do I have to quote you again you slippery fuck?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 15, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> its not a very effective taboo is it. I'd say 'don't sleep with your siblings' is honoured with more frequency than 'don't hit a woman'


That one has biology on its side though. We're not the only animals with an incest-aversion and it's an evolved thing. We don't need holding back from sleeping with our siblings - if we grew up with them, overwhelmingly the very idea is just 'no'.


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2017)

Jonti said:


> How's that then?


First you say all trans women have XY chromosomes and now you say they don't.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 15, 2017)

Crispy said:


> If you were talking about some sort of voluntary change I'd agree. "I've decided to be an aristocrat, therefore I own half of Mayfair." is plainly ridiculous.
> 
> "I was born in a male body, but I feel like a woman." has a pretty solid evidential basis and can't be brushed away like that.



Fair dos I concede


----------



## sunnysidedown (Sep 15, 2017)

Crispy said:


> If you were talking about some sort of voluntary change I'd agree. "I've decided to be an aristocrat, therefore I own half of Mayfair." is plainly ridiculous.
> 
> "I was born in a male body, but I feel like a woman." has a pretty solid evidential basis and can't be brushed away like that.



define _feel_


----------



## spanglechick (Sep 15, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> it's a crude measure and it doesn't hold true in all circumstances - i remember seeing small guys physically taunted and bullied by heftier girls at school but knowing they couldn't hit back, 'cos of convention... but the reason the taboo is there is because of a generalised disparity in strength.





Das Uberdog said:


> also spanglechick - i don't think the concern is only there for domestic/sexual abuse. people are pretty angsty about blokes fighting with women in pubs like they might do with other men. understandably.



But why.  Why is that angst there with fighting women, and not little blokes?  

The reason is patriarchy.  Patriarchy is always a problem, even when it superficially advantages women.  Treat women (but not skinny blokes) like delicate blossom, fragile and sacred... and you heap on them a whole load of indiscriminate baggage, a lot of which is actively detrimental (appropriate careers etc). The answer is not "yay, punch women", btw.  The answer is "no! Don't punch anyone."


----------



## Crispy (Sep 15, 2017)

sunnysidedown said:


> define _feel_


No. It's Friday night and I want to watch TV


----------



## Jonti (Sep 15, 2017)

belboid said:


> First you say all trans women have XY chromosomes and now you say they don't.


I don't recall that. Would you be so kind as to quote me, please?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 15, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> But why.  Why is that angst there with fighting women, and not little blokes?
> 
> The reason is patriarchy.  Patriarchy is always a problem, even when it superficially advantages women.  Treat women (but not skinny blokes) like delicate blossom, fragile and sacred... and you heap on them a whole load of indiscriminate baggage, a lot of which is actively detrimental (appropriate careers etc). The answer is not "yay, punch women", btw.  The answer is "no! Don't punch anyone."


Fair point. I still have a deep unease about the idea specifically of hitting women, though. Can't help it. It's not a feeling that can be rationalised away.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 15, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think it's something to do with strength, tbf.
> 
> I'm very uneasy with the idea of hitting a woman, and nobody has condoned this woman being punched, despite what DU is claiming.


If you take it as an issue about the _incident_, the violence full stop, I think its more than _not condoning_, it needs to be described as a shitty little attack (regardless of her taking pictures). Particularly as Tara Wood announced she was going to fuck up some terfs beforehand. And I say that as someone with a lot more sympathy for trans activists than radfems.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Sep 15, 2017)

Crispy said:


> No. It's Friday night and I want to watch TV



brushed away...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 15, 2017)

Wilf said:


> If you take it as an issue about the _incident_, the violence full stop, I think its more than _not condoning_, it needs to be described as a shitty little attack (regardless of her taking pictures). Particularly as Tara Wood announced she was going to fuck up some terfs beforehand. And I say that as someone with a lot more sympathy for trans activists than radfems.


I would have agreed before I saw the footage again. Tara Wood waded in to help her mate, and left as soon as she had helped her mate. That said, I agree that the tweet does not look good.  In fact it looks very bad and it does make it sound like she was looking for trouble.


----------



## binka (Sep 15, 2017)

This topic is so far out of my comfort zone I don't even know what to think about it. I have no frame of reference - nothing I've experienced in my life has any relevance here at all. I don't understand a lot and if I start asking questions I'll probably get called a cunt - probably rightly so!


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 15, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> But why.  Why is that angst there with fighting women, and not little blokes?
> 
> The reason is patriarchy.  Patriarchy is always a problem, even when it superficially advantages women.  Treat women (but not skinny blokes) like delicate blossom, fragile and sacred... and you heap on them a whole load of indiscriminate baggage, a lot of which is actively detrimental (appropriate careers etc). The answer is not "yay, punch women", btw.  The answer is "no! Don't punch anyone."



I do agree with you... but in practice - where it does end up happening - I think the general disparity in strength makes it worse in most practical scenarios... in a way which I think will always be kind of 'obvious' for most people however advanced a civilization we develop.

And back on point, in this particular scenario, I don't know of any other kind of situation in which this would have been defended by people on the left - but the identification as a woman aspect somehow creates a blindside where the issue would otherwise, definitely be flagged.

I also think that the very same reasoning is regularly used to paper over the frankly terrible behaviour of Identity-politics activists of all kinds (i.e. I'm oppressed, therefore it's Ok for me to physically attack/verbally abuse/be excessively rude to/try to socially atomize 'X' who isn't).


----------



## Red Sky (Sep 15, 2017)

I really don't fucking understand this whole debate. If cis-women want to organise together, exclusively then who is to stop them?


----------



## Wilf (Sep 15, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I would have agreed before I saw the footage again. Tara Wood waded in to help her mate, and left as soon as she had helped her mate. That said, I agree that the tweet does not look good.  In fact it looks very bad and it does make it sound like she was looking for trouble.


I'm not sure I got all the detail from the clip linked in the op. But still, I'm not sure that MM did much wrong in terms of the scuffly-fighty things that followed - and didn't _initiate_ anything. Like I say, I'm just thinking about it as a series of events.  Bottom line, is it's still somebody running in to twat someone 30 years her senior.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 15, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Bottom line, is it's still somebody running in to twat someone 30 years her senior.


Yep. I agree. It was a level of violence that wasn't necessary or justified. It wasn't a random act of violence though. It had a purpose, which was to free her mate.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 15, 2017)

who was trying to steal the camera


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 15, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> who was trying to steal the camera


Yes. That certainly appears to be the case. I think destroy her camera is probably more accurate.

ETA:

Mind you afterwards, they said that she had lost her memory card but not the camera. So they may very well only have been trying to take the memory card in order to get rid of the photos she'd just taken. That's consistent with the way they were struggling.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 15, 2017)

What perplexes me is people who give a shit about transgenderism, what could possibly motivate anyone to feel antipathy towards people over that?

What DOES interest me however is the correlation between people who describe themselves as being on the left but who are actively hostile to socialism on the one hand and who are transphobic on the other. Seems to go together as a package very frequently!


----------



## phillm (Sep 15, 2017)

binka said:


> This topic is so far out of my comfort zone I don't even know what to think about it. I have no frame of reference - nothing I've experienced in my life has any relevance here at all. I don't understand a lot and if I start asking questions I'll probably get called a cunt - probably rightly so!



This has helped me get up to speed.

Trans-exclusionary radical feminism - RationalWiki


----------



## Wilf (Sep 15, 2017)

J Ed said:


> What perplexes me is people who give a shit about transgenderism, what could possibly motivate anyone to feel antipathy towards people over that?


Spot on. We could set out all sorts of twisted 'reasons' people might have for being transphobic, but there's just that personal level of how the fuck do you end up hating/fearing someone on the grounds of their gender identity.


----------



## Red Sky (Sep 15, 2017)

phillm said:


> This has helped me get up to speed.
> 
> Trans-exclusionary radical feminism - RationalWiki



Very even handed.


----------



## binka (Sep 15, 2017)

phillm said:


> This has helped me get up to speed.
> 
> Trans-exclusionary radical feminism - RationalWiki


I did read that earlier this afternoon after googling what terf meant!


----------



## weepiper (Sep 15, 2017)

phillm said:


> This has helped me get up to speed.
> 
> Trans-exclusionary radical feminism - RationalWiki


Sorry but that's a load of bollocks. How is using the phrase 'women born women' transphobic/violent? I'm not the same as a trans woman and I disagree with pretending that I am. It's Emperor's New Clothes stuff this. Trans people completely deserve a peaceful life left to get on with whatever makes them feel happy and I don't hate or fear them but I object to being violently suppressed if I question some of the ideology.


----------



## campanula (Sep 15, 2017)

Do TERFS call themselves TERFS? Is this a thing, then? Seems a weird sort of thing to (ahem) fight for? (out of touch).


----------



## Red Sky (Sep 15, 2017)

campanula said:


> Do TERFS call themselves TERFS? Is this a thing, then?



It's a term of abuse I think.


----------



## phillm (Sep 15, 2017)

weepiper said:


> Sorry but that's a load of bollocks. How is using the phrase 'women born women' transphobic/violent?



I'm thoroughly lost and confused.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 15, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> Physical strength is a starting point, but doesn't hold water as a binary approach.  I'm a cis woman but I'm hefty.  I reckon I could take a skinny bloke in a fight.  If a trans woman has had hormonal treatment since the onset of puberty, is it ok for her to hit a woman? What about small bilked getting hit by big blokes? Is that as bad? What about if the attacker has got a really bad earache and as a result their balance is off?



I started hormone replacement at 45. After two years I attended a construction industry course. The team i was with were 50-50 male-female. We had to lug about heavy items including metal sheets and scaffolding. That was the moment where i found that an item that a 25 year man can lift reasonably easily (with one arm) - and something that i would have been able to lift at one point - was suddenly so heavy i couldn't even budge it. Not an inch. Two of the women there managed to lift it a bit. I was suddenly the third strongest woman at an event. I don;t think people realise what hormones do to muscle mass. 

And even before that i was a useless fighter - and had been physically intimidated by women a few times in my life if you can believe that. I know a 6 foot woman at work who would probably be able to take me in a fight. I say probably - almost certainly.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 15, 2017)

TERFs is abusive. TERF is a slur documents the many creative ways that women who question trans ideology (note: not violently) are verbally attacked. 

It's not violence though because words are not violence. Punching people in the face is violence


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 15, 2017)

Red Sky said:


> It's a term of abuse I think.


it isn't. 

Here's a referenced history of the term. 

coined by cis women who identified as radical feminists to distance themselves from the trans excluding kind. 



> It was not meant to be insulting. It was meant to be a deliberately technically neutral description of an activist grouping. I notice that since TERF has gone out into the wild, many people seem to use _trans-exclusive_ rather than  _trans-exclusionary _or  _trans-excluding_, and I think that leads to some exploitable ambiguity. It is _possible_ to interpret _trans-exclusive_ as “exclusively talks about trans* issues” (which could quite rightly be considered a slam on the rest of their feminism), while _trans-exclusionary_ is more specific that their exclusion of trans* voices and bodies from being considered women/feminists is the point.


----------



## Red Sky (Sep 15, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> it isn't.
> 
> Here's a referenced history of the term.
> 
> coined by cis women who identified as radical feminists to distance themselves from the trans excluding kind.



So, not coined by the "TERFs" themselves and now used as a term of abuse?


----------



## Jonti (Sep 15, 2017)

trashpony said:


> TERFs is abusive. TERF is a slur documents the many creative ways that women who question trans ideology (note: not violently) are verbally attacked.
> 
> It's not violence though because words are not violence. Punching people in the face is violence


What boggles me about that kind of material is the hatred displayed towards women by people who want to be accepted as one.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 15, 2017)

Red Sky said:


> So, not coined by the "TERFs" themselves and now used as a term of abuse?


"Men" is used as a term of abuse. What's your point?


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 15, 2017)

Jonti said:


> What boggles me about that kind of material is the hatred displayed towards women by people who want to be accepted as one.


it's only bigots we hate, not women.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 15, 2017)

trashpony said:


> TERFs is abusive. TERF is a slur documents the many creative ways that women who question trans ideology (note: not violently) are verbally attacked.
> 
> It's not violence though because words are not violence. Punching people in the face is violence


Ah twitter. 

I wonder what the list of tweets slagging off transgender people would look like.


----------



## Red Sky (Sep 15, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> "Men" is used as a term of abuse. What's your point?



Just getting it straight. It's "pinko" rather than "socialist". A term of abuse not a self chosen epithet.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 15, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ah twitter.
> 
> I wonder what the list of tweets slagging off transgender people would look like.


It's not slagging off. It's violent threats and fantasies of carrying them out. Can't you see the difference here? How many women are actually threatening trans people with violence like this?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 15, 2017)

weepiper said:


> It's not slagging off. It's violent threats and fantasies of carrying them out. Can't you see the difference here? How many women are actually threatening trans people with violence like this?



Some of the lower ones are slagging off, but ok, I wonder what the list of tweets of violent threats and fantasies against transgender people would look like.

As to how many women are threatening violence, I don't know. Twitter is full of idiots.


----------



## Red Sky (Sep 15, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Some of the lower ones are slagging off, but ok, I wonder what the list of tweets of violent threats and fantasies against transgender people would look like.



Emanating from where?


----------



## campanula (Sep 15, 2017)

trashpony said:


> TERFs is abusive. TERF is a slur documents the many creative ways that women who question trans ideology (note: not violently) are verbally attacked.
> 
> It's not violence though because words are not violence. Punching people in the face is violence



Blimey, Trashpony, who are those people? Surely not representative of anything other than shitwipes. Have to wonder what other variables are in the mix to engender such manic hatred. Surely this isn't any sort of transactivism though...just something altogether...I dunno, primitive - all sorts of weird developmental stuff...and of course, the internet anonymity.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 15, 2017)

Dp


----------



## Jonti (Sep 15, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> it's only bigots we hate, not women.


Wanting to organise as cis-women is not bigotry.  Not in my book. Sorry. The trans-activists were well out of order trying to suppress that.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 15, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Some of the lower ones are slagging off, but ok, I wonder what the list of tweets of violent threats and fantasies against transgender people would look like.


And how many of those are from women? It's overwhelmingly men that physically attack trans people.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 15, 2017)

weepiper said:


> And how many of those are from women? It's overwhelmingly men that physically attack trans people.


oh really? Thanks for letting me know that....


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 15, 2017)

belboid said:


> As a cis man, I wouldn't compare TERF's to fascists, but I can easily see why any trans person would (both do try to deny your existence). 'decided not to make their lies look like legitimate opinions' is absolutely spot on and why it is right to _protest _such events, not legitimise them.



Hateful bigotry may look like fascism, but it isn't if it doesn't share the characteristics of wanting a fascist state. It's a ridiculous comparison.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 15, 2017)

weepiper said:


> It's not slagging off. It's violent threats and fantasies of carrying them out. Can't you see the difference here? How many women are actually threatening trans people with violence like this?


and yet when trans women engage in exactly the same slagging off its sudden not alright. Double standards. Hypocrisy.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 15, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ah twitter.
> 
> I wonder what the list of tweets slagging off transgender people would look like.


i don't have to wonder....


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 15, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> oh really? Thanks for letting me know that....



Why do you think her comment was aimed at you?


----------



## Red Sky (Sep 15, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> and yet when trans women engage in exactly the same slagging off its sudden not alright. Double standards. Hypocrisy.



With these kind of violent fantasies?


----------



## trashpony (Sep 15, 2017)

campanula said:


> Blimey, Trashpony, who are those people? Surely not representative of anything other than shitwipes. Have to wonder what other variables are in the mix to engender such manic hatred. Surely this isn't any sort of transactivism though...just something altogether...I dunno, primitive - all sorts of weird developmental stuff...and of course, the internet anonymity.


That's my point really. Transactivism has become a vehicle for a some really horrible misogyny.
I dunno who they are. I think a lot of men who really, really hate women are climbing on the transactivism bandwagon because it gives them legitimacy. It's really frightening


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 15, 2017)

Red Sky said:


> With these kind of violent fantasies?


Like the violent fantasies of TERFs? Probably not as prevelent. I rarely see it. 

and, unless you can show where trans women have been carrying out mass attacks on TERFs then they are very much fantasies.

Are you trying to prove something here?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 15, 2017)

weepiper said:


> And how many of those are from women? It's overwhelmingly men that physically attack trans people.


That's not really the question though. A bunch of vile tweets was collected over a period of time (about two years by the looks of it) using some kind of search technique to find tweets from trans women attacking terfs. What would a similar list look like from someone searching for hateful tweets about trans women from women over a period of two years? I don't know, but it wouldn't be pretty, and there would probably be a hundred times more tweets from men, but I'd be cherry-picking so I'd ignore those.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 15, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's not really the question though. A bunch of vile tweets was collected over a period of time (about two years by the looks of it) using some kind of search technique to find tweets from trans women attacking terfs. What would a similar list look like from someone searching for hateful tweets about trans women from women over a period of two years? I don't know, but it wouldn't be pretty, and there would probably be a hundred times more tweets from men, but I'd be cherry-picking so I'd ignore those.


So, with no evidence at all, you have a feeling that women probably tweet similar stuff. FFS. That's lame as fuck, even for you.


----------



## 19force8 (Sep 15, 2017)

binka said:


> I did read that earlier this afternoon after googling what terf meant!


To get an idea of the kind of abuse trans people are subjected to in the UK you might try this:

http://www.galop.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/The-Hate-Crime-Report-2016.pdf

In the USA they are being murdered at the rate of more than two a month. 18 so far this year, last time I looked (August).

Trans people are overwhelmingly on the receiving end of abuse. Some of the comments on this thread are both ignorant and bigoted, and yet Urban has a fairly progressive reputation. I shudder to think what kind of crap is dished out elsewhere.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 15, 2017)

19force8 said:


> To get an idea of the kind of abuse trans people are subjected to in the UK you might try this:
> 
> http://www.galop.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/The-Hate-Crime-Report-2016.pdf
> 
> ...



Who has argued in this thread that transpeople aren't victims of hate crime?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 15, 2017)

trashpony said:


> So, with no evidence at all, you have a feeling that women probably tweet similar stuff. FFS. That's lame as fuck, even for you.


Cursory look at twitter brings up all kinds of tweets by women fantasising about killing men. I'm sure if I looked a bit harder I could find some about killing transgender folk. Twitter is full of hateful bile. 

Your link to a bunch of violent tweets on its own proves nothing.


----------



## 19force8 (Sep 15, 2017)

trashpony said:


> That's my point really. Transactivism has become a vehicle for a some really horrible misogyny.
> I dunno who they are. I think a lot of men who really, really hate women are climbing on the transactivism bandwagon because it gives them legitimacy. It's really frightening


So, with no evidence at all, you have a feeling that men are using "transactivism" to spread misogyny.  FFS. That's lame as fuck, even for you.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 15, 2017)

19force8 said:


> To get an idea of the kind of abuse trans people are subjected to in the UK you might try this:
> 
> http://www.galop.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/The-Hate-Crime-Report-2016.pdf
> 
> ...


 A woman is murdered EVERY WEEK in the UK. It's been that way for years and years. And no one gives a shit. Suddenly, men who identify as women are being killed and it's a big deal. I agree, it's fucking awful, and something needs to be done about it. But women are still killed more often. And NO ONE CARES.


----------



## 19force8 (Sep 15, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Who has argued in this thread that transpeople aren't victims of hate crime?


I didn't say they had


----------



## trashpony (Sep 15, 2017)

I'll wait for your evidence of violence TERFs then. I'm in no hurry


----------



## 19force8 (Sep 15, 2017)

trashpony said:


> A woman is murdered EVERY WEEK in the UK. It's been that way for years and years. And no one gives a shit. Suddenly, men who identify as women are being killed and it's a big deal. I agree, it's fucking awful, and something needs to be done about it. But women are still killed more often. And NO ONE CARES.


4 a week, 2 by partners actually. The point is that the level of murders of transpeople is far greater for their numbers in the population.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 15, 2017)

trashpony said:


> I'll wait for your evidence of violence TERFs then. I'm in no hurry


Your 'evidence' is a bunch of tweets collected by someone over a period of two years. They're vile tweets. Without context, they don't mean much.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 15, 2017)

19force8 said:


> I didn't say they had



So what are posters here being 'ignorant' of?


----------



## trashpony (Sep 15, 2017)

19force8 said:


> 4 a week, 2 by partners actually. The point is that the level of murders of transpeople is far greater for their numbers in the population.


Killed by men. I rest my case. Women aren't a threat to transgender people.


----------



## campanula (Sep 15, 2017)

Jonti said:


> Wanting to organise as cis-women is not bigotry.  Not in my book. Sorry. The trans-activists were well out of order trying to suppress that.



Organising for what? Wages for housework (apols, showing my age). hating on men? How do they threaten transactivism. Or do they? Are these women in positions of power? There seems to be quite a lot of furious youngish men being cuntish all over the internet. A lot of murdering fucks IRL too. I am guessing not a huge number of them actually are trans anything though, rather than total arses.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 15, 2017)

I think the plan was to discuss what it means to be a woman. Clearly a dangerous gathering in need of harassment and disruption.


----------



## 19force8 (Sep 15, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> So what are posters here being 'ignorant' of?


Ah, I see. Not "ignorant of," but ignorant as in behaving like a git.

For example, misgendering or arguing that transwomen bring male violence into female spaces.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 15, 2017)

belboid said:


> Do you agree MM is a reactionary TERF who goes out looking for trouble?



Bossy women, ey?


----------



## 19force8 (Sep 15, 2017)

trashpony said:


> Killed by men. I rest my case. Women aren't a threat to transgender people.


Sheer fucking bollocks. The level of transphobia relates directly to the abuse transpeople suffer. If women participate in that transphobia then they are a threat.


----------



## binka (Sep 15, 2017)

19force8 said:


> To get an idea of the kind of abuse trans people are subjected to in the UK you might try this


I appreciate that but it wasn't really what I was getting at. I am aware trans people have to take a lot of shit, often violent, which everyone on this thread agrees is awful. 

I was more on about this specific argument/disagreement. I did find weepiper first post on here on page 9 really interesting and was disappointed no one replied to it.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 15, 2017)

19force8 said:


> Sheer fucking bollocks. The level of transphobia relates directly to the abuse transpeople suffer. If women participate in that transphobia then they are a threat.


How exactly?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 15, 2017)

belboid said:


> But at least you're being almost honest. You don't think trans women are women.



They don't think they're cis women.


----------



## 19force8 (Sep 15, 2017)

trashpony said:


> How exactly?


For example - when Roseanne Barr came out with a rant about the dangers of letting transwomen use female toilets, do you think that had no effect on the safety of transwomen in the USA?


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 15, 2017)

belboid said:


> You don't think trans women are women.



Why is this a 'bigoted' view to hold?


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Sep 15, 2017)

Are TERFS as a group violent towards transwomen? Possibly not physically, although if they delay legislation that makes transwomen safe that could be indirect violence. But we all know violence can be emotional as well, and denying someone's legitamacy and lived experience, continuing to misgender transwomen despite being told that is extremely distressing, holding meetings that they are excluded from in order to define that criteria of womanhood; well that sounds quite emotionally violent to me.

Fwiw, re: the collection of anti TERF quotes by transwomen, I have seen a very similar list of anti transwomen quotes from TERFS.


----------



## Red Sky (Sep 15, 2017)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Are TERFS as a group violent towards transwomen? Possibly not physically, although if they delay legislation that makes transwomen safe that could be indirect violence. But we all know violence can be emotional as well, and denying someone's legitamacy and lived experience, continuing to misgender transwomen despite being told that is extremely distressing, holding meetings that they are excluded from in order to define that criteria of womanhood; well that sounds quite emotionally violent to me.
> 
> Fwiw, re: the collection of anti TERF quotes by transwomen, I have seen a very similar list of anti transwomen quotes from TERFS.



Link?


----------



## trashpony (Sep 15, 2017)

19force8 said:


> For example - when Roseanne Barr came out with a rant about the dangers of letting transwomen use female toilets, do you think that had no effect on the safety of transwomen in the USA?


So who is dangerous? Women or men?


----------



## 19force8 (Sep 15, 2017)

binka said:


> I appreciate that but it wasn't really what I was getting at. I am aware trans people have to take a lot of shit, often violent, which everyone on this thread agrees is awful.
> 
> I was more on about this specific argument/disagreement. I did find weepiper first post on here on page 9 really interesting and was disappointed no one replied to it.


Sorry, I'm not the best person to talk to about the specifics of the TERF view. Partly because I have friends and colleagues who are transgender and so I'm kind of invested.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 15, 2017)

historically, there has been violence from TERFs directed at trans women.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 15, 2017)

trashpony said:


> So who is dangerous? Women or men?


Men are the dangerous sex, like about nine times as violent as women as posted upthread.  But women are responsible, 'cos, y'know, they're women.


----------



## Red Sky (Sep 15, 2017)

Agent Sparrow said:


> holding meetings that they are excluded from in order to define that criteria of womanhood.




Ok , so this is the bit I don't get. Are cis-women allowed to organise together?


----------



## trashpony (Sep 15, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> historically, there has been violence from TERFs directed at trans women.


Evidence please. Not just misogyny dressed up as it.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 15, 2017)

weepiper said:


> Sorry but that's a load of bollocks. How is using the phrase 'women born women' transphobic/violent? I'm not the same as a trans woman and I disagree with pretending that I am. It's Emperor's New Clothes stuff this. Trans people completely deserve a peaceful life left to get on with whatever makes them feel happy and I don't hate or fear them but I object to being violently suppressed if I question some of the ideology.


because of what comes with it. Only people looking to exclude trans women say this. I'm happy to accept the difference but I'm not having anyone tell me i can be excluded from women's spaces because i'm not a "women born women". 

Women are very diverse as a group. why single out one group of women in particular unless you think they're not actually women? 

That's why it's transphobic.


----------



## campanula (Sep 15, 2017)

Is there a trans ideology then? All trans? I am having difficulty with this because feminism, as I understand it, exists both as academic and philosophical theory, but also lived experience and context...and, as such, is actually many feminisms, many ideologies...and we work to unify, to find common ground with all women, who have points of contact and empathy. Including transwomen. But also, we embrace difference. A work in progress though. Hatefulness is very free-floating


----------



## 19force8 (Sep 15, 2017)

trashpony said:


> Evidence please. Not just misogyny dressed up as it.


How about you provide some evidence for your assertion that men are using transactivism to promote misogyny.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 15, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> because of what comes with it. Only people looking to exclude trans women say this. I'm happy to accept the difference but I'm not having anyone tell me i can be excluded from women's spaces because i'm not a "women born women".
> 
> Women are very diverse as a group. why single out one group of women in particular unless you think they're not actually women?
> 
> That's why it's transphobic.


With respect, cis women have every much right as trans women to organise their own spaces without threat of disruption and violence.

This really shouldn't need saying.


----------



## Red Sky (Sep 15, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> because of what comes with it. Only people looking to exclude trans women say this. I'm happy to accept the difference but I'm not having anyone tell me i can be excluded from women's spaces because i'm not a "women born women".
> 
> Women are very diverse as a group. why single out one group of women in particular unless you think they're not actually women?
> 
> That's why it's transphobic.



Because the lived experiences and struggles of trans women are different from those of cis women?


----------



## trashpony (Sep 15, 2017)

19force8 said:


> How about you provide some evidence for your assertion that men are using transactivism to promote misogyny.


I thought that a rapist and a murderer were pretty good evidence. I've got lots more where they came from if you're interested.


----------



## 19force8 (Sep 15, 2017)

trashpony said:


> I thought that a rapist and a murderer were pretty good evidence. I've got lots more where they came from if you're interested.


Was this a dream you had? Because just saying the words "rapist" and "murderer" doesn't count as evidence.


----------



## campanula (Sep 15, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> because of what comes with it. Only people looking to exclude trans women say this. I'm happy to accept the difference but I'm not having anyone tell me i can be excluded from women's spaces because i'm not a "women born women".
> 
> Women are very diverse as a group. why single out one group of women in particular unless you think they're not actually women?
> 
> That's why it's transphobic.



Any women's spaces, Stella? Do you accept there are possibilities that some women may have biological issues which are  not hormonal (although could have cultural underpinnings...such as vaginismus, miscarriage? Or specific to ethnicity, culture? And are you also not entitled to take space for yourself and a particular group you claim as witness, supporters, allies, refusing those who threatened violence, oppression?

oops, fucked up the quoty thing (again) apols


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 15, 2017)

campanula said:


> Any women's spaces, Stella? Do you accept there are possibilities that some women may have biological issues which are  not hormonal (although could have cultural underpinnings...such as vaginismus, miscarriage? Or specific to ethnicity, culture? And are you also not entitled to take space for yourself and a particular group you claim as witness, supporters, allies, refusing those who threatened violence, oppression?
> 
> oops, fucked up the quoty thing (again) apols


ok.let's hear it. Give me specifics then, the spaces you're referring to and why you think trans women as a group need to be excluded from it.

eta - the whole structure of your post seems to imply that cis women might need to exclude trans women for reasons of "refusing those who threatened violence, oppression." 

Please explain.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 15, 2017)

People don't need to justify wanting to work with others who share their life experiences.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Sep 15, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> ok.let's hear it. Give me specifics then, the spaces you're referring to and why you think trans women as a group need to be excluded from it.



because they are mentranswomen?


----------



## campanula (Sep 15, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> because of what comes with it. Only people looking to exclude trans women say this. I'm happy to accept the difference but I'm not having anyone tell me i can be excluded from women's spaces because i'm not a "women born women".
> 
> Women are very diverse as a group. why single out one group of women in particular unless you think they're not actually women?
> 
> That's why it's transphobic.



Any women's spaces, Stella? Do you accept there are possibilities that some women may have biological issues which are  not hormonal (although could have cultural underpinnings...such as vaginismus, miscarriage? Or specific to ethnicity, culture? And are you also not entitled to take space for yourself and a particular group you claim as witness, supporters, allies, refusing those who threatened violence, oppression?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 15, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> because of what comes with it. Only people looking to exclude trans women say this. I'm happy to accept the difference but I'm not having anyone tell me i can be excluded from women's spaces because i'm not a "women born women".
> 
> Women are very diverse as a group. why single out one group of women in particular unless you think they're not actually women?
> 
> That's why it's transphobic.


If a group of people want to get together for a chat in a private space it's down to them who is allowed in, no?

If this was a debate about a public body, organisation or workplace it would be different. But it's not. 

You don't get to tell people who can or cannot come to their own bloody meeting.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 15, 2017)

sunnysidedown said:


> because they are mentranswomen?


had to quote this before it gets deleted. I have no response to this utter bigotry.


----------



## 19force8 (Sep 15, 2017)

I'm skipping out on this one - I'm abroad, my internet's shite, and I'm beginning to lose my cool.

AuntiStella massive respect. Take care of yourself.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Sep 15, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> had to quote this before it gets deleted. I have no response to this utter bigotry.



you want to erase the place of departure?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 15, 2017)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> If a group of people want to get together for a chat in a private space it's down to them who is allowed in, no?
> 
> If this was a debate about a public body, organisation or workplace it would be different. But it's not.
> 
> You don't get to tell people who can or cannot come to their own bloody meeting.


I think the issue comes from when those people in the meeting are claiming the power to decide who can and can't identify as a particular group. It's not saying "you can't be in our club", it's saying "you can't be who you are, because we say so".

Also, New Cross Learning, the library where the original debate was to be held, isn't a private space, it's a very public one and a part of the community.

<edit: I say this while still believing I don't have a full grasp of the issue, so the above isn't a completely solid or coherent set of thoughts.>


----------



## campanula (Sep 15, 2017)

Unfair, I didn't suggest exclusion for transwomen 'as a group'...because I don't ascribe to the idea of a group of anyone having all the same specific issues. But hey - I have vaginismus - a deeply painful, life fucking up issue and I tell you now, I would welcome sharing a space, a support group with fellow sufferers...but those who are not dealing with this have fuck all business intruding. Making demands based on the heterogenity of any entire group is always going to fuck up on specifics. 
And my second question? You have no rights of exclusion? Just who gets to decide who gets to go?


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 15, 2017)

Lord Camomile said:


> I think the issue comes from when those people in the meeting are claiming the power to decide who can and can't identify as a particular group. It's not saying "you can't be in our club", it's saying "you can't be who you are, because we say so".
> 
> Also, New Cross Learning, the library where the original debate was to be held, isn't a private space, it's a very public one and a part of the community.
> 
> <edit: I say this while still believing I don't have a full grasp of the issue, so the above isn't a completely solid or coherent set of thoughts.>



Transwomen weren't barred from the new cross meeting. There was a trans speaker.

'You can't be who you are'. Who is saying this?


----------



## Raheem (Sep 15, 2017)

Any time you invite the public to a meeting, it's obviously not a private meeting.


----------



## Raheem (Sep 15, 2017)

campanula said:


> Unfair, I didn't suggest exclusion for transwomen 'as a group'...because I don't ascribe to the idea of a group of anyone having all the same specific issues. But hey - I have vaginismus - a deeply painful, life fucking up issue and I tell you now, I would welcome sharing a space, a support group with fellow sufferers...but those who are not dealing with this have fuck all business intruding. Making demands based on the heterogenity of any entire group is always going to fuck up on specifics.
> And my second question? You have no rights of exclusion? Just who gets to decide who gets to go?



Does what you're talking about here actually count as organising, though?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 15, 2017)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> If a group of people want to get together for a chat in a private space it's down to them who is allowed in, no?.


Not entirely, no. You can invite whomever you like to your home. But beyond that, once you step into a hired room or hall, you're not in an entirely private space. 'No black people allowed', for instance, is not allowed, and nor should it be. There are limits. In this case, as a man, I think women-only meetings are entirely fair and reasonable if that's what a bunch of women want. And there we hit the problem - somebody somewhere needs to decide what a woman is, and there is dispute, clearly, over definitions here. There is more than dispute - there is open hostility.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 15, 2017)

19force8 said:


> Was this a dream you had? Because just saying the words "rapist" and "murderer" doesn't count as evidence.


I already did that. But if you're too dim or lazy


trashpony said:


> Transpeople are murdered and assaulted by men. Men hate women and they hate transpeople. Women - even if some of them are 'TERFs' - aren't actually killing or hurting transpeople. Men are. But somehow it's easier to condemn women.
> 
> Some violent misogynist men are saying they're trans:
> Rapist moved to female jail after sex change
> ...





19force8 said:


> How about you provide some evidence for your assertion that men are using transactivism to promote misogyny.


----------



## campanula (Sep 15, 2017)

Lord Camomile said:


> it's saying "you can't be who you are, because we say so".



Ah right. Well this is the crux of it, isn't i? Any of us can say we are this or that...but we also require enough people to actually give this substantive reality...a consensus, I guess...and power is the fulcrum.



Raheem said:


> Does what you're talking about here actually count as organising, though?


Indeed...and there is always some ambiguity between public and private.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 15, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Transwomen weren't barred from the new cross meeting. There was a trans speaker.


This is true, I was sort of conflating the two issues.

As I understand it though the debate was about the Gender Recognition Act, featuring a number of speakers known to opine that transwomen cannot be considered women, and seemingly a number of trans activists did not want to validate the position of by appearing in a debate.


campanula said:


> Unfair, I didn't suggest exclusion for transwomen 'as a group'...because I don't ascribe to the idea of a group of anyone having all the same specific issues. But hey - I have vaginismus - a deeply painful, life fucking up issue and I tell you now, I would welcome sharing a space, a support group with fellow sufferers...but those who are not dealing with this have fuck all business intruding. Making demands based on the heterogenity of any entire group is always going to fuck up on specifics.
> And my second question? You have no rights of exclusion? Just who gets to decide who gets to go?


Again, I think in this specific instance it was about the discussion at hand.

I expect, though obviously can't say for sure, that any group dealing with a particular biological issue would be rather self-selecting, just like you wouldn't expect to see people not suffering from cancer at a cancer support group.

There's a difference between "you don't suffer from this condition" and "you don't belong here because we don't recognise you as a woman".


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 15, 2017)

campanula said:


> Ah right. Well this is the crux of it, isn't i? Any of us can say we are this or that...but we also require enough people to actually give this substantive reality...a consensus, I guess...and power is the fulcrum.


Well, indeed, and this is where we get waaaaaaaay beyond my very basic understanding of the issues at play.


----------



## campanula (Sep 15, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not entirely, no. You can invite whomever you like to your home. But beyond that, once you step into a hired room or hall, you're not in an entirely private space. 'No black people allowed', for instance, is not allowed, and nor should it be. There are limits. In this case, as a man, I think women-only meetings are entirely fair and reasonable if that's what a bunch of women want. And there we hit the problem - somebody somewhere needs to decide what a woman is, and there is dispute, clearly, over definitions here. There is more than dispute - there is open hostility.



I have worked in many women only spaces and organisations - Women's Aid, Women's Resources centre etc.etc. and still think that gendered spaces are legally permitted. There were, I recall, many, many bitter arguments about boys in refuges - age of exclusion and so on which were never solved to any sort of satisfactory conclusion (in my day) but always somewhat contingent on politcs rather than the actual needs of a family...but hey - these battles are not new, are they.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 16, 2017)

And all the while the middle class have a fight in a car park over labels, poverty murders continue.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 16, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> And all the while the middle class have a fight in a car park over labels, poverty murders continue.


Start a thread about it, and we will talk about that on there.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 16, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Start a thread about it, and we will talk about that on there.



I was putting it in perspective.


----------



## The Flying Pig (Sep 16, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> there's no misrepresentation here. you are defending the use of no-platform tactics against some cranky radfems. do i have to repeat this all night? these kind of opinions, now current on the left, are fucking appalling and utterly indefensible. maybe in 10 years time after the ID-pol idiots have more solidly discredited themselves and burned through their left support, you'll look back and feel ashamed of this kind of mad positioning.


Lets get one thing straight, these nutjobs have absolutely nothing to do with left wing politics and everything to do with maintaining the staus quo.


----------



## The Flying Pig (Sep 16, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You're talking about trans rights activists here, yes?
> 
> I wonder if there were people saying the same thing back in the 70s about Stonewall and gay rights activists. And people talk about the lack of solidarity.  That's the lack of solidarity right there.


Your viewpoint is just too weird for words  You also appear to want to translate my comments into something i have not said. Therein lies your challenge, seeing the written word as it is rather than turning it upside down.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 16, 2017)

The Flying Pig said:


> Your viewpoint is just too weird for words  You also appear to want to translate my comments into something i have not said. Therein lies your challenge, seeing the written word as it is rather than turning it upside down.


That was a genuine question. You were talking about trans rights activists here, yes?


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> And all the while the middle class have a fight in a car park over labels, poverty murders continue.


who's middle class here? Sick of this. I grew up in a working class community and I have always done what i can to support the struggle. But I'm fucking trans. Didn;t choose to be and I now, suddenly, find myself at odds with the left for something I'm not in control of. So, what the fuck? Does being trans mean I'm no longer working class all of a sudden?

No-one dies quicker than a poor trans woman in a capitalist society. Let's fucking talk about that, eh?


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

campanula said:


> Unfair, I didn't suggest exclusion for transwomen 'as a group'...because I don't ascribe to the idea of a group of anyone having all the same specific issues. But hey - I have vaginismus - a deeply painful, life fucking up issue and I tell you now, I would welcome sharing a space, a support group with fellow sufferers...but those who are not dealing with this have fuck all business intruding. Making demands based on the heterogenity of any entire group is always going to fuck up on specifics.


Then you have that as your common thing not "women born women". I doubt any trans women would want to be there. I'm pretty sure also that cis women who don;t have that issue won't turn up either. You don't need to exclude trans women. Why would we even be there? 



> And my second question? You have no rights of exclusion? Just who gets to decide who gets to go?


like you said - it's a about excluding those who you feel would oppress you. So - my question still remains to be answered. When do you feel that you need to exclude trans women because they are going to oppress you?


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 16, 2017)

trashpony said:


> And I am disgusted that some of you are condoning this bloke punching a woman in the face. It's fucking awful.


1) Flick Wood isn't a bloke
2) Who has condoned it?



Jonti said:


> Lol. You think gender reassignment treatment alters a person's genetic code. Too much!


Urgh. You piece of shit. Take your "science" and go fuck yourself.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 16, 2017)

You seriously think that observation deserves your response. Seriously?

This debate wouldn't even be happening without science and scientific understanding, you silly muppet.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 16, 2017)

I think you've shown yourself (once again) as a grade A cunt, like pretty much all the 'rationally based politics' crowd.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 16, 2017)

Thank you for sharing. It's a pity you haven't posted to me the error of my ways before, instead of launching an intemperate attack. 

The world is round, and DNA is not changed during gender reassignment treatments.  These matters should not upset you,  not at all.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 16, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> I think you've shown yourself (once again) as a grade A cunt, like pretty much all the 'rationally based politics' crowd.


On reflection, I think you should at least try to provide a few links to support your outburst.  And this 'rationally based politics' crowd sounds interesting. Who are they, please?


----------



## 19force8 (Sep 16, 2017)

trashpony said:


> I already did that. But if you're too dim or lazy


First of all, neither. There's a limit to the amount of vicious crap I'm going to wade through on holiday [or any other time]. I started at page 1, got to the bottom of page 2 and skipped to the penultimate page to see if it got any better. So pardon me for missing your pearls of bigotry.


trashpony said:


> Transpeople are murdered and assaulted by men. Men hate women and they hate transpeople. Women - even if some of them are 'TERFs' - aren't actually killing or hurting transpeople. Men are. But somehow it's easier to condemn women.


Roughly 10% of convicted murderers in the UK are women [ONS figures(Appendix Table 2.02 (1.59 Mb Excel sheet))], but also it's not just about the hand that wields the knife. If TERFs are contributing to an atmosphere of transphobia they are hurting transpeople.


trashpony said:


> Some violent misogynist men are saying they're trans:
> Rapist moved to female jail after sex change


FFS this is not a man "saying" he is trans - GRA is not something you go through on a whim. It is entirely appropriate that she is transferred to a female facility.

The other issues about the lack of support for survivors, the vicious nature of this rapist, the fact that rapists are released without ever having had to address their behaviour, are all valid criticisms of the way rape is dealt with. They aren't valid criticism of transpeople in general.


trashpony said:


> Ian Huntley wants a sex change so he can live in a women's prison
> which I think is pretty fucking scary.


It is, but to generalise from the behaviour of a paedophile murderer to "men using transactivism to promote misogyny" is beyond weak, it's mendacious.


trashpony said:


> I would like to think that most people would think that violent rapists and paedophile murderers shouldn't be given unfettered access to the women's estate, particularly when the women's prison system isn't set up for violence (because so few of the population is). Where is the outcry?


How do you know it's "unfettered access?" You are just assuming that as part of a TERF fantasy narrative of men having their dicks cut off so they can abuse women in their safe places.


trashpony said:


> Transpeople and women should be working together to decry violence. We should stand united.


Now if I was generous I might assume your use of "transpeople and women" was in recognition that there are transmen as well as transwomen. However, given the rest of the spiteful shit you've been posting I think you were just using it to emphasise your view that transwomen are men. In which case you can just fuck right off with your fucking hate speech you twisted turd.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 16, 2017)

I was actually using it to mean ALL traspeople but you've stuck me in the bigot box. Silencing women.


----------



## 19force8 (Sep 16, 2017)

trashpony said:


> And I am disgusted that some of you are condoning this bloke punching a woman in the face. It's fucking awful.


This put you in the bigot box


----------



## Jonti (Sep 16, 2017)

19force8 said:


> ... you can just fuck right off with your fucking hate speech you twisted turd.



The voice of reason.


----------



## Geri (Sep 16, 2017)

Is it true that the assailant or one of them is in Class War?


----------



## 19force8 (Sep 16, 2017)

Jonti said:


> The voice of reason.


The tone police arrive


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Sep 16, 2017)

The idea that females "feel" a certain way and have a gender identity or "type of female brain" is a load of misogynist fucking shite IMO and you all know it.

It's so sad seeing it repeated as a thing on this forum.

It's the very notion that kept women from having the vote, and the increasing pink/blue genderisation of kids is going to be a huge fucking problem.



It's part of the same old conservatism and misogyny that has held women back for so long, no wonder it's the Tories heading this, and no wonder female children are increasingly becoming disphoric (as I was). No one likes being shoved into boxes.

The question "what is gender" (outside of ouf sex - which is observable, and which despite denial DOES exist- and is the cause of sexism) is a fucking valid one to ask seeing affects mainly women, and any proposed legislation will affect mainly women - who are already marginalised - with regard to current sex based protections.

No one seems to be able to define what "feeling like a woman" or having a "female gender identity" actually is without being circular or sexist (and I'm still waiting for an answer after two years of asking... It's like radio silence). So that these debates are being shut down by the left is surprising. Or maybe it isn't, maybe they are being shut down because they have no actual answers and are afraid of an "emperors new clothes moment". Who knows. No one, because no one is allowed to ask without threats of violence, accusations of bigotry or now, it seems ACTUAL violence. 

Certainly no one is willing to answer. 

Why should we be legislating for something no one is willing to discuss?

And do we really believe that the Conservative government under Maria Millier as equalities minister has anyone's best interests at heart? I mean ffs she constantly votes for anti - women and anti gay legislation. Does that not ring ANY alarm bells?

Meanwhile a 60 year old female is beaten by an apparent male but it's a-ok cos that bitch deserved it, and that male identifies as a woman so it isn't male violence, material analysis of the roots of opression (like wot Marx does) are no longer acceptable in left wing politics, and women should just believe they have a gender identity without asking what that even means.

Fucking ridiculous.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 16, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> also the idea that through the magic of self-identification one can simply take on a new power-position within society is frankly mad



It's not about simply taking on a new power-position.  It's about an extensive psychological and physical process of gendering, *not* "simply" putting on a dress and saying "I'm a woman".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 16, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Come off it. What 'power-position' do trans women occupy?



A much weaker one.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 16, 2017)

Crispy said:


> If you were talking about some sort of voluntary change I'd agree. "I've decided to be an aristocrat, therefore I own half of Mayfair." is plainly ridiculous.



Grosvenor, you cunt!   Pay some fucking tax, you inbred bastard!!!


----------



## Jonti (Sep 16, 2017)

19force8 said:


> ... There's a limit to the amount of vicious crap I'm going to wade through on holiday [or any other time]. I started at page 1, got to the bottom of page 2 and skipped to the penultimate page to see if it got any better...
> 
> ... you can just fuck right off with your fucking hate speech you twisted turd.


You were so dismayed by the abuse on the thread, you decided to add your own.

What a guy!


----------



## crossthebreeze (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> and chromosomes have no active part in sexing the body once it's developed. All the heavy lifting is done by hormones. I actually don't give a frig about my chromosomes. And apart from the probability that they are indeed XY - this is by no means a certainty and I've never been able to get them tested. Who knows for sure what chromosomes they have?
> 
> After taking estrogen for nearly 4 years i am identified as female. That's all i ever wanted. So the whole you can't change your chromosomes is so wide of the mark of being a valid point. It's like shouting at a recently converted building - but you can't change your blueprints! Who gives a fuck?


But its not just hormones that define sex either is it? Because there's lots of women - some intersex women, women with PCOS and other hormonal disorders, women taking hormone suppressant medication or even testosterone to treat endometriosis and some forms of cancer - that are very much both women and female but don't have typical female hormone levels - and in some case might even have typical male hormone patterns.  Just to add that I'm adding this to say how complicated this all is, not to undermine your identity in any way.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 16, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> So that these debates are being shut down by the left is surprising.


Are they, where? I agree with a lot of what you posted but neither of these groups are 'left'. In fact from what I've seen this whole fight has very little to do with the 'left'.



FabricLiveBaby! said:


> *Meanwhile a 60 year old female is beaten by an apparent male but it's a-ok cos that bitch deserved it*, and that male identifies as a woman so it isn't male violence, material analysis of the roots of opression (like wot Marx does) are no longer acceptable in left wing politics, and women should just believe they have a gender identity without asking what that even means.


Who on this thread has stated the bold? (Or the last sentence for that matter).


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2017)

Geri said:


> Is it true that the assailant or one of them is in Class War?



I'd almost be surprised if they weren't.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2017)

crossthebreeze said:


> But its not just hormones that define sex either is it? Because there's lots of women - some intersex women, women with PCOS and other hormonal disorders, women taking hormone suppressant medication or even testosterone to treat endometriosis and some forms of cancer - that are very much both women and female but don't have typical female hormone levels - and in some case might even have typical male hormone patterns.  Just to add that I'm adding this to say how complicated this all is, not to undermine your identity in any way.



Taking testosterone for medical reasons does not give you typical male hormone patterns. But yes, it's more complicated than an oestrogen/testosterone dichotomy.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2017)

campanula said:


> Unfair, I didn't suggest exclusion for transwomen 'as a group'...because I don't ascribe to the idea of a group of anyone having all the same specific issues. But hey - I have vaginismus - a deeply painful, life fucking up issue and I tell you now, I would welcome sharing a space, a support group with fellow sufferers...but those who are not dealing with this have fuck all business intruding. Making demands based on the heterogenity of any entire group is always going to fuck up on specifics.
> And my second question? You have no rights of exclusion? Just who gets to decide who gets to go?



Is people turning up to support groups for conditions they don't have a real issue though? Has it ever actually happened?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Sep 16, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Are they, where? I agree with a lot of what you posted but neither of these groups are 'left'.
> 
> Who on this thread has stated the bold? (Or the last sentence for that matter).



1) What if they self-identity as left (joke)? I dunno, it seems like only one group is actually using a material based analysis of opression which IS lefty tradion. But what do I know. As far as I'm aware the what-was-supposed-to-be panel discussion was set up by a Momentum member. 

2) It's hyperbolic (deliberately so) of me, and yes a rhetorical device but there have been accusations (here and I'm wider circles)  that whoever that feminist was was being goady by taking pictures and therefore deserved it. That is the start of a slippery slope which ends up with violence aimed at marginalised classes (in this case sex class).


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I was putting it in perspective.



No you were being dismissive. Trans people do die as a result of prejudice you know. Maybe there are not enough deaths to interest you but if that's the case, maybe just don't bother with posting on threads like this.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Sep 16, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> No you were being dismissive. Trans people do die as a result of prejudice you know. Maybe there are not enough deaths to interest you but if that's the case, maybe just don't bother with posting on threads like this.



Trans people die at the hands of men due to being perceived as a class traitor. It's a similar reason gays and lesbians are beaten.

Transwomen are a traitor to their sex class by taking on feminine signifiers of the gender system reserved for the female sex class in order to keep them in a subordinates position so that their reproductive labour can be exploited by patriarchy (a proto capitalist system).

Homosexuality forms the same thing. Homosexuality disrupts  the reproduction of the next generation of labourers by throwing a spanner in the works of heteronirmativity. Homosexual men in particular was criminalised because the dominated position of men was weakened by some men taking on subordinate roles I'm sex.

Sex is the material basis that all this shite comes from.





People :  Read your Marx and Engels.


----------



## Sirena (Sep 16, 2017)

> No one seems to be able to define what "feeling like a woman" or having a "female gender identity" actually is without being circular or sexist (and I'm still waiting for an answer after two years of asking... It's like radio silence). So that these debates are being shut down by the left is surprising. Or maybe it isn't, maybe they are being shut down because they have no actual answers and are afraid of an "emperors new clothes moment". Who knows. No one, because no one is allowed to ask without threats of violence, accusations of bigotry or now, it seems ACTUAL violence.
> 
> Certainly no one is willing to answer.



There is a quote by Simone de Beauvoir ('The Second Sex') that I like and it goes "One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman".

There is a transgender person I know who, seventeen years after her operation (21 years after first transition) had the realization that she had finally 'become' a woman: that if she was not now a woman. then she was nothing.  I thought that was a very deep thing.

It also suggests that simply making the statement 'I am a woman' may not be a statement to end discussion but one to begin discussion: that it marks the beginning of a journey rather than the end.  If there were any way of measuring the journey it would produce a middle ground that could satisfy both feminists and trans people.

The main objection from feminists is that a person who declares themself a woman has not had the experiences of a woman: the joys and miseries of the social situation of being a woman.  But a person who has been a woman for 21 years has had just that.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 16, 2017)

sunnysidedown said:


> because they are mentranswomen?



What the fuck does this mean? ...and how is it a response/answer to what Stella posted?


----------



## Jonti (Sep 16, 2017)

Why the aggression? 

That caused me a doubletake too, but I think it was fairly clear from the context that it's a portmanteau expression for man-transitioning-to-woman. It seems from what Sirena says that that can be a lengthy process that takes years to complete.

There's nothing wrong with remembering where one comes from, and how one got to one's present.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Sep 16, 2017)

Sirena said:


> There is a quote by Simone de Beauvoir ('The Second Sex') that I like and it goes "One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman".
> 
> There is a transgender person I know who, seventeen years after her operation (21 years after first transition) had the realization that she had finally 'become' a woman: that if she was not now a woman. then she was nothing.  I thought that was a very deep thing.
> 
> ...




Sure. When Simone De Beauvior wrote that she was talking about the gendered socialisation that girls go through. You are born a sex, you are put into a social box and then trained into your subordinate position.

That's where sex stereotypes come from.

It's also why trans people have their concept of "passing" and "not passing". When (If) you pass you start to become "treated as a woman". However it's very difficult to "pass" if you're born a male, not only because of sex characteristics but also because males are socialised differently to females and they have to unlearn all of that subconscious socialisation. And some people never do.

Have a long hard think about what that might mean to become a woman.

You become treated as the subordinate sex class is treated.

Now after 21 years it's perfectly possible to be treated "as a woman" and therefore "become a woman"  but being born female one would have to ask (and plenty do - plenty of teen girls wanting to transition) "why would anyone want that?", and why would we do away with male/female socialisation (gender) all together?

Besides, as far as your friend is concerned, there are already provisions through the sex reassignment process to cater for those people that would be more comfortable living as a woman.

The problem with this bill, is that it doesn't take into account De Beauvior's observation. It does quire the opposite and says "one is born a woman" meaning "your subordination is innate".


----------



## The Flying Pig (Sep 16, 2017)

So going back to my original question, WTF? Reading all the different comments etc, Am I right in summarizing that a group of people calling themselves feminists are very negative to a group of people described as transgender. The feminists held a meeting in a park of which the transgender attended and the two groups had verbal and physical disagreements.


----------



## campanula (Sep 16, 2017)

None of us are free or separate from our past, our upbringing, culture, aspirations and expectations of everyone who has passed through our lives...and women who were ONCE men, still carry the baggage from being in a different (privileged) headspace.  The human psyche is dynamic, not fixed in space...so it must be acknowledged that we are the sum of our parts. The differences in expectation between men becoming women and women becoming men (seemingly less problematic...but that could be me being unaware).

So, is essentialism a forbidden thing for some of us but absolutely alright when the agenda fits. There are a lot of arguments flying about here and socking someone in the face is the idiots method of addressing them.

This whole thing is part of a longer struggle.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 16, 2017)

> So going back to my original question, WTF? Reading all the different comments etc, Am I right in summarizing that a group of people calling themselves feminists are very negative to a group of people described as transgender. The feminists held a meeting in a park of which the transgender attended and the two groups had verbal and physical disagreements.



Your original question? You mean in the thread title? That reads to me as if you are negative and confused/all WTF about the subject of 'transgenderism'. Coupled with your example and comments on the thread, it seems you have particular issue with those who transition from male to female, and have used this example to somehow prove a point. What exactly is that point, can you summarise it please?


----------



## Geri (Sep 16, 2017)

The Flying Pig said:


> So going back to my original question, WTF? Reading all the different comments etc, Am I right in summarizing that a group of people calling themselves feminists are very negative to a group of people described as transgender. The feminists held a meeting in a park of which the transgender attended and the two groups had verbal and physical disagreements.


 
The meeting was elsewhere, that was the rendezvous point.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Sep 16, 2017)

The Flying Pig said:


> So going back to my original question, WTF? Reading all the different comments etc, Am I right in summarizing that a group of people calling themselves feminists are very negative to a group of people described as transgender. The feminists held a meeting in a park of which the transgender attended and the two groups had verbal and physical disagreements.



In short it's a fight between two types of political philosophy.

Idealists: those who believe thoughts form your reality (Butlerites and Postmodernists)

And

Materialists: those who believe material reality affects our thoughts and behaviours (Marxists)

It's really not surprising that the Conservatives are coming down on the side of IdPoler Butlerites. As marxist philosophy was and is in direct contrast to idealist philosophies.

Edit : It's also not surprising that the young Butlerites are fighting through that system, as they grew up in a neoliberal world and have NO idea what class consciousness looks like.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 16, 2017)

19force8 said:


> Roughly 10% of convicted murderers in the UK are women [ONS figures(Appendix Table 2.02 (1.59 Mb Excel sheet))], but also it's not just about the hand that wields the knife. If TERFs are contributing to an atmosphere of transphobia they are hurting transpeople.
> .



I see.  So when men attack transgender folk, it's women's fault.


----------



## The Flying Pig (Sep 16, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Your original question? You mean in the thread title? That reads to me as if you are negative and confused/all WTF about the subject of 'transgenderism'. Coupled with your example and comments on the thread, it seems you have particular issue with those who transition from male to female, and have used this example to somehow prove a point. What exactly is that point, can you summarise it please?


You are reading far to deep into my original question, I clearly had no idea what was going on in the video, who was who or what was what, I have no objection to anyone transitioning from one being to another and still can't quite understand the contempt and hostility between the two sets of people


----------



## tim (Sep 16, 2017)

chilango said:


> Since when has been ok to rock up and film a protest without permission?


When wasn't it? And Anyway what is the point of protesting if nobody pays you any attention?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2017)

I'm now getting that the defenceless 60 year old woman in question had a trans person in a headlock at the time she was attacked.

But this seems like one of those things where everyone sees what they want to see and the facts are largely irrelevant.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Sep 16, 2017)

The Flying Pig said:


> You are reading far to deep into my original question, I clearly had no idea what was going on in the video, who was who or what was what, I have no objection to anyone transitioning from one being to another and still can't quite understand the contempt and hostility between the two sets of people



One want to keep protections based on sex (material philosophy)  and the other want to effectively do away with sex based protections in favour of "gender identity" (idealist philosophy) . 

The talk was called "what is gender". Which apparently poses a problem to idealist who cant/won't answer that question.


----------



## newbie (Sep 16, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> I'm now getting that the defenceless 60 year old woman in question had a trans person in a headlock at the time she was attacked.
> 
> But this seems like one of those things where everyone sees what they want to see and the facts are largely irrelevant.


facts in isolation often are.  There's a long history behind this. For instance, from 2011




> The Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival is a weeklong private event produced annually since 1976 by and for people who are female. For the last ten years, groups of male transgenders have protested the existence of the festival. Not only protested, but terrorized and harassed and tried to sabotage and destroy the festival. Their reason for doing so is their strong belief that people born female have no right to congregate on the basis of that commonality. The male transgender activists have literally formed an encampment each year outside the perimeter of the Michfest festival grounds, which they patrol with weapons and plan sabotage missions into the camp– to write graffiti, to cut the water lines to the handicapped showers, to slash tires, to wreck tents, to flier the camp with pictures of their penises. Last year many of the male transgenders fled their own encampment out of fear of the growing violence of their own group members. Why are these men so angry? Why do they want to destroy a private women’s music festival? Why do they want to force women to look at their penises?


----------



## chilango (Sep 16, 2017)

tim said:


> When wasn't it? And Anyway what is the point of protesting if nobody pays you any attention?



On many of the many protests I've been it was definitely not ok. And, yeah, I suppose it does depend on the purpose of your protest. I've never really been one for "protesting for attention", more "direct action" as it were. So as it's clearly not my sphere of interest, I'll bow out and leave everyone to it.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2017)

The video is laughably bad which doesn't help. It repeatedly pans away from what's going on, which is quite possibly an editorial decision on the part of whoever is holding the camera. The captions are obviously loaded and they cut in so often that it's impossible to make any sense of what is being shown.

My instinct when I see nonsense like this is to assume that the narrative being presented is bullshit.


----------



## Sirena (Sep 16, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Sure. When Simone De Beauvior wrote that she was talking about the gendered socialisation that girls go through. You are born a sex, you are put into a social box and then trained into your subordinate position.
> 
> That's where sex stereotypes come from.
> 
> ...



I agree with all that but I have just been watching 'All creatures Great and Small' where an abstract painter (who started painting pictures of horses) said something like "I may be old fashioned but I believe an artist must master the naturalistic art before he becomes more experimental'.

A m/f transsexual (rather than just the loose transgender - which encompasses all sorts of gender fluidity) is aiming to become a woman and the best way to do that - and not remain transgender for the rest of their lives - is to merge and to disappear into society.  If that means accepting an ostensibly subordinate role (because that is the social reality) then that is a thing they must learn.  It is not just about dressing up.  It may not be politically ideal but the journey is a personal spiritual one, not one of political niceties.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Sep 16, 2017)

Sirena said:


> I agree with all that but I have just been watching 'All creatures Great and Small' where an abstract painter (who started painting pictures of horses) said something like "I may be old fashioned but I believe an artist must master the naturalistic art before he becomes more experimental'.
> 
> A m/f transsexual (rather than just the loose transgender - which encompasses all sorts of gender fluidity) is aiming to become a woman and the best way to do that - and not remain transgender for the rest of their lives - is to merge and to disappear into society.  If that means accepting an ostensibly subordinate role (because that is the social reality) then that is a thing they must learn.  It is not just about dressing up.  It may not be politically ideal but the journey is a personal spiritual one, not one of political niceties.



Well yes. Of course. There are good things about supposed "femininity" - which I think should be accessible to both males and females without judgement - and I can imagine why people would want to reject masculinity if it made them feel uncomfortable in the very gendered society we live in.

And sometimes people need to assume the feminine gender role to feel comfortable with themselves and how the world sees them.

From what I've read about new legislation the journey that transexual people take would be made worthlessu by this bill too because identity just becomes an utterance, and the plan is to replace "sexual reassignment" as a protected characteristic too. No journey necessary.


----------



## tim (Sep 16, 2017)

chilango said:


> On many of the many protests I've been it was definitely not ok. And, yeah, I suppose it does depend on the purpose of your protest. I've never really been one for "protesting for attention", more "direct action" as it were. So as it's clearly not my sphere of interest, I'll bow out and leave everyone to it.



Direct Action is surely another way of saying propaganda of the Deed. 



> ." Mikhail Bakunin (1814–1876), in his "Letters to a Frenchman on the Present Crisis" (1870) stated that "we must spread our principles, not with words but with deeds, for this is the most popular, the most potent, and the most irresistible form of propaganda."[2]



Propaganda of the deed - Wikipedia

What would be the point of Direct Action if nobody payed any attention to it? As it not being acceptable. I don't think it's acceptable to say you can't take photographs in public places. It's also pretty absurd to go to Speakers Corner, of all places, and not expect to encounter cameras or confrontation.


----------



## LDC (Sep 16, 2017)

chilango said:


> On many of the many protests I've been it was definitely not ok. And, yeah, I suppose it does depend on the purpose of your protest. I've never really been one for "protesting for attention", more "direct action" as it were. So as it's clearly not my sphere of interest, I'll bow out and leave everyone to it.



The times (with regards to filming on actions and political events of various ilks) have a-changed grandad!


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 16, 2017)

tim said:


> What would be the point of Direct Action if nobody payed any attention to it? As it not being acceptable. I don't think it's acceptable to say you can't take photographs in public places. It's also pretty absurd to go to Speakers Corner, of all places, and not expect to encounter cameras or confrontation.



It means achieving a material goal such as preventing fash from marching or meeting. If it achieves that objective it's successful, it's got nothing to do with promoting propaganda.


----------



## Geri (Sep 16, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> I'm now getting that the defenceless 60 year old woman in question had a trans person in a headlock at the time she was attacked.
> 
> But this seems like one of those things where everyone sees what they want to see and the facts are largely irrelevant.


 
The person tried to steal her camera, which was around her wrist. She grabbed him/her. Is self defence wrong now?


----------



## Geri (Sep 16, 2017)

Here is Maria's account of what happened.

Trans rights, TERFs, and a bruised 60-year-old: what happened at Speakers’ Corner?

I'm not a radical feminist and don't really have a position on trans issues, which I am not very familiar with, but physically attacking the women attending this meeting is out of order.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2017)

Geri said:


> The person tried to steal her camera, which was around her wrist. She grabbed him/her. Is self defence wrong now?



Most of the kerfuffle seems to take place after our hero grabs someone else by the head and drags them around. But like I said, the video is far from clear.

Your line about self-defence did make me chuckle though, so thanks for that. Nobody has said 'self defence is wrong' at any point as far as I'm aware. Some people have suggested that a known anti-trans bigot shoving a camera in the faces of trans people might be cause for those people to act in self defence. You'll note that the video itself features a photo of a trans person who may or may not have been involved, but who is identified by name anyway.


----------



## Geri (Sep 16, 2017)

No, filming someone is not an excuse for violence. Maybe if someone had issued threats to me in the weeks leading up to an event I was planning to attend, then I might think filming is a good idea. As I'm sure you know, everyone and everything is filmed in this day and age so to use that as a justification for punching someone is quite disgusting.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2017)

And deliberately misgendering people for dramatic effect is an abusive act as far as I'm concerned.

In any other context if you are referring to someone whose gender you don't know you would use 'they'. Using 'him/her' instead serves no purpose except to be dismissive of other people's identities.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2017)

Geri said:


> No, filming someone is not an excuse for violence. Maybe if someone had issued threats to me in the weeks leading up to an event I was planning to attend, then I might think filming is a good idea. As I'm sure you know, everyone and everything is filmed in this day and age so to use that as a justification for punching someone is quite disgusting.



Why is that photo in the video, if not to encourage reprisals against the person in question?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Sep 16, 2017)

I found some different footage : don't think it was posted. There's no commentary and it's a different angle.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 16, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> The idea that females "feel" a certain way and have a gender identity or "type of female brain" is a load of misogynist fucking shite IMO and you all know it.
> 
> It's so sad seeing it repeated as a thing on this forum.
> 
> ...


First part, agree 100 %. There's a lot of awful science and pseudo-science out there purporting to identify male and female brains and it's mostly utter bollocks. It is regrettable when I see trans women seeking answers along this route as it is the wrong route imo, although it's understandable as well that there would be an attraction to some explanation that contains an essential, scientific basis. 

As to the second part, isn't this partly a case of not understanding because you don't have that feeling? I confess that I don't know what it might feel like to feel that you were born into the wrong body. But I can recognise the urgency and desperation of those with that feeling. And I can also recognise how horrible it must be to have that feeling and your lived experience dismissed. More than horrible - the disjoint between how you know you feel and how you are told you should be is a major source of mental illness. I'm with RD Laing on that - it's the source of many or even most psychoses.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 16, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I found some different footage : don't think it was posted. There's no commentary and it's a different angle.



Was just coming to post that.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 16, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> And deliberately misgendering people for dramatic effect is an abusive act as far as I'm concerned.



Do you think the attackers sex has any impact on their ability and inclination to launch the assault?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 16, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Most of the kerfuffle seems to take place after our hero grabs someone else by the head and drags them around. But like I said, the video is far from clear.
> 
> Your line about self-defence did make me chuckle though, so thanks for that. Nobody has said 'self defence is wrong' at any point as far as I'm aware. Some people have suggested that a known anti-trans bigot shoving a camera in the faces of trans people might be cause for those people to act in self defence. You'll note that the video itself features a photo of a trans person who may or may not have been involved, but who is identified by name anyway.



Strange then that there were other people filming whose cameras remained unmolested.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Sep 16, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> As to the second part, isn't this partly a case of not understanding because you don't have that feeling? I confess that I don't know what it might feel like to feel that you were born into the wrong body. But I can recognise the urgency and desperation of those with that feeling. And I can also recognise how horrible it must be to have that feeling and your lived experience dismissed.



Well, all I know is that when I was a teenager I was also dysphoric. So much so I went to a doctor. He told me (quite rightly) to fuck off and "stop thinking about it". I was mad at him FOR YEARS. I never felt comfortable in my skin (and to some extent I still don't) and thought I was wrong.  It was before the days "gender identity" rhetoric was a thing. I didn't "feel like a woman" precisely because I thought feeling like a woman was the stereotypes I was being forced into. Also sexism. I didn't like being dismissed. I wasn't "like the other girls" (I went to a girls school) and I was an outcasred weirdo becsuse I didn't fit.

Slowly, I realised this feeling has everything to do with how my body (which I REFUSE now to belive is wrong) is coded by society. And how my body would be used and abused by some very sexist people.

So, down with gender.  Sex roles are awful.

 I'm not a "man in a woman's body" which I've been accused of. . Im *me* with my unique and perfectly fine personality in a *my* female body in a misogynist bullshit sexist society.

And yes, sexism and misogyny is awful.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 16, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I found some different footage : don't think it was posted. There's no commentary and it's a different angle.



It's 100% clear if you watch that vid at 1/4 speed that the so called headlock was in fact one of the 'terfs' trying to pull her mate and her camera away from the attempt to grab/smash her camera, assault her. It wasn't even one of the assailants who was headlocked.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 16, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Well, all I know is that when I was a teenager I was also dysphoric. So much so I went to a doctor. He told me (quite rightly) to fuck off and "stop thinking about it". I was mad at him FOR YEARS. I never felt comfortable in my skin (and to some extent I still don't) and thought I was wrong.  It was before the days "gender identity" rhetoric was a thing. I didn't "feel like a woman" precisely because I thought feeling like a woman was the stereotypes I was being forced into. Also sexism. I didn't like being dismissed. I wasn't "like the other girls" (I went to a girls school) and I was an outcasred weirdo becsuse I didn't fit.
> 
> Slowly, I realised this feeling has everything to do with how my body (which I REFUSE now to belive is wrong) is coded by society. And how my body would be used and abused by some very sexist people.
> 
> ...


I had a similar sort of growing up experience. Played with the boys because I knew how to fit in with them. I was rubbish at being a girl, found the toys and games girls were supposed to like utterly boring, couldn't talk to girls the way they seemed to expect me to talk to them or fit in in any way. As I got older and puberty happened it got much worse, I was horrified at my body letting me down and becoming outwardly undeniably female, I tried to hide my breasts with the way I dressed, I didn't want to learn to do makeup, shopping for bras made me feel sick etc etc. These days people would be telling me I was trans and maybe suggesting I should present as a boy. But I wasn't a boy, and I'm still not now. I'm female. My dismay and discomfort were due to what society expected me to look like and behave like and the knowledge that I was never going to be able to fit in enough. Trans people talk about 'passing', well I can tell you that you don't ever get to stop worrying about successfully passing as a woman even if you were born female. We don't get to choose how society judges us.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

I've never had so many people on ignore. Urban is going to be a really tricky place for me to post on if I do decided to stay after this


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> I've never had so many people on ignore. Urban is going to be a really tricky place for me to post on if I do decided to stay after this



What is the purpose of this comment?


----------



## Thora (Sep 16, 2017)

I was wondering when we'd get an "ignore" update


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I found some different footage : don't think it was posted. There's no commentary and it's a different angle.




Case closed.

Trans activists assault 60 year old woman.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)

Can we talk about toxic Id-pol politics yet?


----------



## Sirena (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> I've never had so many people on ignore. Urban is going to be a really tricky place for me to post on if I do decided to stay after this


Just my supportive opinion but you had a boards crisis not so long ago and I think you resolved not to go that way again.

People are just trying to express their personal opinions and it's not about you, it's about the general subject.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

Red Sky said:


> Because the lived experiences and struggles of trans women are different from those of cis women?


Feminism is about what we have in common. There is a diversity of women in the world, black women, disabled women, intersex women, Asian women, poor women, rich women, lesbians - all have different lived experiences, but you want to only exclude trans women. In the past there have been many attempts to exclude women who are different - lesbians and black women among others - and now its the turn of trans women. Of course only a minority of women want to do that and don;t have any kind of clear or coherent reason for doing so. And neither do you.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 16, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Well, all I know is that when I was a teenager I was also dysphoric. So much so I went to a doctor. He told me (quite rightly) to fuck off and "stop thinking about it". I was mad at him FOR YEARS. I never felt comfortable in my skin (and to some extent I still don't) and thought I was wrong.  It was before the days "gender identity" rhetoric was a thing. I didn't "feel like a woman" precisely because I thought feeling like a woman was the stereotypes I was being forced into. Also sexism. I didn't like being dismissed. I wasn't "like the other girls" (I went to a girls school) and I was an outcasred weirdo becsuse I didn't fit.
> 
> Slowly, I realised this feeling has everything to do with how my body (which I REFUSE now to belive is wrong) is coded by society. And how my body would be used and abused by some very sexist people.
> 
> ...


Not to the same extent, it seems, but I struggled growing up with male gender expectations and still do on occasion. Gender roles are fine if you are comfortable with them (and I'm kind of envious of people who seem to slide easily along with them), not fine at all if you don't, and I suspect that probably most of us have some kind of difficulty, discomfort and disjoint with them. 

So where do your experiences and those of weepiper fit in this debate about transgender? I don't know, because I suspect that you may be talking about a different thing. On a different thread recently, scifisam made a very good point about a young boy who liked wearing skirts and was turning up at school in them. She pointed out correctly that he's not necessarily transgender, and we shouldn't be labelling him as such. It does seem that we still very much live in a society where children are not allowed to subvert gender norms without a whole heap of attention being piled onto them and assumptions being made about them. 

I agree with you about the destructive nature of gender expectations. But that doesn't make transgender people go away, particularly when they tell you that it's not about that.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

Sirena said:


> People are just trying to express their personal opinions and it's not about you, it's about the general subject.



Well, you may not think its about me but it is. Most trans women I know tell me not to discuss these topics and to put my health first but if I didn;t who would. I end up feeling distressed beyond belief as a result, because it's about who i am, its about how i go through this world. And to see my identity being trashed hurts like fuck. Still, wouldn't expect anyone who wasn't trans to understand.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> Feminism is about what we have in common. There is a diversity of women in the world, black women, disabled women, intersex women, Asian women, poor women, rich women, lesbians - all have different lived experiences, but you want to only exclude trans women. In the past there have been many attempts to exclude women who are different - lesbians and black women among others - and now its the turn of trans women. Of course only a minority of women want to do that and don;t have any kind of clear or coherent reason for doing so. And neither do you.



mate I completely understand why TERF stuff would feel hurtful - but to be honest they have a right to organise and think those things and this thread is in the context of an out of control identity politics movement pursuing them and physically assaulting them, applying a no-platform philosophy which should be reserved for actual Nazis.

there's no excuse for this behaviour, and the fact that the 'movement' is expressly attempting to excuse it is deeply worrying.


----------



## 19force8 (Sep 16, 2017)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I see.  So when men attack transgender folk, it's women's fault.


Read what I said. If you contribute to an atmosphere of transphobia you are hurting trans people. How can you disagree?


----------



## spanglechick (Sep 16, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Well yes. Of course. There are good things about supposed "femininity" - which I think should be accessible to both males and females without judgement - and I can imagine why people would want to reject masculinity if it made them feel uncomfortable in the very gendered society we live in.
> 
> And sometimes people need to assume the feminine gender role to feel comfortable with themselves and how the world sees them.
> 
> From what I've read about new legislation the journey that transexual people take would be made worthlessu by this bill too because identity just becomes an utterance, and the plan is to replace "sexual reassignment" as a protected characteristic too. No journey necessary.





FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Well, all I know is that when I was a teenager I was also dysphoric. So much so I went to a doctor. He told me (quite rightly) to fuck off and "stop thinking about it". I was mad at him FOR YEARS. I never felt comfortable in my skin (and to some extent I still don't) and thought I was wrong.  It was before the days "gender identity" rhetoric was a thing. I didn't "feel like a woman" precisely because I thought feeling like a woman was the stereotypes I was being forced into. Also sexism. I didn't like being dismissed. I wasn't "like the other girls" (I went to a girls school) and I was an outcasred weirdo becsuse I didn't fit.
> 
> Slowly, I realised this feeling has everything to do with how my body (which I REFUSE now to belive is wrong) is coded by society. And how my body would be used and abused by some very sexist people.
> 
> ...





weepiper said:


> I had a similar sort of growing up experience. Played with the boys because I knew how to fit in with them. I was rubbish at being a girl, found the toys and games girls were supposed to like utterly boring, couldn't talk to girls the way they seemed to expect me to talk to them or fit in in any way. As I got older and puberty happened it got much worse, I was horrified at my body letting me down and becoming outwardly undeniably female, I tried to hide my breasts with the way I dressed, I didn't want to learn to do makeup, shopping for bras made me feel sick etc etc. These days people would be telling me I was trans and maybe suggesting I should present as a boy. But I wasn't a boy, and I'm still not now. I'm female. My dismay and discomfort were due to what society expected me to look like and behave like and the knowledge that I was never going to be able to fit in enough. Trans people talk about 'passing', well I can tell you that you don't ever get to stop worrying about successfully passing as a woman even if you were born female. We don't get to choose how society judges us.



These kinds of experiences and approaches to the issue do bear weight and are qualitatively different to much of the bigoted terf stuff 


As a cis woman, and a feminist, my experience couldn't be more different.  I strongly, fiercely and positively identify as female in gender.   In fact given my infertility, probably more so in some ways, than I do in biology.  Being a man seems pretty comprehensively awful. Yes they're more likely to earn more than me, less likely to be a victim of sexual violence or domestic abuse... but they have to be a man.  It's not even close to being worth it.  Now I grew up surrounded by kickass women.  Neither of my aunts married or had kids, instead they lived exciting lives working abroad, living on their own and treating themselves frivolously.  My eldest sister was both a great actor AND a motorbike-riding chemical engineer.   My mum left school with no qualifications but went to college when I was four and soon earned more than my dad, as well as ambitiously and successfully managing all our finances.  All around me it seemed obvious that women were great and could do anything, and when I came across sexism I was incredulous and angry, not sad.  It was just more evidence that I didn't want to be a man because sexist men were clearly really stupid. As a kid I never felt women were limited or that I "should" behave in a certain way. I could do all the cool stuff and I got to play with glitter and hair-styles if I wanted to.  Winning!

And that's my story - no more or less valid than either of those above... but for me, gender is a social construct I very strongly feel at home in.  My body is the least part of my awesome, fierce womanhood.   To me it makes perfect sense that someone else might feel the same, even if their body didn't match.  Or that someone with the same biology as me might feel strongly ambivalent about gendered womanhood.  Or that they felt that despite their body their feelings and thinking were in line with those of gendered male experience.   

Just because something is a social construct doesn't make it not real.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Sep 16, 2017)

If it helps, AuntiStella , I'm learning a lot from this discussion. It's useful to see the difficulties and sharp edges in a debate like this because it highlights the important issues. Your contribution is central to what I'm learning because you're vocal and thoughtful and political about your lived experience of being a trans woman. I understand how a lot of things being said here could upset you, but please try not to take it all personally.

As an aside, FabricLiveBaby! and weepiper 's posts about not feeling girly and not fitting is really resonates with me. There being no alternative to the binaries in those days (man-woman, gay-straight), I did wonder if I might be gay, because I was so different to the girly girls.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Sep 16, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So where do your experiences and those of weepiper fit in this debate about transgender?



No one knows because there is no working definition of "gender identity"  that isn't circular or sexist, and as a result there's currently no working definition of "trans" either because the current thinking is that being trans is about your gender identity (rather than sexual reassignment).

So until someone can define it we're fucked aren't we? 

To be honest, I used to go to a Catholic school although my family weren't religious at all (my family also didn't enforce gender roles). When someone refuses to define what they're talking about of ignore your questions even though they "really feel something" I start smelling a rat. I can't help it because it's exactly what the Nuns who taught me RE used to do.

I worked out a pretty quick why they were doing it and by 14 I was an atheist. I'm starting to smell the same rat here. And I really don't want to. I'm sure Christians feel God (also materially indescribable with vastly differing interpretations) in the same way some people feel their gender identity. 

Sorry if I don't believe in it. But quite frankly I don't have to believe in anything that seemingly has no material basis. Because how do we analyse the world and class  without materialist philosophy? Do we throw dialectic matetialism and Marxism out the window because out of compassion?


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> mate I completely understand why TERF stuff would feel hurtful - but to be honest they have a right to organise and think those things and this thread is in the context of an out of control identity politics movement pursuing them and physically assaulting them, applying a no-platform philosophy which should be reserved for actual Nazis.
> 
> there's no excuse for this behaviour, and the fact that the 'movement' is expressly attempting to excuse it is deeply worrying.


that doesn't answer my point at all. And that's why this thread is tricky for me, people seemingly unable to stick to the point, follow rules of argument and using the chance to push personal slurs instead. It is, franky, an extremely dishonest "debate" and those on the pro-TERF side never miss a chance to put in a bit of a verbal kicking - by misgendering for example, and using our trans identities to accuse of all sorts of bullshit such as "male violence". Take out the lies from this debate and the obvious venom and I could deal with it. anyway I'm here so no patronising please.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Sep 16, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> These kinds of experiences and approaches to the issue do bear weight and are qualitatively different to much of the bigoted terf stuff



And yet I've been called a TERF before for having a materialist marxist philosophical standpoint.  Funny that.  It's almost like it's a thought terminating cliché. A bit like "SJW".


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> that doesn't answer my point at all. And that's why this thread is tricky for me, people seemingly unable to stick to the point, follow rules of argument and using the chance to push personal slurs instead. It is, franky, an extremely dishonest "debate" and those on the pro-TERF side never miss a chance to put in a bit of a verbal kicking - by misgendering for example, and using our trans identities to accuse of all sorts of bullshit such as "male violence". Take out the lies from this debate and the obvious venom and I could deal with it. anyway I'm here so no patronising please.



well with respect maybe it's your point which is off-topic and not everyone elses.

i'm here because a bunch of teenage id-pol knobheads thought it was Ok to physically assault a 60 year old woman, and then a hefty section of the "left" thought it was acceptable to defend them.

it also concerns me that that the id-pol idiots themselves identify as women but are pre-op and have the physical strength of men, and that is somehow being used to fudge the issue that effectively, this woman was punched by someone with the strength of a man.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

SheilaNaGig said:


> As an aside, FabricLiveBaby! and weepiper 's posts about not feeling girly and not fitting is really resonates with me. There being no alternative to the binaries in those days (man-woman, gay-straight), I did wonder if I might be gay, because I was so different to the girly girls.



I wonder how butch dyke trans women fit into this mix. 

Personally i never felt "girly" in my life until recently I have begun to understand what some women mean by this. But I define myself as a tomboy. The whole gender expression being conflated with gender identity needs to stop. I do see trans people doing it too and it seems to have become part of the narrative of transitioning stories now - I liked dolls or I hated dolls, etc. Well, I played with lego, and mechano and liked building things, and messing about in the woods - just like many cis women i know. So - it shouldn't be discussed as part of this at all. Red herring. 

As for definitions - I'd like to see the TERF side come up with some definitions first. This sort of this is always going to be tricky to define and every definition of "Woman" I've seen so far excludes some cis women. But it's something trans people get hit with a lot and it's basically used as a way to silence us and to enable TERFs to disregard everything we say.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 16, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Sorry if I don't believe in it. But quite frankly I don't have to believe in anything that seemingly has no material basis. Because how do we analyse the world and class  without materialist philosophy? Do we throw dialectic matetialism and Marxism out the window because out of compassion?


I think a lot of the analysis you've presented here is spot on, but the material basis for the existence of transgender people is the lived experience of those people themselves. This is one reason why I would much prefer it if we cast away attempts to identify some kind of biological determinant. It seems fruitless and beside the point. There does not have to be a 'gay gene' for there to be a material basis to homosexuality - there is, the material basis is the lived experience of homosexual people. And I think this is a similar situation - the reality of transgender should not need to depend on some kind of external justification any more than the reality of homosexuality, which was also dismissed once upon a time as delusion or mental illness.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> that doesn't answer my point at all. And that's why this thread is tricky for me, people seemingly unable to stick to the point, follow rules of argument and using the chance to push personal slurs instead. It is, franky, an extremely dishonest "debate" and those on the pro-TERF side never miss a chance to put in a bit of a verbal kicking - by misgendering for example, and using our trans identities to accuse of all sorts of bullshit such as "male violence". Take out the lies from this debate and the obvious venom and I could deal with it. anyway I'm here so no patronising please.



The chant of 'no to male violence' in that video has the word 'male' vocally underlined. You can tell that the message they're really putting across is not 'we don't like violence' but 'we don't think you count as women'. There's a gleeful, childlike sneer to it which is quite upsetting coming from an adult.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> well with respect maybe it's your point which is off-topic and not everyone elses.
> 
> i'm here because a bunch of teenage id-pol knobheads thought it was Ok to physically assault a 60 year old woman, and then a hefty section of the "left" thought it was acceptable to defend them.
> 
> it also concerns me that that the id-pol idiots themselves identify as women but are pre-op and have the physical strength of men, and that is somehow being used to fudge the issue that effectively, this woman was punched by someone with the strength of a man.


but the person the TERF first attacked was a young assigned female at birth non-binary person. And I really don't see anyone defending the punch. Explaining maybe. Pointing out that it was as much to do with TERFs inciting a response and starting the violence  as it was about the actual response. What I posted earlier specifically said they did not condone the attack. But whatever it was it's a far cry from what your side is trying to say - that this was an attack by men on a weak and vulnerable old lady. She was stopped from assaulting someone that she would have defined as a girl or young woman. So what now? Keep on accusing people like me of being violent, misogynist men? No - I'm completely on topic. Way more on topic than you have been so far.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> The chant of 'no to male violence' in that video has the word 'male' vocally underlined. You can tell that the message they're really putting across is not 'we don't like violence' but 'we don't think you count as women'. There's a gleeful, childlike sneer to it which is quite upsetting coming from an adult.


that passes for peaceful and honest debate with these people.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> The chant of 'no to male violence' in that video has the word 'male' vocally underlined. You can tell that the message they're really putting across is not 'we don't like violence' but 'we don't think you count as women'. There's a gleeful, childlike sneer to it which is quite upsetting coming from an adult.



so that's why it was good that the Id-pol kiddlywinks physically attacked them


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> so that's why it was good that the Id-pol kiddlywinks physically attacked them



You do know that in real life it's possible for more than one person to be in the wrong at the same time?

e2a: And if you're really opposed to violence you should do something about it besides standing on the sidelines egging on the side you ostensibly oppose with some bullshit school playground chanting.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Sep 16, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> but the material basis for the existence of transgender people is the lived experience of those people themselves.



With respect, and I appreciate you want to bridge a gap (we all do), this isn't materialism.

The material basis of transgender people is very easily explained through the submission / dominance roles of imposed male and female gender roles. Reproduced through culture, capitalism and patriarchy.

Those who don't conform are marginalised.

It accounts for everything. It allows transgender people to exist without having to add immaterial notions of gender identity.

Occasionally razor.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> but the person the TERF first attacked was a young assigned female at birth non-binary person. And I really don't see anyone defending the punch. Explaining maybe. Pointing out that it was as much to do with TERFs inciting a response and starting the violence  as it was about the actual response. What I posted earlier specifically said they did not condone the attack. But whatever it was it's a far cry from what your side is trying to say - that this was an attack by men on a weak and vulnerable old lady. She was stopped from assaulting someone that she would have defined as a girl or young woman. So what now? Keep on accusing people like me of being violent, misogynist men? No - I'm completely on topic. Way more on topic than you have been so far.


Both videos clearly show the 'attack' you're talking about began after the woman in question tried to grab the TERF's camera.

The second video shows that that also came seconds after a crowd of the kids mobbed her for getting too close


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Sep 16, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> but the material basis for the existence of transgender people is the lived experience of those people themselves.



With respect, and I appreciate you want to bridge a gap (we all do), this isn't materialism.

The material basis of transgender people is very easily explained through the submission / dominance roles of imposed male and female (That's your material) gender roles. Reproduced through culture, capitalism and patriarchy.

Those who don't conform are marginalised.

It accounts for everything. It allows transgender people to exist without having to add immaterial notions of gender identity.

Use Occams Razor.


----------



## chilango (Sep 16, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> The times (with regards to filming on actions and political events of various ilks) have a-changed grandad!



Indeed, and I don't like it.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think a lot of the analysis you've presented here is spot on, but the material basis for the existence of transgender people is the lived experience of those people themselves. This is one reason why I would much prefer it if we cast away attempts to identify some kind of biological determinant. It seems fruitless and beside the point. There does not have to be a 'gay gene' for there to be a material basis to homosexuality - there is, the material basis is the lived experience of homosexual people. And I think this is a similar situation - the reality of transgender should not need to depend on some kind of external justification any more than the reality of homosexuality, which was also dismissed once upon a time as delusion or mental illness.


the science i like best - doesn't look for a cause but does show how real the phenomena is, even for very young children - that and the improved diagnosis techniques which have pushed desistance down to just above 0% puts the case nicely as far as I'm concerned, that trans is real and cannot be justifiably ignored. I'm afraid we can't do away with science because it'll be numbers and evidence that gets us the rights we need. OK - so we don;t need to know which bit of our neurology caused us to feel like this or be like this and we don't need to know the events that led to our neurology being like this, but we do need to know how to identify it, how to accomodate and support it, and we do need to prove it's real before the state will give us the right to be equal humans in our own genders. So more studies like this with larger numbers of kids is what I'd like.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> With respect, and I appreciate you want to bridge a gap (we all do), this isn't materialism.
> 
> The material basis of transgender people is very easily explained through the submission / dominance roles of imposed male and female (That's your material) gender roles. Reproduced through culture, capitalism and patriarchy.
> 
> ...



*Someone who doesn't know what Occam's razor means klaxon*

*PhD proposal disguised as forum post klaxon*


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> I wonder how butch dyke trans women fit into this mix.
> 
> Personally i never felt "girly" in my life until recently I have begun to understand what some women mean by this. But I define myself as a tomboy. The whole gender expression being conflated with gender identity needs to stop. I do see trans people doing it too and it seems to have become part of the narrative of transitioning stories now - I liked dolls or I hated dolls, etc. Well, I played with lego, and mechano and liked building things, and messing about in the woods - just like many cis women i know. So - it shouldn't be discussed as part of this at all. Red herring.




Is it a red herring though? This opening up of the spectrum is healthy for all people. Hopefully, as transpeople and non-binary gendered people become more accepted and more visible in society, young children will benefit and be allowed to grow up without having those binary systems forced upon them. 

A friend of mine has just graduated as a teacher. She told me the other day that when she first started out as a TA ten years ago, there was never any question about referring to the children as "boys and girls". The faculty at her school is now discussing how they can avoid this kind of easy lazy binary categorisation. That discussion would never have taken place without the ongoing debate in the wider community.



(She said that on the first day of reception class, they tend to separate the children into "Boys line up here, girls line up over there". My friend said that it's now recognised that at that age, children barely know whether they're a "boy" or a "girl" and it's the school imposing those binaries that makes the kids begin to interpret and incorporate those categories, or attempt to. She said they she used to interpret the vague milling about of the kids as lack of attention or experience about lining up or whatever, but she's come to recognise that a lot of the kids just have never put themself into "Boy or "Girl" boxes in their own head before.)






Anyway, I'm not equipped to join the deeper political debate but I'm reading and learning a lot.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 16, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> With respect, and I appreciate you want to bridge a gap (we all do), this isn't materialism.
> 
> The material basis of transgender people is very easily explained through the submission / dominance roles of imposed male and female (That's your material) gender roles. Reproduced through culture, capitalism and patriarchy.
> 
> ...


Fair enough. I recognise that I misunderstood the way you were meaning that. I don't think I agree with this particular bit of analysis though. It's too neat, and it doesn't account for why X is transgender and Y isn't. Nor does it account for the various transgender appearances in non-capitalist societies. I don't know of any human culture that doesn't have gender roles assigned to the two biological sexes. If anything our current society and culture gender roles have softer edges to them than many non-capitalist societies.


----------



## chilango (Sep 16, 2017)

tim said:


> Direct Action is surely another way of saying propaganda of the Deed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Direct action is not the same as propaganda of the deed.

I think it's perfectly acceptable for me (or anyone els) to not want to be filmed or photographed and to challenge people overriding this wish.

But, y'know, I'll just stay away from protests where people are cool with it.

*shrugs*


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 16, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> *Someone who doesn't know what Occam's razor means klaxon*
> 
> *PhD proposal disguised as forum post klaxon*



Going to answer my question upthread or just make snide comments?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> You do know that in real life it's possible for more than one person to be in the wrong at the same time?



i can disagree with the cranky 70s radfems til the cows come home, it doesn't change the fact this in *this situation* right and wrong are played out so clearly that to focus on what i disagree with the rad fems on would be really quite perverse.

without playing into a battle on the question of whether or not, within the 'women's movement', trans-women should occupy the same place as women-women a few things that i think are totally within reasonable bounds to say are:

1) you shouldn't use no-platform tactics against non-fascists
2) self-identity is not, practically speaking, a special 'out' card in relation to assaulting a woman
3) people on the 'left' should not be trying to rationalize this attack, it should be condemned outright (whether "provoked" by mean chants or otherwise)
4) that as these kinds of attitudes are being expounded and adopted across the Id-pol movement - a kind of 'antifa+' idea of how to deal with internal disputes on the left and between competing identities in the intersectionlist inverted pyramid hierarchy, the actual left needs to nip them in the bud and recognise the severe cultural problem we are developing amongst young activists in our midsts


----------



## tim (Sep 16, 2017)

chilango said:


> Direct action is not the same as propaganda of the deed.
> 
> I think it's perfectly acceptable for me (or anyone els) to not want to be filmed or photographed and to challenge people overriding this wish.
> 
> ...


You can object and challenge but you have no right or justification for attacking then physically.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 16, 2017)

tim said:


> You can object and challenge but you have no right or justification for attacking then.


hmmm. Someone takes photos of me and I know, or very strongly suspect, that they're going to be 'doxxing' - they're going to be plastering my image around the place and using these photos against me. I take their camera and smash it on the ground. I have 'no right or justification' for doing that?


----------



## chilango (Sep 16, 2017)

tim said:


> You can object and challenge but you have no right or justification for attacking then physically.



Ah well. I'll stay away then thanks.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Is it a red herring though? This opening up of the spectrum is healthy for all people. Hopefully, as transpeople and non-binary gendered people become more accepted and more visible in society, young children will benefit and be allowed to grow up without having those binary systems forced upon them.


I agree - i just don;t think its anything to do with being trans. It's a different issue. You can be a trans man in a dress or a hyper macho trans man doing weights. Gender expression does not change gender identity.



> A friend of mine has just graduated as a teacher. She told me the other day that when she first started out as a TA ten years ago, there was never any question about referring to the children as "boys and girls". The faculty at her school is now discussing how they can avoid this kind of easy lazy binary categorisation. That discussion would never have taken place without the ongoing debate in the wider community.


I've been at the centre of this debate in TfL and getting a lot of male anger coming my way even from gay men. Generally, I support this as a woman and as a human who has been hurt by gender assumprions, however i don;t see this discussion as a trans discussion. I know a lot of cis people do but then that leads trans people to end up being the ones shouldering the burden of this discussion as everyone who doesn't like it sees us as the main enemy including global church movements, the GOP, the Tories and most MRAs.

I think I was picked as a trans woman to lead in this discussion, by the women's network, because they saw me as having particular insight into the gender neutral argument. To be honest, i feel I've learnt loads from cis feminists, in particular the majority of feminists who do accept trans women as women.



> (She said that on the first day of reception class, they tend to separate the children into "Boys line up here, girls line up over there". My friend said that it's now recognised that at that age, children barely know whether they're a "boy" or a "girl" and it's the school imposing those binaries that makes the kids begin to interpret and incorporate those categories, or attempt to. She said they she used to interpret the vague milling about of the kids as lack of attention or experience about lining up or whatever, but she's come to recognise that a lot of the kids just have never put themself into "Boy or "Girl" boxes in their own head before.)



It sounds like my early childhood. Apart from occasional regret I didn;t really feel dysphoria too much before puberty though i knew i wanted to be a girl from age 5 or before, but it dodn;t really amount to much for me in a material way, i was already doing most of the stuff i wanted to do. But my face was wrong, my name was wrong. Being dressed up as a boy used to hurt. On special occasions it hurt more becasue of how differently me and my sister got treated in more formal situations and all the stuff that was being heaped on me by relatives about being a strong young man, eg. I think my main feeling in those days was shame but over the years it turned to regret.

It was only after puberty that I became depressed and suicidal  and unable to deal witht he physical changes that were happening to me because i knew i was a girl. I'm still trying to recover from this now.






> Anyway, I'm not equipped to join the deeper political debate but I'm reading and learning a lot.


Nor me really, but I'm learning and I'm expressing my honest opinion too so what's not to like? Well, some of the quite nasty stuff on here - that is not to like, but it's only a small number of people.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Sep 16, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> What the fuck does this mean? ...and how is it a response/answer to what Stella posted?



Hi there, I hope you are enjoying your day.

What I meant by that term I thought was pretty obvious (and was answered very well by another poster a couple of posts after yours).

It appears that men transitioning to women, by calling themselves trans women, are leaving out/erasing a somewhat important part of the process. I would of thought that this process (unique as it is to each individual) would contain some residue of the former state, which again would be unique to each individual and would no doubt vary physically/mentally in each case.

As an example, in the last video posted (showing the assault from a different angle), the transwoman with the pony tail who stares down the woman is displaying what I (as a male) would see as a typical male trait. I've had many males do that exact same thing to me over the years, normally with an additional _come on then, do you want some _added for effect_. _I would say that this person is displaying a residue of their former state as a male.

The reason I replied to Stella is because (unless I have this wrong) she was asking about feminist meetings and why some old-school/whatever feminists may have an issue. I believe though that this meeting being discussed here was open to all, but I can see why some feminists may be critical/have varying opinions about the _trans_ subject.

Although, for me, it's not really a question of the erasure of man (or woman for those transitioning to men), but the erasure of the restraints of man/woman.


----------



## Red Sky (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> Feminism is about what we have in common. There is a diversity of women in the world, black women, disabled women, intersex women, Asian women, poor women, rich women, lesbians - all have different lived experiences, but you want to only exclude trans women. In the past there have been many attempts to exclude women who are different - lesbians and black women among others - and now its the turn of trans women. Of course only a minority of women want to do that and don;t have any kind of clear or coherent reason for doing so. And neither do you.



As a cis-manarchist I don't really have a dog in this fight. However two things strike me. One is that all the groups you listed do organise autonomously, would you really object to a black or Asian women's caucus or a lesbian only gathering? If not then what's the problem with cis women organising in an exclusive way?

Secondly the feedback I've had from some women on this issue is concern and anger that this debate is now the main focus of feminism. To them it feels like a handful of people who are socialised with male privilege , assuming that theirs should automatically be the loudest voices in the feminist cause.


----------



## mojo pixy (Sep 16, 2017)

DP, sorry


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So where do your experiences and those of weepiper fit in this debate about transgender? I don't know, because I suspect that you may be talking about a different thing. On a different thread recently, scifisam made a very good point about a young boy who liked wearing skirts and was turning up at school in them. She pointed out correctly that he's not necessarily transgender, and we shouldn't be labelling him as such. It does seem that we still very much live in a society where children are not allowed to subvert gender norms without a whole heap of attention being piled onto them and assumptions being made about them.


If that is the thread I think it is - about the attack and media storm by the christian couple - I know Mermaids UK are dealing with this - supporting the school and the parents. They don;t heap any assumptions on a child. In this case the child wished to change their pronouns and name and is identifying as a girl - according to Mermaids and the couple stated this too in one of their appearances. However - nothing is done against the child's wishes. They just let the child be who they cay they are - girl or boy and at some point they may change their minds in which case that will be fine too. This is considered part of best practice for trans kids. Mermaids UK are very open about what it is they do so it should be no secret. No kid gets forced into being trans if best practice is followed but they do get to explore themselves when they want to so I don;t undertsand why there's a clash between those who want to abolish gender stereotypes and those who want trans kids to be supported like this. Seems to be a win-win situation.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 16, 2017)

trashpony said:


> I'll wait for your evidence of violence TERFs then. I'm in no hurry





> *Sandy Stone, victim of attempted murder by TERF group:*
> 
> Sandy Stone recounts the time when Olivia Records (a lesbian separatist, radical feminist women’s music collective) came under attack for being trans inclusive:  “We were getting hate mail about me.… The death threats were directed at me, but there were violent consequences proposed for the Collective if they didn’t get rid of me.”
> 
> ...




More examples of where this all began here.

I don't condone some of the language used by trans-activists but this stuff didn't come of out of thin air.  There has been an organised and sometimes violent movement against trans rights by those known as terfs since the 1970s.


----------



## mojo pixy (Sep 16, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Well, all I know is that when I was a teenager I was also dysphoric. So much so I went to a doctor. He told me (quite rightly) to fuck off and "stop thinking about it". I was mad at him FOR YEARS. I never felt comfortable in my skin (and to some extent I still don't) and thought I was wrong.  It was before the days "gender identity" rhetoric was a thing. I didn't "feel like a woman" precisely because I thought feeling like a woman was the stereotypes I was being forced into.



Ditto here, except swap _woman_ for _man_. I too was told by a doctor not to be so self-absorbed and silly, but that led me to be more angry with myself than with the doctor (who was a doctor therefore right, or something). I still feel I should have been born a girl, I felt it when I was little and that's never changed. But over the decades I've lived I've just kind of come to terms with the body I have. Actually I haven't, really, I still don't like it but I'm even less comfortable with the prospect of transitioning, so I stay as I am and deal with how wrong that usually feels by writing, by altering my brain chemistry, and by throwing myself into work. The work I do means I can mostly behave in the more 'feminine' ways I'm more comfortable with (assuming that kind of touchy-feely compassion is 'feminine' which it may not be)



FabricLiveBaby! said:


> And yet I've been called a TERF before for having a materialist marxist philosophical standpoint.  Funny that.  It's almost like it's a thought terminating cliché. A bit like "SJW".



Or MRA, for that matter.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> Both videos clearly show the 'attack' you're talking about began after the woman in question tried to grab the TERF's camera.
> 
> The second video shows that that also came seconds after a crowd of the kids mobbed her for getting too close


it began after she tried to get footage of trans activists in order to dox them. The trans activists were defending themselves from being doxxed and filmed against their will. And the person who first tried to take the camera (read as weapon) was assigned female at birth, but the TERF statement says "men".

So you're as full of shit as the rest of them.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> it began after she tried to get footage of trans activists in order to dox them. The trans activists were defending themselves from being doxxed and filmed against their will. And the person who first tried to take the camera (read as weapon) was assigned female at birth, but the TERF statement says "men".



So the tweet about 'fucking up some terfs' should be read how?


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> Ditto here, except swap _woman_ for _man_. I too was told by a doctor not to be so self-absorbed and silly, but that led me to be more angry with myself than with the doctor (who was a doctor therefore right). I still feel I should have been born a girl, I felt it when I was little and that's never changed. But over the decades I've lived I've just kind of come to terms with the body I have. Actually I haven't, really, I still don't like it but I'm even less comfortable with the prospect of transitioning, so I stay as I am and deal with how wrong that usually feels by writing and taking drugs, and by throwing myself into work. The work I do means I can mostly behave in the more 'feminine' ways I'm more comfortable with (assuming that kind of touchy-feely compassion is 'feminine' which it may not be, gods what a mess)



Probably very similar to how i felt up until a decade or so ago but it became more difficult to keep ignoring the obvious way my life was crashing down around me and the hate i felt for myself on a daily basis.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> So the tweet about 'fucking up some terfs' should be read how?


Did some TERFs get fucked up then? I must have missed that.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> Did some TERFs get fucked up then? I must have missed that.



Yes. 

Telling that you want to ignore my question. 

Flick went to the event with a violent agenda. Yes? And was violent. Yes?


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

Red Sky said:


> As a cis-manarchist I don't really have a dog in this fight. However two things strike me. One is that all the groups you listed do organise autonomously, would you really object to a black or Asian women's caucus or a lesbian only gathering? If not then what's the problem with cis women organising in an exclusive way?


You just keep evading the point. Ah well. I tried.



> Secondly the feedback I've had from some women on this issue is concern and anger that this debate is now the main focus of feminism. To them it feels like a handful of people who are socialised with male privilege , assuming that theirs should automatically be the loudest voices in the feminist cause.


I've only heard support from cis feminists that I know. And the view that all women need to be included, and that feminism that doesn't include all women is not any kind of feminism.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 16, 2017)

smokedout said:


> More examples of where this all began here.
> 
> I don't condone some of the language used by trans-activists but this stuff didn't come of out of thin air.  There has been an organised and sometimes violent movement against trans rights by those known as terfs since the 1970s.


Thank you


----------



## Red Sky (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> I've only heard support from cis feminists that I know.



Hardly a surprise. 

The question is though , do you support the right of cis women to organise autonomously if they so wish?


----------



## Jonti (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> If that is the thread I think it is - about the attack and media storm by the christian couple - I know Mermaids UK are dealing with this - supporting the school and the parents. They don;t heap any assumptions on a child. In this case the child wished to change their pronouns and name and is identifying as a girl - according to Mermaids and the couple stated this too in one of their appearances. However - nothing is done against the child's wishes. They just let the child be who they cay they are - girl or boy and at some point they may change their minds in which case that will be fine too. This is considered part of best practice for trans kids. Mermaids UK are very open about what it is they do so it should be no secret. No kid gets forced into being trans if best practice is followed but they do get to explore themselves when they want to so I don;t undertsand why there's a clash between those who want to abolish gender stereotypes and those who want trans kids to be supported like this. Seems to be a win-win situation.


Ah yes, Mermaids UK. Lovely name.

Here's a link to a recently reported case of a 7-year-old child in the UK who was removed from the custody of his mother. The court found that the child had been essentially groomed into a transgender identity by his mother. UK charity Mermaids was banned from contact with the mother and child.

You say "They just let the child be who they cay they are" but the Family Court found different.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> it began after she tried to get footage of trans activists in order to dox them. The trans activists were defending themselves from being doxxed and filmed against their will. And the person who first tried to take the camera (read as weapon) was assigned female at birth, but the TERF statement says "men".
> 
> So you're as full of shit as the rest of them.



No, you're full of shit. Take some deep breaths, a few steps back from the conversation, and just think about what you are defending. The violent assault of a 60 year old woman by someone with the physical strength of a man. The use of 'no-platforming' tactics against non-fascists.

Stop accusing everyone of not answering your points - stop taking it personally - stop obsessing about the unfairness of the lot of the trans community as though it's the only thing in the world that is important and justifies any kind of anti-social activity imaginable. It doesn't.

This event has been the single biggest propaganda coup for the TERFs in the entire context of this 'war'. Even on a self-interested level, if the trans-movement doesn't own this as their mistake then they will do themselves untold damage.


----------



## Red Sky (Sep 16, 2017)

It just seems to me that this debate has wreaked absolute havoc on any struggle for women's rights. 
Where has the feminist response to the grooming scandals been, for example? That surely is crying out for a woman centred response, instead of which the field has been left open for the far right.
In the 70s during Peter Sutcliffes attacks, there was a full blown  "Reclaim the Night" response led by second wave feminists.  Where has that energy gone?


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

Red Sky said:


> It just seems to me that this debate has wreaked absolute havoc on any struggle for women's rights.


How? How can a small group of women struggling for acceptance as women by the state - and gradually reducing the amount of violence and discrimination we face - and gaining a voice - how is that bad for women's rights? Please explain. 

Surely any damage that is being done to feminism is coming from the TERF contingent? 



> Where has the feminist response to the grooming scandals been, for example? That surely is crying out for a woman centred response, instead of which the field has been left open for the far right.
> In the 70s during Peter Sutcliffes attacks, there was a full blown  "Reclaim the Night" response led by second wave feminists.  Where has that energy gone?



And that's trans womens fault is it?


----------



## Red Sky (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> How? How can a small group of women struggling for acceptance as women by the state - and gradually reducing the amount of violence and discrimination we face - and gaining a voice - how is that bad for women's rights? Please explain.
> 
> Surely any damage that is being done to feminism is coming from the TERF contingent?
> 
> ...



It looks to me as if it's the fault of this debate.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> No, you're full of shit. Take some deep breaths, a few steps back from the conversation, and just think about what you are defending. The violent assault of a 60 year old woman by someone with the physical strength of a man. The use of 'no-platforming' tactics against non-fascists.


I did say i wasn't defending the punch. I also haven't defended no platforming anywhere, a tactic TERFs frequently use against trans people. And as for "physical strength of a man" what utter, utter bullshit. You have no evidence of that. I don;t have the physical strength of a man. I also don't even have the physical strength of many cis women after 3.5 years of HRT.

Aren't you defending doxing and incitement to attack trans people for protesting legitimately? Yes, I think you are.



> Stop accusing everyone of not answering your points - stop taking it personally - stop obsessing about the unfairness of the lot of the trans community as though it's the only thing in the world that is important and justifies any kind of anti-social activity imaginable. It doesn't.


Wasn't doing any of this. But evidence, if evidence was required, of how you can't stick to the point.



> This event has been the single biggest propaganda coup for the TERFs in the entire context of this 'war'. Even on a self-interested level, if the trans-movement doesn't own this as their mistake then they will do themselves untold damage.


thanks for your opinion.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

Red Sky said:


> It looks to me as if it's the fault of this debate.


So you're blaming us for wanting to have a voice and gain rights and not the people that want to marginalise us? 

Wow!!


----------



## belboid (Sep 16, 2017)

Jonti said:


> I don't recall that. Would you be so kind as to quote me, please?



It's a bit incoherent, but



Jonti said:


> Every cell of their body is has XY chromosomes


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 16, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> No, you're full of shit. Take some deep breaths, a few steps back from the conversation, and just think about what you are defending. The violent assault of a 60 year old woman by someone with the physical strength of a man. The use of 'no-platforming' tactics against non-fascists..


You seem to be deliberately trying to deny nuance here. Lots of people, including Stella, have repeatedly said that they do not defend the punching. And you also appear to be disregarding the agenda of the person assaulted, and how it all started - someone trying to get her camera off her suspecting, or just plain knowing, that the photos taken of them right in their faces were going to be used for malicious purposes. I have a lot of sympathy with the person who grabbed the camera. Having sympathy for that action does not mean you defend everything else that happened, and you're being disingenuous here in pretending that this is what other people are saying. They're explicit about not saying that.


----------



## belboid (Sep 16, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> One want to keep protections based on sex (material philosophy)  and the other want to effectively do away with sex based protections in favour of "gender identity" (idealist philosophy) .
> 
> The talk was called "what is gender". Which apparently poses a problem to idealist who cant/won't answer that question.


This isn't materialism, though.  Or at least, not in the Marxist sense. It is simply biological determinism. Marxist materialism is about the material reality of daily life (German Ideology, chapter 2, iirr)


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

Jonti said:


> Ah yes, Mermaids UK. Lovely name.
> 
> Here's a link to a recently reported case of a 7-year-old child in the UK who was removed from the custody of his mother. The court found that the child had been essentially groomed into a transgender identity by his mother. UK charity Mermaids was banned from contact with the mother and child.
> 
> You say "They just let the child be who they cay they are" but the Family Court found different.


i just love it when "feminists" defend abusive fathers, gas-light mothers and support decisions made by reactionary state apparatus at the detriment of decisions made by families.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2017)

Red Sky said:


> As a cis-manarchist I don't really have a dog in this fight. However two things strike me. One is that all the groups you listed do organise autonomously, would you really object to a black or Asian women's caucus or a lesbian only gathering? If not then what's the problem with cis women organising in an exclusive way?



At the risk of invoking the dreaded P-word, it's a question of wether you're excluding people with more or less privilege than yourself.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> And as for "physical strength of a man" what utter, utter bullshit.
> .



But earlier you yourself noted that impact of testosterone on strength.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

Red Sky said:


> Hardly a surprise.
> 
> The question is though , do you support the right of cis women to organise autonomously if they so wish?


give me a reason why cis women would want to organise without trans women other than bigotry. If there was a reason....?


----------



## belboid (Sep 16, 2017)

Jonti said:


> Ah yes, Mermaids UK. Lovely name.
> 
> Here's a link to a recently reported case of a 7-year-old child in the UK who was removed from the custody of his mother. The court found that the child had been essentially groomed into a transgender identity by his mother. UK charity Mermaids was banned from contact with the mother and child.
> 
> You say "They just let the child be who they cay they are" but the Family Court found different.


'Mother Must Never Be Upset.' - do you really want to promote an article that uses such a phrase repeatedly?


----------



## Red Sky (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> give me a reason why cis women would want to organise without trans women other than bigotry. If there was a reason....?



Because they have a  different lived experience?


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 16, 2017)

belboid said:


> 'Mother Must Never Be Upset.' - do you really want to promote an article that uses such a phrase repeatedly?



Which article regarding that case would be acceptable to you? There's been a few


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You seem to be deliberately trying to deny nuance here. Lots of people, including Stella, have repeatedly said that they do not defend the punching. And you also appear to be disregarding the agenda of the person assaulted, and how it all started - someone trying to get her camera off her suspecting, or just plain knowing, that the photos taken of them right in their faces were going to be used for malicious purposes. I have a lot of sympathy with the person who grabbed the camera. Having sympathy for that action does not mean you defend everything else that happened, and you're being disingenuous here in pretending that this is what other people are saying. They're explicit about not saying that.



people say they don't defend the punching, or don't condone the violence, yet the entire discussion is couched in demonising the TERFs and providing justifications for these wild, out of control brats.

seriously, it's actually mad that there are lefties out there whose response to this _still_ hasn't got to 'maybe this is getting a little out of hand'.

the links belboid wasn't able to understand earlier in the thread gave a snapshot of the different bits of madness being perpetrated in the name of varied branches of the Identity politics movement - all united by this weird justification of antifa-style agression against political competition on the left.

bizarre, mad and frankly disgraceful.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> But earlier you yourself noted that impact of testosterone on strength.


i haven't had any T in me in 3.5 years. Of course, you have no idea what my T levels were before i transitioned. Many trans women naturally have T levels in what is considered to be the normal female range - and that can go the other way too.

Muscles aren't like bones. They disappear quickly if not used or if T is removed.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> people say they don't defend the punching, or don't condone the violence, yet the entire discussion is couched in demonising the TERFs and providing justifications for these wild, out of control brats.



Your whole aim here is to take the punch out of context and then point at it and shout "male violence" but it's just not washing I'm afraid. Hardly anyone is falling for it.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2017)

Jonti said:


> Ah yes, Mermaids UK. Lovely name.
> 
> Here's a link to a recently reported case of a 7-year-old child in the UK who was removed from the custody of his mother. The court found that the child had been essentially groomed into a transgender identity by his mother. UK charity Mermaids was banned from contact with the mother and child.
> 
> You say "They just let the child be who they cay they are" but the Family Court found different.



Meanwhile indoctrination of children into a particular religious identity is so common that the idea of writing a story about one case of it would be absurd. If this case is what you say it is then it's fairly obviously child abuse, which in its many other forms is also far too common to be considered news.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> give me a reason why cis women would want to organise without trans women other than bigotry. If there was a reason....?


Because we want to organise around or discuss the ways in which women are oppressed or discriminated against specifically due to our female biology? Childbirth, childcare, breastfeeding, endometriosis, vaginal mesh transplants, PCOS and how those things can be a barrier to us fully participating in society? Why should we not be able to discuss those things just amongst others who have experienced them or are likely to experience them?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> people say they don't defend the punching, or don't condone the violence, yet the entire discussion is couched in demonising the TERFs and providing justifications for these wild, out of control brats.
> 
> seriously, it's actually mad that there are lefties out there whose response to this _still_ hasn't got to 'maybe this is getting a little out of hand'.
> 
> ...



Part of my reaction stems from the fact that, as violence goes, this was all pretty fucking tame. It doesn't seem like anyone involved could possibly have suffered to the same extent as, picking an example at random, a young trans person might suffer from being continually exposed to a bunch of hateful bullshit about her identity being simultaneosuly a mental illness, a complete fiction and an act of violence.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> i haven't had any T in me in 3.5 years. Of course, you have no idea what my T levels were before i transitioned. Many trans women naturally have T levels in what is considered to be the normal female range - and that can go the other way too.
> 
> Muscles aren't like bones. They disappear quickly if not used or if T is removed.



And you've noted that your hormone treatment has had a marked effect on your physical strength. Which it would. 

And this is one of the reasons for posters referring the attacker as man, and having 'the strength of a man'.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

weepiper said:


> Because we want to organise around or discuss the ways in which women are oppressed or discriminated against specifically due to our female biology? Childbirth, childcare, breastfeeding, endometriosis, vaginal mesh transplants, PCOS and how those things can be a barrier to us fully participating in society? Why should we not be able to discuss those things just amongst others who have experienced them or are likely to experience them?


because if you did you would also have to exclude some cis women and is that really what you want? 

It's unlikely any discussion billed as being about "breastfeeding, endometriosis, vaginal mesh transplants, PCOs" etc. would attract many trans women - but to specifically exclude them and not cis women who haven't experienced any of these issues is just bizarre. 

As for "childcare" being something that only cis women might need to discuss though - very odd. Don't trans people have children? 

This debate right now is getting off scot free with respect to AFAB trans people, which i know a lot of TERFs are in denial about. But if you exclude trans people from all the above you will be excluding trans men too.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> Your whole aim here is to take the punch out of context and then point at it and shout "male violence" but it's just not washing I'm afraid. Hardly anyone is falling for it.



your assumption is that everyone who disagrees with you is simply trying to discredit the concept of trans.

actually they're apalled by the behaviour of trans activists.

that you can't understand why that might be is actually quite shocking.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2017)

weepiper said:


> Because we want to organise around or discuss the ways in which women are oppressed or discriminated against specifically due to our female biology? Childbirth, childcare, breastfeeding, endometriosis, vaginal mesh transplants, PCOS and how those things can be a barrier to us fully participating in society? Why should we not be able to discuss those things just amongst others who have experienced them or are likely to experience them?



Does this ever happen though? Are there actually transwomen gatecrashing endometriosis support groups or is this just a straw man?


----------



## LDC (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> give me a reason why cis women would want to organise without trans women other than bigotry. If there was a reason....?



Rape/sexual assault survivor groups, where the presence of men and people that might look like men (sorry if that's a clumsy way of phrasing it) is traumatizing and/or limits the ability to access help for some.


----------



## belboid (Sep 16, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> people say they don't defend the punching, or don't condone the violence, yet the entire discussion is couched in demonising the TERFs and providing justifications for these wild, out of control brats.
> 
> seriously, it's actually mad that there are lefties out there whose response to this _still_ hasn't got to 'maybe this is getting a little out of hand'.
> 
> ...


Even if your links (and I wasn't the only one to say they were incoherent) are entirely accurate, it is just a couple of examples of people being OTT. which happens in every single sphere of political activity. You are using them, and this case, to say issues around oppression should be ignored, and those people who organise on a basis of oppression should just be fucked off. 

No.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> your assumption is that everyone who disagrees with you is simply trying to discredit the concept of trans.
> 
> actually they're apalled by the behaviour of trans activists.



All trans activists? Or the handful of people involved in this one situation? Because conflating the two kinda gives the impression you have some beef with trans folk in general.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Part of my reaction stems from the fact that, as violence goes, this was all pretty fucking tame. It doesn't seem like anyone involved could possibly have suffered to the same extent as, picking an example at random, a young trans person might suffer from being continually exposed to a bunch of hateful bullshit about her identity being simultaneosuly a mental illness, a complete fiction and an act of violence.


to me it doesn't compare to the near nervous breakdown i suffered when people started tweeting at me being a child rapist and i was named as a trans male misogynist in the New Statesman - all for insisting on calling myself a woman and daring to be public about it - daring to depart from the acceptable 'man who likes wearing dresses has a sex change' narrative.


----------



## Sirena (Sep 16, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> And you've noted that your hormone treatment has had a marked effect on your physical strength. Which it would.
> 
> And this is one of the reasons for posters referring the attacker as man, and having 'the strength of a man'.



Which may be incorrect because, having been refused (I wonder why?) National Health treatment, she says she has been self-medicating.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 16, 2017)

Sirena said:


> Which may be incorrect because, having been refused (I wonder why?) National Health treatment, she says she has been self-medicating.



There is a really nasty undertone to this post. Whatever your beef with stella in terms of her position in this discussion  please don't continue with this implied, nudge,nudge, wink, wink personal crap...it's really nasty.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Does this ever happen though? Are there actually transwomen gatecrashing endometriosis support groups or is this just a straw man?


straw man


----------



## Sirena (Sep 16, 2017)

Which may be incorrect because, having been refused (I wonder why?) National Health treatment, she says she has been self-medicating.


Rutita1 said:


> There is a really nasty undertone to this post. Whatever your beef with stella in terms of her position in this discussion  please don't continue with this implied, nudge,nudge, wink, wink personal crap...it's really nasty.



I have no beef with Stella.  I was referring to Tara Flik Wood.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)

belboid said:


> Even if your links (and I wasn't the only one to say they were incoherent) it is just a couple of examples of people being OTT. which happens in every single sphere of political activity. You are using them, and this case, to say issues around oppression should be ignored, and those people who organise on a basis of oppression should just be fucked off.
> 
> No.



yep, one other person who had a dog in the race also said the links were shit. i still think they're fairly clear.

and yes they are jut a couple of examples - but I have many more. from spreading false accusations of sexual assault against activists, threats of physical violence (which i've receieved personally on numerous occasions - once for questioning the wording of a headline about transgender law change in Sweden entitled '21st Century Eugenics in Sweden') to regular abuse on grounds of racism, transphobia, sexism, bigotry, etc for the most trivial of disagreements...

i'd have thought you'd have learnt a few more things about the godawful nature of this movement after your time in the ISN, and going through The Kinky Split.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 16, 2017)

Sirena said:


> Which may be incorrect because, having been refused (I wonder why?) National Health treatment, she says she has been self-medicating.



Has Tara said this?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> All trans activists? Or the handful of people involved in this one situation? Because conflating the two kinda gives the impression you have some beef with trans folk in general.



the overwhelmingly predominant culture of the trans-activist movement, and the modern identity politics movement


----------



## Sirena (Sep 16, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> It's tedious for Stella to make this discussion all about her.
> 
> And pretty low for you to do so.


Read my previous post.  Perhaps I should have deleted the first line of the quote to make it clear I was referring to Tara.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2017)

Sirena said:


> Which may be incorrect because, having been refused (I wonder why?) National Health treatment, she says she has been self-medicating.



Just to clarify, you're using another poster's personal medical information to try and win an argument on a public forum?

And you're happy that this is an acceptable way to behave?


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

Sirena said:


> Which may be incorrect because, having been refused (I wonder why?) National Health treatment, she says she has been self-medicating.


lot's of reasons why people are refused treatment by the NHS. Mental health issues might be one - even depression, I know an autistic trans man who was initially refused treatment until he got support to challenge the decision, high blood pressure or issues around liver/kidney health, or it could be something like financial insolvency or unstable home life - or just not fitting whatever cissexist agenda that particular doctor has which could be not appearing to be feminine enough. What reasons did you think?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 16, 2017)

Sirena said:


> .
> 
> 
> I have no beef with Stella.  I was referring to Tara Flik Wood.



Okay. Thanks for clarifying. I do wonder why you would imagine TFW as lying though? Also being refused treatment may be because of what's available, other health issues and/or have a financial implication in terms of the NHS as well wouldn't it?


----------



## Sirena (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> lot's of reasons why people are refused treatment by the NHS. Mental health issues might be one - even depression, I know an autistic trans man who was initially refused treatment until he got support to challenge the decision, high blood pressure or issues around liver/kidney health, or it could be something like financial insolvency or unstable home life - or just not fitting whatever cissexist agenda that particular doctor has which could be not appearing to be feminine enough. What reasons did you think?


Probably that she was considered unsuitable.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

Where have I made this all about me? Where?


----------



## belboid (Sep 16, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> yep, one other person who had a dog in the race also said the links were shit. i still think they're fairly clear.
> 
> and yes they are jut a couple of examples - but I have many more. from spreading false accusations of sexual assault against activists, threats of physical violence (which i've receieved personally on numerous occasions - once for questioning the wording of a headline about transgender law change in Sweden entitled '21st Century Eugenics in Sweden') to regular abuse on grounds of racism, transphobia, sexism, bigotry, etc for the most trivial of disagreements...
> 
> i'd have thought you'd have learnt a few more things about the godawful nature of this movement after your time in the ISN, and going through The Kinky Split.


It would seem like you dont really care about this, and just want to reheat some years old argument. Yawn.  The other person 'with a dog in the race' was actual on your side, btw.  And as for people who vilely slandering others, did you read AuntiStella's first post in this thread? About one of the organisers of this meeting doing exactly that to her? 

All you have done is reveal the astounding fact that some people can be arseholes. Especially on twitter. But you are using that as a way to ignore the actual oppressions people face. _That _is shameful.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

Sirena said:


> Probably that she was considered unsuitable.


but you have no idea why - so it's not a relevant part of this discussion


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 16, 2017)

Sirena said:


> Probably that she was considered unsuitable.


You don't know why, so perhaps you should stop with this fact-free speculation.


----------



## LDC (Sep 16, 2017)

Fucking hell this thread is getting horrible. 

Whatever you all think and say, I'd just like to say you're all my comrades.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> the overwhelmingly predominant culture of the trans-activist movement, and the modern identity politics movement



I'm afraid I'm going to need to see your working out there mate. Some evidence for an overwhelmingly predominant culture of violence within trans activism. 

Because historically when groups of marginalised people are dismissed as violent or fanatical, it's been used as a pretext for those who are fanatically and violently opposed to those marginalised people making their voices heard.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> because if you did you would also have to exclude some cis women and is that really what you want?
> 
> It's unlikely any discussion billed as being about "breastfeeding, endometriosis, vaginal mesh transplants, PCOs" etc. would attract many trans women - but to specifically exclude them and not cis women who haven't experienced any of these issues is just bizarre.
> 
> ...


I don't know what AFAB stands for?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)

belboid said:


> It would seem like you dont really care about this, and just want to reheat some years old argument. Yawn.  The other person 'with a dog in the race' was actual on your side, btw.  And as for people who vilely slandering others, did you read AuntiStella's first post in this thread? About one of the organisers of this meeting doing exactly that to her?
> 
> All you have done is reveal the astounding fact that some people can be arseholes. Especially on twitter. But you are using that as a way to ignore the actual oppressions people face. _That _is shameful.



i can only assume from the fact that you continually refuse to see what is happening in front of your face, in terms of the huge and increasing numbers of people engaging collectively in anti-social behaviour and calling it 'liberation politics', is that you're a charlatan and you don't really give a shit about any of it.

and now you're defending the use of antifa-style aggression against a bunch of radfems.

utterly disgraceful


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

Sirena said:


> Read my previous post.  Perhaps I should have deleted the first line of the quote to make it clear I was referring to Tara.


i read your post as this anyway - never saw it as being about me. I guess because i was never refused treatment but i did self medicate for a while.


----------



## belboid (Sep 16, 2017)

weepiper said:


> I don't know what AFAB stands for?


assigned female at birth


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> i can only assume from the fact that you continually refuse to see what is happening in front of your face, in terms of the huge and increasing numbers of people engaging collectively in anti-social behaviour and calling it 'liberation politics', is that you're a charlatan and you don't really give a shit about any of it.
> 
> and now you're defending the use of antifa-style aggression against a bunch of radfems.
> 
> utterly disgraceful


the arguments have run out now. Posturing begins.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

belboid said:


> assigned female at birth


i have used it in full a few times - so was hoping that as those supporting the TERF position have been so avidly reading my posts, as I have theirs, they'd have noticed.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> I'm afraid I'm going to need to see your working out there mate. Some evidence for an overwhelmingly predominant culture of violence within trans activism.
> 
> Because historically when groups of marginalised people are dismissed as violent or fanatical, it's been used as a pretext for those who are fanatically and violently opposed to those marginalised people making their voices heard.



I posted the evidence earlier - but here's one about Identity politics in general... the protests on Evergreen campus.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 16, 2017)

Belboid, I'm sorry I laughed at you for not understanding that DNA is unaffected by treatments for gender dysphoria. I  read incessantly, and have a great interest in science.  I can assume things are generally known, when this is not in fact the case. I recognise your interest is in politics.

Your DNA determines your biological sex: the kind of skeleton you have, the type of germ cells you produce, and of course your genitals and secondary sexual characteristics.  That's the material basis of biological sexual identity (not that the developmental process always proceeds as it should ~ developmental mishaps can occur and people with misformed or even dual sets of genitals are sometimes born).

Gender identity on the other hand is socially constructed. It's about what sort of personality is acceptable in a man, or in a woman; what varieties of gender expression are permissible in the culture, indeed what range of gender identities is recognised.

In my view, our culture has rigid sex roles that people are fitted into willy-nilly, and this pressure can cause very real distress and lead people to seek medical assistance.  Where they feel their body is wrong for them, they are said to have gender dysphoria (a neutral medical term).

All that can be offered is to medically alter the individual patient to fit better into one of the rigid sex-roles on offer. Preferable, might be a social response which allows people to be who they are in the body they were born with.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)

or the mass victimization of Justine Sacco


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> and now you're defending the use of antifa-style aggression against a bunch of radfems.



Antifa-style aggression? What does antifa have to do with it? 

I think I preferred it when the average liberal hypocrite hadn't heard of antifa tbh.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Rape/sexual assault survivor groups, where the presence of men and people that might look like men (sorry if that's a clumsy way of phrasing it) is traumatizing and/or limits the ability to access help for some.


i don't look like a man. I also happen to be a rape survivor. So? Where does that leave me?

eta - to make it not about me - where does that leave any trans woman who does not "look like a man" whatever that is - does that also exclude butch looking women? Is gender non-conformancy now a reason for people being triggered in safe places? 

Given that trans women - statistically - are more likely to be raped and be subjected to sexual abuse than cis women it does seem a tad discriminatory.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 16, 2017)

Jonti said:


> All that can be offered is to medically alter the individual patient to fit better into one of the rigid sex-roles on offer. Preferable, might be a social response which allows people to be who they are in the body they were born with.



This is all rather high-handed. Have you asked any transgender people what they think?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Antifa-style aggression? What does antifa have to do with it?
> 
> I think I preferred it when the average liberal hypocrite hadn't heard of antifa tbh.



read the tweets from the activists before they showed up. you don't see some transference from the antifa language regarding neo-nazis in the US?

if you don't, you're blind


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 16, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Antifa-style aggression? What does antifa have to do with it?
> 
> I think I preferred it when the average liberal hypocrite hadn't heard of antifa tbh.


tbf there is language calling terfs fascists.


----------



## belboid (Sep 16, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> i can only assume from the fact that you continually refuse to see what is happening in front of your face, in terms of the huge and increasing numbers of people engaging collectively in anti-social behaviour and calling it 'liberation politics', is that you're a charlatan and you don't really give a shit about any of it.
> 
> and now you're defending the use of antifa-style aggression against a bunch of radfems.
> 
> utterly disgraceful


oh fuck off and stop bullshitting. I have not defended the assault, I have said repeatedly it was _unsurprising_. I've told people with much better politics than this radfem you are defending to stop being pillocks and not to provoke a reaction. When they've been hit, I wasn't particularly enthusiastic about defending them either.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> the arguments have run out now. Posturing begins.



says one whose only argument so far has been to talk about how no-one is responding to her points whilst failing to address anyone elses, or understand even why the events which began the thread might even distress people


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)

belboid said:


> oh fuck off and stop bullshitting. I have not defended the assault, I have said repeatedly it was _unsurprising_. I've told people with much better politics than this radfem you are defending to stop being pillocks and not to provoke a reaction. When they've been hit, I wasn't particularly enthusiastic about defending them either.



you said they were asking for it. and you'd have to point me to the first post where you said the violence wasn't acceptable because the first time i remember reading it was you claiming that you'd said it previously


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)

10+ of your posts in this thread were to question whether the assault happened, say she deserved it and dismiss its significance


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)

that is your knee-jerk response to the situation - you don't see why people might find this incident shocking. that in itself is fucking appalling.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 16, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is all rather high-handed. Have you asked any transgender people what they think?


I think that was uncalled for.  

I do think it would be better if we had a culture that accepted human diversity, instead of medically altering people to fit in.  I don't need to run that opinion past anyone for political approval.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

Jonti said:


> Belboid, I'm sorry I laughed at you for not understanding that DNA is unaffected by treatments for gender dysphoria. I  read incessantly, and have a great interest in science.  I can assume things are generally known, when this is not in fact the case. I recognise your interest is in politics.
> 
> Your DNA determines your biological sex: the kind of skeleton you have, the type of germ cells you produce, and of course your genitals and secondary sexual characteristics.  That's the material basis of biological sexual identity (not that the developmental process always proceeds as it should ~ developmental mishaps can occur and people with misformed or even dual sets of genitals are sometimes born).
> 
> ...


haven't we already dealt with all this bullshit? I'm not dealing with it again.


----------



## belboid (Sep 16, 2017)

Jonti said:


> Belboid, I'm sorry I laughed at you for not understanding that DNA is unaffected by treatments for gender dysphoria. I  read incessantly, and have a great interest in science.  I can assume things are generally known, when this is not in fact the case. I recognise your interest is in politics.
> 
> Your DNA determines your biological sex: the kind of skeleton you have, the type of germ cells you produce, and of course your genitals and secondary sexual characteristics.  That's the material basis of biological sexual identity (not that the developmental process always proceeds as it should ~ developmental mishaps can occur and people with misformed or even dual sets of genitals are sometimes born).
> 
> ...


Thank you for being patronising and the Biology 101. It doesn't alter the fact that you were wrong to say 'Every cell of their body is has XY chromosomes'


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

Jonti said:


> I think that was uncalled for.
> 
> I do think it would be better if we had a culture that accepted human diversity, instead of medically altering people to fit in.  I don't need to run that opinion past anyone for political approval.



Oh, i do think trans people have a say on this. Our bodies. Our experiences. How can you presume to think you have any idea?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)

belboid said:


> It would seem like you dont really care about this, and just want to reheat some years old argument. Yawn.  The other person 'with a dog in the race' was actual on your side, btw.  And as for people who vilely slandering others, did you read AuntiStella's first post in this thread? About one of the organisers of this meeting doing exactly that to her?
> 
> All you have done is reveal the astounding fact that some people can be arseholes. Especially on twitter. But you are using that as a way to ignore the actual oppressions people face. _That _is shameful.



you say you want to see evidence then when it's provided -in terms of documenting a political event that you personally went through - you ignore it casually offhand.

dishonest debating tactics here, when the real issue is that you don't think it's significant that trans-activists have just physically assaulted some TERFs and seem to think it's totally justified


----------



## belboid (Sep 16, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> 10+ of your posts in this thread were to question whether the assault happened, say she deserved it and dismiss its significance


I have never questioned that the assault happened, nor said she deserved it. I do believe it is being ludicrously overblown to support a reactionary argument.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 16, 2017)

Jonti said:


> I think that was uncalled for.
> 
> I do think it would be better if we had a culture that accepted human diversity, instead of medically altering people to fit in.  I don't need to run that opinion past anyone for political approval.


You don't need to speak to the people directly affected to know what's best for them? 

As I said, high-handed. And pretty ignorant as an approach.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 16, 2017)

belboid said:


> Thank you for being patronising and the Biology 101. It doesn't alter the fact that you were wrong to say 'Every cell of their body is has XY chromosomes'


No you muppet. If you born a male you have XY chromosomes; and if female XX chromosomes. That's just the way things are.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> says one whose only argument so far has been to talk about how no-one is responding to her points whilst failing to address anyone elses, or understand even why the events which began the thread might even distress people


demonstrably false. I encourage anyone to go and read what i actually said.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)

right - the fact that they attacked the TERFs and that they're revelling in it, and think it's totally justified... that doesn't tell you anything worrying about the political culture of that group


----------



## belboid (Sep 16, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> you say you want to see evidence then when it's provided -in terms of documenting a political event that you personally went through - you ignore it casually offhand.
> 
> dishonest debating tactics here, when the real issue is that you don't think it's significant that trans-activists have just physically assaulted some TERFs and seem to think it's totally justified


So, your point is simply that shit gets overblown on the internet? Big news.


----------



## LDC (Sep 16, 2017)

dp error


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> demonstrably false. I encourage anyone to go and read what i actually said.


 as do I - please read AuntiStella's posts everyone


----------



## LDC (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> i don't look like a man. I also happen to be a rape survivor. So? Where does that leave me?
> 
> eta - to make it not about me - where does that leave any trans woman who does not "look like a man" whatever that is - does that also exclude butch looking women? Is gender non-cormancy now a reason for people being triggered in safe places?
> 
> Given that trans women - statistically - are more likely to be raped and be subjected to sexual abuse than cis women it does seem a tad discriminatory.



I don't know, and I accept it's a really difficult area that often throws up less than ideal solutions.

But I do think on occasion cis-women should be able to define and decide who is allowed entry into certain groups or spaces and that might exclude some/all transwomen sometimes. Especially when the position that's often pushed by some transactivists is that you should be considered and treated as a women _from the moment_ you say you identify as one.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 16, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You don't need to speak to the people directly affected to know what's best for them?
> 
> As I said, high-handed. And pretty ignorant as an approach.


Yes you've handed down your verdict. I can see that.

But the ignorance would seem to be on your side, unless you can take issue with what I actually wrote.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

Jonti said:


> No you muppet. If you born a male you have XY chromosomes; and if female XX chromosomes. That's just the way things are.


you'll be amazed by this then


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)

belboid said:


> So, your point is simply that shit gets overblown on the internet? Big news.



my point is that there is clearly a problem in the culture of present liberation politics organising and supposed 'lefties' like you go out of your way to paper over it and dismiss it


----------



## belboid (Sep 16, 2017)

Jonti said:


> No you muppet. If you born a male you have XY chromosomes; and if female XX chromosomes. That's just the way things are.


Aah, sorry, I thought you had recognised earlier that that was wrong. My apologies. You are wrong.  There are XX males and XY females.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> you'll be amazed by this then


No that's not amazing to me.  Your biological sex does not determine your social gender identity.


----------



## belboid (Sep 16, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> my point is that there is clearly a problem in the culture of present liberation politics organising and supposed 'lefties' like you go out of your way to paper over it and dismiss it


And eejits like you want to look the other way and pretend oppression isn't a thing any more.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

Jonti said:


> No that's not amazing to me.  Your biological sex does not determine your social gender identity.



But your chromosomes do. And your genitals too? That article flatly refutes some of the crap you were claiming.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 16, 2017)

belboid said:


> Aah, sorry, I thought you had recognised earlier that that was wrong. My apologies. You are wrong.  There are XX males and XY females.


I'd need a link to clarify what is meant here, please.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> tbf there is language calling terfs fascists.



There's language calling everyone a fascist somewhere on the internet.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I don't know, and I accept it's a really difficult area that often throws up less than ideal solutions.
> 
> But I do think on occasion cis-women should be able to define and decide who is allowed entry into certain groups or spaces and that might exclude some/all transwomen sometimes. Especially when the position that's often pushed by some transactivists is that you should be considered and treated as a women _from the moment_ you say you identify as one.


specifics please - not some vague wishy washy high handed view that trans women are second class women and could be excluded at a whim if enough people at the meeting decided they want to.


----------



## belboid (Sep 16, 2017)

Jonti said:


> I'd need a link to clarify what is meant here, please.


I'd have thought a scientist like you would know how to google


----------



## Jonti (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> But your chromosomes do. And your genitals too? That article flatly refutes some of the crap you were claiming.


I never said your chromosomes determine your social gender identity.  If they did, we wouldn't even be having this debate.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> There's language calling everyone a fascist somewhere on the internet.


i was called a fascist in the Green Party thread - i thought it was what we did on urban.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)

belboid said:


> And eejits like you want to look the other way and pretend oppression isn't a thing any more.



never been in the slightest bit true - i'm just not a fan of kow-towing to over-indulged middle-class teenagers with wildly unreasonable demands and an agenda to bully and victimize anyone who gets in their way...

whereas you can't tell the difference between doing whatever they say and being a socialist


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

Jonti said:


> I never said your chromosomes determine your social gender identity.  If they did, we wouldn't even be having this debate.


you need to make your position clearer then. It seems very confused.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> i'm just not a fan of kow-towing to over-indulged middle-class teenagers with wildly unreasonable demands and an agenda to bully and victimize anyone who gets in their way...



oh that's sooo me.    OK. So - what's your beef with the other 99% trans people?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 16, 2017)

Jonti said:


> Yes you've handed down your verdict. I can see that.
> 
> But the ignorance would seem to be on your side, unless you can take issue with what I actually wrote.


Come off it. If you want to address an issue that is faced by a bunch of people, your first port of call is to talk to the people involved, not to assume you know what their problem is and come up with a solution for them on that basis without even asking them. You're interested in science. Does that sound scientific to you? Does it sound like an approach that is likely to produce the correct answer?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> oh that's sooo me.


 once again 'pal', this isn't about you


----------



## Jonti (Sep 16, 2017)

Jonti said:
			
		

> I'd need a link to clarify what is meant here, please.





belboid said:


> I'd have thought a scientist like you would know how to google


I do. You too I imagine. Linky?


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

Jonti said:


> I never said your chromosomes determine your social gender identity.  If they did, we wouldn't even be having this debate.



What about the social gender identity of a butch dyke trans woman who dresses like a man?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> oh that's sooo me.    OK. So - what's your beef with the other 99% trans people?


 seriously mad levels of self-importance here.

and go on, seeing as i have not had a go at any trans people maybe you can tell me what my problem is? you're clearly _so wise_


----------



## weepiper (Sep 16, 2017)

This is all why women have generally stopped trying to discuss this stuff in public. It just descends into aggressive finger pointing. Or punching.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2017)

Jonti said:


> Your DNA determines your biological sex: the kind of skeleton you have, the type of germ cells you produce, and of course your genitals and secondary sexual characteristics.  That's the material basis of biological sexual identity (not that the developmental process always proceeds as it should ~ developmental mishaps can occur and people with misformed or even dual sets of genitals are sometimes born).



Even at the genetic level though, sex is still non-binary. There are four or five viable heterosomal karyotypes observed in humans, even discounting chimerism which may be more common in humans than previously thought.


----------



## belboid (Sep 16, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> never been in the slightest bit true - i'm just not a fan of kow-towing to over-indulged middle-class teenagers with wildly unreasonable demands and an agenda to bully and victimize anyone who gets in their way...
> 
> whereas you can't tell the difference between doing whatever they say and being a socialist


yeah cos all trans activists are middle-class teenagers. Off you fuck with your lazy stereotypes


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

weepiper said:


> This is all why women have generally stopped trying to discuss this stuff in public. It just descends into aggressive finger pointing. Or punching.



some women. 

It's also why trans people have stopped talking to TERFs. Yes, the aggressive finger pointing is tedious. But so is the doxxing and the campaigning to get our rights rolled back. So tedious.


----------



## belboid (Sep 16, 2017)

Jonti said:


> I do. You too I imagine. Linky?


I suspect we're about to enter circular argument time, but here you go XX male syndrome - Wikipedia


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)

belboid said:


> yeah cos all trans activists are middle-class teenagers. Off you fuck with your lazy stereotypes



the idiot children you allowed to direct your life in the ISN certainly were


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> seriously mad levels of self-importance here.
> 
> and go on, seeing as i have not had a go at any trans people maybe you can tell me what my problem is? you're clearly _so wise_


i am a trans woman. You implied all trans women were violent teenagers. I'm neither. Your point disproven. It was merely a matter of logic. Now explain what you really meant.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 16, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Come off it. If you want to address an issue that is faced by a bunch of people, your first port of call is to talk to the people involved, not to assume you know what their problem is and come up with a solution for them on that basis without even asking them. You're interested in science. Does that sound scientific to you? Does it sound like an approach that is likely to produce the correct answer?


This is straw man stuff. 

Are you really oblivious to the harm that rigid sex-roles cause?


----------



## belboid (Sep 16, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> the idiot children you allowed to direct your life in the ISN certainly were


direct my life?  You are fucking barking.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 16, 2017)

Jonti said:


> This is straw man stuff.
> 
> Are you really oblivious to the harm that rigid sex-roles cause?


No I'm not. I posted as much earlier. There is a huge leap from that to seeing the erosion of rigid sex roles as somehow a 'cure' for transgender people to such an extent that they will no longer desire surgery. And if you talked to some trans people occasionally, you might realise that.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2017)

weepiper said:


> This is all why women have generally stopped trying to discuss this stuff in public. It just descends into aggressive finger pointing. Or punching.



I know plenty of women, cis and trans, who are capable of having discussions about these things without anyone shouting or punching anyone else.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 16, 2017)

belboid said:


> I suspect we're about to enter circular argument time, but here you go XX male syndrome - Wikipedia


Thanks. It's a rare sex chromosomal disorder. It's existence does not alter the substantive picture.


----------



## belboid (Sep 16, 2017)

Jonti said:


> Thanks. It's a rare sex chromosomal disorder. It's existence does not alter the substantive picture.


aah, so now we're down from 'all' to 'substantive.'  They are different things you know. And when it comes to actual human beings, it becomes rather a lot of people.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> i am a trans woman. You implied all trans women were violent teenagers. I'm neither. Your point disproven. It was merely a matter of logic. Now explain what you really meant.


you're an idiot, i have never said nor implied that 'all trans' ANYONES are ANYTHING... other than trans.

you're pathetic


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

belboid said:


> I have never questioned that the assault happened, nor said she deserved it. I do believe it is being ludicrously overblown to support a reactionary argument.



No-one's arguing about the stupidity of the person that threw the punch but beyond that  I don't know what more can be hung on this one single event.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> But your chromosomes do. And your genitals too? That article flatly refutes some of the crap you were claiming.


No, them neither.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> No-one's arguing about the stupidity of the person that threw the punch but beyond that  I don't know what more can be hung on this one single event.



that's right... no significance to the build-up... no signficance to the profligation of violent anti-TERF discussion online and in trans-activist groups... no significance to the assault itself and no significance to the numbers of leftists determined to defend it...

nope, nothing to see here. nothing unusual in the slightest.

you're off your fucking rockers


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> you're an idiot, i have never said nor implied that 'all trans' ANYONES are ANYTHING... other than trans.
> 
> you're pathetic



You have talked about an 'overwhelming predominant culture' of something or other though. And you've declined to provide any evidence that such a culture exists. But no, you've clearly been careful to avoid making overt generalisations. Insinuations work just as well, and with less danger of being pulled up or asked to actually demonstrate a rational basis for what you're saying.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> you're an idiot, i have never said nor implied that 'all trans' ANYONES are ANYTHING... other than trans.
> 
> you're pathetic





> i'm just not a fan of kow-towing to over-indulged middle-class teenagers with wildly unreasonable demands and an agenda to bully and victimize anyone who gets in their way...


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> that's right... no significance to the build-up... no signficance to the profligation of violent anti-TERF discussion online and in trans-activist groups... no significance to the assault itself and no significance to the numbers of leftists determined to defend it...
> 
> nope, nothing to see here. nothing unusual in the slightest.
> 
> you're off your fucking rockers


no significance to your wild imagination and paranoia, no.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> You have talked about an 'overwhelming predominant culture' of something or other though. And you've declined to provide any evidence that such a culture exists. But no, you've clearly been careful to avoid making overt generalisations. Insinuations work just as well, and with less danger of being pulled up or asked to actually demonstrate a rational basis for what you're saying.



i've provided loads of information which you've ignored - it's not my job to spoonfeed you if you can't be bothered following the discussion


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)

nothing to do with all trans people is it you maniac


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

Jonti said:


> Thanks. It's a rare sex chromosomal disorder. It's existence does not alter the substantive picture.


gender dysphoria is rare too - what's your point?


----------



## Jonti (Sep 16, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Even at the genetic level though, sex is still non-binary. There are four or five viable heterosomal karyotypes observed in humans, even discounting chimerism which may be more common in humans than previously thought.


That article is well worth a read, thanks.  But I'm not sure of the relevance of Tiger beetles to the discussion


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> you maniac



You're on ignore


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> You're on ignore


Heaven forfend!! :'(


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)

seriously, who is this self-important crybaby?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> i've provided loads of information which you've ignored - it's not my job to spoonfeed you if you can't be bothered following the discussion



So you provided evidence for this culture of mindless violence in trans activism? 

And presumably also an explanation for how a small group of marginalised and vulnerable people could sustain such levels of violence without ordinary decent civil society intervening somehow?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> So you provided evidence for this culture of mindless violence in trans activism?
> 
> And presumably also an explanation for how a small group of marginalised and vulnerable people could sustain such levels of violence without ordinary decent civil society intervening somehow?



i don't have an explanation, i have a dumbfounded and appalled shock which i am expressing to you right now


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)

how are you ignoring it?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)

Punch a terf


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2017)

Jonti said:


> That article is well worth a read, thanks.  But I'm not sure of the relevance of Tiger beetles to the discussion



I did not link to any articles.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No I'm not. I posted as much earlier. There is a huge leap from that to seeing the erosion of rigid sex roles as somehow a 'cure' for transgender people to such an extent that they will no longer desire surgery. And if you talked to some trans people occasionally, you might realise that.


and meanwhile - while they fight the fight to destroy gender (which may never happen - probably won't) trans people are expected to carry on in the boxes we've had assigned to us. 

You can surely see here how it is them using ideology to control and marginalise us - not as they claim the other way round.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)




----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> i don't have an explanation



Yes I know. That's why I've been having such fun with the rhetorical questions.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)

mumsnet have recognised the issue...
Punching Terfs | Mumsnet Discussion


----------



## Jonti (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> gender dysphoria is rare too - what's your point?


We were talking of the people at the demonstration. It is almost certain that everyone there had either XX or XY chromosomes.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Yes I know. That's why I've been having such fun with the rhetorical questions.


ah i see, you're some superior godlike cunt merely dallying in the affairs of mere mortals like ourselves.

well, kindly fuck off and let the serious people have a discussion then please


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 16, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Yes I know. That's why I've been having such fun with the rhetorical questions.



And yet you've refused to answer my question. Funny that


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2017)

Jonti said:


> We were talking of the people at the demonstration. It is almost certain that everyone there had either XX or XY chromosomes.



Almost certain is another way of saying 'not certain' isn't it?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)

how many cunts are gonna come in here defending the trans activist community widespread advocacy and now usage of physical violence against 1970s feminists before this issue is finlly going to be seen for what it is - a cultural problem right at the root of identity politics culture?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> ah i see, you're some superior godlike cunt merely dallying in the affairs of mere mortals like ourselves.
> 
> well, kindly fuck off and let the serious people have a discussion then please



We can have a serious discussion when you find something to back up your theory of a dangerous cabal of trans extremists. Something besides a single reddit post.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)

that's a rhetorical question btw SpookyFrank, just in case you got confused. idiots like yourselves will never see it because you don't actually care


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> We can have a serious discussion when you find something to back up your theory of a dangerous cabal of trans extremists. Something besides a single reddit post.


 that single reddit post now stands next to more than 10 other posts you've ignored


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)

some of which are links to archives of hundreds of individual examples


----------



## belboid (Sep 16, 2017)

Good thing no one on Urban has ever mentioned taking baseball bats to people who disagree with something.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> that's a rhetorical question btw SpookyFrank, just in case you got confused. idiots like yourselves will never see it because you don't actually care



I can't see it because you refuse to show it to me. I suspect that this is because 'it' exists only in your head.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)

you ask for examples of widespread use of this language and advocacy of violence, it is provided, you just dismiss it


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> I can't see it because you refuse to show it to me. I suspect that this is because 'it' exists only in your head.



read the thread you fucking dildo


----------



## Jonti (Sep 16, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> I did not link to any articles.


Lol. My mistake. I just searched on the words heterosomal karyotypes and found this. As you were


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> some of which are links to archives of hundreds of individual examples



Are they all examples of internet trash talk?


----------



## Jonti (Sep 16, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Almost certain is another way of saying 'not certain' isn't it?


Biology is messy. But you know that.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)

so what we can take from this Frank is that you have had absolutely zero practical experience working with the trans activist community nor with modern identity politics activists... you choose to ignore the numerous articles detailing problems with callout culture, victimization of political opponents and you refuse to join the dots between these things and actually physical assaults immediately precursed by references to this language and from these groups.

shut the fuck and let people who actually have an interest in the world engage in some meaningful conversation please, without constantly interrupting with your adolescent A-level philosophy relativism?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2017)

Jonti said:


> Lol. My mistake. I just searched on the words heterosomal karyotypes and found this. As you were



Heterosomes are your X's and Y's, autosomes are the other 44 human chromosomes. Your karyotype is which chromosomes you have. XX and XY are the most common, but XYY, XXY and X are also observed.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 16, 2017)

belboid said:


> aah, so now we're down from 'all' to 'substantive.'  They are different things you know. And when it comes to actual human beings, it becomes rather a lot of people.


As far as I'm aware, the disorder you cite has no bearing on transactivism, or radical feminism.


----------



## LDC (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> specifics please - not some vague wishy washy high handed view that trans women are second class women and could be excluded at a whim if enough people at the meeting decided they want to.



Oh FFS, I never said anything about second class, nor anything that suggests these decisions are taken 'on a whim'. But nice one for both putting words in my mouth, and insinuating that people suffering from trauma might be deciding to do something 'on a whim'.

I'm going to leave this discussion as it's fucking pointless.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)

more examples of callout out culture on campus, persecuted by wild identity politics activists


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

so - this is the actual tone of what i see on Trans websites - if you're not cherry-picking that is.

This was posted by a trans woman - there's reams of this sort of thing being posted right now. Whoever threw the punch is not well loved by the community right now. 



> Do you know what you have done?
> 
> Firstly, you have hit an older woman. That isn't okay. I don't care how angry you are or how much you believe that she was some kind of oppressor, she is a woman who has been the victim of violence. You did that. The last thing the world needed was another woman who has been the victim of violence
> 
> ...


----------



## Jonti (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> and meanwhile - while they fight the fight to destroy gender (which may never happen - probably won't) trans people are expected to carry on in the boxes we've had assigned to us.
> 
> You can surely see here how it is them using ideology to control and marginalise us - not as they claim the other way round.


No, the argument that the culture and society have a bearing on gender dysphoria does not rule out individual therapy.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Sep 16, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> how many cunts are gonna come in here defending the trans activist community widespread advocacy and now usage of physical violence against 1970s feminists before this issue is finlly going to be seen for what it is - a cultural problem right at the root of identity politics culture?




Probably not until straight blokes are accused of transphobia for excluding female penis.

I just read "butch dyke trans woman" on this thread.

In normal speak that sounds like a gender conforming heterosexual male with the "gender identity" of female.

Lesbians with a penis? 

That's an actual joke my dad used to make.

Leave that homophobia at the door.

Same sex attracted people 1) exist 2) aren't attracted to gender identities.

Lesbians don't have penises.
Gay men don't have vaginas. 

 Homosexuality is a sexual orientaion and protected under UK antidiscrimination laws. 

This is exactly why sex needs to firmly remain a protected characteristic. 

FFS.


----------



## iona (Sep 16, 2017)

Jonti said:


> <snip>
> 
> In my view, our culture has rigid sex roles that people are fitted into willy-nilly, and this pressure can cause very real distress and lead people to seek medical assistance.  Where they feel their body is wrong for them, they are said to have gender dysphoria (a neutral medical term).
> 
> All that can be offered is to medically alter the individual patient to fit better into one of the rigid sex-roles on offer. Preferable, might be a social response which allows people to be who they are in the body they were born with.



Just to clarify, what exactly do you mean when you say "sex roles" and how might your proposed "social response which allows people to be who they are in the body they were born with" work?


----------



## Red Sky (Sep 16, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


>




It's impossible to punch anyone with a baseball bat.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

another view from a cis woman activist and trans ally. 



> What I want to point out is the similarity in tactics between the transmisogynists’ narrative, and tactics deployed successfully by Nazis. Our current face of Nazism–the alt right, neo-Nazis, the far right, whatever your style guide demands you call them–rather like to play the victim. When Richard Spencer got punched (lol) the Nazis were very keen to whine about it. When anti-fascist protesters come out to defend their communities, the Nazis, and their chum Donald Trump, are falling over themselves to denounce violence “on both sides”. Centrists are always eager to back up these narratives, because they love a good middle ground almost as much as they love pretending they’re not enablers of fascism.
> 
> This, of course, serves a purpose. It drags discussion away from “Nazis are bad, how can we stop them?” to “punching is bad”. It has been a Nazi tactic since Nazis were invented; Hitler rather liked to claim that he and his were victims of unprovoked violence from the people they wanted wiped out.
> 
> ...


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> so what we can take from this Frank is that you have had absolutely zero practical experience working with the trans activist community nor with modern identity politics activists... you choose to ignore the numerous articles detailing problems with callout culture, victimization of political opponents and you refuse to join the dots between these things and actually physical assaults immediately precursed by references to this language and from these groups.
> 
> shut the fuck and let people who actually have an interest in the world engage in some meaningful conversation please, without constantly interrupting with your adolescent A-level philosophy relativism?



On the contrary, I do know trans activists and they bear no resemblance to your characterisation of them. You can be a TERF gobshite without risking anything, without actually having any personal stake in the stuff you're talking about. Trans activists are not so lucky. They have to fight for rights and recognition and understanding, and against those who would take away what they've already achieved. It's not a fucking hobby.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> so - this is the actual tone of what i see on Trans websites - if you're not cherry-picking that is.
> 
> This was posted by a trans woman - there's reams of this sort of thing being posted right now. Whoever threw the punch is not well loved by the community right now.



you know what, this post is ENTIRELY RIGHT. the trans activist movement needs to immediately disassociate itself from the actions of this individual and express sympathy with the woman who got hit.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Probably not until straight blokes are accused of transphobia for excluding female penis.
> 
> I just read "butch dyke trans woman" on this thread.
> 
> ...


way to go trying to tell gay people they aren't gay...

That to me is homophobia 


and straight people that they must be gay because they're with a trans person? Really? I'll let my boyfriend know.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> you know what, this post is ENTIRELY RIGHT. the trans activist movement needs to immediately disassociate itself from the actions of this individual



Has already happened, overwhelmingly. But, alas, we're not actually a hive mind or a dastardly conspiracy. Not every one can or will agree. Go figure! almost as if we're humans isn't it?  




> and express sympathy with the woman who got hit.



no.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Probably not until straight blokes are accused of transphobia for excluding female penis.
> 
> I just read "butch dyke trans woman" on this thread.
> 
> ...



Is this post available in coherent sentences?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> you know what, this post is ENTIRELY RIGHT. the trans activist movement needs to immediately disassociate itself from the actions of this individual and express sympathy with the woman who got hit.



You clearly didn't read what I read. I read that punching this person was wrong because of the harm the backlash will do to trans people in general, and the ammunition it will give to bigots. That has nothing to do with sympathy for the woman who got punched.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> Has already happened, overwhelmingly. But, alas, we're not actually a hive mind or a dastardly conspiracy. Not every one can or will agree. Go figure! almost as if we're humans isn't it?



I've seen too many mealy-mouthed defences of it both on facebook and on this thread than is healthy.



> no.


 i'm afraid you gotta. she's been gifted the moral high ground.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 16, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Is this post available in coherent sentences?


AuntiStella asked about DNA and butch dyke trans woman

My guess, typically XY chromosomes.  And human sexual behaviour is so multiferous and plastic genetics in general has nothing much to say.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2017)

Jonti said:


> AuntiStella asked about DNA and butch dyke trans woman
> 
> My guess, typically XY chromosomes.  And human sexual behaviour is so multiferous and plastic genetics in general has nothing much to say.



Wasn't it you who brought up genetics though?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 16, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> You clearly didn't read what I read. I read that punching this person was wrong because of the harm the backlash will do to trans people in general, and the ammunition it will give to bigots. That has nothing to do with sympathy for the woman who got punched.



it also said that the person in question punched a woman, who had already been a victim of patriarchal violence. it said we don't need more violence against women in this world.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> it also said that the person in question punched a woman, who had already been a victim of patriarchal violence. it said we don't need more violence against women in this world.



So maybe an appeal to general human solidarity. Which, were it shared by all, would preclude the very existence of TERFdom.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 16, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Wasn't it you who brought up genetics though?


As I recall, I mentioned to belboid that the transactivists were XY, when he demanded to know whether they were real women.  This seemed to come as a surprise to him.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

Jonti said:


> I think the plan was to discuss what it means to be a woman. Clearly a dangerous gathering in need of harassment and disruption.


this is how it was advertised. Doesn't sound like the innocent discussion of what being a woman is, that you said. Looks very much like it was a discussion about trans people and our rights - by two professional transphobes. Let's please stick to the facts.







ETA - i have to laugh at the images used to represent male and female here - gender stereotypes much?


----------



## belboid (Sep 16, 2017)

Jonti said:


> As I recall, I mentioned to belboid that the transactivists were XY, when he demanded to know whether they were real women.  This seemed to come as a surprise to him.


that's a bit of stretch. Actually, it's just not true, you are the one going on about 'real women' here. Yuck.


----------



## Geri (Sep 16, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> And deliberately misgendering people for dramatic effect is an abusive act as far as I'm concerned.


 
I do not know the identity of the attackers or how they identify. Therefore I can either say 'them' or 'him/her'. To say this is an abusive act is completely and utterly ludicrous. Get a grip of yourself.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

Jonti said:


> As I recall, I mentioned to belboid that the transactivists were XY, when he demanded to know whether they were real women.  This seemed to come as a surprise to him.


even that's not true. Even assuming that you are correct in your assumption that AMABs (assigned male at birth) are all XY and AFABs are all XX - which for this instance i will allow - there is at least one AFAB activist involved. why do you consistently leave them out? Is there an agenda? hmmm?

trans activists (is two words btw) could be XX, XY or any of the rarer combinations. You don't know.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 16, 2017)

The Gender Recognition Act is certainly about what being a woman means. 

It would be ridiculous to expect radical feminists not to want to discuss it among themselves.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 16, 2017)

belboid said:


> that's a bit of stretch. Actually, it's just not true, you are the one going on about 'real women' here. Yuck.


Linky? Please.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

Jonti said:


> The Gender Recognition Act is certainly about what being a woman means.
> 
> It would be ridiculous to expect radical feminists not to want to discuss it among themselves.


trans people weren't excluded. They were invited. Most of us decided to stay away.

The gender recognition act is about transgender rights.

You seem to be implying that there are no trans women who are also radical feminists. Not true. You also seem to be implying that all radical feminists are TERFs. Not true.

Sure there's nothing to stop TERFs discussing this amongst themselves but this wasn't intended to be that - one of the speakers is a self identified transsexual and i know of at least two trans women who were asked to speak and declined.

But - without trans people present and included don't run away thinking that any kind of valid conclusion can be reached. Why exclude trans people from a discussion about trans unless you're trying to skew the discussion in some way? Explain.


----------



## belboid (Sep 16, 2017)

Jonti said:


> Linky? Please.


You just wrote it. I have not used the phrase in this thread (as you claim).


----------



## Jonti (Sep 16, 2017)

Where?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> this is how it was advertised. Doesn't sound like the innocent discussion of what being a woman is, that you said. Looks very much like it was a discussion about trans people and our rights - by two professional transphobes. Let's please stick to the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I do like how Miranda Yardley boasts that she's managed to get herself published on Miranda Yardley dot com.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> this is how it was advertised. Doesn't sound like the innocent discussion of what being a woman is, that you said. Looks very much like it was a discussion about trans people and our rights - by two professional transphobes. Let's please stick to the facts.


It doesn't look like an unreasonable poster. Given that the point of such debates is not to change the views of other speakers so much as to present your view and problems you identify in their arguments to others, is there not merit in engaging with your political opponents and their ideas?


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> trans people weren't excluded. They were invited. Most of us decided to stay away.
> 
> The gender recognition act is about transgender rights.



Does the act, and concepts of gender more broadly, have any implications for anyone else's rights?


----------



## chilango (Sep 16, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> I do like how Miranda Yardley boasts that she's managed to get herself published on Miranda Yardley dot com.



I noticed that. A rare smile in this thread.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> ETA - i have to laugh at the images used to represent male and female here - gender stereotypes much?



You aren't really this obtuse are you?


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It doesn't look like an unreasonable poster. Given that the point of such debates is not to change the views of other speakers so much as to present your view and problems you identify in their arguments to others, is there not merit in engaging with your political opponents and their ideas?


Just trying to establish that this was clearly about trans. The fact the Julia Long and Myranda Yardley are involved and are discussing trans from their skewed viewpoint is why it was provocative. Like having a discussion about race led by a known white supremacist.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2017)

Geri said:


> I do not know the identity of the attackers or how they identify. Therefore I can either say 'them' or 'him/her'. To say this is an abusive act is completely and utterly ludicrous. Get a grip of yourself.



Why did you choose to eschew 'them' (which requires less typing) in favour of 'him/her' which is not standard English? I only ask because transphobes seem to be fond of the latter, and similarly loaded and unnecessary constructions such as 'him(?)'.


----------



## snadge (Sep 16, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Probably not until straight blokes are accused of transphobia for excluding female penis.



Genuine question, what the fuck is a female penis?


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Wasn't it you who brought up genetics though?



it was this which has been thoroughly debunked by now. 


Jonti said:


> No you muppet. If you born a male you have XY chromosomes; and if female XX chromosomes. That's just the way things are.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

snadge said:


> Genuine question, what the fuck is a female penis?


i'm not going to go there.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 16, 2017)

So what would it take for a man to qualify as a woman, under the proposed Act?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2017)

snadge said:


> Genuine question, what the fuck is a female penis?



Why does an organ need a gender at all?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2017)

Jonti said:


> So what would it take for a man to qualify as a woman, under the proposed Act?



There's an internet you know, where you can look up this sort of thing for yourself.


----------



## andysays (Sep 16, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Come off it. If you want to address an issue that is faced by a bunch of people, your first port of call is to talk to the people involved, not to assume you know what their problem is and come up with a solution for them on that basis without even asking them. You're interested in science. Does that sound scientific to you? Does it sound like an approach that is likely to produce the correct answer?



I'm slightly loathe to comment on a thread which is being conducted in so acrimonious a fashion, but it seems to me that issues of gender identity are something we all have a personal interest in, given their significance in all our lives and in pretty much all our social interactions.

This is true whether we identify as men or women, trans or cis, or indeed whether we would rather not have to chose between such identities at all.

Whilst some people on this thread and in the wider world have particular experiences of oppression/discrimination as a result of their particular gender identity, that doesn't, or shouldn't, mean that the rest of us are obliged to refrain from expressing our opinions on the generality of gender identity simply because that opinion might not be shared by those with, eg, a trans identity.

And it looks to me like both you and AuntiStella are doing just this in your responses to Jonti here, whatever I might think of some of the content of some of their other posts.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 16, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> There's an internet you know, where you can look up this sort of thing for yourself.


Indeed there is, but this is a discussion board.  What do you think the requirement should be?


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

tbh i don't know why a man would even want to qualify as a woman? Does this happen?


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

Jonti said:


> Indeed there is, but this is a discussion board.  What do you think the requirement should be?


what's the point of speculating? I don't know the answer.  Who here does?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> Just trying to establish that this was clearly about trans. The fact the Julia Long and Myranda Yardley are involved and are discussing trans from their skewed viewpoint is why it was provocative. Like having a discussion about race led by a known white supremacist.


Yes it's about trans women and their inclusion/exclusion. This thread illustrates that there are many cis women who are to a greater or lesser extent conflicted on this point (and also many who are not). Somehow somewhere it is a debate worth having. I don't think it's fair or productive to dismiss it all as bigotry.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

andysays said:


> Whilst some people on this thread and in the wider world have particular experiences of oppression/discrimination as a result of their particular gender identity, that doesn't, or shouldn't, mean that the rest of us are obliged to refrain from expressing our opinions on the generality of gender identity simply because that opinion might not be shared by those with, eg, a trans identity.
> 
> And it looks to me like both you and AuntiStella are doing just this in your responses to Jonti here, whatever I might think of some of the content of some of their other posts.



by cunning use of logic and answering points i suppose 

seriously though - where? I've done nothing but indulge these opinions and am responding as honestly & as accurately as i can.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes it's about trans women and their inclusion/exclusion. This thread illustrates that there are many cis women who are to a greater or lesser extent conflicted on this point (and also many who are not). Somehow somewhere it is a debate worth having. I don't think it's fair or productive to dismiss it all as bigotry.


we can have it without involving those (ETA - a better word would have been centering. in my experience TERFs tend to exclude themselves from spaces where they have to argue against trans supporting cis women) who are intent on marginalising us though. Like I can have it on here without a problem if it's an honest debate. And indeed - its a debate that is going on in women's spaces everywhere right now.

This meeting was about those tiny number who have a problem with fair and honest debate and have set out to short circuit this and to appeal to bigotry to get us shut down.

Also and not related to the above except that this is what open minded debate looks like and these are views that TERFs seek to exclude: 
i found this - another cis feminist take on trans women. For balance.

and this by a trans feminist


----------



## snadge (Sep 16, 2017)

I suppose I have a dog in this race also, as a cancer survivor I have had both testicles removed ( 5 years apart) and was prescribed synthetic testosterone, due to horrendous mood swings I no longer bother with it, it has made me a lot more inwardly calmer ( on the synthetic testosterone I was either a seething mass of anger or ready to burst into tears at the slightest provocation). I now like my chilled inner self, the only down side being I'm just not bothered about sex or a relationship which doesn't bother me in the slightest.

In answer to SpookyFrank I have seen transgenders online referring to their girldicks with pride, quite a lot of the vocal ones seem to have no desire to transition and have a problem with straight men not wanting anything to do with them.

Now to me this is not an identity problem, it's just a sexual fetish.


----------



## Arbeter Fraynd (Sep 16, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> And all the while the middle class have a fight in a car park over labels, poverty murders continue.



the trans people I know are all involved in the struggle against murderous poverty.  Also, the assumption that trans people are a) middle class and b) not affected by poverty is ridiculous and wrong


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

Use of "transgenders" is an instant warning of transphobic views about to be aired.

And i wasn't disapointed



> Now to me this is not an identity problem, it's just a sexual fetish.



What am I supposed to do with that?

ETA - just one of the most clueless posts about trans I have ever seen. 

even use of the word transition here - I'm sick of some cis people insisting that transition means surgery. It really doesn't Eg, I've transitioned but I'm not going to talk about my genitals to anyone. No-one's business. If i did talk about my genitals it's still no-one's business and still no indication of my status re transitioning or not. 

For the record I know many trans women who haven't had SRS/GRS whatever you want to call it - and are with straight men. Not sure why that signifies a sexual fetish. Not sure I want to hear tbh.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 16, 2017)

*You* are not supposed or expected to do anything with it.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 16, 2017)

Are you aware of how self-referential you are AuntiStella ?


----------



## iona (Sep 16, 2017)

Jonti you've liked my post asking you to clarify something you said; are you going to reply to it?


----------



## snadge (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> Use of "transgenders" is an instant warning of transphobic views about to be aired.
> 
> And i wasn't disapointed
> 
> ...




Way to selectively quote out of context.

So you are calling me transphobic?


----------



## andysays (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> by cunning use of logic and answering points i suppose
> 
> seriously though - where? I've done nothing but indulge these opinions and am responding as honestly & as accurately as i can.



TBH, I've seen very little use of logic and plenty of evasiveness from you in this thread, as in so many others. If you really believe otherwise, then that suggests to me that you're delusional. 

Many of your posts have been such patently obvious bullshit, that I haven't bothered responding to them directly. Also because you made a huge point of telling me you were putting me on ignore sometime ago that I assumed you weren't even reading my posts.

But since you apparently are, can you explain the seeming contradiction in the two highlighted parts of this post?


AuntiStella said:


> *trans people weren't excluded. They were invited. Most of us decided to stay away.*
> 
> The gender recognition act is about transgender rights.
> 
> ...



This is merely one example of you trying to have it both ways, simultaneously stating that trans people decided for themselves to stay away (as they are obviously entitled to do) and then claiming that they have been excluded.

I have a certain amount of sympathy for you on a personal level, as your experiences and struggles with your own gender identity have clearly been very difficult, but in terms of your behaviour on numerous threads, your repeated insistance that your experience trumps all others and your blatant smearing of anyone who disagrees with you as transphobic, you're really a fucking liability as far as any serious or meaningful discussion goes.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 16, 2017)

iona said:


> Just to clarify, what exactly do you mean when you say "sex roles" and how might your proposed "social response which allows people to be who they are in the body they were born with" work?


Sex roles or just what's expected of us as men or women. As for that social response, the best I can offer is a hope that the debate moves in that direction.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

andysays said:


> TBH, I've seen very little use of logic and plenty of evasiveness from you in this thread, as in so many others. If you really believe otherwise, then that suggests to me that you're delusional.
> 
> Many of your posts have been such patently obvious bullshit, that I haven't bothered responding to them directly. Also because you made a huge point of telling me you were putting me on ignore sometime ago that I assumed you weren't even reading my posts.
> 
> ...


you're not the brightest spark are you? I'm putting you back on ignore.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

oh God, it's relentless though. Can you see why i get sick of it all sometimes?


----------



## andysays (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> you're not the brightest spark are you? I'm putting you back on ignore.



Your response comes as no surprise, it's exactly what I would have expected. Indeed, I originally wrote, then deleted, the following final sentence in my post:

"I expect after you read this, you'll tell me you've put me back on ignore"


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> oh God, it's relentless though. Can you see why i get sick of it all sometimes?



People are allowed to challenge you Stella.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Sep 16, 2017)

snadge said:


> Genuine question, what the fuck is a female penis?



I've heard it bandied about before online. It's the logical conclusion of denying sex exists. The thinking goes like this.

"Sex is not important, but if my gender identity is female then I am female. That makes my body female and therefore my penis is female"


----------



## PursuedByBears (Sep 16, 2017)

That's a joke, no?


----------



## kabbes (Sep 16, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> The idea that females "feel" a certain way and have a gender identity or "type of female brain" is a load of misogynist fucking shite IMO and you all know it.
> 
> It's so sad seeing it repeated as a thing on this forum.
> 
> ...


I think this is a great post and a great analysis.

There is a reasonable counterpoint (or possibly corollary) too, though; namely that we exist entirely in a social context.  Your fact that our definitions of gender are rooted in misogyny and patriarchy -- that they are something that they arguably _shouldn't be_ -- doesn't actually stop the definitions from existing in the here and now.  People -- even those who cognitively fight against doing it -- have a model in their head for what it means to be "a woman" and that defintion ecompasses a whole host of characteristics that are non-biological in nature.  There _is_ a female gender identity, in short, even though you are right that it may well be circular and is certainly sexist.  And a male identity too, at that. 

So back to that social context.  People don't get to decide the social context they find themselves in.  Identity is (again arguably) entirely defined by relations with other people and structures, and those relations and structures are the ones with predefined gender identities.  So they find themselves constructing their identity within the world that exists, which is the one with those identities.

If this was another world -- a better one, I think -- we wouldn't have these preconstructed gender identities to fuck us up so much.  But given we do, people have to build their lives around it.


----------



## andysays (Sep 16, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> People are allowed to challenge you Stella.



Disagreeing with AuntiStella is a crime, and the penalty for those commiting the crime is to be put on ignore 

Anyway, fuck this, I'm putting the whole thread on ignore


----------



## kabbes (Sep 16, 2017)

andysays said:


> Disagreeing with AuntiStella is a crime, and the penalty for those commiting the crime is to be put on ignore


Ironically, my response to this observation a few years ago now was to go for the pre-emptive ignore strike myself.


----------



## iona (Sep 16, 2017)

Jonti said:


> Sex roles or just what's expected of us as men or women. As for that social response, the best I can offer is a hope that the debate moves in that direction.



Thanks. 

Transition isn't just about those roles and expectations though. It's perfectly possible to be gender non-conforming instead of transgender, or both GNC and trans.

I'm just trying to understand how you think a social response regarding what sex roles people feel comfortable in would help someone experiencing physical gender dysphoria?


----------



## Jonti (Sep 16, 2017)

I'm not saying I have any answers, just that it seems undeniable to me that the culture and society have a role to play. What else?


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

andysays said:


> Disagreeing with AuntiStella is a crime, and the penalty for those commiting the crime is to be put on ignore
> 
> Anyway, fuck this, I'm putting the whole thread on ignore


yay!! 

No - the 'crime' is being a tedious arse and going out of your way to deliberately misinterpet or misunderstand. 

And my attitude is - I really don't the energy to waste. 

I've been taking people off ignore for this thread for the purposes of understanding the arguments being made - but being selective so i can respond to people that i consider to be making valid points and not just spouting incoherent rubbish.

andysays joins the incoherent pile.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> yay!!
> 
> No - the 'crime' is being a tedious arse and going out of your way to deliberately misinterpet or misunderstand.
> 
> ...



You've ignored several of my questions. 

Which pile am I on?


----------



## Jonti (Sep 16, 2017)

PursuedByBears said:


> That's a joke, no?


No.  Male sexuality is


----------



## iona (Sep 16, 2017)

Jonti said:


> I'm not saying I have any answers, just that it seems undeniable to me that the culture and society have a role to play. What else?



Less rigidly defined and enforced roles would be beneficial to everyone, trans and cis. I'm not disagreeing with that, or with the fact that they can cause people distress.

What I was questioning is the way you identified them as leading people to seek medical assistance to "better fit into one of the rigid sex-roles on offer" and suggested treatment other than medical transition might be preferable. No recognition of other factors that also contribute to people seeking transition (which is about much more than fitting into roles, btw - gnc trans people exist, as I mentioned), and subsequently no suggestion of how reducing or eliminating the pressure to conform to those roles could work as an alternative to medical transition.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 16, 2017)

I think FabricLiveBaby!'s post and kabbes' response is a great read for where we are.  Worth every word.

"suggested treatment other than medical transition might be preferable" I'm not sure I did this, but certainly wouldn't like to rule it out.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 16, 2017)

I read this today and thought it was bang on re gender nonsense: Let’s drop the gender stereotypes – we are all non-binary


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> trans people weren't excluded. They were invited. Most of us decided to stay away.
> 
> The gender recognition act is about transgender rights.
> 
> ...



How can you have simultaneously  been excluded AND chose to stay away?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 16, 2017)

Arbeter Fraynd said:


> the trans people I know are all involved in the struggle against murderous poverty.  Also, the assumption that trans people are a) middle class and b) not affected by poverty is ridiculous and wrong



A little bit naughty to alter my characterisation of identity politics to being exclusively about trans.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 16, 2017)

DP


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 16, 2017)

trashpony said:


> I read this today and thought it was bang on re gender nonsense: Let’s drop the gender stereotypes – we are all non-binary



Well it is truism but the analysis is a very superficial IMO. It's like when people say things like 'we're all mixed anyway' when they really don't have a clue what it's like to grow up in a mixed ethncity/cultural family and develop a mixed ethnicity/cultural identity. Listening to world music and dating someone not from you ethnicity really isn't the same thing. These observations and attempts at unification might come from a positive, well meaning place but it's also dismissive and silencing of those people that actually do know what it's like and have a far more nuanced insight.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 16, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Well it is truism but the analysis is a very superficial IMO. It's like when people say things like 'we're all mixed anyway' when they really don't have a clue what it's like to grow up in a mixed ethncity/cultural family and develop a mixed ethnicity/cultural identity. Listening to world music and dating someone not from you ethnicity really isn't the same thing. These observations and attempts at unification might come from a positive, well meaning place but it's also dismissive and silencing of those people that actually do know what it's like and have a far more nuanced insight.


I'm not sure what you mean re silencing - who is it silencing? can you elaborate?


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> How can you have simultaneously  been excluded AND chose to stay away?



we weren't excluded from the meeting. But the meeting is about removing our rights and excluding us. Oh, come on, it's not that difficult is it?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 16, 2017)

trashpony said:


> I'm not sure what you mean re silencing - who is it silencing? can you elaborate?



I mean as a natural consequence...If we are _all mixed anyway_, why would we care about listening to those who actually are and have an insight into what it's like living with, developing, inhabiting those idenities? The dismissing/silencing comes because there is no place for those voices if others claim they know all they is to know etc. even when their actual experience is superficial.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 16, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> I mean as a natural consequence...If we are _all mixed anyway_, why would we care about listening to those who actually are and have an insight into what it's like living with, developing, inhabiting those idenities? The dismissing/silencing comes because there is no place for those voices if others claim they know all they is to know etc. even when their actual experience is superficial.


Oh I see. I actually think it's two separate things: a) gender stereotypes which are shit for everyone and b) gender dysphoria which is shit but only affects quite a small number of people. I think this article is only addressing a).


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> we weren't excluded from the meeting. But the meeting is about removing our rights and excluding us. Oh, come on, it's not that difficult is it?



Apologies I misread. No need to be rude lol.


----------



## snadge (Sep 16, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> we weren't excluded from the meeting. But the meeting is about removing our rights and excluding us. Oh, come on, it's not that difficult is it?




Nobody has ever excluded you, that would be your choice to not attend.

I notice that you edited your post in reaction to mine and never answered my question.

Do you think I am transphobic?


----------



## Jonti (Sep 16, 2017)

trashpony said:


> Oh I see. I actually think it's two separate things: a) gender stereotypes which are shit for everyone and b) gender dysphoria which is shit but only affects quite a small number of people. I think this article is only addressing a).


I liked it for this paragraph


> Gender stereotypes are too often confused with biology, and you hear this mistake being made as much on the left as you do on the right. After all, it’s not that big a leap from saying boys wear car prints to Eddie Izzard saying he likes having manicures “because I’m trans”. Suggesting a man can’t possibly like having his nails done is a disappointingly reductive take on gender from Izzard, who was once so determined to tear down stereotypes about masculinity.



ETA  To say that gender stereotypes are too often confused with biology is to understate the issue.  It's more that the notion of biological sex is actively suppressed by some transactivists.  To mention DNA at all is to risk being accused of transphobia, by distinguishing between biological women and transwomen.

So we have people with penises who declaring themselves women who then go on to be affronted that lesbians won't sleep with them.  No matter that many lesbians simply don't like dick.

It's mad stuff. Toxic-ID politics is the word.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 16, 2017)

trashpony said:


> Oh I see. I actually think it's two separate things: a) gender stereotypes which are shit for everyone and b) gender dysphoria which is shit but only affects quite a small number of people. I think this article is only addressing a).



Well that's kinda my point about it being superficial. I get what she means and agree but to say we are all non binary is a bold statement that rides roughshod over real/actual non-binary experiences in the wider context of a world that really is, _on the whole_ non-accepting of non-binary identities.

Example, whilst I don't think of myself as 'normal' I really haven't ever considered myself as non-binary even if I don't conform to many gender stereotypes, am a feminist, actively give traditional gender roles the middle finger if I feel they limit me or others, men or women. Actually I often don't even have to think.. instinctively I know it's bollocks and don't conform, I can't. I don't have time to waste. Conforming limits me. But culturally, that often undermines my attempts to be better at this stuff, the autopilot sometimes is at odds with who I want to be, in the mindful sense of the word.

So, these things are greater than what we have going on in our heads afterall, context and the way that society interacts with and reflects back to us is really meaningful in this regard. The author may chose to buy gender neutral presents for her kids but as she admits, she can't stop the outside world 'genderising' her children. We are just not there yet, it's a process, one which includes us all examining parts of our own unconscious gender identities, and asking why we want to hold on to them, or not and why.


----------



## snadge (Sep 16, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Well it is truism but the analysis is a very superficial IMO. It's like when people say things like 'we're all mixed anyway' when they really don't have a clue what it's like to grow up in a mixed ethncity/cultural family and develop a mixed ethnicity/cultural identity. Listening to world music and dating someone not from you ethnicity really isn't the same thing. These observations and attempts at unification might come from a positive, well meaning place but it's also dismissive and silencing of those people that actually do know what it's like and have a far more nuanced insight.




Like you maybe?

What gives you the right to instruct people how they should think?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 16, 2017)

snadge said:


> What gives you the right to instruct people how they should think?



Where have I done that? 

FFs you accuse me of doing this for having an opinion here on urban but yet not the author of the article?   Imagine if I wrote an article and got it published...I'd be in real BIG trouble with you? Just because.


----------



## snadge (Sep 16, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Where have I done that?




You are implying that you should be listened to.



> but it's also dismissive and silencing of those people that actually do know what it's like and have a far more nuanced insight.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 16, 2017)

snadge said:


> You are implying that you should be listened to.



...and? Why is my opinion not worthy of being listened to? Why would you be the one to choose whether it was or not? Also, if I knew more about something that someone else why wouldn't you care to listen to me?


----------



## snadge (Sep 16, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> ...and? Why is my opinion not worthy of being listened to? Why would you be the one to choose whether it was or not? Also, if I knew more about something that someone else why wouldn't you care to listen to me?



So you are admitting that you feel you have a 'far more nuanced insight' on transgender issues?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 16, 2017)

snadge said:


> So you are admitting that you feel you have a 'far more nuanced insight' on transgender issues?



Eh no, not at all. I was speaking generally about why I thought the author of that article clearly doesn't and her saying 'we're all non binary' is a bit shit really, however well meaning. I used a comparative example of people saying 'we're all mixed anyway', which is superficial bullshit too.

Also, if you had read my later post #711 you'd never have posted such a nonsense misrepresentation on what I think/feel.


----------



## snadge (Sep 16, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Eh no, not at all. I was speaking generally about why I thought the author of that article clearly doesn't and her saying 'we're all non binary' is a bit shit really, however well meaning. I used a comparative example of people saying 'we're all mixed anyway', which is superficial bullshit too.




So who are the 'far more nuanced insight' I should be taking notice of in this instance?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 16, 2017)

An awful lot of cis people on this thread have seen fit to tell trans people what their problem is.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 16, 2017)

Yeah people definitely based their objections to an elderly woman getting twatted on that.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 16, 2017)

iona said:


> btw - gnc trans people exist, as I mentioned



say it on here till you're blue in the face. I don't think anyone is listening.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 16, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Yeah people definitely based their objections to an elderly woman getting twatted on that.


This is another one of your non sequiturs. A hell of a lot more has been covered on this thread than that.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 16, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is another one of your non sequiturs. A hell of a lot more has been covered on this thread than that.



That's how the thread started and some are bizarrely defending it. It will get backs up.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> That's how the thread started and some are bizarrely defending it. It will get backs up.


If we're getting picky, the thread started with a link accompanied by a content-free bullshit OP.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 17, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If we're getting picky, the thread started with a link accompanied by a content-free bullshit OP.



Aye. After I gave some detail (which is now pretty much accepted even if some are apologists for it) I got accused of 'being lazy' and 'making things up'. I note those posters quickly made themselves scarce.


----------



## The Flying Pig (Sep 17, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Odd to see militant anti-fascists like Magnus McGinty and The Flying Pig being so squeamish about political violence.
> 
> I assume that if a lone cameraman from Redwatch got up in their faces they would be warmly embraced these days?


Not squeamish about violence at all, quite enjoy it actually but don't feel the need to batter a sixty year old female who appears to be no threat to most.


----------



## tim (Sep 17, 2017)

chilango said:


> Ah well. I'll stay away then thanks.



Demonstrating only alongside those who would support such a physical attack on a photographer  would not make it any more mortally acceptable.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 17, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No I'm not. I posted as much earlier. There is a huge leap from that to seeing the erosion of rigid sex roles as somehow a 'cure' for transgender people to such an extent that they will no longer desire surgery. And if you talked to some trans people occasionally, you might realise that.


You can make yourself look like a twat making assumptions about people you don't know.  It's a pretty distasteful tactic too.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 17, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> say it on here till you're blue in the face. I don't think anyone is listening.


Just because no one *says*, "yeah right", it doesn't mean everyone's ignoring the point. No one objected either, so it could equally mean that folks gave the point their silent assent.

That was my reaction anyway.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 17, 2017)

Das Uberdog said:


> Can we talk about toxic Id-pol politics yet?


Yes, I really think we should.  Would you start a thread about it please Das Uberdog


----------



## Geri (Sep 17, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> another view from a cis woman activist and trans ally.


 
Jesus fucking Christ. I think I am going to have to invoke Godwin's law here. We are talking about a 60 year old feminist, not a fascist. 

Dress it up how you like, this is not political violence - it is a cowardly and intimidatory attack on free speech and women's right to meet to discuss something they are interested in. 

I am genuinely shocked and saddened to left wing people trying to justify this. 

Fuck the left. A bunch of stinking putrid people with no decency or morals.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 17, 2017)

dp (tried to eta to a previous post and somehow posted again instead)


----------



## Jonti (Sep 17, 2017)

Geri said:


> Jesus fucking Christ. I think I am going to have to invoke Godwin's law here. We are talking about a 60 year old feminist, not a fascist.
> 
> Dress it up how you like, this is not political violence - it is a cowardly and intimidatory attack on free speech and women's right to meet to discuss something they are interested in.
> 
> ...


I think Das Uberdog (I'd tag him but I don't know how, can anyone explain how to do that please?) is very much part of the left, and he's been explicit that "no platforming"  radical feminists is unbelievably stupid and toxic politics.

Let's see how the debate moves on before despairing.


----------



## Geri (Sep 17, 2017)

Jonti said:


> I think Das Uberdog (I'd tag him but I don't know how, can anyone explain how to do that please?) is very much part of the left, and he's been explicit that "no platforming"  radical feminists is unbelievably stupid and toxic politics.
> 
> Let's see how the debate moves on before despairing.


 
Sure,  but it's not just this issue. I just don't think I have anything in common with most people who call themselves socialists any more.


----------



## newbie (Sep 17, 2017)

type the @ symbol and start typing the name then choose the name from the popup list that appears.

the left is di9scussing this but it's not a matter of left wing politics, is it?


----------



## andysays (Sep 17, 2017)

iona said:


> Thanks.
> 
> Transition isn't just about those roles and expectations though. It's perfectly possible to be gender non-conforming instead of transgender, or both GNC and trans...



I can understand how it's possible to be gender non-conforming instead of transgender, but not how it's possible to be both simultaneously.

The latin prefix _trans_ explicitly means from one thing, position or state to another, frequently from one thing to its opposite.

Those who are GNC, as I understand it, are not seeking to transition from one gender to another, but to conform neither to the social gender they were originally assigned to and socialised in nor to the other (or perhaps "any other" might be better).

I can appreciate why some trans people and some GNC people might see themselves as having some shared interests, and to be potential political allies, but to attempt to stretch the meaning of the term trans to include GNCs seems to me to obscure differences between the two, differences which are important not only to the individual but also socially/politically, and therefore of relevance to all who have an interest in gender politics, whether they identify as trans or GNC or not.


----------



## andysays (Sep 17, 2017)

Geri said:


> Jesus fucking Christ. I think I am going to have to invoke Godwin's law here. We are talking about a 60 year old feminist, not a fascist.
> 
> Dress it up how you like, this is not political violence - it is a cowardly and intimidatory attack on free speech and women's right to meet to discuss something they are interested in.
> 
> ...



The person who wrote that article and the poster who linked to it here aren't on the left.

I'm not convinced that any of those actually involved in the original incident are genuinely on or of the left, and if they are they certainly aren't in any way representative, despite what a few of the determined leftie bashers on this thread want to suggest.


----------



## Geri (Sep 17, 2017)

newbie said:


> type the @ symbol and start typing the name then choose the name from the popup list that appears.
> 
> the left is di9scussing this but it's not a matter of left wing politics, is it?


 
Well, my most vocal friends on Facebook defending the violence are former SWPers. The person who (allegedly) punches the 60 year old is apparently in Class War, or at least is a friend of Ian Bone.

Some of the threats I've seen on Twitter are quite frightening and scary.

It just makes me want to have nothing to do with any of them.


----------



## Geri (Sep 17, 2017)

andysays said:


> The person who wrote that article and the poster who linked to it here aren't on the left.
> 
> I'm not convinced that any of those actually involved in the original incident are genuinely on or of the left, and if they are they certainly aren't in any way representative, despite what a few of the determined leftie bashers on this thread want to suggest.


 
ignore, sorry


----------



## Lambert Simnel (Sep 17, 2017)

andysays said:


> I can understand how it's possible to be gender non-conforming instead of transgender, but not how it's possible to be both simultaneously.
> 
> The latin prefix _trans_ explicitly means from one thing, position or state to another, frequently from one thing to its opposite.
> 
> ...



Think of GNC as not confirming to traditional stereotypes in terms of behaviour or presentation. A bloke who likes to wear make-up or something as a crude example.

If it's possible for this bloke who was born male to wear make-up, and not conform to traditional male stereotypes, then it's also possible for someone who has transitioned from female to male to do the same. Such a trans person would be gender-non-conforming in the way they present themselves, but they would still be transgender, because they transitioned from female to male, they just don't conform to male gender stereotypes. The two things are really quite separate.


----------



## tim (Sep 17, 2017)

Geri said:


> Jesus fucking Christ. I think I am going to have to invoke Godwin's law here. We are talking about a 60 year old feminist, not a fascist.
> 
> Dress it up how you like, this is not political violence - it is a cowardly and intimidatory attack on free speech and women's right to meet to discuss something they are interested in.
> 
> ...



I agree on the Godwin's law, comparing the women here to Nazis is absurd. The linked article seems to refer to a separate incident outside the University of London Women's club rather than at Speakers Corner and an alleged attack on protesting transwomen. All I would say is that it is unacceptable to violently attack anyone.


----------



## andysays (Sep 17, 2017)

Lambert Simnel said:


> Think of GNC as not confirming to traditional stereotypes in terms of behaviour or presentation. A bloke who likes to wear make-up or something as a crude example.
> 
> If it's possible for this bloke who was born male to wear make-up, and not conform to traditional male stereotypes, then it's also possible for someone who has transitioned from female to male to do the same. Such a trans person would be gender-non-conforming in the way they present themselves, but they would still be transgender, because they transitioned from female to male, they just don't conform to male gender stereotypes. The two things are really quite separate.



Thanks for your reply, but I'm actually interested specifically in what the poster who I quoted thinks about my reply and the points I've brought up.


----------



## Geri (Sep 17, 2017)

tim said:


> I agree on the Godwin's law, comparing the women here to Nazi is absurd. The linked article seems to refer to a separate incident outside the University of London Women's club rather than at Speakers Corner and an alleged attack on protesting transwomen. All I would say is that it is unacceptable to violently attack anyone.


 
Sure, and if I had seen a photo of a trans woman bruised after being beaten by the radical feminists, I would feel the same.


----------



## Lambert Simnel (Sep 17, 2017)

andysays said:


> Thanks for your reply, but I'm actually interested specifically in what the poster who I quoted thinks about my reply and the points I've brought up.



You should have PM'd them with your ignorance then, Jesus Christ.


----------



## andysays (Sep 17, 2017)

Lambert Simnel said:


> You should have PM'd them with your ignorance then, Jesus Christ.



Idiot


----------



## crossthebreeze (Sep 17, 2017)

andysays said:


> I can understand how it's possible to be gender non-conforming instead of transgender, but not how it's possible to be both simultaneously.
> 
> The latin prefix _trans_ explicitly means from one thing to another, frequently from one thing to its opposite.
> 
> ...


Of course its possible to be both GNC and transgender!  

Some trans people might have dysphoria based on their physical body (genitals, secondary sex characteristics) and so wish to alter those through hormones, surgery, cosmetic treatment - and/or might have dysphoria about what gender they are seen as (or in some cases simply find it easier or safer to be seen as the gender they transition to (ie a friend of mine gets a huge of amount of shit now she's generally assumed to be a GNC woman but she says that pales in significance to the violence she experienced when she was assumed to be a GNC man) - but might have no desire to limit their clothing options or interests to conform to the gender they transition to.  

Some trans people have non-binary identity and want to be seen as being neither men or women (and so might want the legal option to do this).

Some trans people might have dysphoria based on their physical body and want medical/surgical/cosmetic treatment for this, but might not want to transition legally or socially.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 17, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> An awful lot of cis people on this thread have seen fit to tell trans people what their problem is.



We've learned that it's all down to genes. Or Hormones. Or Marxist dialectical deconstructionist reconstructionist dialectical immaterial venerial dialecticism. Or society being way too hung up on labels man.

But what we've learned above all is that everyone's an expert apart from actual trans people, who are all just talking nonsense.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 17, 2017)

Geri said:


> Well, my most vocal friends on Facebook defending the violence are former SWPers. The person who (allegedly) punches the 60 year old is apparently in Class War, or at least is a friend of Ian Bone.
> 
> Some of the threats I've seen on Twitter are quite frightening and scary.
> 
> It just makes me want to have nothing to do with any of them.



The root confusion is down to the pernicious aspects of post-modernism. The intellectual confusion behind the toxic-id politics we've seen on this thread is idealism. As FabricLiveBaby! put it:


FabricLiveBaby! said:


> In short it's a fight between two types of political philosophy.
> 
> Idealists: those who believe thoughts form your reality (Butlerites and Postmodernists)
> 
> ...





FabricLiveBaby! said:


> One want to keep protections based on sex (material philosophy)  and the other want to effectively do away with sex based protections in favour of "gender identity" (idealist philosophy) .
> 
> The talk was called "what is gender". Which apparently poses a problem to idealist who cant/won't answer that question.



SWPers defending the "no platform for rad fems" campaigners have lost site of their scientific materialism.  That's beyond dispute. From the point of view of sexual politics, they're likely unreconstructed males as well, which I grant is a significant issue in its own right.

Toxic-ID politics is the result.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2017)

snadge said:


> So who are the 'far more nuanced insight' I should be taking notice of in this instance?


Is that not obvious? Top of the queue if you're considering issues of transgender would be transgender people. Point here being that while many people have issues with gender identity, only a very few people are transgender. Discussing the former may not give you as much insight into the latter as you think it does. As, I'm sorry to say, is amply illustrated by this thread.


----------



## newbie (Sep 17, 2017)

Geri said:


> Well, my most vocal friends on Facebook defending the violence are former SWPers. The person who (allegedly) punches the 60 year old is apparently in Class War, or at least is a friend of Ian Bone.
> 
> Some of the threats I've seen on Twitter are quite frightening and scary.
> 
> It just makes me want to have nothing to do with any of them.


join the club though tbf, 'ex-SWP' and 'twitter' are hardly likely to be what the doctor ordered for calm reading matter 

Maybe this is more to do with the Class War outlook on conflict resolution than what anyone has been discussing?


----------



## spanglechick (Sep 17, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Yeah people definitely based their objections to an elderly woman getting twatted on that.


Jesus.  Do you actually know any people who are sixty? I bloody dare you to call them elderly to their face.


----------



## The Flying Pig (Sep 17, 2017)

Geri said:


> Sure,  but it's not just this issue. I just don't think I have anything in common with most people who call themselves socialists any more.


Then the state and all it's agent saboteurs, who come in many different disguises has defeated you. Surely you can see through the systems shit.


----------



## The Flying Pig (Sep 17, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> Jesus.  Do you actually know any people who are sixty? I bloody dare you to call them elderly to their face.


Using diversionary tactics to justify an assault on a 60 year old female? It does not wash with anybody. You will have to try much harder and come up with another random excuse or just concede the fact the assault was not acceptable ...end of!


----------



## chilango (Sep 17, 2017)

The Flying Pig said:


> Then the state and all it's agent saboteurs, who come in many different disguises has defeated you. Surely you can see through the systems shit.



Bollocks.

This isn't the State or _agent provocateurs_.

We (and I'm hesitant to use that word now) have done this to ourselves.

I'm with Geri on this one, though maybe for differing reasons.


----------



## felixthecat (Sep 17, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> Jesus.  Do you actually know any people who are sixty? I bloody dare you to call them elderly to their face.


I'm 55 and I don't plan on becoming elderly in 5 years time. And if anyone does dare to call me elderly at 60 they'd be the ones getting twatted.


----------



## The Flying Pig (Sep 17, 2017)

chilango said:


> Bollocks.
> 
> This isn't the State or _agent provocateurs_.
> 
> ...


you can be withever you like. It's fine by me.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 17, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> We've learned that it's all down to genes. Or Hormones. Or Marxist dialectical deconstructionist reconstructionist dialectical immaterial venerial dialecticism. Or society being way too hung up on labels man.
> 
> But what we've learned above all is that everyone's an expert apart from actual trans people, who are all just talking nonsense.


Funny, because from this side it seems that everyone's allowed to discuss what makes a woman except, you know, actual women.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Sep 17, 2017)

There are a few points I would like to address. Ive been following this thread since yesterday. 
Firstly, whilst reading this thread I kept thinking of Fight Club because I think that some women see trans women like Marla Singer, ie someone who lies about who they are and plays up their suffering in order to attend support groups. The whole argument about wimmins only spaces- spaces cis women can discuss problems only cis women experience (*cough and trans men and non binary folk) is a daft one imo because where are all the trans women insisting they attend meetings about miscarriage or endometriosis? etc. Nobody is stopping or picketting or intruding on such meetings so it's a disingenuous argument. It's also a smokescreen really because as this thread (and any other thread on the internet that mentions trans people shows) some cis women (and actually it's many) do not accept trans women as 'real women' and they see them as men, fake and predators invading wimmins spaces. Let's be clear and honest about that. Let's also be clear on what a slur that is to trans women. To be made out to be liars, to constantly have their identity scrutinised, judged and dismissed is incredibly stigmatising even if it doesn't go as far as making out their transitions sole purpose was to trick straight men and gain access to women in order to control or assault them. This entire rhetoric built on fear and ignorance is, whether you like it or not, the rhetoric of transphobia. It can and does lead to street harassment, hate crimes, the murder of trans women and contributes to high suicide rates. Clearly transphobia is not solely a women's issue, but I do believe that feminists need to take responsibility for the part they play in its proliferation. How on earth is shouting at trans women and conflating them with men's rights activists helping anyone? It's absurd and extremely harmful.

My second point concerns cis people attempting to explain away trans identities by likening trans boys to confused female 'Tom boys' or self loathing lesbians. I know we all try to make sense of the world through our narrow lenses of experience but guess what, if you aren't trans then you can't fully relate. I can't fully relate as a cis woman either which is why I listen to those whose experience trumps my own. In exactly the same way that as white people we can't fully appreciate the effect if institutionalised racism so should be  paying attention to the lived experience of POC. 
Your stories of defying gender norms yet reaching a level of acceptance of your body or gender identity, are they supposed to rouse a cheer for how you've overcome adversity and not fallen down the wrong path to confused transdom? If only everyone could be so enlightened and self accepting then we could do away with all this confusing trans stuff and avoid unnecessary surgeries right? How about asking trans and non binary people about that? 
How do we create an atmosphere where these kinds of conversations can actually happen and education can occur? Personally I think it's when we stop letting fear make us shout our confusion & assumptions in trans people's faces. We don't listen attentively when we are merely waiting for our turn to speak. And we can't learn from or support those that we 'other' and exclude from our spaces.


----------



## The Flying Pig (Sep 17, 2017)

chilango said:


> Bollocks.
> 
> This isn't the State or _agent provocateurs_.
> 
> ...


I am not quite sure what you think we have done to ourselves but whatever it is you can share it if you want.


----------



## belboid (Sep 17, 2017)

Jonti said:


> The root confusion is down to the pernicious aspects of post-modernism. The intellectual confusion behind the toxic-id politics we've seen on this thread is idealism. As FabricLiveBaby! put it:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh dear. Except flb's argument is wrong, an overly simplistic misunderstanding of materialism/idealism.

Secondly no one has defended 'no platforming' rad fems, that's just a lie repeated by a couple of idiots/bigots. If you are not going to be honest, what would be the point of a 'wider' debate?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 17, 2017)

weepiper said:


> Funny, because from this side it seems that everyone's allowed to discuss what makes a woman except, you know, actual women.



Sounds like you've already made your mind up about who is what and who isn't, so why would you want to discuss it?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 17, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> give me a reason why cis women would want to organise without trans women other than bigotry. If there was a reason....?



Because transwomen tend to make it all about them.


----------



## Borp (Sep 17, 2017)

The way I've started to see this debate is to move it on a bit to - if we are to have a legal position that gender is a choice based on self identification, what are the consequences? 

I don't know the answers. But one of the questions I would ask is do people need protection from the opposite sex. For example, I think in most sports at the top level they do. Biological males at that level will always have a strength advantage over biological females. So some demarcation or protection is necesarry. 
I think that extends to other areas too. The physical strength difference between the majority of biological males and females is too significant to ignore. The risk of abuse is too great for it not be addressed I think.

How do we deal with that issue?


----------



## abstract1 (Sep 17, 2017)

The Flying Pig said:


> Using diversionary tactics to justify an assault on a 60 year old female? It does not wash with anybody. You will have to try much harder and come up with another random excuse or just concede the fact the assault was not acceptable ...end of!



Fuck off! What the original post did was give away the shitty pernicious attitudes about women and age.

The response was about that - your misrepresentation of spanglechick's response speaks volumes about you, and how you engage in debate.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2017)

Clair De Lune said:


> There are a few points I would like to address. Ive been following this thread since yesterday.
> Firstly, whilst reading this thread I kept thinking of Fight Club because I think that some women see trans women like Marla Singer, ie someone who lies about who they are and plays up their suffering in order to attend support groups. The whole argument about wimmins only spaces- spaces cis women can discuss problems only cis women experience (*cough and trans men and non binary folk) is a daft one imo because where are all the trans women insisting they attend meetings about miscarriage or endometriosis? etc. Nobody is stopping or picketting or intruding on such meetings so it's a disingenuous argument. It's also a smokescreen really because as this thread (and any other thread on the internet that mentions trans people shows) some cis women (and actually it's many) do not accept trans women as 'real women' and they see them as men, fake and predators invading wimmins spaces. Let's be clear and honest about that. Let's also be clear on what a slur that is to trans women. To be made out to be liars, to constantly have their identity scrutinised, judged and dismissed is incredibly stigmatising even if it doesn't go as far as making out their transitions sole purpose was to trick straight men and gain access to women in order to control or assault them. This entire rhetoric built on fear and ignorance is, whether you like it or not, the rhetoric of transphobia. It can and does lead to street harassment, hate crimes, the murder of trans women and contributes to high suicide rates. Clearly transphobia is not solely a women's issue, but I do believe that feminists need to take responsibility for the part they play in its proliferation. How on earth is shouting at trans women and conflating them with men's rights activists helping anyone? It's absurd and extremely harmful.
> 
> My second point concerns cis people attempting to explain away trans identities by likening trans boys to confused female 'Tom boys' or self loathing lesbians. I know we all try to make sense of the world through our narrow lenses of experience but guess what, if you aren't trans then you can't fully relate. I can't fully relate as a cis woman either which is why I listen to those whose experience trumps my own. In exactly the same way that as white people we can't fully appreciate the effect if institutionalised racism so should be  paying attention to the lived experience of POC.
> ...


Well said.


----------



## spanglechick (Sep 17, 2017)

The Flying Pig said:


> Using diversionary tactics to justify an assault on a 60 year old female? It does not wash with anybody. You will have to try much harder and come up with another random excuse or just concede the fact the assault was not acceptable ...end of!


I cba to do so, but if I cared to I could post up many condemnations of this attack I have made myself on this thread.  I'll do it again, just for you: this assault was not acceptable.  

This is because I believe punching people in the head is a bad thing.   I don't need to make out that the person assaulted was some frail little old dear in order to be at odds with it.  

People who have exaggerated her frailty (as they have by calling her "elderly") are clearly seeking to use emotive language to exaggerate the harm done.   Isn't it enough to say "a middle aged activist was punched in the head"...? Isn't that bad enough?


----------



## mojo pixy (Sep 17, 2017)

I've been trying to find any links to articles about trans-men (FtM transitioners) trying to gatecrash all-male meetings / gatherings, or loudly demanding access, and being denied or ejected. So far nothing.

Slightly off topic but not far off.


----------



## Geri (Sep 17, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> People who have exaggerated her frailty (as they have by calling her "elderly") are clearly seeking to use emotive language to exaggerate the harm done.   Isn't it enough to say "a middle aged activist was punched in the head"...? Isn't that bad enough?


 
I agree 60 isn't elderly - but it isn't middle aged either. I referred to her as older.


----------



## belboid (Sep 17, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> I've been trying to find any links to articles about trans-men (FtM transitioners) trying to gatecrash all-male meetings / gatherings, or loudly demanding access, and being denied or ejected. So far nothing.
> 
> Slightly off topic but not far off.


Same as all those stories about trans women reverting to maleness in women's toilets, it just doesn't seem to happen. Funny that.


----------



## spanglechick (Sep 17, 2017)

Borp said:


> The way I've started to see this debate is to move it on a bit to - if we are to have a legal position that gender is a choice based on self identification, what are the consequences?
> 
> I don't know the answers. But one of the questions I would ask is do people need protection from the opposite sex. For example, I think in most sports at the top level they do. Biological males at that level will always have a strength advantage over biological females. So some demarcation or protection is necesarry.
> I think that extends to other areas too. The physical strength difference between the majority of biological males and females is too significant to ignore. The risk of abuse is too great for it not be addressed I think.
> ...


Weaker people need need protection from stronger people.  ORRRRR... how about stronger people take responsibility for their own behaviour? I don't go round beating on children because I don't show physical violence to anyone - not because they are physically segregated from me.  

I'm not really sure what you're proposing.  Are you talking about prisons?


----------



## spanglechick (Sep 17, 2017)

Geri said:


> I agree 60 isn't elderly - but it isn't middle aged either. I referred to her as older.



Magnus McGinty Called her elderly.


----------



## mojo pixy (Sep 17, 2017)

belboid said:


> ... it just doesn't seem to happen. Funny that.



Yeah I guess either it doesn't happen, or nobody cares about it.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2017)

What i find interesting about this is the way that the radical feminists (and i am distinguishing between them and the socialist/marxist feminists) - the ones who helped bring ID politics into society, or the left at least - on the basis of either biological/sex or gender essentialism (and, it must be pointed out that it was usually in response to failings of state/society and the Official Labour Movement to recognise their existence never mind the problems they face) have now been out identity-politicked by a new set of people who have taken their underlying assumptions and ran with them. 

They are challenging them on a formally anti-essentialist basis that's actually a series of fragmented essentialisms - in the same way that official top down state multi-culturalism is actually really multiple mono-cultures. And both of course posture towards a greater unity in their intersectional/multi-cultural titlings. The dialectic is truly at work here. 

Makes me wonder what's in the post for the challengers a few years down the road.  It's certainly not going to be class politics if this path is continued down. At least not from within - i think class politics is only going to do that from without.


----------



## Borp (Sep 17, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> Weaker people need need protection from stronger people.  ORRRRR... how about stronger people take responsibility for their own behaviour? I don't go round beating on children because I don't show physical violence to anyone - not because they are physically segregated from me.
> 
> I'm not really sure what you're proposing.  Are you talking about prisons?



I guess I'm saying we currently have areas where the sexes are separated. Sport as I mentioned. Toilets and showers etc. Are these separations necesarry or not? Is there a reason for the separation beyond it being simply an arbitrary one?

I'm not proposing things, I'm trying to learn.


----------



## killer b (Sep 17, 2017)

chilango said:


> Bollocks.
> 
> This isn't the State or _agent provocateurs_.
> 
> ...


Fairly sure the state/establishment adoption of ID politics has a fairly significant role in how it has become so dominant tbf.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 17, 2017)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Because transwomen tend to make it all about them.



Do you have much experience of women trying to organise and the trans women among them making it all about them?

Can you give us some examples from your direct experiences?


----------



## chilango (Sep 17, 2017)

killer b said:


> Fairly sure the state/establishment adoption of ID politics has a fairly significant role in how it has become so dominant tbf.



Sure. They're encouraging all this. Uncritical adoption of social media as vehicle of choice also accelerates matters.


----------



## emanymton (Sep 17, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> What i find interesting about this is the way that the radical feminists (and i am distinguishing between them and the socialist/marxist feminists) - the ones who helped bring ID politics into society, or the left at least - on the basis of either biological/sex or gender essentialism (and, it must be pointed out that it was usually in response to failings of state/society and the Official Labour Movement to recognise their existence never mind the problems they face) have now been out identity-politicked by a new set of people who have taken their underlying assumptions and ran with them. They are challenging them on a formally anti-essentialist basis that's actually a series of fragmented essentialisms - in the same way that official top down state multi-culturalism is actually really multiple mono-cultures. And both of course posture towards a greater unity in their intersectional/multi-cultural titlings. The dialectic is truly at work here. Makes me wonder what's in the post for the challengers a few years down the road.  It's certainly not going to be class politics if this path is continued down. At least not from within - i think class politics is only going to do that from without.


Ignore me, I misread the last few lines.


----------



## killer b (Sep 17, 2017)

chilango said:


> Sure. They're encouraging all this. Uncritical adoption of social media as vehicle of choice also accelerates matters.


I just feel the whole 'we did this to ourselves' idea doesn't really work - elsewhere we try to avoid the idea of systemic trends being down to individual morality, so we should probably avoid doing it when talking about our own shit.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2017)

emanymton said:


> Probably way if topic. But what do you mean by class politics from without?


Short reply, out the door soon - but simply not from these competing ID focused groups who spend 24-7 on twitter and facebook winding each other up as far as they possibly can.


----------



## emanymton (Sep 17, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Short reply, out the door soon - but simply not from these competing ID focused groups who spend 24-7 on twitter and facebook winding each other up as far as they possibly can.


Sorry yes. I asked the question. When what I really should have done is just read your post again.


----------



## Geri (Sep 17, 2017)

Borp said:


> I guess I'm saying we currently have areas where the sexes are separated. Sport as I mentioned. Toilets and showers etc. Are these separations necesarry or not? Is there a reason for the separation beyond it being simply an arbitrary one?
> 
> I'm not proposing things, I'm trying to learn.


 
I went into a newish cafe yesterday and used the toilets for the first time. They were toilets that can be used by anyone - i.e. they were cubicles, with both male and female signs on the door, and each cubicle had inside it the things women need to put sanitary towels in, and sinks/hand dryers. Apart from the fact that they were a bit cramped I was very impressed with the way it had been thought out.

I don't see why showers/changing facilities can't be designed the same way, although I appreciate that in cases where a large number of people are needing to change then it may not be as easy. I've never in my life used a communal shower, as I don't feel comfortable being naked in front of anyone I don't know. I would rather not have to change in front of strangers either.


----------



## Athos (Sep 17, 2017)

Clair De Lune said:


> ... some cis women (and actually it's many) do not accept trans women as 'real women' and they see them as men, fake and predators invading wimmins spaces. Let's be clear and honest about that.



Many women accept that trans women aren't faking it (i.e. that they believe themselves to be women), and don't believe that the reason trans women want access to women's spaces is to prey on women, but remain unconvinced that they are women (even if, in 99% of situations they're willing to treat them as such for reasons of compassion), and would like to discuss the question of what it means to be a woman.  Conflating them with the bigots who go out of their way to persecute trans women is inaccurate (albeit made more likely by the fact that some bigots use such discussion as cover).  More importantly, it's polarising, and a bar to any productive discussion.  Personally, I no longer consider the philosophical debate sufficiently important me to justify the unintended consequences to specific trans people. But I can understand why some women might feel differently, without holding the dodgy views you describe.


----------



## chilango (Sep 17, 2017)

killer b said:


> I just feel the whole 'we did this to ourselves' idea doesn't really work - elsewhere we try to avoid the idea of systemic trends being down to individual morality, so we should probably avoid doing it when talking about our own shit.



Aye. I didn't mean it moralistically, more that it's not the result of some sort of conspiracy by the secret state to destabilise the Left.


----------



## spanglechick (Sep 17, 2017)

Borp said:


> I guess I'm saying we currently have areas where the sexes are separated. Sport as I mentioned. Toilets and showers etc. Are these separations necesarry or not? Is there a reason for the separation beyond it being simply an arbitrary one?
> 
> I'm not proposing things, I'm trying to learn.


There's no simple answer.  We used to segregate hospital wards but no longer do in many cases.   Other countries have less segregated facilities with no ill effect (especially Scandinavia iirc).  

Prisons are a thorny issue, because a victim cannot escape their aggressor, and because the system is even worse at protecting them than it is outside... yet this is a problem between cis men in prison - and in this country, apparently a very serious issue of significant magnitude between cis women in women's prisons, sexual violence being used to enforce prisoner hierarchies.  

Another thorny issue is women's refuges.  Yet already these do not offer refuge to the mothers of sons above their individually determined cut off age.  

Organising society along sex-binary lines is not a clear or unproblematic thing to do. The introduction of trans people to the equation, and of gender-non-conforming people complicates matters, but saying "fit in with the existing system, using your genitals OR genetics OR legal status OR self determination" (depending on the preferences of the speaker), doesn't solve the problem for anyone except the speaker.  

Even for gender conforming cis people, our systems are like trying to put a square peg into a round hole.  When we realise that our society isn't binary at all, we have something more asking to a great big spikey star-shaped peg and the same round hole.  

The answer isn't, and has never been, "hit the peg harder" - because the people at the edges get broken that way.  The answer is to change the shape of the hole.


----------



## Borp (Sep 17, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> There's no simple answer.  We used to segregate hospital wards but no longer do in many cases.   Other countries have less segregated facilities with no ill effect (especially Scandinavia iirc).
> 
> Prisons are a thorny issue, because a victim cannot escape their aggressor, and because the system is even worse at protecting them than it is outside... yet this is a problem between cis men in prison - and in this country, apparently a very serious issue of significant magnitude between cis women in women's prisons, sexual violence being used to enforce prisoner hierarchies.
> 
> ...



Interesting. 
I guess for sport other boundaries could be found like testosterone levels or something. It would be interesting to see a fully worked out system for that.


----------



## belboid (Sep 17, 2017)

Borp said:


> Interesting.
> I guess for sport other boundaries could be found like testosterone levels or something. It would be interesting to see a fully worked out system for that.


Caster Semenya is the obvious starting point.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2017)

Borp said:


> Interesting.
> I guess for sport other boundaries could be found like testosterone levels or something. It would be interesting to see a fully worked out system for that.


There are plenty of tricky questions that need addressing, and there's no reason to think there are easy answers to all of them. We grope our way forward. But the starting point to that groping for better systems has to be respect towards those who don't fit into current systems, and paying attention to what they say (which is not the same as saying you have to accept everything they say). In terms of this thread, there are groups such as the so-called terfs  in the OP who clearly don't start from a position of respect, and have no interest in opening up dialogue. They start from a position of open hostility, a reactionary hostility as it is basically a defence of current systems with an added fuck you towards those who don't fit. The callous lack of compassion on display here is what gets me. The likes of Germaine Greer, for instance, who is openly scornful and hatefully dismissive of the very idea of trans women. I don't know whether or not she or those like her realise how they come across, as the natural political bedfellows of old-school conservatives like Mary Whitehouse but with the added vitriol and hate of a Kelvin Mackenzie.


----------



## emanymton (Sep 17, 2017)

Athos said:


> Many women accept that trans women aren't faking it (i.e. that they believe themselves to be women), and don't believe that the reason trans women want access to women's spaces is to prey on women, but remain unconvinced that they are women (even if, in 99% of situations they're willing to treat them as such for reasons of compassion), and would like to discuss the question of what it means to be a woman.  Conflating them with the bigots who go out of their way to persecute trans women is inaccurate (albeit made more likely by the fact that some bigots use such discussion as cover).  More importantly, it's polarising, and a bar to any productive discussion.  Personally, I no longer consider the philosophical debate sufficiently important me to justify the unintended consequences to specific trans people. But I can understand why some women might feel differently, without holding the dodgy views you describe.


I'm increasingly thinking that the principal damage identity politics* is doing is to erode the idea of solidarity, and crucially that solidarity is very different from agreement. I don't have to agree with the way some trans people approach gender to be willing to support them as an oppressed group. I don't have to agree with the opinion some radical feminists have about trans people to be willing to support them against misogynistic abuse. The fact that the people on one side of this are called people on the other side fascists, in what appears to be a serious way, is quite shocking to me.

Another important aspect of solidarity that seems to be falling by the wayside, is that it doesn't have to be reciprocal. Support for one group should not be based on their willingness to support you in turn. To me these are the most principles of what it means to be 'left'. 

*Or maybe it is the other way around. The weakening of the idea of solidarity, allows identity politics in it's current form to grow.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Sep 17, 2017)

Athos said:


> Many women accept that trans women aren't faking it (i.e. that they believe themselves to be women), and don't believe that the reason trans women want access to women's spaces is to prey on women, but remain unconvinced that they are women (even if, in 99% of situations they're willing to treat them as such for reasons of compassion), and would like to discuss the question of what it means to be a woman.  Conflating them with the bigots who go out of their way to persecute trans women is inaccurate (albeit made more likely by the fact that some bigots use such discussion as cover).  More importantly, it's polarising, and a bar to any productive discussion.  Personally, I no longer consider the philosophical debate sufficiently important me to justify the unintended consequences to specific trans people. But I can understand why some women might feel differently, without holding the dodgy views you describe.


I'm not sure what you mean specifically  when you say 'discuss the question of what it means to be a woman' that probably needs clarification. But if women want a space to talk about their lived experience of being assigned female at birth and how society has treated them due to that then they can right? Nobody is stopping them. What puzzles me is that they feel that discussion needs to be held away from trans women. Personal example- I have discussed this stuff with trans friends present, had my experience heard and acknowledged as different to theirs and different to other cis women's experiences also. I have then listened to their experiences of growing up, where they differed  from mine and any overlaps we noticed. We've discussed what it feels like to lose (unwanted, misplaced and painful) male priviledge or gained it as trans men and how society changes the way they treat people as a result. We all have things to add to these discussions from our own unique viewpoints. It is interesting how trans men aren't excluded nearly as frequently from female only spaces as trans women. I think this is a good article https://everydayfeminism.com/2014/02/trans-inclusive-feminist-movement/


----------



## Athos (Sep 17, 2017)

Clair De Lune said:


> I'm not sure what you mean specifically  when you say 'discuss the question of what it means to be a woman' that probably needs clarification. But if women want a space to talk about their lived experience of being assigned female at birth and how society has treated them due to that then they can right? Nobody is stopping them. What puzzles me is that they feel that discussion needs to be held away from trans women. Personal example- I have discussed this stuff with trans friends present, had my experience heard and acknowledged as different to theirs and different to other cis women's experiences also. I have then listened to their experiences of growing up, where they differed  from mine and any overlaps we noticed. We've discussed what it feels like to lose (unwanted, misplaced and painful) male priviledge or gained it as trans men and how society changes the way they treat people as a result. We all have things to add to these discussions from our own unique viewpoints. It is interesting how trans men aren't excluded nearly as frequently from female only spaces as trans women. I think this is a good article https://everydayfeminism.com/2014/02/trans-inclusive-feminist-movement/



By "discuss what it means to be a woman" I was referring to women discussing what a woman is, and whether that includes trans women.


----------



## Thora (Sep 17, 2017)

Clair De Lune said:


> I'm not sure what you mean specifically  when you say 'discuss the question of what it means to be a woman' that probably needs clarification. But if women want a space to talk about their lived experience of being assigned female at birth and how society has treated them due to that then they can right? Nobody is stopping them. What puzzles me is that they feel that discussion needs to be held away from trans women. Personal example- I have discussed this stuff with trans friends present, had my experience heard and acknowledged as different to theirs and different to other cis women's experiences also. I have then listened to their experiences of growing up, where they differed  from mine and any overlaps we noticed. We've discussed what it feels like to lose (unwanted, misplaced and painful) male priviledge or gained it as trans men and how society changes the way they treat people as a result. We all have things to add to these discussions from our own unique viewpoints. It is interesting how trans men aren't excluded nearly as frequently from female only spaces as trans women. I think this is a good article https://everydayfeminism.com/2014/02/trans-inclusive-feminist-movement/


But weren't trans women welcome to attend this discussion, but chose to disrupt/attack it instead?  I thought the whole issue here was that the trans activists did object to women having this discussion, hence giving them a smack in the face


----------



## Clair De Lune (Sep 17, 2017)

Athos said:


> By "discuss what it means to be a woman" I was referring to women discussing what a woman is, and whether that includes trans women.


Oh. Cis women meeting to decide if trans women are real. Gotcha.


----------



## Athos (Sep 17, 2017)

Clair De Lune said:


> Oh. Cis women meeting to decide if trans women are real. Gotcha.



No, that's misrepresenting what I said, with a gross caricature. The discussion need not necessarily exclude trans women. I'm sure lots of women who are currently undecided about where they stand would welcome hearing a range of perspectives.  And the question wouldn't be whether trans women are real, but whether they are women.  Do you agree that women ought to have the freedom to have this discussion?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Sep 17, 2017)

People were meeting to discuss:

What is "gender"?
Is it simply "gender" which makes one a woman or man?
If "gender identity" is enough to make one a woman or a man or is there more to it?
Is gender identity" innate or not?
How do we define what words mean?
Can you can self identify as anything regardless of prior linguistic use?
Do nouns have to be collectively agreed upon to make communication coherent?
Are the terms male or female important statues?
Do adult and child males and females need words to describe themselves? What should those words be? 
What are the political implications?
Do sex statuses need special protection regardless of what you think about gender?
If sex becomes an obsolete categorisation how do we identify homosexuals and protect them from homophobia?
If sex becomes an obsolete categorisation how to we fight misogyny (a word whose roots are "gynaecological system" ie female)?
How do we record statistics? Should the gender pay gap be based on gender or sex?
What about crime statistics?

I would expect these are important questions for everyone.

That is the discusson no one is willing to have to the point of shut down because no one seems to be willing to talk about the Glaringly Huge Elephant in the Room which is the sex status of trans people lest someone be called a terrible bigot.


----------



## belboid (Sep 17, 2017)

Thora said:


> But weren't trans women welcome to attend this discussion, but chose to disrupt/attack it instead?  I thought the whole issue here was that the trans activists did object to women having this discussion, hence giving them a smack in the face


The objection was to women who hold a very specific, anti-trans, position pretending to be interested in a genuine debate. Would you expect gay people to debate with campaigners who said they were inherently scumbags?  Why legitimise a reactionary position?


----------



## belboid (Sep 17, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> People were meeting to discuss:
> 
> What is "gender"?
> Is it simply "gender" which makes one a woman or man?
> ...


All perfectly valid questions. But, see above re debating with someone with a deeply reactionary position on the question.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Sep 17, 2017)

Thora said:


> But weren't trans women welcome to attend this discussion, but chose to disrupt/attack it instead?  I thought the whole issue here was that the trans activists did object to women having this discussion, hence giving them a smack in the face


I wasnt speaking about that particular event in that post.

The event with only Terf speakers? I cant imagine why trans women might not wish to attend that or indeed may wish to protest it. It was never going to be a fair, inclusive and nuanced discussion with those speakers. Allan and Long both call trans women 'he' and believe they are not women.
I think it's unfair to say someone got smacked because they wanted a discussion. That clearly wasnt the case here. Even from the confusing video it's clear there was a bunch of people goading each other. And before anyone accuses me of supporting or excusing violence, let me make clear I have done no such thing. I support discussion and listening, not violence by anyone.


----------



## Thora (Sep 17, 2017)

belboid said:


> The objection was to women who hold a very specific, anti-trans, position pretending to be interested in a genuine debate. Would you expect gay people to debate with campaigners who said they were inherently scumbags?  Why legitimise a reactionary position?


So they didn't want to attend the meeting, but they also wanted to stop women having the discussion at all and were prepared to use violence to achieve that.
I suppose the traditional solution to women with the wrong opinions is a good slap.


----------



## belboid (Sep 17, 2017)

Thora said:


> So they didn't want to attend the meeting, but they also wanted to stop women having the discussion at all and were prepared to use violence to achieve that.
> I suppose the traditional solution to women with the wrong opinions is a good slap.


The slap has been condemned by pretty much everyone. The slapper was a fucking pillock.  That doesn't suddenly turn a bigot into someone you should debate with though. The fact that some women would be attending with a genuine interest in the subject, and not realising the agenda behind it, is one reason why it should have been protested, but not 'no platformed' - giving the protestors the opportunity to say to the attendee's exactly why they were refusing to 'debate'

Is it okay to refuse to debate people sometimes?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Sep 17, 2017)

I've been reading up about this.  It was organised by a Labour Momentum member. 

These kinds of debates will often chaor polar opposite views in an attempt to find middle ground where agreement can be reached. 

Apparently, Stonewall had agreed to be at the meeting but pulled out after pressure.  They couldn't find anyone else to replace them despite repeated requests. 

I've watched debates between people who vociferously disagree. One I remember in particular was a Christopher Hitchebs/Stephen Fry debate vs two Catholics on "Whether the church is a force for good".

They smashed it. Won the debate despite the audience being heavily against them and pro church at the beginning. It was amazing.

I expect Stonewall would have been itching to win the debate too.

You win arguments by putting your points across and winning over the minds of people.

I'm guessing no minds have been won with this little escapade (on either side), but I also expect an awful lot of hearts have been lost.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 17, 2017)

weepiper said:


> Funny, because from this side it seems that everyone's allowed to discuss what makes a woman except, you know, actual women.


who's stopping you? I'm looking forward to hearing what you have to say.


----------



## belboid (Sep 17, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I've been reading up about this.  It was organised by a Labour Momentum member.
> 
> These kinds of debates will often chaor polar opposite views in an attempt to find middle ground where agreement can be reached.
> 
> ...



Stonewall weren't actually invited (apparently), that was a fib told by the organisers.

Did the churchy people in the above debate argue Fry & Hitchens didn't really exist?


----------



## Thora (Sep 17, 2017)

belboid said:


> The slap has been condemned by pretty much everyone. The slapper was a fucking pillock.  That doesn't suddenly turn a bigot into someone you should debate with though. The fact that some women would be attending with a genuine interest in the subject, and not realising the agenda behind it, is one reason why it should have been protested, but not 'no platformed' - giving the protestors the opportunity to say to the attendee's exactly why they were refusing to 'debate'
> 
> Is it okay to refuse to debate people sometimes?


You particularly, and other posters, don't come across as condemning the violence at all - even just rereading the first page of this thread there's a lot of "violence isn't OK _but" _"she was provoking them" "what do you expect in public".


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 17, 2017)

belboid said:


> The slap has been condemned by pretty much everyone. The slapper was a fucking pillock.  That doesn't suddenly turn a bigot into someone you should debate with though. The fact that some women would be attending with a genuine interest in the subject, and not realising the agenda behind it, is one reason why it should have been protested, but not 'no platformed' - giving the protestors the opportunity to say to the attendee's exactly why they were refusing to 'debate'
> 
> Is it okay to refuse to debate people sometimes?


OMG!! Yes. Of course. What a shoulder to have to burden. Trans people would be killed by exhaustion of having to 'debate' with overwhelming numbers of hostile people. For my health i have to close the input sometimes, as do we all. 

If there was a right to debate and an obligation to debate, and indeed be debated, I'd pull TERFs in with my trans supportive cis feminist mates, a few trans women and we could get it all done and dusted in one go. Who's up for that?


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 17, 2017)

belboid said:


> Stonewall weren't actually invited (apparently), that was a fib told by the organisers.
> 
> Did the churchy people in the above debate argue Fry & Hitchens didn't really exist?


from the horses mouth - Bex Stinson told me ahead of the meeting that she'd never been involved or agreed to appear. I heard same form other trans women who were asked to appear. Miranda Yardley has form and none of trust her. She's a lying abuser.

eta - Bex was actually on holiday at the time of the meeting so how they thought they would get her there i have no idea. I'm pretty sure they never expected her to be there.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> That is the discusson no one is willing to have to the point of shut down because no one seems to be willing to talk about the Glaringly Huge Elephant in the Room which is the sex status of trans people lest someone be called a terrible bigot.



What is the sex status of trans people? I'm not talking just legal definitions here. I don't think it's a straightforward question, and I think this quite probably gets to the heart of a lot of the confusion here. You and others have spoken about your struggles with gender identity, but how ultimately that did not lead you to question your sex identity, ie your physical body. But surely trans people are in a state of unease with their sex identity. They feel it is wrong, that they have been born into the wrong body, to the extent that they desire medical intervention to align their physical bodies with how they feel they should be. This goes beyond gender and enters into questions of biological sex. That a trans woman is never going to be a reproductively female person, nor a trans male a reproductively male person, is a function of the limits to the interventions available to them, but there are plenty of women-born-women and men-born-men who also lack that ability. That doesn't seem a very good test.

Seeing the above problem of what a test might be, there is what seems to me to be a post-fact rationalisation of what is basically a bigotted viewpoint - namely that they haven't passed the woman-test of growing up as a woman. Would that then mean that a trans woman who was given medical intervention at puberty is allowed in? We're back to having a ludicrous debate about age cut-off points for admittance - and once you get to that point, I think you should consider that your thinking's gone wrong somewhere along the line.


----------



## belboid (Sep 17, 2017)

Thora said:


> You particularly, and other posters, don't come across as condemning the violence at all - even just rereading the first page of this thread there's a lot of "violence isn't OK _but" _"she was provoking them" "what do you expect in public".


The thread was started with a clearly reactionary agenda, slagging off 'the transgenders.'  So, no, I wasn't exactly sympathetic to the OP and started from that point.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 17, 2017)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Because transwomen tend to make it all about them.


bullshit


----------



## bemused (Sep 17, 2017)

Clair De Lune said:


> And before anyone accuses me of supporting or excusing violence, let me make clear I have done no such thing. I support discussion and listening, not violence by anyone.



It would appear to be counterproductive to attend an event where women are claiming that transwomen threaten female ony spaces ... then beat a woman up.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 17, 2017)

THIS



Lambert Simnel said:


> Think of GNC as not confirming to traditional stereotypes in terms of behaviour or presentation. A bloke who likes to wear make-up or something as a crude example.
> 
> If it's possible for this bloke who was born male to wear make-up, and not conform to traditional male stereotypes, then it's also possible for someone who has transitioned from female to male to do the same. Such a trans person would be gender-non-conforming in the way they present themselves, but they would still be transgender, because they transitioned from female to male, they just don't conform to male gender stereotypes. The two things are really quite separate.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 17, 2017)

bemused said:


> It would appear to be counterproductive to attend an events where women are claiming that transwomen threaten female ony spaces ... then beat a woman up.


which is not what happened. And is far from an honest and complete picture of the events that evening.


----------



## bemused (Sep 17, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> which is not what happened. And is far from an honest and complete picture of the events that evening.



That wasn't a transactivist hitting women? I'm only going by the press reports and video.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 17, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> Jesus.  Do you actually know any people who are sixty? I bloody dare you to call them elderly to their face.



In the context I'd expect they'd agree that putting them up against a twenty something isn't a fair bloody fight.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 17, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> In the context I'd expect they'd agree that putting them up against a twenty something isn't a fair bloody fight.



So what, it doesn't mean you get to call them elderly. You added it for effect. It's unnecessary and incorrect.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 17, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> So what, it doesn't mean you get to call them elderly.



And yet somehow he did


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 17, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> So what, it doesn't mean you get to call them elderly. You added it for effect. It's unnecessary and incorrect.



It isn't incorrect. I didn't say frail or infirm. She is the elder of her attacker by some margin.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 17, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What is the sex status of trans people? I'm not talking just legal definitions here. I don't think it's a straightforward question, and I think this quite probably gets to the heart of a lot of the confusion here. You and others have spoken about your struggles with gender identity, but how ultimately that did not lead you to question your sex identity, ie your physical body. But surely trans people are in a state of unease with their sex identity. They feel it is wrong, that they have been born into the wrong body, to the extent that they desire medical intervention to align their physical bodies with how they feel they should be. This goes beyond gender and enters into questions of biological sex. That a trans woman is never going to be a reproductively female person, nor a trans male a reproductively male person, is a function of the limits to the interventions available to them, but there are plenty of women-born-women and men-born-men who also lack that ability. That doesn't seem a very good test.
> 
> Seeing the above problem of what a test might be, there is what seems to me to be a post-fact rationalisation of what is basically a bigotted viewpoint - namely that they haven't passed the woman-test of growing up as a woman. Would that then mean that a trans woman who was given medical intervention at puberty is allowed in? We're back to having a ludicrous debate about age cut-off points for admittance - and once you get to that point, I think you should consider that your thinking's gone wrong somewhere along the line.


Apart from postmodernism, there's a real problem with categorical, essentialist thinking as well.  Transitioning takes time. Everything does. A person may be intending to transition, content with a partial transition, be well along the path, or have completed things.

Deconstructing one's male privilege does not come easy, not for any of us, I think.

So we should think about transitioning as a process, rather than a state (a trans man or trans woman), especially when it comes to gender politics.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 17, 2017)

this is what feminism looks like



> So now I want to be unequivocal in my words: I believe that transgender people, including those who have transitioned, are living out real, authentic lives. *Those lives should be celebrated, not questioned. Their health care decisions should be theirs and theirs alone to make.* And what I wrote decades ago does not reflect what we know today as we move away from only the binary boxes of “masculine” or “feminine” and begin to live along the full human continuum of identity and expression.


 Gloria Steinam



> *Work with transsexuals, and studies of formation of gender identity in children provide basic information which challenges the notion that there are two discrete biological sexes.* That information threatens to transform the traditional biology of sex difference into the radical biology of sex similarity… *Every transsexual is entitled to a sex-change operation, and it should be provided by the community as one of its functions.*


 Andrea Dworkin



> Male dominant society has defined women as a discrete biological group forever. If this was going to produce liberation, we’d be free.… To me, *women is a political group*. I never had much occasion to say that, or work with it, until the last few years when there has been a lot of discussion about whether transwomen are women… I always thought *I don’t care how someone becomes a woman or a man*; it does not matter to me. It is just part of their specificity, their uniqueness, like everyone else’s. *Anybody who identifies as a woman, wants to be a woman, is going around being a woman, as far as I’m concerned, is a woman.*


Katharine McKinnon



> Transphobia in the feminist community isn’t new and continues to be promoted by radical feminists such as Sheila Jeffreys, Germaine Greer, and Julie Bindel who pathologize transgenderism for a variety of reasons. They characterize being transgender in various ways: as an extremely kinky sexual practice or a mental illness such as body dysmorphic disorder. Sometimes the criticism is paternalistic in claiming that transgender people are merely exploited victims of the medical industry’s drive to make money with various surgical and hormonal procedures. The 1994 book Transexual Empire: The Making of the She-Male by Janice Raymond describes being transsexual as a medical invention manufactured to create profit. Another criticism is that transgender people reinforce gender roles or expression. For example, Germaine Greer once referred to transwomen as “ghastly parodies of women” with “too much eye-shadow.” Sometimes the attacks on transgender people reach conspiracy levels by those who see the phenomenon as an effort by men to turn themselves into women in order to infiltrate “women”-only spaces. Radical feminists Lierre Keith and Derrick Jensen blend transphobia with “anti-civilization” environmentalism in Deep Green Resistance (DGR). Julie Labrouste, a contact of Radical Women, was repudiated by DGR, which had been urging her to join until she mentioned she was trans-female.


 Radical Women, 2nd wave feminist organization, formed in 1967

History of TERF violence against trans women



> *RL Violence Motivated by TERF Ideology*
> *Sandy Stone, victim of attempted murder by TERF group:*
> 
> Sandy Stone recounts the time when Olivia Records (a lesbian separatist, radical feminist women’s music collective) came under attack for being trans inclusive:  “We were getting hate mail about me.… The death threats were directed at me, but there were violent consequences proposed for the Collective if they didn’t get rid of me.”
> ...



all that and more here.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Sep 17, 2017)

Athos said:


> No, that's misrepresenting what I said, with a gross caricature. The discussion need not necessarily exclude trans women. I'm sure lots of women who are currently undecided about where they stand would welcome hearing a range of perspectives.  And the question wouldn't be whether trans women are real, but whether they are women.  Do you agree that women ought to have the freedom to have this discussion?


So not if they are real but if they are women. I see no distinction personally. Women are having these discussions already privately and publicly, that freedom is theirs. It's hard to escape from them and I see the genuine pain it causes my trans friends to have their Twitter and Facebook feeds flooded with people denying their identities, mocking them and abusing them with impunity.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 17, 2017)

i see now that Maria is trying to claim that she was filming with consent. Video however shows that the young people she was harrassing were trying to shield themselves from the camera and she was having none of it.


----------



## bemused (Sep 17, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> i see now that Maria is trying to claim that she was filming with consent. Video however shows that the young people she was harrassing were trying to shield themselves from the camera and she was having none of it.



To be fair you don't need consent to film in a public place.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 17, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> i see now that Maria is trying to claim that she was filming with consent. Video however shows that the young people she was harrassing were trying to shield themselves from the camera and she was having none of it.



That she was harassing?


----------



## The Flying Pig (Sep 17, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> I cba to do so, but if I cared to I could post up many condemnations of this attack I have made myself on this thread.  I'll do it again, just for you: this assault was not acceptable.
> 
> This is because I believe punching people in the head is a bad thing.   I don't need to make out that the person assaulted was some frail little old dear in order to be at odds with it.
> 
> People who have exaggerated her frailty (as they have by calling her "elderly") are clearly seeking to use emotive language to exaggerate the harm done.   Isn't it enough to say "a middle aged activist was punched in the head"...? Isn't that bad enough?


Punching someone in the head is not the issue, attacking a sixty year old is. Frail? Middle aged? little old dear? I don't see it as relevent. Striking a male,female or whatever other description you want to give to a sixty year old human being is out of order.


----------



## Athos (Sep 17, 2017)

Clair De Lune said:


> So not if they are real but if they are women. I see no distinction personally. Women are having these discussions already privately and publicly, that freedom is theirs. It's hard to escape from them and I see the genuine pain it causes my trans friends to have their Twitter and Facebook feeds flooded with people denying their identities, mocking them and abusing them with impunity.



Again you're conflating two very different things.  Nobody in their right mind would defend mockery and abuse of trans people. But it's not the same as discussing e.g. what is a woman.  Do you think women should be free to have that discussion?  Because many don't.

And I can understand why some women are uncomfortable with the idea that they ought to uncritically accept a definition of themselves (i.e. women) which has recently radically changed, seemingly to accommodate a relatively small number of people born into male-sexed bodies and raised and socialised as boys then men.  Particularly when they're subjected to violence or, say, rape threats for daring to question. Can you?

A particular difficulty arises when people use a legitimate aim as cover for something else e.g. harassing and goading trans people as seems to have happened in that incident.  The question is how to respond.  Clearly, very few people agree that punching her was appropriate (apart from being wrong, it was a PR disaster).  But what else? No platforming? In my opinion, that would have played into the 'trans women silencing women' narrative. But, equally, trans people shouldn't feel obliged to debate anyone.

Perhaps a more productive approach might have been to protest outside the meeting, and explain to women attending in good faith why they didn't want to legitimise those speakers by debating with them.  And perhaps expound some of the arguments in favour of trans inclusion.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 17, 2017)

Clair De Lune said:


> So not if they are real but if they are women. I see no distinction personally. Women are having these discussions already privately and publicly, that freedom is theirs. It's hard to escape from them and I see the genuine pain it causes my trans friends to have their Twitter and Facebook feeds flooded with people denying their identities, mocking them and abusing them with impunity.



I can't see who you're responding to. But, I can back you up here. Yes, I attend women only meetings where i am accepted, and yes we do discuss these issues among others, including issues that would only be relevant for cis women, and no-one in the meetings i attend have an issue with a trans woman being there. In fact for a while I was experiencing women approaching me quietly telling me how much they supported me and trans acceptance but were afraid to speak out because of the TERFs.

Even with stuff that I am not directly able to experience I can show empathy, I can be supportive. Just because my issues aren't their issues, and their issues may not be my issues, this is feminism and we're all women, and I think that we're stronger together than at each other's throats or all in our seperate little silos marked "black women", "lesbians", "femme lesbians", "transwomen (sic)" etc.

Trans women aren't the first to have been excluded from mainstream feminism, but we are the latest in a long proud line. I have no doubt that the end result is a no brainer - that of acceptance. I hope i get to live to see it.

And this is an experience that resonates with many trans women (i do talk to hundreds) and probably most cis women who are trans allies (i talk to many). We see no actual problem between us. No conflicts. No conflict of rights. The problem seems to be that some "feminists" are refusing to accept the majority view in this matter because of their ideology, and are using every underhand method they can to get us excluded, including support form MRA's and religious extremists, appealing to right wing corporate media, and even resorting to organised violence.

My earliest allies - the people that supported me through my transition, were all cis women, some of whom identify as feminists. Cis women are accepting trans women as women despite the rhetoric coming from the Church, the Corporate press, vested interest politicians, MRAs and TERFs.

And thankyou, Clair, for your very eloquent support. I appreciate it and I'm sure most of my trans siblings would too.

I've lost count now the number of women that have come up to me at some point to say they held TERFy views until they met me, and are now among my best allies. I believe that getting out there, personalising this, and giving their hatred a face, and flesh and blood, does more good to challenge bigotry than anything else which is why I'm, out there and as visible as possible and i do get shit for it. I get shit for it on here - and i believe because most people find it very hard to cling to their bigotry when it manifests itself in a real person that they can relate to actually suffering as a result.

I saw a blog the other day by a cis woman who has lost patience now with the TERFs and it was very well written piece about how the TERFs have lost their way and should no longer be accepted as feminists. Unfortunately can't put my hands on it right now but if I do I'll post the pertinent bits.

I realise i don't really have a voice in this at the moment and i feel very vulnerable even now, after 4 years, but I'm not shutting up. I'm not going away. My body, my identity, my life.
I laugh at the idea that me of all people on this thread shouldn't be personalising this or referring to my own experiences. Yes, way to go trying to silence one of the few trans voices on this thread.

eta - aplogies, i have a really bad habit of continuing to edit things after i've posted them because that's how my brain works, nothing sinister. Not trying to catch people out.


----------



## The Flying Pig (Sep 17, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> That she was harassing?


how precious we are all are. you don't need anyones consent to photograph, video etc. The world is not some uni campus, it is for real.


----------



## abstract1 (Sep 17, 2017)

The Flying Pig said:


> Punching someone in the head is not the issue, attacking a sixty year old is. Frail? Middle aged? little old dear? I don't see it as relevent. Striking a male,female or whatever other description you want to give to a sixty year old human being is out of order.



You're a fucking idiot.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 17, 2017)

The Flying Pig said:


> how precious we are all are. you don't need anyones consent to photograph, video etc. The world is not some uni campus, it is for real.


and the violence that results from doxxing is all good fun, eh?


----------



## Athos (Sep 17, 2017)

emanymton said:


> I'm increasingly thinking that the principal damage identity politics* is doing is to erode the idea of solidarity, and crucially that solidarity is very different from agreement. I don't have to agree with the way some trans people approach gender to be willing to support them as an oppressed group. I don't have to agree with the opinion some radical feminists have about trans people to be willing to support them against misogynistic abuse. The fact that the people on one side of this are called people on the other side fascists, in what appears to be a serious way, is quite shocking to me.
> 
> Another important aspect of solidarity that seems to be falling by the wayside, is that it doesn't have to be reciprocal. Support for one group should not be based on their willingness to support you in turn. To me these are the most principles of what it means to be 'left'.
> 
> *Or maybe it is the other way around. The weakening of the idea of solidarity, allows identity politics in it's current form to grow.



Yes, ultimately I prefer not to undermine solidarity  with the idea that trans people deserve to live free of persecution, by focusing on differences between my conception of gender and that of some trans people, particularly if doing so causes them unnecessary upset in the process.


----------



## TikkiB (Sep 17, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> I can't see who you're responding to. But, I can back you up here. Yes, I attend women only meetings where i am accepted, and yes we do discuss these issues among others, including issues that would only be relevant for cis women, and no-one in the meetings i attend have an issue with a trans woman being there. In fact for a while I was experiencing women approaching me quietly telling me how much they supported me and trans acceptance but were afraid to speak out because of the TERFs..........



Stella, thank you for posting that.  I think that is the first time I have read a post of yours which speaks to me of common purpose and solidarity with other women.  Previously I seem only to have caught your responses to cis women on the board that have not been quite so collaborative - your response to Weepiper's comment about (cis) women being the only people not allowed to discuss what it is to be a woman is an example. 

This board can be a difficult place for the voices and experiences of women (cis or trans) to be heard at times, and my perception is that sometimes your posts have not acknowledged that, or indeed have not made common cause with other women in the face of explicit, or implicit sexism.

If my perception is wrong then I apologise.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2017)

The Flying Pig said:


> Punching someone in the head is not the issue, attacking a sixty year old is. Frail? Middle aged? little old dear? I don't see it as relevent. Striking a male,female or whatever other description you want to give to a sixty year old human being is out of order.


Just to be clear about this, the violence was out of order and Stella linked to a very good response to it from a trans woman's blog, where she rightly berated the punchy idiot for the enormous damage the violence did to the cause, in the process introducing yet another incident of violence against women to the world. So nobody's defending the violence, and it frankly would not be any better if the woman who was punched had been 30. So I don't agree at all that 'punching someone in the head is not the issue'. 

But there is a separate issue related directly to the video in the OP and its purpose. Its purpose was very clear - to advance the viewpoint that this was male violence against women and an example of trans terrorism. These are unpleasant people who go out of their way to demonise trans women. This idiot happened to play right into their hands in this instance by doing an out of order thing that they could then use to advance their narrative that trans women are men in disguise and a violent threat to 'real' women. 

There is no reason why it can't be possible to recognise both of these things - that the assault on this person was wrong, and that the assault has then been used by the person's group to advance a deeply unpleasant agenda.


----------



## belboid (Sep 17, 2017)

Athos said:


> Again you're conflating two very different things.  Nobody in their right mind would defend mockery and abuse of trans people. But it's not the same as discussing e.g. what is a woman.  Do you think women should be free to have that discussion?  Because many don't.
> 
> And I can understand why some women are uncomfortable with the idea that they ought to uncritically accept a definition of themselves (i.e. women) which has recently radically changed, seemingly to accommodate a relatively small number of people born into male-sexed bodies and raised and socialised as boys then men.  Particularly when they're subjected to violence or, say, rape threats for daring to question. Can you?
> 
> ...


Unfortunately, I think some on here have no problem with defending mockery and abuse of trans people. Apparently calling trans campaigners MRA's, calling out 'the trans cult' and misgendering people is fine. 

I agree with the rest of your post.


----------



## Athos (Sep 17, 2017)

belboid said:


> Unfortunately, I think some on here have no problem with defending mockery and abuse of trans people. Apparently calling trans campaigners MRA's, calling out 'the trans cult' and misgendering people is fine.
> 
> I agree with the rest of your post.



Then they should be taken to task.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 17, 2017)

TikkiB said:


> Stella, thank you for posting that.  I think that is the first time I have read a post of yours which speaks to me of common purpose and solidarity with other women.  Previously I seem only to have caught your responses to cis women on the board that have not been quite so collaborative - your response to Weepiper's comment about (cis) women being the only people not allowed to discuss what it is to be a woman is an example.
> 
> This board can be a difficult place for the voices and experiences of women (cis or trans) to be heard at times, and my perception is that sometimes your posts have not acknowledged that, or indeed have not made common cause with other women in the face of explicit, or implicit sexism.
> 
> If my perception is wrong then I apologise.


i probably only ever wade in when i see a reason to disagree and never to express solidarity - so yeah, my bad probably - i should do it more on the boards and not just via PMs or meet ups. But I do feel Urban brings out the worst of me at times. 

eta - just to add i don''t often know the gender of the person i'm responding to as if that should make a difference - so I'm not disagreeing with cis women, i'm disagreeing with specific opinions.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 17, 2017)

useful idiot and hot headed is how i see the woman who threw the punch, but i still feel she owes everyone a huge apology. On the other hand - i hear the police are looking into things so it's probably going to have to wait until that whole process has been gone through.

eta - poor judgement was displayed by both sides in this matter, and apologies from everyone and a commitment to pursuing our differences through peaceful means would be my preferred option. 

A fair debate with fair representation from all sides in this and not a heavily-loaded-with-known-TERFs panel and a trans woman that 99% of trans women really do not trust who has a history of abuse within our community and who speaks at odds with the mainstream of the trans community on every issue.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 17, 2017)

snadge said:


> I suppose I have a dog in this race also, as a cancer survivor I have had both testicles removed ( 5 years apart) and was prescribed synthetic testosterone, due to horrendous mood swings I no longer bother with it, it has made me a lot more inwardly calmer ( on the synthetic testosterone I was either a seething mass of anger or ready to burst into tears at the slightest provocation). I now like my chilled inner self, the only down side being I'm just not bothered about sex or a relationship which doesn't bother me in the slightest.
> 
> In answer to SpookyFrank I have seen transgenders online referring to their girldicks with pride, quite a lot of the vocal ones seem to have no desire to transition and have a problem with straight men not wanting anything to do with them.
> 
> Now to me this is not an identity problem, it's just a sexual fetish.


Not just a fetish no. But George Melly did say losing his sex drive (just due to age in his case) was like being unchained from a lunatic . 

Any man would be a fool (or terribly sheltered) to deny that for some men having a pair of lady boobs as well as a dick would have its attractions.  A search on girldicks provides all the evidence one could need for this assertion 

It's mad isn't it, that the owners of girldicks can be indignant at straight men not wanting them as sexual partners. Except of course they've gone to a lot of trouble, and would be expert partners too (knowing exactly what to do with the male organ etc, of course).

There's a twitter account I follow which proclaims in its header "Dykes don't like dick". I thought it was hardly necessary to make such a point of it.  It took me a while to understand. Madness upon madness, our friends with the girldicks "know themselves to be" women, so of course should be able to sleep with lesbians.  

Anyone who's interested in male sexual behaviour (what goes on is largely unacknowledged) could do well to start with this book.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 17, 2017)

Jonti said:


> It's mad isn't it, that the owners of girldicks can be indignant at straight men not wanting them as sexual partners. Except of course they've gone to a lot of trouble, and would be expert partners too (knowing exactly what to do with the male organ etc, of course).
> 
> There's a twitter account I follow which proclaims in its header "Dykes don't like dick". I thought it was hardly necessary to make such a point of it.  It took me a while to understand. Madness upon madness, our friends with the girldicks "know themselves to be" women, so of course should be able to sleep with lesbians.



except many cis women who identify as lesbian do find trans women attractive and I happen to be with a straight guy who was with me from early pre-op days and IT just wasn't an issue. 

I think you're talking out of your arse, being deliberately provocative and offensive, hideously transphobic - erasing the experiences of people you don;t agree with . 

It has been reported as transphobic. I hope others will do too. Or are double standards at play on these boards?


----------



## Jonti (Sep 17, 2017)

Steady on.  This isn't something *you* have to deal with


----------



## Clair De Lune (Sep 17, 2017)

Jonti said:


> Steady on.  This isn't something *you* have to deal with


Do you have to deal with it then?


----------



## Jonti (Sep 17, 2017)

With what?


----------



## Clair De Lune (Sep 17, 2017)

Jonti said:


> With what?


I was hoping you'd clarify that since you were the one who said it.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 17, 2017)

Jonti said:


> Steady on.  This isn't something *you* have to deal with


don't smile at me - you have used offensive language to say that trans women are men and are demanding to sleep with lesbians. I'm not even going to argue with you. It shouldn't be on this thread. It's off topic. Start a new thread, use less inflammatory language and show the evidence.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 17, 2017)

Clair De Lune said:


> I was hoping you'd clarify that since you were the one who said it.


Oh I see. With the "just fetishism" angle. No, it's not just that. Dealt with.


----------



## iona (Sep 17, 2017)

andysays said:


> I can understand how it's possible to be gender non-conforming instead of transgender, but not how it's possible to be both simultaneously.
> 
> The latin prefix _trans_ explicitly means from one thing, position or state to another, frequently from one thing to its opposite.
> 
> ...



No, I wasn't trying to "stretch the meaning of trans to include (cis) GNC" people. I was talking about people who are transgender but somehow don't conform to societal expectations wrt gender roles or expression - a trans man who likes wearing makeup and high heels, for example, or a butch trans woman who works as a scaffolder or something.

Re the bit I quoted in bold - think we had different understandings of GNC and that's where the confusion came from? I've always understood & seen GNC used to mean not conforming to roles etc associated with _that person's gender_, rather than any gender. So a cis woman who conformed to male roles etc would be GNC even though she is conforming to gender roles, because they aren't the roles typically associated with her gender. And the same for trans women (expected to conform to female roles) and trans men (male roles).

E2a I absolutely agree about the importance of not conflating the two, btw.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 17, 2017)

iona said:


> Re the bit I quoted in bold - think we had different understandings of GNC and that's where the confusion came from? I've always understood & seen GNC used to mean not conforming to roles etc associated with _that person's gender_, rather than any gender. So a cis woman who conformed to male roles etc would be GNC even though she is conforming to gender roles, because they aren't the roles typically associated with her gender. And the same for trans women (expected to conform to female roles) and trans men (male roles).



that's exactly how i use it too. Surprisingly high numbers of people seem to think, eg, that a trans woman conforming to female standards of femininity is a form of GNC.

Also will add that quite a few GNC men that i have seen, ie, presenting femininely enough that they might be accused of cross dressing - but not wanting to transition, do actually choose to identify as trans. Trans being the umbrella term, which transgender and many other identities sit under.


----------



## iona (Sep 17, 2017)

Jonti said:


> I think FabricLiveBaby!'s post and kabbes' response is a great read for where we are.  Worth every word.
> 
> "suggested treatment other than medical transition might be preferable" I'm not sure I did this, but certainly wouldn't like to rule it out.



Sorry, just catching up with the thread after being offline... I read this part of your earlier post (quoted below) as suggesting treatment other than medical transition might be preferable - was that not what you meant?


Jonti said:


> <snip>
> All that can be offered is to medically alter the individual patient to fit better into one of the rigid sex-roles on offer. Preferable, might be a social response which allows people to be who they are in the body they were born with.



Wrt to other methods of treatment for transgender people, WPATH (the World Professional Association for Transgender Health) has this to say (my bold) -



			
				WPATH Standards of Care said:
			
		

> Treatment aimed at trying to change a person’s gender identity and lived gender expression to become more congruent with sex assigned at birth has been attempted in the past (Gelder & Marks, 1969; Greenson, 1964), yet without success, particularly in the long term (Cohen-Kettenis & Kuiper, 1984; Pauly, 1965). *Such treatment is no longer considered ethical*.


----------



## bimble (Sep 17, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> that's exactly how i use it too. Surprisingly high numbers of people seem to think, eg, that a trans woman conforming to female standards of femininity is a form of GNC.
> 
> *Also will add that quite a few GNC men that i have seen, ie, presenting femininely enough that they might be accused of cross dressing - but not wanting to transition, do actually choose to identify as trans. Trans being the umbrella term, which transgender and many other identities sit under.*



Why would you not just call those people you've just described trans women ? (genuine question, as you say that they choose to identify as such).

eta) I suppose I don't understand what transition actually means. Didn't think it required a person to necessarily begin or intend to begin any medical treatment.


----------



## iona (Sep 17, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> that's exactly how i use it too. Surprisingly high numbers of people seem to think, eg, that a trans woman conforming to female standards of femininity is a form of GNC.
> 
> Also will add that quite a few GNC men that i have seen, ie, presenting femininely enough that they might be accused of cross dressing - but not wanting to transition, do actually choose to identify as trans. Trans being the umbrella term, which transgender and many other identities sit under.



Yeah I was going to mention that whole grey area of trans-as-umbrella-term / non-medical-transition / non-binary / GNC / whatever else stuff but I would've ended up veering wildly off topic and writing a whole book


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 17, 2017)

bimble said:


> Why would you not just call those people you've just described trans women ? (genuine question, as you say that they choose to identify as such).
> 
> eta) I suppose I don't understand what transition actually means. Didn't think it required a person to necessarily begin or intend to begin any medical treatment.


because they don;t identify as women. And the ones I know are absolutely adamant that this is not about identity or gender for them but they just like dressing up, or looking feminine. Some just really like the clothes. But they are absolutely men. I don;t see any connection between my own identity and their's but i do accept that they face the same sort of transphobia that i faced when i began to explore my own gender. And quite a few not yet out of the closet trans women come up through cross-dressing groups. I did myself until a point where i met a few trans women who transitioned and began to work out what was really going on in my case.

Transitioning - though it has been medicalised - can be as simple as a statement of name and gender change. For me that was my starting point and i moved in from there, seeking NHS treatment and self medicating hormones and nearly 4 years on I'm still not at the end of that journey but I would say i transitioned 4 years ago. Sometimes called a social transition rather than medicalised or legal. Though there isn;t really a legal process in the UK for transitioning, just bits and pieces.


----------



## bimble (Sep 17, 2017)

Ah, so when you said they 'identify as trans' that means they are using the word in a totally different way. ok thanks.


----------



## The Flying Pig (Sep 17, 2017)

abstract1 said:


> You're a fucking idiot.


I take it you must have been in the crowd of attackers or are you just an internet warrior?


Clair De Lune said:


> Do you have to deal with it then?


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 17, 2017)

bimble said:


> Ah, so when you said they 'identify as trans' that means they are using the word in a totally different way. ok thanks.



It's confusing i know because Trans as an umbrella term and trans short for transgender are the same word, but its the context i think that is different.

I just pulled this off Google for illustrative purposes, though I don;t necessarily agree with the specifics - or disagree, its just illustrate of what i mean. 

All of this together would be labelled Trans or Trans*


----------



## The Flying Pig (Sep 17, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Just to be clear about this, the violence was out of order and Stella linked to a very good response to it from a trans woman's blog, where she rightly berated the punchy idiot for the enormous damage the violence did to the cause, in the process introducing yet another incident of violence against women to the world. So nobody's defending the violence, and it frankly would not be any better if the woman who was punched had been 30. So I don't agree at all that 'punching someone in the head is not the issue'.
> 
> But there is a separate issue related directly to the video in the OP and its purpose. Its purpose was very clear - to advance the viewpoint that this was male violence against women and an example of trans terrorism. These are unpleasant people who go out of their way to demonise trans women. This idiot happened to play right into their hands in this instance by doing an out of order thing that they could then use to advance their narrative that trans women are men in disguise and a violent threat to 'real' women.
> 
> There is no reason why it can't be possible to recognise both of these things - that the assault on this person was wrong, and that the assault has then been used by the person's group to advance a deeply unpleasant agenda.


So are you saying that the person attacked purposely antagonised the opposition so that she could be physically beaten? This sounds quite a familiar thread and often heard by men who beat their wives. Or have I misunderstood what you mean?


----------



## Clair De Lune (Sep 17, 2017)

The Flying Pig said:


> I take it you must have been in the crowd of attackers or are you just an internet warrior?


Did you mean to quote me and accuse me of being an attacker or an internet warrior?


----------



## bimble (Sep 17, 2017)

cripes AuntiStella . google is not helping much with the acronyms


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2017)

The Flying Pig said:


> So are you saying that the person attacked purposely antagonised the opposition so that she could be physically beaten? This sounds quite a familiar thread and often heard by men who beat their wives. Or have I misunderstood what you mean?


No. I'm not saying that at all. I was careful to say exactly what I meant. I'm saying that the video that you posted to start this thread was made and released to further a very specific, nasty agenda, and that they are using the attack to push that agenda. I didn't say that there was a deliberate attempt to provoke violence or that she brought it upon herself or that she deserved it or anything like that. You've made that bit up yourself.

The clue there was the way that I separated off the two issues - the use made of the video has no bearing on the wrongness of the violence. Separate issues.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 17, 2017)

bimble said:


> cripes AuntiStella . google is not helping much with the acronyms


ha ha!! No. This stuff is still being worked out. I struggle to keep up. It's just that its all so new I guess, even for us - I mean being able to talk about it to other trans people. Before that we were pretty much isolated from each other. I'm sure it'll settle down eventually.


----------



## iona (Sep 17, 2017)

bimble said:


> cripes AuntiStella . google is not helping much with the acronyms



Ft = female to ; Mt = male to 

So they're just variations on ftm/mtf (eg ft3 would be female to third gender, mtx I'm guessing the x would be something neutral/other - like having X as an option on ID as well as M/F). A lot of them aren't all that widely used, but as AS says it works well to illustrate what she meant.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 17, 2017)

i should have picked a simpler one - that would have illustrated it just as well


----------



## abstract1 (Sep 17, 2017)

The Flying Pig said:


> I take it you must have been in the crowd of attackers or are you just an internet warrior?



No, I'm a woman who thinks you're a fucking idiot.

You start a thread using provocative and pejorative terms - you then presume to suggest that language used  (by a man) to describe the woman in the incident you posted about is of no relevance, and go on to suggest a person's age is more important than assault.

Fuck off.


----------



## The Flying Pig (Sep 17, 2017)

Clair De Lune said:


> Did you mean to quote me and accuse me of being an attacker or an internet warrior?


No slip of the finger


----------



## The Flying Pig (Sep 17, 2017)

abstract1 said:


> No, I'm a woman who thinks you're a fucking idiot.
> 
> You start a thread using provocative and pejorative terms - you then presume to suggest that language used  (by a man) to describe the woman in the incident you posted about is of no relevance, and go on to suggest a person's age is more important than assault.
> 
> Fuck off.


 Thank you question answered ....Internet warrior. I thought so.


----------



## bimble (Sep 17, 2017)

In this area (if not many others tbh) I have an optimistic feeling that things will get better a couple of generations down the line, when all this stuff that right now is so new that the language is still being formed when it gets metabolised and becomes just part of life, maybe in a couple of decades people will look back at this historical period with a sort of pity and some affection.


----------



## iona (Sep 17, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> ha ha!! No. This stuff is still being worked out. I struggle to keep up. It's just that its all so new I guess, even for us - I mean being able to talk about it to other trans people. Before that we were pretty much isolated from each other. I'm sure it'll settle down eventually.



Oops, cross posted! Sorry, didn't mean to talk over you..

Yeah that's it I think, terms like man/male and woman/female have been around so long that they're both universally (within that language) used and understood to encompass a range of definitions; those are still up for debate, as this thread proves, but generally speaking one woman calling herself a woman isn't taken to mean someone else who defines her womanhood differently must actually not be a woman and should find something else to call herself (sorry, that's a bit garbled I know). Whereas people who don't fit into that binary haven't got a standardised set of terms - there's no "two spirit" equivalent in our culture - so having the chance to create them means everyone goes looking for the exact term that fits them 100% perfectly rather than just making do with what's there. If that makes sense at all?


----------



## The Flying Pig (Sep 17, 2017)

bimble said:


> In this area (if not many others tbh) I have an optimistic feeling that things will get better a couple of generations down the line, when all this stuff that right now is so new that the language is still being formed when it gets metabolised and becomes just part of life, maybe in a couple of decades people will look back at this historical period with a sort of pity and some affection.


I am looking upon some of the players with pity now, never mind in two generations time. Certainly not exasperated enough to go attacking physically with or without a camera any of the players in this sad debacle.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 17, 2017)

iona said:


> Oops, cross posted! Sorry, didn't mean to talk over you..
> 
> Yeah that's it I think, terms like man/male and woman/female have been around so long that they're both universally (within that language) used and understood to encompass a range of definitions; those are still up for debate, as this thread proves, but generally speaking one woman calling herself a woman isn't taken to mean someone else who defines her womanhood differently must actually not be a woman and should find something else to call herself (sorry, that's a bit garbled I know). Whereas people who don't fit into that binary haven't got a standardised set of terms - there's no "two spirit" equivalent in our culture - so having the chance to create them means everyone goes looking for the exact term that fits them 100% perfectly rather than just making do with what's there. If that makes sense at all?


Makes perfect sense.

For me now going through a process of wondering how I feel now about she/her being used for me. At first it was relief but slowly I'm not sure if I'm entirely comfortable with female pronouns either. Don't know if that's because I'm actually non binary, if I'd be more comfortable not being gendered at all, or if it's after years of getting used to being him/he it just takes some getting used to. Or is feeling that I don't entirely fit into female, while remaining not at all male, or the same as the discomfort with female roles that a lot of cis women report?
But I do know that my body now nearly matches my internal identity so it didn't seem like such a big issue any more.
Anyway. These are the struggles we go through, which I consider to be a luxury these days, to have the words, the concepts and people to bounce things off people  that understand.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 17, 2017)

19force8 said:


> Sheer fucking bollocks. The level of transphobia relates directly to the abuse transpeople suffer. If women participate in that transphobia then they are a threat.



And the threat they comprise, by and large, is verbal violence, NOT killing.


----------



## bimble (Sep 17, 2017)

AuntiStella Why should you or anyone else 'entirely fit into female' ? I have no idea what that even means to be honest unless it means being happy to conform to every attribute and behaviour that our patriarchal society has pushed onto the category of other things that is defined as "feminine".
I (cis woman) have massive issues with 'female roles' in terms of what I have been taught to understand them to be and am kind of glad to hear it if you do too. 
We're stuck it seems with a language that relies on gendered pronouns but questioning what rigid connotations the word 'she' conjures up in our heads is surely still up for grabs.


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 17, 2017)

I been away for a few days and this happened, it's gonna take me a while to read, brb


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 17, 2017)

bimble said:


> AuntiStella Why should you or anyone else 'entirely fit into female' ? I have no idea what that even means to be honest unless it means being happy to conform to every attribute and behaviour that our patriarchal society has pushed onto the category of other things that is defined as "feminine".
> I (cis woman) have massive issues with 'female roles' in terms of what I have been taught to understand them to be and am kind of glad to hear it if you do too.


I absolutely do have issues with "female roles". I feel them being imposed on me from outside same as any woman. I'm just learning how I fit into all this though. At first I was just so pleased to have transitioned that I didn't think too much about that side of things. But 4 years in reality starts to bite.
I think I don't know entirely what I mean. The feelings I have about myself now are mostly free of dysphoria and so, unchartered territory.
The cis women in my life are pretty much all very strong, very outspoken, independent, way more confident than I am and I am learning so much, being inspired so much, by them. I think I'm just trying to say, now that I've escaped being a man, and those constraints on me, I'm just starting to think about myself in terms that a cis person would, though, it's all new and confusing at the moment, but I have the best people around me to guide me through it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 17, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> The idea that females "feel" a certain way and have a gender identity or "type of female brain" is a load of misogynist fucking shite IMO and you all know it.
> 
> It's so sad seeing it repeated as a thing on this forum.
> 
> ...



Regarding material analysis of the roots of oppression, few politicians (professional or otherwise) will go there, because that would involve analysis of how class intersects with identity and gender, and how they interact to cause specific effects.  Analysis of male violence has come some way, but it's still partially excused in society and (worse) within the criminal justice system. Sadly, analysis of male violence has seldom included a class analysis, apart from a few isolated research projects down the years, so it's impossible to get at those roots.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 17, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> And the threat they comprise, by and large, is verbal violence, NOT killing.


It's more than that. Many of them work with men, they feed the discourse that men use to attack us, they have media influence that we dont, that they use to try to roll back our rights, with some success. they doxx trans people and allies - which means some, not yet out, could end up on the street or being driven to suicide. They campaign to have us excluded from lgbt spaces, from homeless shelters,, from rape crisis shelters - they campaign to put vulnerable trans women in harm's way. I posted above a history of actual violence carried out by TERFs against trans women and cis women who support us. So no. The threat is real.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 17, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Regarding material analysis of the roots of oppression, few politicians (professional or otherwise) will go there, because that would involve analysis of how class intersects with identity and gender, and how they interact to cause specific effects.  Analysis of male violence has come some way, but it's still partially excused in society and (worse) within the criminal justice system. Sadly, analysis of male violence has seldom included a class analysis, apart from a few isolated research projects down the years, so it's impossible to get at those roots.


This has nothing to do with male violence


----------



## lazythursday (Sep 17, 2017)

I used to have a very similar attitude to some on this thread - a bit of a discomfort about trans people, based on a belief that transitioning is helping to encourage the notion of binary fixed genders, with a view along the lines of 'why oh why can't they just be a really really feminine man or a really really masculine woman and avoid all this surgery nonsense' - but then over a period of years I watched someone go through transition and grow into the person they wanted to be and become much stronger and happy and confident, and I realised I perhaps should stop thinking I know what's best for people. And they've also been on the receiving end of a lot of prejudice - from men and women, some of it using the kind of TERF arguments and language. I just can't see how this group of people (transwomen, no-one ever seems bothered by transmen) can retain much in the way of male privilege given their everyday experiences.

The other thing I just can't get my head around about the TERF argument is that it seems completely contradictory. On the one hand, we should break down the artificial construct of gender... on the other we should build a wall around what it is to be a woman and police that line aggressively. I just don't get that, and so many of the arguments against acceptance from feminists, left and right seem to mirror those made against gay people a generation ago. Especially this whole 'it's all a middle class distraction from real politics' shit. Finally... I'm not a big fan of many of the practices and ways of thinking that have stemmed from identity politics - but clearly it's possible to be guarded against some of the excesses of that (mostly online?) culture and still be firmly in favour of trans rights. Some contributors to this thread seem to think being a socialist and being in favour of trans rights are mutually exclusive.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 17, 2017)

lazythursday said:


> I used to have a very similar attitude to some on this thread - a bit of a discomfort about trans people, based on a belief that transitioning is helping to encourage the notion of binary fixed genders, with a view along the lines of 'why oh why can't they just be a really really feminine man or a really really masculine woman and avoid all this surgery nonsense' - but then over a period of years I watched someone go through transition and grow into the person they wanted to be and become much stronger and happy and confident, and I realised I perhaps should stop thinking I know what's best for people. And they've also been on the receiving end of a lot of prejudice - from men and women, some of it using the kind of TERF arguments and language. I just can't see how this group of people (transwomen, no-one ever seems bothered by transmen) can retain much in the way of male privilege given their everyday experiences.
> 
> The other thing I just can't get my head around about the TERF argument is that it seems completely contradictory. On the one hand, we should break down the artificial construct of gender... on the other we should build a wall around what it is to be a woman and police that line aggressively. I just don't get that, and so many of the arguments against acceptance from feminists, left and right seem to mirror those made against gay people a generation ago. Especially this whole 'it's all a middle class distraction from real politics' shit. Finally... I'm not a big fan of many of the practices and ways of thinking that have stemmed from identity politics - but clearly it's possible to be guarded against some of the excesses of that (mostly online?) culture and still be firmly in favour of trans rights. Some contributors to this thread seem to think being a socialist and being in favour of trans rights are mutually exclusive.



Only to the extent that identities transcend class. It's possible to be a Marxist feminist, for example.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 17, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> And yet I've been called a TERF before for having a materialist marxist philosophical standpoint.  Funny that.  It's almost like it's a thought terminating cliché. A bit like "SJW".



Unfortunately there will always be idiots and lazy thinkers who are not intellectually-equipped to debate, so use such clichés to shut down debate. It's as pathetic in public life as it is in a playground.  These are labels you can expand to include *anyone* you don't agree with.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 17, 2017)

bimble said:


> In this area (if not many others tbh) I have an optimistic feeling that things will get better a couple of generations down the line, when all this stuff that right now is so new that the language is still being formed when it gets metabolised and becomes just part of life, maybe in a couple of decades people will look back at this historical period with a sort of pity and some affection.


I saw the future in Ian M Banks books 

Yeah, at some point in the future this is all going to seem rather strange to people, like looking back to some archaic religious dispute in 1463.

But it might take longer than a couple of decades. I'm braced for the long haul tbh. It's better than it was but then we hit a wall and it goes a bit backwards, and so forth.

I'm really interested in what happened in Germany just before Hitler came to power, where transgender was starting to reach acceptance wth a thoroughly scientific approach. We've probably surpassed that now, and with different, less nuts and bolts approaches, but back then the Nazis used trans to prove how debauched German society was. I see plenty of people trying to do the same now, scarily.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Only to the extent that identities transcend class. It's possible to be a Marxist feminist, for example.


It's possible to be a trans anything, no? You can be a trans capitalist or a trans communist or a trans person with no coherent political views at all. That's the lesson I take, and it's why I think class analysis of gender roles such as we've had on this thread is both valid and interesting, and perhaps missing the point when brought up in relation to this particular issue. Sexual orientation isn't a class issue, fundamentally, it's an issue of human diversity, and I think the same will ultimately come to be thought regarding transgender.


----------



## Mungy (Sep 17, 2017)

I'm fortunate that I live in a trans-friendly bubble. The shit that goes on outside of it makes me angry. People are just so bloody intolerant of people who are different from them. It's women who have hurt me the most in real life and online since transition. I'm baffled by this because, well in my naivety, I thought women were the epitome of solidarity - just like I thought the left was somehow unified by ideology. I realise that putting people, principles, ideologies on a pedestal means they will fail to live up to the impossibility of my expectations. It doesn't help though.

I know this ain't my support group, just coming out quietly to urban as trans on a trans related thread that has some hostility on it, showing once again my poor choices, naivety and complete disregard for my safety


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 17, 2017)

Mungy said:


> I'm fortunate that I live in a trans-friendly bubble. The shit that goes on outside of it makes me angry. People are just so bloody intolerant of people who are different from them. It's women who have hurt me the most in real life and online since transition. I'm baffled by this because, well in my naivety, I thought women were the epitome of solidarity - just like I thought the left was somehow unified by ideology. I realise that putting people, principles, ideologies on a pedestal means they will fail to live up to the impossibility of my expectations. It doesn't help though.
> 
> I know this ain't my support group, just coming out quietly to urban as trans on a trans related thread that has some hostility on it, showing once again my poor choices, naivety and complete disregard for my safety


Is this you coming out on urban? Aww. Congratulations! I'm glad to have been here when it happened?


----------



## trashpony (Sep 17, 2017)

lazythursday said:


> The other thing I just can't get my head around about the TERF argument is that it seems completely contradictory. On the one hand, we should break down the artificial construct of gender... on the other we should build a wall around what it is to be a woman and police that line aggressively.


You've misunderstood the argument. Their argument is that biological sex is immutable and is what oppresses women - it's the reason we are cut, raped, sold and enslaved.

Gender is merely the trappings that are socially constructed around each sex eg masculinity and femininity.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 17, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's possible to be a trans anything, no? You can be a trans capitalist or a trans communist or a trans person with no coherent political views at all. That's the lesson I take, and it's why I think class analysis of gender roles such as we've had on this thread is both valid and interesting, and perhaps missing the point when brought up in relation to this particular issue. Sexual orientation isn't a class issue, fundamentally, it's an issue of human diversity, and I think the same will ultimately come to be thought regarding transgender.



The problem with identity politics (someone suggested earlier this should be for another thread) is that ultimately it plays along with the status quo rather than challenging it. Neoliberalism loves when politics becomes about the expression and rights of the individual rather than the class. It can accommodate awarding equality on these terms which results in having diversity spread up the hierarchical ladder and economic gaps actually increase whilst this apparent awarding equality is happening. 

Malik has written loads on this and is far more articulate than I, what with him being of the educated class and me being a lowly tradesman. He's definitely worth a read for anyone not aware of the various critiques.


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 17, 2017)

yeah, I read some things but none of the arguments grabbed me so I got nothing to add here


----------



## lazythursday (Sep 17, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> The problem with identity politics (someone suggested earlier this should be for another thread) is that ultimately it plays along with the status quo rather than challenging it. Neoliberalism loves when politics becomes about the expression and rights of the individual rather than the class. It can accommodate awarding equality on these terms which results in having diversity spread up the hierarchical ladder and economic gaps actually increase whilst this apparent awarding equality is happening.
> 
> Malik has written loads on this and is far more articulate than I, what with him being of the educated class and me being a lowly tradesman. He's definitely worth a read for anyone not aware of the various critiques.


I totally get that neoliberalism has co-opted identity politics, and that politics based on identity alone is not ultimately useful in transforming society, but I don't think that it therefore follows that all fights for minority rights are 'playing along with the status quo'. You can be passionate about gay rights, or trans rights or whatever and campaign on those issues and also believe in fighting together as a class, surely?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 17, 2017)

lazythursday said:


> I totally get that neoliberalism has co-opted identity politics, and that politics based on identity alone is not ultimately useful in transforming society, but I don't think that it therefore follows that all fights for minority rights are 'playing along with the status quo'. You can be passionate about gay rights, or trans rights or whatever and campaign on those issues and also believe in fighting together as a class, surely?



Of course. But I place them as secondary to class politics (which argues for equality to all) rather than being pleased that I now have a black manager and landlord.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2017)

lazythursday said:


> I totally get that neoliberalism has co-opted identity politics, and that politics based on identity alone is not ultimately useful in transforming society, but I don't think that it therefore follows that all fights for minority rights are 'playing along with the status quo'. You can be passionate about gay rights, or trans rights or whatever and campaign on those issues and also believe in fighting together as a class, surely?


You absolutely can, but if you do that then you're not falling into the id-politics trap of only thinking about the rights of the minority group that may be your primary focus. eg, for instance, you may be a socialist trans rights activist, but that socialist bit is also important. Two bits: one the fight to have your group accepted within society, and two to care about what that society that you're finding a place in looks like. I agree with MM that the id politics trap can be only to focus on the first part of that - all too easy then for a middle-class-led id politics group to win rights and equality within their own class and achieve fuck all for anyone else.


----------



## bimble (Sep 17, 2017)

trashpony said:


> You've misunderstood the argument. Their argument is that biological sex is immutable and is what oppresses women - it's the reason we are cut, raped, sold and enslaved.
> 
> Gender is merely the trappings that are socially constructed around each sex eg masculinity and femininity.



I think you've misunderstood, think the idea (from trans-excluding feminists) is not that "biological sex is what oppresses women" but that the patriarchal system we all live in is rooted in controlling the reproductive functions of women (not the same thing) so that people growing up with wombs and with socialisation as women under this system have a bunch of of stuff we've been given to deal with and conform to that we never chose - it's my understanding that some of the boundary policing is basically 'I never put my hand up for this shit and you don't get to join the subaltern group by fiat'.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 17, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Of course. But I place them as secondary to class politics (which argues for equality to all) rather than being pleased that I now have a black manager and landlord.


Having a black manager or landlord is pretty secondary on a experiential level isn't it? You seem to be making a vague point but I am not sure how that relates to you in any meaningful way. Some people need to put aspects of their identity and experience front and centre sometimes because it's necessary for a variety of reasons. If you don't, fine, but you not needing to shouldn't mean no one else should/can whilst also recognising the importance of a class based approach.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 17, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You absolutely can, but if you do that then you're not falling into the id-politics trap of only thinking about the rights of the minority group that may be your primary focus. eg, for instance, you may be a socialist trans rights activist, but that socialist bit is also important. Two bits: one the fight to have your group accepted within society, and two to care about what that society that you're finding a place in looks like. I agree with MM that the id politics trap can be only to focus on the first part of that - all too easy then for a middle-class-led id politics group to win rights and equality within their own class and achieve fuck all for anyone else.



There's people who identify as feminists but not as socialists, for example, and sure I don't disagree with challenging how women are treated in society but they're not my comrades if they're only wanting to shape how liberal democracy looks.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 17, 2017)

bimble said:


> I think you've misunderstood, think the idea (from trans-excluding feminists) is not that "biological sex is what oppresses women" but that the patriarchal system we all live in is rooted in controlling the reproductive functions of women (not the same thing) so that people growing up with wombs and with socialisation as women under this system have a bunch of of stuff we've been given to deal with and conform to that we never chose - it's my understanding that some of the boundary policing is basically 'I never put my hand up for this shit and you did, you don't get to join the subaltern group by fiat'.


Apart from you adding unnecessary levels of complexity, I don't see how that's different from what I said. Women are oppressed by their biology. If you're not biologically female, you're not oppressed in that way.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 17, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Having a black manager or landlord is pretty secondary on a experiential level isn't it? You seem to being making a vague point but I am not sure how that relates to you in any meaningful way. Some people need to put aspects of their identity and experience front and centre sometimes because it;s necessary for a variety of reasons. If you don't, fine, but you not needing to shouldn't mean no one else should/can whilst also recognising the importance of a class based approach.



It isn't a vague point. I do have a black manager and a black landlord. Of course it's no different to having a white manager and white landlord but it represents how neoliberalism plays at being about equality.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 17, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> It isn't a vague point. I do have a black manager and a black landlord. Of course it's no different to having a white manager and white landlord but it represents how neoliberalism plays at being about equality.



It was vague and now you have expanded a little  Who said it is different in terms of the experience for you as the tenant or worker?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 17, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> It was vague and now you have expanded a little  Who said it is different in terms of the experience for you as the tenant or worker?



It's how I see (maybe incorrectly?) the logical destination of identity driven politics.
Gay Pride sponsored by Barclays! Roll Eyes.


----------



## bimble (Sep 17, 2017)

trashpony said:


> Apart from you adding unnecessary levels of complexity, I don't see how that's different from what I said. Women are oppressed by their biology. If you're not biologically female, you're not oppressed in that way.


Are you really oppressed by your biology ? I'm not particularly, i mean periods are annoying and all (and £2.50 for a packet of tampons ffs? ) and I wish i had better upper body strength but apart from that what I feel as painful and resent the effects of is the society i live in and its expectations of me as the category of person called woman, not from my body which just is what it is.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 17, 2017)

bimble said:


> Are you really oppressed by your biology ? I'm not particularly, i mean periods are annoying and all (and £2.50 for a packet of tampons ffs? ) and I wish i had better upper body strength but apart from that what I feel as painful and resent the effects of is the society i live in and its expectations of me as the category of person called woman, not from my body which just is what it is.



Marxist feminists argue (correctly imo) that women take the brunt of unpaid work such as raising children (the next generation of workers who produce profit for the capital class) and caring for elderly relatives who are no longer productive in producing profit so have been thrown by the wayside etc.


----------



## bimble (Sep 17, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Marxist feminists argue (correctly imo) that women take the brunt of unpaid work such as raising children (the next generation of workers who produce profit for the capital class) and caring for elderly relatives who are no longer productive in producing profit so have been thrown by the wayside etc.


Yes I've had a look at Marx on feminism. It's not about our bodies though its about society, nothing innate in our anatomy dooms us to unpaid labour according to him does it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> There's people who identify as feminists but not as socialists, for example, and sure I don't disagree with challenging how women are treated in society but they're not my comrades if they're only wanting to shape how liberal democracy looks.


And you're right that just being id politics and nothing else - for instance the loathsome Women's Equality Party - means that you inevitably end up supporting and strengthening the power structures of the status quo.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 17, 2017)

bimble said:


> Yes I've had a look at Marx on feminism. It's not about our bodies though its about society, nothing innate in our anatomy dooms us to unpaid labour according to him does it.



Authors such as Selma James are worth a read.

Sex, race and class - Selma James


----------



## bimble (Sep 17, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Authors such as Selma James are worth a read.
> 
> Sex, race and class - Selma James



You linked to it so presumably you agree with where she's coming from when she says "How the working class will ultimately unite organizationally, we don't know. We do know that up to now many of us have been told to forget our own needs in some wider interest which was never wide enough to include us. And so we have learnt by bitter experience that nothing unified and revolutionary will be formed until each section of the exploited will have made its own autonomous power felt."
If so good, cos I got a different impression from you previously, as if all efforts on the part of particular oppressed groups were just detracting energy from where it should rightly be.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 17, 2017)

bimble said:


> You linked to it so presumably you agree with where she's coming from when she says "How the working class will ultimately unite organizationally, we don't know. We do know that up to now many of us have been told to forget our own needs in some wider interest which was never wide enough to include us. And so we have learnt by bitter experience that nothing unified and revolutionary will be formed until each section of the exploited will have made its own autonomous power felt."
> So good, cos I got a different impression from you previously, as if all efforts on the part of particular oppressed groups were just detracting energy from where it should rightly be.



But she's framing her arguments in class equality and not identity politics, which I don't disagree with.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 17, 2017)

Mungy said:


> I'm fortunate that I live in a trans-friendly bubble. The shit that goes on outside of it makes me angry. People are just so bloody intolerant of people who are different from them. It's women who have hurt me the most in real life and online since transition. I'm baffled by this because, well in my naivety, I thought women were the epitome of solidarity - just like I thought the left was somehow unified by ideology. I realise that putting people, principles, ideologies on a pedestal means they will fail to live up to the impossibility of my expectations. It doesn't help though.
> 
> I know this ain't my support group, just coming out quietly to urban as trans on a trans related thread that has some hostility on it, showing once again my poor choices, naivety and complete disregard for my safety



Good on you.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 17, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> It's how I see (maybe incorrectly?) the logical destination of identity driven politics.
> Gay Pride sponsored by Barclays! Roll Eyes.


I'm interested in 'equity' , what you are describing is equality under capitalism where the system stays the same.  Bread and circuses.

I still think that focusing on aspects of ones' identity when necessary for whatever reason isn't necessarily at odds with socialism.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2017)

bimble said:


> You linked to it so presumably you agree with where she's coming from when she says "How the working class will ultimately unite organizationally, we don't know. We do know that up to now many of us have been told to forget our own needs in some wider interest which was never wide enough to include us. And so we have learnt by bitter experience that nothing unified and revolutionary will be formed until each section of the exploited will have made its own autonomous power felt."
> If so good, cos I got a different impression from you previously, as if all efforts on the part of particular oppressed groups were just detracting energy from where it should rightly be.


My take on that, fwiw, is that it is not inconsistent with wider solidarity. No, you don't forget your own needs. Rather you bring them to the table - you demand your time on the stage, you are listened to, and so are all other groups that feel they have a particular concern that may be missed by those outside the group, not out of indifference, just out of ignorance. I don't see any contradiction there. What she seems to be saying is that you can't take the approach that 'it'll be sorted after the revolution'. Rather, it being sorted forms part of the revolution.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 17, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> I'm interested in 'equity' , what you are describing is equality under capitalism where the system stays the same.  Bread and circuses.
> 
> I still think that focusing on aspects of ones' identity when necessary for whatever reason isn't necessarily at odds with socialism.



It is, for example, when considering groups like the Black Panthers where some were making arguments based on class and others were making arguments based on Black Nationalism. In that instance the latter is the identity focused element and it proved divisive.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 17, 2017)

Notably the state dispersed of those making the class arguments whilst leaving the Black Nationalists untroubled. The state being happier with racial divisions being dominant argument.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 17, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> It is, for example, when considering groups like the Black Panthers where some were making arguments based on class and others were making arguments based on Black Nationalism. In that instance the latter is the identity focused element and it proved divisive.


A very specific environment and time... One that neither you nor I actually lived, however important historically. How about we centre the discussion in the present, within our own environment and experiences?


----------



## Athos (Sep 17, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> I'm interested in 'equity' , what you are describing is equality under capitalism where the system stays the same.  Bread and circuses.
> 
> I still think that focusing on aspects of ones' identity when necessary for whatever reason isn't necessarily at odds with socialism.



Nor do I.  Even as the fiercest critic of identity politics. But surely the difference is whether you consider identities within a framework of class analysis, or whether you focus solely on identity to the extent that it replaces class analysis. The latter seems to correspond more accurately with contemporary identity politics.  Like BLM which seems to want police to kill black and white people at the same rate, rather than to challenge the role of the police within capitalism.  Of course, I appreciate the temptation to focus on short-term, more achievable goals, but think that when those goals militate against longer-term goals, it's a flawed strategy.


----------



## 19force8 (Sep 17, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Magnus McGinty said:
> 
> 
> > Gay Pride sponsored by Barclays!
> ...


Then you really ought to talk to Barclays.


----------



## seventh bullet (Sep 17, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> A very specific environment and time... One that neither you nor I actually lived, however important historically. How about we centre the discussion in the present, within our own environment and experiences?



No, we should make reference to history, and learn from it.  It helps inform where we are now, and what is possible in the future.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 17, 2017)

seventh bullet said:


> No, we should make reference to history, and learn from it.  It helps inform where we are now, and what is possible in the future.


Hold on, I didn't say not to reference history so keep your hair on. I am though more interested in centring these types of discussions in the present, using present examples where possible. IME, it makes it more inclusive and engaging.. Not interested in that type of discussion?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 17, 2017)

19force8 said:


> Then you really ought to talk to Barclays.


Argh.. Don't you start. I meant fairness!


----------



## Athos (Sep 17, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Hold on, I didn't say not to reference history so keep your hair on. I am though more interested in centring these types of discussions in the present, using present examples where possible. IME, it makes it more inclusive and engaging.. Not interested in that type of discussion?



My example was a contemporary one.


----------



## seventh bullet (Sep 17, 2017)

I don't see how both are mutually exclusive.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 17, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> A very specific environment and time... One that neither you nor I actually lived, however important historically. How about we centre the discussion in the present, within our own environment and experiences?



Not sure how it isn't relevant to my point of how the state will promote identity politics over class unity for its own interests. It's completely on topic.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 17, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Not sure how it isn't relevant to my point of how the state will promote identity politics over class unity for its own interests. It's completely on topic.


I didn't say it wasn't relevant, I just asked you for more present examples. I think it's helpful because it encourages us to position ourselves within the discussion we are having, instead of it being about them, over there, mot us etc.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 17, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> I didn't say it wasn't relevant, I just asked you for more present examples. I think it's helpful because it encourages us to position ourselves within the discussion we are having, instead of it being about them, over there, mot us etc.



My 'present example' which I gave earlier was Gay Pride having corporate sponsors now. I used the Black Panthers example to back up that point.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 18, 2017)

FYI


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 18, 2017)

Fists fly in a punch-up in London's Hyde Park | Daily Mail Online


----------



## Mungy (Sep 18, 2017)

Any chance you can link to a version that won't give the hatemail any click through? Or c&p the article?


----------



## Jonti (Sep 18, 2017)

Here you go Mungy:

*Sixty-year-old woman is shoved to the ground as fists fly in a punch-up between transgender activists and their extreme feminist rivals in Hyde Park*

Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists clashed with their enemies Trans Activists 
Maria MacLachlan was attacked at Speakers’ Corner in London’s Hyde Park
The 60-year-old mother-of-two was left shaken and the police are investigating 
The transgender issue is the most sensitive in Britain today, sparking passionate debate among equal-rights campaigners.

But now that passion has erupted into the sort of outright violence normally associated with football hooligans.

Two factions – the Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists (or so-called TERFs) and their bitter enemies Trans Activists – clashed in an unseemly bust-up that ended with a 60-year-old woman being bundled to the ground and punched in the face. The incident was caught on video and is now being investigated by the police.

Mother-of-two Maria MacLachlan, who describes herself as a ‘gender critical feminist’, was attacked at Speakers’ Corner in London’s Hyde Park at about 7pm on Wednesday.

She had joined around 50 fellow TERFs who were to be given details of the secret location for a talk entitled What Is Gender? The Gender Recognition Act And Beyond.

TERFs are feminists who are opposed to some campaigning by transgender women.

The event was originally scheduled to be held at a community centre in New Cross, South-East London, but was switched following online warnings of a protest from Trans Activists.

Among the groups threatening to protest were the LGBTQ+ Society from Goldsmiths University, an organisation called Sisters Uncut, and Action For Trans Health London. Ms MacLachlan told The Mail on Sunday: ‘I was chatting to one of the speakers, Miranda Yardley, and people started to come who looked different to the rest of us. There was quite a generation thing.

‘These studenty-looking types were turning up and some arguments started to take place but I kept well out of it.’

Ms Yardley is a prominent transgender writer and was guest speaker at the event along with Dr Julia Long, who describes herself as a ‘lesbian feminist and defender of women-only spaces’. Ms MacLachlan said: ‘Julia said she was going to sing a song she had written. She took a megaphone and as soon as she put it to her lips, these kids started shouting, “When the TERFs attack, we fight back.”

‘I thought, “I can film this, it will be interesting.” They were getting louder and louder. Then suddenly someone tried to grab my camera. It was scary. Someone kept trying to get my camera. I think it was a girl, but I couldn’t tell because they had a hoodie over their eyes.’

Footage of the incident was uploaded to YouTube the day after the alleged attack, and it has since been viewed tens of thousands of times.

In a statement to police, Ms MacLachlan later identified a trans-woman who is currently trying to raise £5,000 for vocal-cord surgery to make her voice higher, as one of her attackers. 

Her Lumix camera was smashed and the memory card stolen. She also sustained a nasty bruise on her face, red marks on her neck and grazed knees. She added: ‘I didn’t go to hospital but it has really shaken me up.’

Several feminists called 999 and three cars containing six officers arrived on the scene, but no arrests were made.

Notes were passed among the feminists letting them know the secret venue was the University Women’s Club in Mayfair.

They left in small groups hoping not to be followed but were tracked down by the activists. Another feminist, Jen Izaakson, said tension remained high at the venue. She added: ‘The staff had to form a human chain to let our people in and keep protesters out.’

Because students from Goldsmiths had been so vocal in opposing the original meeting, the feminists believe they formed a section of the protesters.

A spokesman for the university said: ‘Goldsmiths prides itself on its diverse and inclusive community. We uphold the right to peaceful protest but cannot condone violence.’

Action for Trans Health London issued a statement saying: ‘We condemn violence against women in all forms. We’re proud that many self-organising activists, allies and supporters stood against hatred, misogyny and intimidation.’

A Scotland Yard spokesman confirmed an investigation was ongoing and video evidence would form part of their inquiries.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 18, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> My 'present example' which I gave earlier was Gay Pride having corporate sponsors now. I used the Black Panthers example to back up that point.



Your present example is also you pointing at/observing others, over there, not you. I was wondering whether you can think of any ways you personally have to interact with and challenge or navigate this stuff. I think half of the reason conversations like this blow up is because there is a lot of what seems like telling others what they are doing wrong. Rather than giving personal examples of how one is also having to navigate these issues.


----------



## seventh bullet (Sep 18, 2017)

Where has that actually happened here?   And what exactly are you wanting this discussion to be about?  Who gets permission to talk?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 18, 2017)

seventh bullet said:


> Where has that actually happened here?


 I was speaking generally but it has happened on this thread too. In the wider context, the finger pointing and othering thing is very much part of what we are discussing isn't it? The shortcomings of exclusionary identity politics? The externalising of traits that one or one's group doesn't want to be associated with. The focus on difference exclusively with not enough focus given to commonalities/soldiarity building.



> And what exactly are you wanting this discussion to be about?  Who gets permission to talk?



Eh? I think what I've said to MM and the reasons given are clear enough.

Permission? Why even take it there? We all have permission as members of Urban surely.


----------



## Athos (Sep 18, 2017)

Wouldn't it be better to take the more general discussion of ID politics to a separate thread, where more people will see and contribute to it, and to prevent this one from becoming derailed?


----------



## seventh bullet (Sep 18, 2017)

Yup.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 18, 2017)

Seems to me both groups have lost a bit of perspective here in their obsession with each other. They follow each other around to denounce one another as misogynists.


----------



## The Flying Pig (Sep 18, 2017)

Jonti said:


> Here you go Mungy:
> 
> *Sixty-year-old woman is shoved to the ground as fists fly in a punch-up between transgender activists and their extreme feminist rivals in Hyde Park*
> 
> ...


So after thirty one pages of argument and debate finally Jonti has come to my rescue. I now at least have some understanding of what took place and what is going on in the world of transgender and feminism. Thank you.


----------



## bemused (Sep 18, 2017)

The Flying Pig said:


> I now at least have some understanding of what took place and what is going on in the world of transgender and feminism. Thank you.



Google is way faster than an urban thread for finding stuff out.


----------



## Athos (Sep 18, 2017)

seventh bullet said:


> Yup.


 Will you start one?


----------



## seventh bullet (Sep 18, 2017)

Didn't danny start one already?

I aint no ID pol headbanger. I am of the wrong class for starters.


----------



## q_w_e_r_t_y (Sep 18, 2017)

I've just read this whole thread and my god, it is depressing.  A whole heap of lefties appear to be either defending this shit, or taking the Donald Trump line of "bad people on both sides".

This was a meeting which was open to all self-identified women, with a trans woman as a speaker.  The original venue was intimidated into cancelling, the next venue had to be kept secret for safety reasons, and women met in public to ensure each others safety.  Still a woman got punched and people on this thread seems to take the "she was asking for it" line.

There is a parasitic element within the trans community, people who conform to male behaviour patterns and who exhibit enormous amounts of male entitlement, but who self-define as women.  If these people went to a shop and then you asked a random checkout assistant whether the person they just served was a man or a woman, they would almost certainly say "man".  The only indicator that they are not a man is that the poor checkout assistant would then get "FUCKING TRANSPHOBE" screamed in her face (if the checkout assistant was a man of course, they would never do such a thing).  These anti-feminist trans activists are often the loudest within much of the trans community, and from looking at the videos, I'd guess that at least two of them, possibly all, fit into that category.

"Feminazi" is an old MRA insult, yet you see it getting resurrected in the discourse here with comparison between "TERFs" and fascists.  "Die in a fire" is the most beloved advice of anti-feminist trans activists, who want to burn the witches.

The trans community needs to condemn the misogyny in its midst, not facilitate it and excuse it.   I'm pretty down with trans women, I think they have a great deal to teach feminists about gender and I wish that they would have more involvement in the feminist movement - but these misogynist pricks who self-define as women cos its politically expedient, but who still expect male levels of entitlement and attention from other women; exhibit toxic patterns of behaviour which are most commonly found in men, and consider it A-OK to carry on this toxic behaviour because they think that women can get away with it (info-note, they cant, women who use physical violence get harsher sentances) and who demand that lesbians suck their dicks, and sit around discussing how to get through their "cotton ceiling" can fuck right off.

Solidarity with trans women, except for self-entitled, rapey, violent misogynist ones, doesnt really seem that hard a concept for the left to grasp...but here we are.








"


----------



## Athos (Sep 18, 2017)

seventh bullet said:


> Didn't danny start one already?
> 
> I aint no ID pol headbanger. I am of the wrong class for starters.



Recently? I can't find it.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 18, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> FYI



Put you across my knee and give you the hiding you deserve? OK, that seems appropriate.

Also in that first paragraph she talks about her 'sympathy' for trans people at the same time as expressly denying their right to exist.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 18, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Seems to me both groups have lost a bit of perspective here in their obsession with each other. They follow each other around to denounce one another as misogynists.



There may be some truth in it but it's missing an important point, which is that the two 'sides' here are not equal. One side is the noisy public face of a set of commonly held prejudices, the defenders of the status quo, the 'I'm just saying what you're all thinking' brigade. The other side is people whose health and safety are genuinely at risk from bigotry and ignorance. 

One side has nothing whatsoever to lose, besides the time and energy they've already spent grinding ther little axe. The other side, if they do nothing to defend themselves, risk losing their right to exist.


----------



## The Pale King (Sep 18, 2017)

Without addressing any substantive points (I have nothing useful to contribute) it is interesting how Trans has become a 'wedge issue' around which certain political coalitions (including often quite surprising instances of allyship) can form. As Jed pointed out earlier, there is a lot of crossover between anti-left, Blairite revivalists and anti-trans activism. The second thing is that other things are going on here - there is simply too much of a focus on bathrooms, disproportionate to how widespread the phenomenon is. This is a vehicle for wider anxieties. A moral panic around which political coalitions can form. I think we should be suspicious of the resurgence of 'it's biology, stupid' type thinking - the need to find an 'objective' or 'scientific' basis for socio-cultural categories leads nowhere good.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 18, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> There may be some truth in it but it's missing an important point, which is that the two 'sides' here are not equal. One side is the noisy public face of a set of commonly held prejudices, the defenders of the status quo, the 'I'm just saying what you're all thinking' brigade. The other side is people whose health and safety are genuinely at risk from bigotry and ignorance.
> 
> One side has nothing whatsoever to lose, besides the time and energy they've already spent grinding ther little axe. The other side, if they do nothing to defend themselves, risk losing their right to exist.


Calling 'terfs' misogynists though is not a good look. It's plain wrong and easily refuted.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 18, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Put you across my knee and give you the hiding you deserve? OK, that seems appropriate.
> 
> Also in that first paragraph she talks about her 'sympathy' for trans people at the same time as expressly denying their right to exist.


She's doing more than that. She's denying that they can exist. She defines them out of existence. At the same time she purports to support 'feminine men' while also dismissing their concerns as trivial - 'who the hell cares'. Yeah transgender people never get grief. Everyone's cool with it. She actually has zero empathy.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 18, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> She's doing more than that. She's denying that they can exist. She defines them out of existence. At the same time she purports to support 'feminine men' while also dismissing their concerns as trivial - 'who the hell cares'. Yeah transgender people never get grief. Everyone's cool with it. She actually has zero empathy.



That whole post is pretty unsettling on a number of levels. I can only imagine what it feels like to be on the recieving end of all that stuff, and I don't feel in a position to criticise how those who are on the recieving end choose to respond. Hitting someone was clearly a tactical error, as it's handed a ranting idiot a platfrom, but was it morally wrong? I don't think you should be allowed to talk unlimited amounts of hateful shit and not expect consequences. There is more than one kind of violence.


----------



## belboid (Sep 18, 2017)

The Flying Pig said:


> So after thirty one pages of argument and debate finally Jonti has come to my rescue. I now at least have some understanding of what took place and what is going on in the world of transgender and feminism. Thank you


The same story has been posted several times you dozy git. Tho I'm not surprised it's a Daily Mail version you approve.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 18, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Calling 'terfs' misogynists though is not a good look. It's plain wrong and easily refuted.


I see *some* cis women [cis allies who may not identify as feminists] doing this and I can't say I've seen a lot of trans people making his claim, though the TERFs certainly value masculinity above feminity which possibly is where the claims come from.

Also a lot of us experience a huge amount of harassment just for getting on with our lives. For example, when I stood for election a TERF group tried to get me deselected for being a misogynist, then my name appeared in the new statesman named as a trans activist misogynist and after that a website calling me a child rapist and I had to lock my twitter account down because of the all the hate tweets I was getting from TERFs. After that I had to be persuaded not to quit. But the same happens to a less extreme level to anyone of us who speaks out, whether we're challenging TERF ideology directly or just existing. Ask any out and visible trans woman how much TERF harassment they get.

I don't recognise the description earlier re two groups obsessed with each other. Most trans people I know don't have anything to with them, want nothing to do with them, but sadly, I've seen them turn up uninvited to our meetings to disrupt. So, who's obsessed? They can think what they like, I just wish they'd leave us alone.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 18, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> That whole post is pretty unsettling on a number of levels. I can only imagine what it feels like to be on the recieving end of that kind of all that stuff, and I don't feel in a position to criticise how those who are on the recieving end choose to respond. Hitting someone was clearly a tactical error, as it's handed a ranting idiot a platfrom, but was it morally wrong? I don't think you should be allowed to talk unlimited amounts of hateful shit and not expect consequences. There is more than one kind of violence.


only one person hit back and a small group attempted to protest peacefully. The vast majority of us stayed away on purpose.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 18, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> I see cis women doing this and I can't say I've seen a lot of trans people making his claim, though the TERFs certainly value masculinity above feminity which possibly is where the claims come from.



Could you expand on this, please?


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 18, 2017)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Could you expand on this, please?


id rather someone prove first that trans women call TERFs misogynist which is what I was refuting. I think that's wrong. Doesn't happen except maybe in extreme and isolated cases.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 18, 2017)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Could you expand on this, please?



Could you expand on this please?



ElizabethofYork said:


> Because transwomen tend to make it all about them.



I asked earlier in the thread whether you have much experience of this happening and in which context it happens?


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 18, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> only one person hit back and a small group attempted to protest peacefully.



Who do you think you're kidding?


----------



## The Flying Pig (Sep 18, 2017)

belboid said:


> The same story has been posted several times you dozy git. Tho I'm not surprised it's a Daily Mail version you approve.


Did not say I approve, but it is the only one I can fully understand! We are not all up there at the front with what goes on in the London bubble.


----------



## Mungy (Sep 18, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> That whole post is pretty unsettling on a number of levels. I can only imagine what it feels like to be on the recieving end of all that stuff, and I don't feel in a position to criticise how those who are on the recieving end choose to respond. Hitting someone was clearly a tactical error, as it's handed a ranting idiot a platfrom, but was it morally wrong? I don't think you should be allowed to talk unlimited amounts of hateful shit and not expect consequences. *There is more than one kind of violence.*



I've been debating in a FB group and we got to this point. A man decided that the WHO definition of violence was the only acceptable interpretation of violence and that I was in error in holding views contrary to this. People were agreeing with him, women for the most part, there are only a few males in there as far as I am aware. I walked away at this point, as did the feminists that were debating with the TE people. The violence is sometimes subtle, controlling and nasty. Parading as being sensible, appealing to authority. It gets difficult when you are one voice or just a handful of voices. The moment we raise our tone we give them ammunition, "See they are being violent, because really they are just men." It always comes back to name calling and school yard tactics.

I don't like the term TERF because it can be used as an insult. So I don't use it. They don't like being called cis- so I call them natal- which is what they would accept. They give so little and we always end up with one side trying to discredit the other. Why can't we just be nice to each other. A bit of respect and dignity is all I ask for.

Dunno what relevance this is, it's just in my head and since converting to FB and social media, think I have every right to share the contents of my mind.

Edited to add: Whilst both sides do try to discredit the other, my experience is that TE people try to discredit me and chip away at my existence, rather than me doing the same to them.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 18, 2017)

ok to expand. I am in touch with a large number cis allies (female) who do take TERFs on directly, whereas I feel I can't or don't want to because it draws attention to their claims. I've seen them talked over insulted, accused of being trans, accused of being men, accused of being brainwashed or stupid.

I have heard it commented by some of these women that the only other group who erase them and talk over them, in such an aggressive way are MRAs.

My take is they have merely learned to adopt such behaviour because they see it as effective. Never mind that in the view of a lot of people who are not involved directly this comes across really badly.

Do I see anyone willing to defend trying to deselect a candidate based on her gender and not anything she stood for or said?

Is anyone going to defend tactics such as accusing trans women of being sexual offenders on a public website? Or accusing a trans femme candidate of being a misogynist man in a national publication with no evidence and right to respond?


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 18, 2017)

actually I was talking about this the other day, trying to figure out what the anger is about re: sex categorisation and these wankers

I just think the anger is basically them having the foundations of their identity ripped away because since being told what they are by mummy and daddy they aint questioned shit all or even thought about anyone else because society backs it up they build themselves from that

so of course people are gonna be angry and defensive because upon being confronted with information they feel lied too and have absolutely no basis anymore for who they are.

I just find it really hard to care about these people cus their IQ is so fucking basic.

they are like 2% of the 7% that call themselves feminists


----------



## Jonti (Sep 18, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Authors such as Selma James are worth a read.
> 
> Sex, race and class - Selma James


Thanks for this. An interesting read.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 18, 2017)

q_w_e_r_t_y said:


> I've just read this whole thread and my god, it is depressing.  A whole heap of lefties appear to be either defending this shit, or taking the Donald Trump line of "bad people on both sides".
> 
> This was a meeting which was open to all self-identified women, with a trans woman as a speaker.  The original venue was intimidated into cancelling, the next venue had to be kept secret for safety reasons, and women met in public to ensure each others safety.  Still a woman got punched and people on this thread seems to take the "she was asking for it" line.
> 
> ...


The term "trans chauvinist" seems apt .


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 18, 2017)

and I've actually met Miranda... sat down and had coffee with miranda << in me hard denial phase lol

I cant really say owt about me feelings of em on here tho init


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 18, 2017)

q_w_e_r_t_y said:


> There is a parasitic element within the trans community, people who conform to male behaviour patterns and who exhibit enormous amounts of male entitlement, but who self-define as women.


Perfect example of what BA was talking about, ID politics consuming everything.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 18, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Put you across my knee and give you the hiding you deserve? OK, that seems appropriate.


tbf I quite liked that bit. Given that she's just been beaten up, that seems a pretty good response to me. I like her gumption. I just detest her ideas.


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 18, 2017)

thats to infantilise them, it's what a mum would say.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 18, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> thats to infantilise them, it's what a mum would say.



Well, yes.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 18, 2017)

Mungy said:


> I've been debating in a FB group and we got to this point. A man decided that the WHO definition of violence was the only acceptable interpretation of violence and that I was in error in holding views contrary to this. People were agreeing with him, women for the most part, there are only a few males in there as far as I am aware. I walked away at this point, as did the feminists that were debating with the TE people. The violence is sometimes subtle, controlling and nasty. Parading as being sensible, appealing to authority. It gets difficult when you are one voice or just a handful of voices. The moment we raise our tone we give them ammunition, "See they are being violent, because really they are just men." It always comes back to name calling and school yard tactics.
> 
> I don't like the term TERF because it can be used as an insult. So I don't use it. They don't like being called cis- so I call them natal- which is what they would accept. They give so little and we always end up with one side trying to discredit the other. Why can't we just be nice to each other. A bit of respect and dignity is all I ask for.
> 
> ...


You're in the right place if you think you have every right to share the contents of your mind.

Was it relevant? Hell yes.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 18, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> thats to infantilise them, it's what a mum would say.


Yes. It's a put down.


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 18, 2017)

whys everyone going yes to me about that comment

I dont need a pat on the head for that.


----------



## cantsin (Sep 18, 2017)

The Pale King said:


> Without addressing any substantive points (I have nothing useful to contribute) it is interesting how Trans has become a 'wedge issue' around which certain political coalitions (including often quite surprising instances of allyship) can form. As Jed pointed out earlier,* there is a lot of crossover between anti-left, Blairite revivalists and anti-trans activism.* The second thing is that other things are going on here - there is simply too much of a focus on bathrooms, disproportionate to how widespread the phenomenon is. This is a vehicle for wider anxieties. A moral panic around which political coalitions can form. I think we should be suspicious of the resurgence of 'it's biology, stupid' type thinking - the need to find an 'objective' or 'scientific' basis for socio-cultural categories leads nowhere good.



yep, I  noticed that one of the obsessive, virulent omni-present anti left / anti Corbyn mouthpieces on Twitter ( J Holyoake - not a real name IIRC, so no doxxing ) has gone all out Terf now.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 18, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> whys everyone going yes to me about that comment



Because you're stating the obvious,and missing the point


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 18, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Because you're stating the obvious,and missing the point




oh I am?  care to elaborate on the point?


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 18, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> oh I am?



Yes


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 18, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Yes




i got well no time for this game, spit it out.

/8 mins...

no point I am missing is forthcoming, so I can only assume yer chatting shit.
glad to see the point you were highlighting is this unimportant.


----------



## innit (Sep 18, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> i got well no time for this game, spit it out.
> 
> /8 mins...
> 
> ...


Is it infantilising or a reference to the fact she's old enough to be their mother / probably about the same age as their mothers?

Eta this is only a comment on the "over my knee" remark, I'm not supporting anything she did or said.


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 18, 2017)

I aint got a fucking clue and I have lost the will to care about this old bitch.

let em fight to the death.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 18, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> and I've actually met Miranda... sat down and had coffee with miranda << in me hard denial phase lol
> 
> I cant really say owt about me feelings of em on here tho init


I was advised to decline when she asked me for a sit down. We used to chat on Twitter in my very early days. Only got nasty after I stopped accepting what she was saying uncritically. 
I know a few people who have met her. They all say exactly the same thing.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 18, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Your present example is also you pointing at/observing others, over there, not you. I was wondering whether you can think of any ways you personally have to interact with and challenge or navigate this stuff. I think half of the reason conversations like this blow up is because there is a lot of what seems like telling others what they are doing wrong. Rather than giving personal examples of how one is also having to navigate these issues.



I need to experience being a feminist getting twatted before I get to condemn it? Does this bizarre rule apply to yourself on other threads?


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 18, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> I was advised to decline when she asked me for a sit down. We used to chat on Twitter in my very early days. Only got nasty after I stopped accepting what she was saying uncritically.
> I know a few people who have met her. They all say exactly the same thing.



yeah I just distanced meself, never had them be nasty to me

I observe people so it was interesting, I think if you're a weak personality it'd affect more


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 18, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> tbf I quite liked that bit. Given that she's just been beaten up, that seems a pretty good response to me. I like her gumption. I just detest her ideas.


I used to have admiration for a few TERFs prior to transitioning, including ones I knew via Twitter and chatted to. It was only after I stated i identified as a woman - and not to them, just on my feed, that I found out that trans exclusionary feminism was a thing and that a mere statement of my personal identity could upset so many people.

I remember one woman I thought was my friend - before she blocked me and my cis female flatmate who defended me, told me I was playing at being a woman and that I was a walking gender stereotype.

Really upset me at the time - and the beginnings of me having my TERF awakening.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 18, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> yeah I just distanced meself, never had them be nasty to me
> 
> I observe people so it was interesting, I think if you're a weak personality it'd affect more


I was just lacking in confidence then and I think that I was being protected by my allies because they knew what was going to happen. I'd happily meet MY now on an equal basis but she wouldn't want to meet me unless the odds were heavily stacked against me I don't think.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 18, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I need to experience being a feminist getting twatted before I get to condemn it? Does this bizarre rule apply to yourself on other threads?



Where the fuck have I written that?  

I was asking you to be you and talk about you with regard ID politics and how they do or don't manifest in your own life. Have you seen or felt the state manipulating them in the ways that you observed with the gay pride or Black Panther examples you gave?

Fucking hell...seriously...if you don't want to say just don't but don't be a prick in the way you misrepresent what I am saying please.


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 18, 2017)

oh fyi i call miranda them cus it's how they like it, it aint a cuss

and when I met M it was early denial doors, so we didnt talk about me


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 18, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> i got well no time for this game, spit it out.
> 
> /8 mins...
> 
> ...



30 minutes actually, but I do have other things to do. I thought you said you 'don't have time for this shit'. 

Anyhow... you stating that she was 'infantalising' the activists is stating the obvious. 

I imagine she knows her comment was infantalising, as the chaps who attacked her acting like tantruming children. Which er, was her point.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 18, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> oh fyi i call miranda them cus it's how they like it, it aint a cuss
> 
> and when I met M it was early denial doors, so we didnt talk about me


I'm confused about that because I read something she said recently where she doesn't care what pronouns people use, but she never stated a preference in that article. Besides she regularly misgenders me and calls me "Norm" so not sure I care a lot in her case.

But I might switch to them/their now though.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 18, 2017)

> the chaps who attacked her acting like tantruming children. Which er, was her point.



I saw no chaps involved. And the person in the headlock being attacked by Maria was afab.


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 18, 2017)

I aint seen anything recently from her tho cus why would I? lol 

but thats how it was, I know theyre alright with all the pronouns but prefers they, I know the terfs call her she out of identity respect


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 18, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> I saw no chaps involved. And the person in the headlock being attacked by Maria was afab.



wouldnt even bothewr with that argument


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 18, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> 30 minutes actually, but I do have other things to do. I thought you said you 'don't have time for this shit'.
> 
> Anyhow... you stating that she was 'infantalising' the activists is stating the obvious.
> 
> I imagine she knows her comment was infantalising, as the chaps who attacked her acting like tantruming children. Which er, was her point.




go swivel. we have moved the fuck on.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 18, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> go swivel. we have moved the fuck on.



Nah, the childishness of the activists is central. Crack on tho


----------



## Wilf (Sep 18, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> That whole post is pretty unsettling on a number of levels. I can only imagine what it feels like to be on the recieving end of all that stuff, and I don't feel in a position to criticise how those who are on the recieving end choose to respond. Hitting someone was clearly a tactical error, as it's handed a ranting idiot a platfrom, but was it morally wrong? I don't think you should be allowed to talk unlimited amounts of hateful shit and not expect consequences. There is more than one kind of violence.


 I agree with that, _in principle_.  Punching someone is never inherently good in my book, but sometimes the stuff that has gone down on the other side of the scales gets close to excusing it. The obvious and extreme example is the fash. Whether MM _herself_ came out with enough to justify this, I don't know i.e. I genuinely don't know, without reading the whole thread again.  However taking that line makes it into, literally, an _unapologetic_ twatting (I don't mean you personally are being unapologetic, just that that's the logic of saying it followed from comments, twitter bile or whatever).  The person who did the twatting pre-announced it and having had all the various analyses of the video I hope nobody is still saying she was rescuing her mate.  It looked like a couple of twenty somethings were up for at least a confrontation and chose to got for someone 30+ years older.  Not the worst kicking, but bad enough.

The underlying politics in play here are messy. I think I've liked several posts by people on both sides of this discussion, along with the underlying argument that this is the inevitable consequence of ID politics (something I might have a go at making a proper response on when not at work).  My point for now is that whatever side you take on the wider situation, the twatting bit should be recognised for what it is.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 18, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> I aint got a fucking clue and I have lost the will to care about this old bitch.
> 
> let em fight to the death.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 18, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Where the fuck have I written that?
> 
> I was asking you to be you and talk about you with regard ID politics and how they do or don't manifest in your own life. Have you seen or felt the state manipulating them in the ways that you observed with the gay pride or Black Panther examples you gave?
> 
> Fucking hell...seriously...if you don't want to say just don't but don't be a prick in the way you misrepresent what I am saying please.



The best example I can give is the EDL and nationalism generally being attractive to people looking for answers. Anyway, it was suggested that this discussion was off topic so I'm reluctant to continue it here.


----------



## andysays (Sep 18, 2017)

iona said:


> No, I wasn't trying to "stretch the meaning of trans to include (cis) GNC" people. I was talking about people who are transgender but somehow don't conform to societal expectations wrt gender roles or expression - a trans man who likes wearing makeup and high heels, for example, or a butch trans woman who works as a scaffolder or something.
> 
> Re the bit I quoted in bold - think we had different understandings of GNC and that's where the confusion came from? I've always understood & seen GNC used to mean not conforming to roles etc associated with _that person's gender_, rather than any gender. So a cis woman who conformed to male roles etc would be GNC even though she is conforming to gender roles, because they aren't the roles typically associated with her gender. And the same for trans women (expected to conform to female roles) and trans men (male roles).
> 
> E2a I absolutely agree about the importance of not conflating the two, btw.



Thanks for your reply. Now that you have, I think the bit in my post which you highlighted is poorly expressed as doesn't it mean what I intended.

But given the ever more acrimonious way this thread has gone (not from you), I'm no longer interesting in exploring these issues any further here.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 18, 2017)

Medical News said:
			
		

> Gender dysphoria usually means a difficulty in identifying with the biological sex in an individual.
> 
> The causes of gender dysphoria are not fully clear.
> ...
> ...


There's a set of linked articles. A good read.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 18, 2017)

That's a big issue, isn't it? Are we in some way genetically predisposed to search for a gender identity? It's not impossible that we are, in the same way that we're predisposed to look for language and there is now growing evidence that we're predisposed to look for moral concepts like right and wrong. 

That author suggests that we are predisposed to look for gender id. I don't know but the seeming ubiquity of gender id in human cultures is certainly consistent with the idea.


----------



## 19force8 (Sep 18, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Trans people die at the hands of men due to being perceived as a class traitor. It's a similar reason gays and lesbians are beaten.
> 
> Transwomen are a traitor to their sex class by taking on feminine signifiers of the gender system reserved for the female sex class in order to keep them in a subordinates position so that their reproductive labour can be exploited by patriarchy (a proto capitalist system).
> 
> ...


I've read a bit of Marx and Engels and don't recall any mention of patriarchy or a sex class. I suspect both are idealist concepts that serve to obscure the material basis for oppression. Which, for a Marxist of course, is the mode of production upon which class society is built.

A Marxist would have an understanding that the gender concepts and roles prevalent today are historically contingent and have their roots not in sex, but in the structure of class society. Consequently, for the overwhelming span of human history prior to the creation of class women were not oppressed by men and children were not oppressed by adults. That it was possible for people to take up the gender role of the other sex without stigma.

Another quote from you:


FabricLiveBaby! said:


> In short it's a fight between two types of political philosophy.
> 
> Idealists: those who believe thoughts form your reality (Butlerites and Postmodernists)
> 
> ...



I'm pretty sure you're wrong to characterise one side of the Trans/TERF dispute as materialist and the other as idealist. 

Certainly, one of the TERFs I know (Jen Isaacson) self identifies as a Marxist Feminist. Though I tend towards a different description of her using the same two initials.

I've no idea what a young Butlerite is [I suppose an old Butlerite might be a RAB(id) tory  ] but I do agree with your point about the lack of examples of working class power leaving a void for identity politics to provide [wrong] answers.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 18, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's a big issue, isn't it? Are we in some way genetically predisposed to search for a gender identity? It's not impossible that we are, in the same way that we're predisposed to look for language and there is now growing evidence that we're predisposed to look for moral concepts like right and wrong.
> 
> That author suggests that we are predisposed to look for gender id. I don't know but the seeming ubiquity of gender id in human cultures is certainly consistent with the idea.



She says:


> Gender is a basic element that helps make up an individual's personality and sense of self.
> 
> Gender dysphoria is a condition in which the patient feels that his or her gender identity is a mismatch with their actual biological sex.


I suppose gender, although a social concept, is how biology (usually) makes us happy (enough) in our sex roles.  That's how I interpret the first sentence in the quote above.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 18, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's a big issue, isn't it? Are we in some way genetically predisposed to search for a gender identity? It's not impossible that we are, in the same way that we're predisposed to look for language and there is now growing evidence that we're predisposed to look for moral concepts like right and wrong.
> 
> That author suggests that we are predisposed to look for gender id. I don't know but the seeming ubiquity of gender id in human cultures is certainly consistent with the idea.


Even if we are predisposed to search for a gender identity, that's a long way from saying that our specifical cultural gender identities are in some way inherent.  Even if that predisposition for search exists, it would still have been perfectly possible for society have evolved to have completely different -- even the binary opposite of the -- gender identities that happen to have come into being.  As such, I think the question of whether the _search_ is intrinsic or not is actually irrelevant to any question I can see people actually wanting answered, because in the end it tells us nothing about who we are.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 18, 2017)

Jonti said:


> She says:
> 
> I suppose gender, although a social concept, is how biology (usually) makes us happy (enough) in our sex roles.  That's how I interpret the first sentence in the quote above.


She also says this:



> Studies suggest that gender dysphoria may have biological causes associated with the development of gender identity before birth.



The idea there would be approximately like that of language acquisition - the content of gender identities is shaped by the culture, but their existence and the child's predisposition towards searching for them have some biological basis.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 18, 2017)

> for the overwhelming span of human history prior to the creation of class women were not oppressed by men


If you ignore the occasional raid for wives by men from neighbouring villages.   

Not the sort of thing women have ever been known to do.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 18, 2017)

Jonti said:


> If you ignore the occasional raid for wives by men from neighbouring villages.
> 
> Not the sort of thing women have ever been known to do.


Where's that quote from? It's nonsense.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 18, 2017)

There is another important facet of identity that has seemingly been overlooked, or at least downplayed, a lot in the talk in this specific thread.  Identity is normally seen as the interplay of the assumed and the assigned, and you can't just divorce the two.  As a gross oversimplification, the self is formed by its reaction to the assigned identity, and how it interprets this through its assumed identity.  This is a key element of the TERF case, and it can't just be wished away even if the way that the TERFs react to it is frequently problematic in its own right.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 18, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Where's that quote from? It's nonsense.


19force8, upthread


----------



## bimble (Sep 18, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Where's that quote from? It's nonsense.


Yep complete nonsense, by 19force8.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 18, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> She also says this:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea there would be approximately like that of language acquisition - the content of gender identities is shaped by the culture, but their existence and the child's predisposition towards searching for them have some biological basis.


More than a disposition, surely it's a biological imperative for our species, like language, and yes, a sense of fairness.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 18, 2017)

Jonti said:


> Biology has these things called sex roles
> 
> More than a disposition, surely it's a biological imperative for our species, like language, and yes, a sense of fairness.


Ok yes. I don't think we are disagreeing. The fact that we're born predisposed to look for certain kinds of things in the world is itself a biological imperative.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 18, 2017)

Patriarchy is the original class division. That's why I always felt cross at being accused of identity politics by being feminist. Women are a class beneath men and have been since forever.


----------



## 19force8 (Sep 18, 2017)

Jonti said:


> If you ignore the occasional raid for wives by men from neighbouring villages.
> 
> Not the sort of thing women have ever been known to do.


Before slagging off a well established view of early humanity maybe you could familiarise yourself with some basic archaeological and anthropological research. [see below for suggested reading]

There is no evidence of any permanent settlement before 10,000 years ago. So that leaves somewhere between 60k and 240k years where there were no villages to raid from. Unless, of course, you count the small town of Bedrock. .

Furthermore, the evidence from first contact with hunter gatherer groups and from archaeology is overwhelmingly of complete equality between the sexes and lack of oppression.

So littlebabyjesus and bimble , not nonsense, and weepiper, not forever.

Engels' https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/origin_family.pdf is a quick read and despite being based on slightly dodgy evidence has stood the test of time for his insight.

Eleanor Burke Leacock's classic "Myths of Male dominance" might open you eyes to the reality of pre-class society.

I would also suggest Steven Mithen's "After the Ice" for an excellent survey of the archaeology available between 22k and 7k years ago.

Similarly, Marcus and Flannery's "The Creation of Inequality" does a similar job for anthropology.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 18, 2017)

weepiper said:


> Patriarchy is the original class division. That's why I always felt cross at being accused of identity politics by being feminist.



Feminism being dismissed as bad identitism is so shit I can't even laugh. So is support for BAME issues, so is support for LGBTQ+ issues... the gaze is the same...the power base is the same...the same people however educated, enlightened and progressive get to call this 'name' and as such mantain power, even within non-instutionialised, marginalised contexts.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 18, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> The best example I can give is the EDL and nationalism generally being attractive to people looking for answers. Anyway, it was suggested that this discussion was off topic so I'm reluctant to continue it here.



Which strikes me as odd. This thread is awash with talk of how terrible ID politics is, how this incident only happened because of ID politics and how ID politics is pretty much the route of all left wing evil. Yet talking about where we as individuals interact with ID politics, what our individual experiences are and therefore how we make meaning of this particular incident isn't on topic?


----------



## belboid (Sep 18, 2017)

weepiper said:


> Patriarchy is the original class division. That's why I always felt cross at being accused of identity politics by being feminist. Women are a class beneath men and have been since forever.


Well, not for the vast majority of human history. Only since the rise of the class system. 

Also (not specifically addressed at you weepiper) just because we might well believe there is ultimately no such thing as gender and would like to see any notion of it abolished, it still exists de facto in our lives world. And that is what we must react to and make sense of. 

In a similar vein, there are no such things as 'races' but this hardly meant there is no racism. But where would its material root come from in that case? It can ONLY be through the material reality of daily existence.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 18, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Which strikes me as odd. This thread is awash with talk of how terrible ID politics is, how this incident only happened because of ID politics and how ID politics is pretty much the route of all left wing evil. Yet talking about where we as individuals interact with ID politics, what our individual experiences are and therefore how we make meaning of this particular incident isn't on topic?



Because it's much wider and would shift the focus away from this incident.


----------



## Athos (Sep 19, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Feminism being dismissed as bad identitism is so shit I can't even laugh. So is support for BAME issues, so is support for LGBTQ+ issues... the gaze is the same...the power base is the same...the same people however educated, enlightened and progressive get to call this 'name' and as such mantain power, even within non-instutionialised, marginalised contexts.



Isn't this a bit of a strawman?  Who dismisses those things as identity politics _per se_?  You really think any of the left wing critics of ID pol don't support these groups?


----------



## Raheem (Sep 19, 2017)

Athos said:


> Isn't this a bit of a strawman?  Who dismisses those things as identity politics _per se_?  You really think any of the left wing critics of ID pol don't support these groups?



If you resist going no-true-Scotsman about it, then yes, it's clear that there's a great deal of confusion on the left with regard to what "identity politics" means. In evidence, I submit this thread.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 19, 2017)

19force8 said:


> Before slagging off a well established view of early humanity maybe you could familiarise yourself with some basic archaeological and anthropological research. [see below for suggested reading]
> 
> There is no evidence of any permanent settlement before 10,000 years ago. So that leaves somewhere between 60k and 240k years where there were no villages to raid from. Unless, of course, you count the small town of Bedrock. .
> 
> ...


I might come back to this. It's a contested view. This article by Frans de Waal outlines bonobo behaviour and indicates something close to your idea. It still doesn't quite involve 'complete equality', but it certainly isn't male domination, very far from it, despite the fact that male bonobos are bigger than females. I like de Waal's suggestion that a way to understand our past may involve a three-way comparison between humans, bonobos and chimps. But he also includes an important point, which is that bonobos evolved in a very specific place, a sheltered and almost idyllic place for such a primate to live. The history of pre-agricultural humans is one of movement right across the world - you don't migrate from an idyll.


----------



## Athos (Sep 19, 2017)

Raheem said:


> If you resist going no-true-Scotsman about it, then yes, it's clear that there's a great deal of confusion on the left with regard to what "identity politics" means. In evidence, I submit this thread.



Which is part of the reason it'd be good to have a specific thread to address some of these points. Not because they're not relevant to this issue,  but because there of such wider importance.


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 19, 2017)

oh ffs monkeys again?


----------



## 19force8 (Sep 19, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> oh ffs monkeys again?


Oi! Apes!


----------



## 19force8 (Sep 19, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I might come back to this. It's a contested view. This article by Frans de Waal outlines bonobo behaviour and indicates something close to your idea. It still doesn't quite involve 'complete equality', but it certainly isn't male domination, very far from it, despite the fact that male bonobos are bigger than females. I like de Waal's suggestion that a way to understand our past may involve a three-way comparison between humans, bonobos and chimps. But he also includes an important point, which is that bonobos evolved in a very specific place, a sheltered and almost idyllic place for such a primate to live. The history of pre-agricultural humans is one of movement right across the world - you don't migrate from an idyll.


Wow, I think my head's going to explode. Bonobos FFS! [damn, pengaleng beat me to it, but only 'cos I was reading the darned article  ]

I raised some serious points about current anthropology regarding human behaviour in pre-class societies, not bloody chimpanzees. Of course it's a contested area, it's science and a social science at that. All I ask is that you drop the "caveman clubbing a mate" concept and take a look at what we actually know.

Please.

[Edit] Went a bit off the deep end there. If what you're saying is that despite being smaller than the males, female bonobos aren't totally dominated by the males. And so there's no reason to assume that because in humans males are larger than females the males are dominant. Then yes it's a valid concept.

But I'd always urge caution in making comparisons based on human views of animal society. We tend to view animals through the prism of our own prejudices, for example:

1950s view - the lion king rules over a harem of lionesses.

1990s view - a collective of lionesses selects a stud for breeding and dumps him  as soon as he's past his sell by date.


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 19, 2017)

9/10

real talk.


----------



## 19force8 (Sep 19, 2017)

q_w_e_r_t_y said:


> I've just read this whole thread and my god, it is depressing.  A whole heap of lefties appear to be either defending this shit, or taking the Donald Trump line of "bad people on both sides".



By the standards of political violence even in the UK this is small potatoes - we're certainly not talking vehicular homicide. Nonetheless the clear impression I have of the lefties on Urban is that while none of them think it was a good thing they aren't going to prostrate themselves and beg forgiveness of a group that enjoy persecuting a vulnerable minority.



q_w_e_r_t_y said:


> This was a meeting which was open to all self-identified women, with a trans woman as a speaker.  The original venue was intimidated into cancelling, the next venue had to be kept secret for safety reasons, and women met in public to ensure each others safety.  Still a woman got punched and people on this thread seems to take the "she was asking for it" line.


For my part I regard no-platforming as an affront to democracy that can only be justified in the corner case of fascism. Once it becomes a more generalised tactic you risk everyone's liberties.

Now I'm home [finally!] and seen the video, I'm unimpressed with the "woman was punched" narrative as if that was all there was to it. When I heard she was taking photographs I hadn't realised she was actually standing over people pushing the camera (phone?) in their faces. That would have been bad enough in most circumstances, but when you're suspected of doxxing it's pure provocation. No wonder a fracas ensued. And what happens when there's a fracas? People overreact, it's wrong and regrettable, but storm in a teacup rather than Reichstag Fire.


q_w_e_r_t_y said:


> There is a parasitic element within the trans community, people who conform to male behaviour patterns and who exhibit enormous amounts of male entitlement, but who self-define as women.  If these people went to a shop and then you asked a random checkout assistant whether the person they just served was a man or a woman, they would almost certainly say "man".  The only indicator that they are not a man is that the poor checkout assistant would then get "FUCKING TRANSPHOBE" screamed in her face (if the checkout assistant was a man of course, they would never do such a thing).  These anti-feminist trans activists are often the loudest within much of the trans community, and from looking at the videos, I'd guess that at least two of them, possibly all, fit into that category.


Oh my, now you're just making stuff up.

But it's cute how you manage to hit so much of the Daily Mail bingo card in one paragraph.


q_w_e_r_t_y said:


> "Feminazi" is an old MRA insult, yet you see it getting resurrected in the discourse here with comparison between "TERFs" and fascists.  "Die in a fire" is the most beloved advice of anti-feminist trans activists, who want to burn the witches.
> 
> The trans community needs to condemn the misogyny in its midst, not facilitate it and excuse it.   I'm pretty down with trans women, I think they have a great deal to teach feminists about gender and I wish that they would have more involvement in the feminist movement - but these misogynist pricks who self-define as women cos its politically expedient, but who still expect male levels of entitlement and attention from other women; exhibit toxic patterns of behaviour which are most commonly found in men, and consider it A-OK to carry on this toxic behaviour because they think that women can get away with it (info-note, they cant, women who use physical violence get harsher sentances) and who demand that lesbians suck their dicks, and sit around discussing how to get through their "cotton ceiling" can fuck right off.


I'm a bit confused here. You say you've read the thread. So how did you miss posts #627 & #636 which clearly show how the online trans community has condemned and disavowed the woman who threw the punch.

Or are you saying trans women aren't condemning the kind of toxic behaviour you describe? From what I know of trans women I'm pretty sure they be as much aghast at such behaviour as any other woman. I'm surprised the trans women you're down with haven't told you so.

BTW, you do know there are such things as trolls on social media, don't you?



q_w_e_r_t_y said:


> Solidarity with trans women, except for self-entitled, rapey, violent misogynist ones, doesnt really seem that hard a concept for the left to grasp...but here we are.


So "the left" are supportive of "_self-entitled, rapey, violent misogynists_" now?

Was this whole post just an extended straw man riff?


----------



## bimble (Sep 19, 2017)

19force8 said:


> Before slagging off a well established view of early humanity *maybe you could familiarise yourself with some basic archaeological and anthropological research. [see below for suggested reading]*
> 
> There is no evidence of any permanent settlement before 10,000 years ago. So that leaves somewhere between 60k and 240k years where there were no villages to raid from. Unless, of course, you count the small town of Bedrock. .
> 
> ...



Wow, you are a tiny bit arrogant aren't you. I did an anthropology degree in what was probably the most feminist department at the time so, you know, you're not the first person i've come across interested in the subject. 
If you just wanted to say that patriarchy is basically about controlling women's reproductive capacity so as to be sure of the line of inheritance  that'd have been fine. And you'd get no argument that pre-settled agriculture there was less stuff to inherit so less rigid control of women's bodies necessary. 
But a single example of an unequivocally matriarchal society is a sort of holy grail that feminists have been looking everywhere for for about a century and it should at  least cause you to pause for thought that nobody has so far succeeded in finding one.


----------



## Lambert Simnel (Sep 19, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> oh ffs monkeys again?



That brings us on to lizards. Some species are subject to temperature-dependent sex determination, which means we can blame global warming for the recent increase in gender confusion in humans.


----------



## bimble (Sep 19, 2017)

Salamanders are the way forward, they can change sex halfway through their lives plus some females can reproduce just by 'stealing' bits of other species' dna that have been left lying around.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 19, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Feminism being dismissed as bad identitism is so shit I can't even laugh.


Has someone on this thread, or others, done this? And if so for _*all*_ feminism or for a particular body of feminist thought, and activities arising from such? 

I certainly have no problem describing the WEP as crap identity politics nonsense for example. Do you? That doesn't mean I write off feminism as a whole as ID politics.


----------



## belboid (Sep 19, 2017)

Athos said:


> Isn't this a bit of a strawman?  Who dismisses those things as identity politics _per se_?  You really think any of the left wing critics of ID pol don't support these groups?


Plenty of people dismiss all those issues, or say we shouldn't talk about them at the very least (crude,economic determinism for the win!). A sneery attitude to 'identity politics' which now becomes the even sneerier 'ID pol' gives the game away. There are plenty of 'left wing' arse holes who don't give a shit about liberation politics - particularly regarding trans politics (it probably threatens their masculinity).


----------



## Athos (Sep 19, 2017)

belboid said:


> Plenty of people dismiss all those issues, or say we shouldn't talk about them at the very least (crude,economic determinism for the win!). A sneery attitude to 'identity politics' which now becomes the even sneerier 'ID pol' gives the game away. There are plenty of 'left wing' arse holes who don't give a shit about liberation politics - particularly regarding trans politics (it probably threatens their masculinity).



I don't see plenty of people doing that. And I doubt you could find plenty of examples. But, anyone who does, is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And that shouldn't distract from the significant issues with ID pol.


----------



## belboid (Sep 19, 2017)

Athos said:


> I don't see plenty of people doing that. And I doubt you could find plenty of examples. But, anyone who does, is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And that shouldn't distract from the significant issues with ID pol.


The op does. Magnus decided to make a start on a racist joke on another thread. That economic determinism is a real thing. It doesn't mean they're bigots, of course, just that they have crap politics. 

Although there will be some who are simply anti-trans too. Quite a few I suspect.


----------



## Athos (Sep 19, 2017)

belboid said:


> The op does. Magnus decided to make a start on a racist joke on another thread. That economic determinism is a real thing. It doesn't mean they're bigots, of course, just that they have crap politics.
> 
> Although there will be some who are simply anti-trans too. Quite a few I suspect.



I hope someone will start a thread on this topic, to discuss some of these issues. I'd do it myself, but too busy at the moment.


----------



## 19force8 (Sep 19, 2017)

bimble said:


> Wow, you are a tiny bit arrogant aren't you. I did an anthropology degree in what was probably the most feminist department at the time so, you know, you're not the first person i've come across interested in the subject.
> If you just wanted to say that patriarchy is basically about controlling women's reproductive capacity so as to be sure of the line of inheritance  that'd have been fine. And you'd get no argument that pre-settled agriculture there was less stuff to inherit so less rigid control of women's bodies necessary.


But that wasn't what I wanted to say and why would I want to avoid an argument, this is the internet. Also, telling me what it's fine for me to want to say is not the least bit arrogant is it?

As a Marxist I don't agree that male dominance was the eternal rule for relations between the sexes. Simply going by your argument that patriarchy existed because of the need to ensure inheritance of wealth. Then in hunter gatherer societies what was their to inherit? Everything they owned had to be carried with them, they made everything themselves from the rocks, animals and plants that surrounded them. They did so as and when they needed to, they didn't accumulate vast hoards of baskets, furs, food or knives. If one person accumulated twice as much stuff as another they'd be weighed down carrying it around. Why bother when you have the skills to create what you need when and where you need it?

Not only that, many of these groups would have been matrilineal because it was simpler to identify the mother of a child.



bimble said:


> But a single example of an unequivocally matriarchal society is a sort of holy grail that feminists have been looking everywhere for for about a century and it should at  least cause you to pause for thought that nobody has so far succeeded in finding one.


But we have numerous examples of societies where neither sex was dominant, why is it so important to find one where women are the sexist bastards in charge?

Ironically, if you've read Leacock you'll know that while missionaries bemoaned the way native American men were ruled by their women, if you strip such value judgements from their descriptions the tribes look remarkably like equal societies.

It's the Marxist view of a time when we weren't subject to the imperatives of class society (sexism, racism, homophobia, etc) that gives me hope we can overcome the muck of ages. As Engels put it in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State:



> What we can now conjecture about the way in which sexual relations will be ordered after the impending overthrow of capitalist production is mainly of a negative character, limited for the most part to what will disappear.
> 
> But what will there be new? That will be answered when a new generation has grown up: a generation of men who never in their lives have known what it is to buy a woman's surrender with money or any other social instrument of power; a generation of women who have never known what it is to give themselves to a man from any other considerations than real love, or to refuse to give themselves to their lover from fear of the economic consequences.
> 
> When these people are in the world, they will care precious little what anybody today thinks they ought to do; they will make their own practice and their corresponding public opinion about the practice of each individual--and that will be the end of it.


Not bad for an old, white, cis man. We don't even have to wait for the revolution to see aspects of his vision coming true around us.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 19, 2017)

Matrilineal does not necessarily mean matriarchal. 

Humans spread right across the world in pre-agricultural times, and the 'hunter' bit of hunter-gathering took many forms. We should expect diversity in cultural forms given that diversity in environment. Pre-agriculture was not one thing.

Regarding various bold claims re hunter-gatherer sexual equality, there is evidence from the groups we know of that in at least some of them at least, certain kinds of hunting were male activities - persistence hunting by the San for instance - and that the status of hunters was disproportionate to the actual importance of the hunted meat to survival - the 'gathering' bit was the grunt work, but the meat brought status to the man or men bringing it, and indeed it is hypothesised that this formed an important signifier of male fitness, a sexual virtue signal. 

Despite your howls, I think reference to bonobos is still relevant here, given that here is an example of something close to genuine equality within a group in which there is significant sexual dimorphism. The specific conditions in which this has evolved bear several important points of difference from the vast majority of early modern human societies.


----------



## bimble (Sep 19, 2017)

I'll try to get back to you 19force8 but to be honest your heavy reliance on Leacock and her very skewed presentation of native american societies makes me think you're not really interested in the realities or wider evidence more just in some romantic notion that supports your idealistic view. 
And yeah, matrilineal does not have anything to do with it unless you think orthodox jews are an egalitarian or matriarchal society ffs.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 19, 2017)

belboid said:


> The op does. Magnus decided to make a start on a racist joke on another thread.



Wtf has that got to do with here you shit stirring cunt? 

And what does 'started making a racist joke' even mean? Either I made a racist joke or I didn't.


----------



## belboid (Sep 19, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Wtf has that got to do with here you shit stirring cunt?
> 
> And what does 'started making a racist joke' even mean? Either I made a racist joke or I didn't.


You know full well sunshine. The one you were told off for by one of the big boys at the time.  And it is clear what it has to do with this thread. You oppose all liberation politics as a distraction from your notion of class (although, ironically, your view of class is wholly based on ID politics. But that really is a different issue).


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 19, 2017)

belboid said:


> You know full well sunshine. The one you were told off for by one of the big boys at the time.  And it is clear what it has to do with this thread. You oppose all liberation politics as a distraction from your notion of class (although, ironically, your view of class is wholly based on ID politics. But that really is a different issue).



I don't, as I've pointed out on this very thread numerous times. I oppose identity when it transcends class. Like the EDL who pretend everyone 'English' have a common interest based on that identity.


----------



## 19force8 (Sep 19, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Matrilineal does not necessarily mean matriarchal.
> 
> Humans spread right across the world in pre-agricultural times, and the 'hunter' bit of hunter-gathering took many forms. We should expect diversity in cultural forms given that diversity in environment. Pre-agriculture was not one thing.
> 
> ...


I wasn't suggesting matrilineal = matriarchal. Rather that if a society was matrilineal it kind of knocks a hole in the argument about an eternal patriarchy being about inheritance.

It wasn't me suggesting that all human societies were the same thing, ie where men have *ruled* women for all time, patriarchy. Yes humans are endlessly playful and hunter gatherers having had more time on their hands than most managed to invent some truly wonderful social structures. For instance the K'ung developed elaborate rituals to avoid the kind of boastfulness and status seeking you describe for the San.

I should also make the point that the equality I'm talking about doesn't mean everyone's the same. In any human group some will be stronger, faster, smarter, more comely, better singers, dancers, storytellers, psychologists, etc, etc. All or none of which can lead to higher status, but higher status doesn't make you a king. For that you need the structural inequality of a class society.

Give me a break on the Bonobo thing, it was very late and the trains were shot. Also I did edit to say I'd overreacted a tad and saw the positive point you were making. And we both seem to be agreed that there are important differences with the human condition. [E2A] Howls/Bonobo, just got it  I'm slow this morning.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 19, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Wtf has that got to do with here you shit stirring cunt?
> 
> And what does 'started making a racist joke' even mean? Either I made a racist joke or I didn't.



Aaaaaah, here now. How about the time when you asked me as an Irish person why I was bothered/voted about Brexit? Or as an Irish person I should support the IRA?

It's ok; I get the jokes now.  A bit of banter between fellow Irish people.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 19, 2017)

What's with all this cross thread shit now? 
Mate, you took a dump all over a thread about National Action by wanting to make it about Irish republicanism.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 19, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> What's with all this cross thread shit now?
> Mate, you took a dump all over a thread about National Action by wanting to make it about Irish republicanism.



Forget about it; I was just bollocking about. Mea culpa.

This thread is far too mixed up without me dredging up past shite.


----------



## 19force8 (Sep 19, 2017)

bimble said:


> I'll try to get back to you 19force8 but to be honest your heavy reliance on Leacock and her very skewed presentation of native american societies makes me think you're not really interested in the realities or wider evidence more just in some romantic notion that supports your idealistic view.
> And yeah, matrilineal does not have anything to do with it unless you think orthodox jews are an egalitarian or matriarchal society ffs.


It isn't me that has a romantic, idealistic view of history. I'm a materialist not an idealist (Historical materialism - Wikipedia). I don't argue that because a thing exists today (racism, sexism, etc) it must have existed for all time despite the evidence.

Engels wrote over 140 years ago, Leacock fifty, so of course there are going to be flaws, especially as both were polemical works. Even so they're quite short and accessible and the fundamental insights they contain are still true today. ie that preclass societies weren't all about patriarchy, kidnap and rape.

_After the Ice_ is much longer and harder to get into, but gives a clear view of how materially poor prehistoric society was.

_The Creation of Inequality_ is a tour de force drawing on around 500 anthropological and archaeological studies to give the first convincing account of how humans moved from classless to class societies.

And yeah, I'm hardly going to be talking up views I disagree with am I? This is the internet, not a dissertation.

Matrilineality is relevant as I've already said:

I wasn't suggesting matrilineal = matriarchal. Rather that if a society was matrilineal it kind of knocks a hole in the argument about an eternal patriarchy being all about inheritance.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 19, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Which strikes me as odd. This thread is awash with talk of how terrible ID politics is, how this incident only happened because of ID politics and how ID politics is pretty much the route of all left wing evil. Yet talking about where we as individuals interact with ID politics, what our individual experiences are and therefore how we make meaning of this particular incident isn't on topic?


That's not my impression from the thread. I think people have lamented the confusions bedevilling ID politics, rather than condemning ID politics as such.

When people talk about toxic ID politics, it is the present practice of the art which they are condemning. But the topic itself is worthy of careful thought, as shown by the calls for a thread devoted to it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 19, 2017)

19force8 said:


> I wasn't suggesting matrilineal = matriarchal. Rather that if a society was matrilineal it kind of knocks a hole in the argument about an eternal patriarchy being all about inheritance.


Fair enough. But male domination of a society is not dependent in any way on patrilinearity. I think you make good points about the rise of the particular form of male domination that we see now, important aspects of which are clearly due to the factors you outline. But I also think it overstates the case to extrapolate back from that and say anything stronger than that male domination through a property-based class structure didn't exist then. Doesn't mean other forms of male domination didn't exist.

I used to very much like the idea you're putting forward, btw, of a pre-capitalist 'primitive communism'. I just don't think it really stands up - I see no particular compelling reason for it to be true.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 19, 2017)

19force8 said:


> It isn't me that has a romantic, idealistic view of history. I'm a materialist not an idealist (Historical materialism - Wikipedia). I don't argue that because a thing exists today (racism, sexism, etc) it must have existed for all time despite the evidence.
> 
> Engels wrote over 140 years ago, Leacock fifty, so of course there are going to be flaws, especially as both were polemical works. Even so they're quite short and accessible and the fundamental insights they contain are still true today. ie that preclass societies weren't all about patriarchy, kidnap and rape.
> 
> ...


Fwiw, just a quick aside that I read bimble's use of "idealistic" to mean starry-eyed, rather than as a philosophical term.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 19, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Forget about it; I was just bollocking about. Mea culpa.
> 
> This thread is far too mixed up without me dredging up past shite.


this thread is mixed up because it was clearly intended as an attack on trans people and was never supposed to be anything else. So if it's fucked up then good.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 19, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> this thread is mixed up because it was clearly intended as an attack on trans people and was never supposed to be anything else. So if it's fucked up then good.



Easy targets is easy targets. This climate it's trans people. It will be another grouping in the future.


----------



## 19force8 (Sep 19, 2017)

Jonti said:


> Fwiw, just a quick aside that I read bimble's use of "idealistic" to mean starry-eyed, rather than as a philosophical term.


Yeah, but it's almost a compulsory response for Marxists.

The real reason we're such hard headed materialists is we spend so much of our time banging our heads against brick walls.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 19, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Easy targets is easy targets. This climate it's trans people. It will be another grouping in the future.


I see some binary trans people and early transitioners trying to separate themselves from the rest of us now - so I guess we'll just split infinitely and keep kicking those we see as inferior. this is how the world works.


----------



## 19force8 (Sep 19, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Fair enough. But male domination of a society is not dependent in any way on patrilinearity. I think you make good points about the rise of the particular form of male domination that we see now, important aspects of which are clearly due to the factors you outline. But I also think it overstates the case to extrapolate back from that and say anything stronger than that male domination through a property-based class structure didn't exist then. Doesn't mean other forms of male domination didn't exist.
> 
> I used to very much like the idea you're putting forward, btw, of a pre-capitalist 'primitive communism'. I just don't think it really stands up - I see no particular compelling reason for it to be true.


Good points. I'd say similar about the absence of compelling reasons on the other side. We could go on for years.

But that would be a bit off topic. I was responding to a bit of cod-Marxist analysis of transphobia and pointing to the existence/acceptance of two-spirit people in some societies and got sidetracked.


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 19, 2017)

Lambert Simnel said:


> gender confusion


----------



## 19force8 (Sep 19, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> I see some binary trans people and early transitioners trying to separate themselves from the rest of us now - so I guess we'll just split infinitely and keep kicking those we see as inferior. this is how the world works.


I hope not. Unity is always a work in progress.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 19, 2017)

19force8 said:


> I hope not. Unity is always a work in progress.


Everything I do is done with trying to keep all trans people united in mind. Absolute inclusion. Some say it's too much but who I am I to judge anyone elses identity? I got blocked on Twitter by India Willoughby so I think it got noticed. She's too busy telling trans women who "look male" that they should stick to using the men's toilets.  and genuinely reinforcing toxic stereotypes of femininity.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 19, 2017)

But that's one of the criticisms of identity politics in that identities can compete and conflict with one another and (I think) Butchers pointed out earlier that a strand of feminism has been out-identitied (?) by trans in this instance. Another example is the growing hostility towards 'white' feminism from poc activists (and their allies).


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 19, 2017)

pengaleng said:


>


And so say all of us


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 19, 2017)

Is there any mileage in asking for urban LGBT+ forum? Not that it would stop these bunfights completely but I think it might help.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 19, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> Is there any mileage in asking for urban LGBT+ forum? Not that it would stop these bunfights completely but I think it might help.



I think this had been requested before. A kind of "safe place"  of sorts where discussions are a little more rational and less heated. Boards.ie (Irish site) has one and it's reasonably moderated compared to the sheer ignorance elsewhere on that site. Not to ghettoise ourseleves but just somewhere to shoot the breeze without one or two of the usaual suspects weighing in.

No doubt there will be accusations of id-pol or whatevet the fuck it's called but hey.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 19, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> I think this had been requested before. A kind of "safe place"  of sorts where discussions are a little more rational and less heated. Boards.ie (Irish site) has one and it's reasonably moderated compared to the sheer ignorance elsewhere on that site. Not to ghettoise ourseleves but just somewhere to shoot the breeze without one or two of the usaual suspects weighing in.
> 
> No doubt there will be accusations of id-pol or whatevet the fuck it's called but hey.



yeah - no doubt. Sometimes it's just nice to get beyond having to constantly defend your own identity.

And it doesn't all have to be political either.

And maybe, might actually be fun...?

For me I think it'll give trans people a better chance of finding allies and being supportive, and being supported, rather than constantly having to deflect shit, which is something I see to a certain extent happening to cis LGB people on here too.


----------



## Athos (Sep 19, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> Is there any mileage in asking for urban LGBT+ forum? Not that it would stop these bunfights completely but I think it might help.



I don't think the problems with this thread are a product of it being in the wrong forum. Not do I think it should have gone in an LGBT+ thread had one existed; it's very much politics and current affairs.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 19, 2017)

Athos said:


> I don't think the problems with this thread are a product of it being in the wrong forum. Not do I think it should have gone in an LGBT+ thread had one existed; it's very much politics and current affairs.



Always room for crossover


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 19, 2017)

you should do a poll and see what people think before making the request


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 19, 2017)

Athos said:


> I don't think the problems with this thread are a product of it being in the wrong forum. Not do I think it should have gone in an LGBT+ thread had one existed; it's very much politics and current affairs.


no, but there's a lot else I'd like to say about this but I'm not going to say it here.


----------



## Athos (Sep 19, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Always room for crossover



Maybe. But, taking this topic, for example: would there be two threads, one in each forum? Would that help a coherent discussion?


----------



## Athos (Sep 19, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> no, but there's a lot else I'd like to say about this but I'm not going to say it here.



I understand why, but it seems a shame that the broarder discussion would lose a trans perspective (even if I disagree with much of what you say).


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 19, 2017)

Athos said:


> Maybe. But, taking this topic, for example: would there be two threads, one in each forum? Would that help a coherent discussion?



Coherent discussions should not be limited to just one perspective. Hence, possibly, another outlook on another forum?


----------



## Athos (Sep 19, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Coherent discussions should not be limited to just one perspective. Hence, possibly, another outlook on another forum?



Retreating from the broader discussion is decreasing the number of perspectives, there,  surely?


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 19, 2017)

Athos said:


> Retreating from the broader discussion is decreasing the number of perspectives, there,  surely?



Not at all. Merely opening up other avenues of discussion. 

It's hardly


----------



## Athos (Sep 19, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Not at all. Merely opening up other avenues of discussion.
> 
> It's hardly



Possibly. But I fear you'd just get two groups in silo, talking to themselves, with no exposure to a diversity of opinions. It could become polarising and counter- productive.


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 19, 2017)

it could be but lets face it, people avoid politics forum like the plague init so you already miss out on opinions


----------



## q_w_e_r_t_y (Sep 19, 2017)

19force8 said:


> So "the left" are supportive of "_self-entitled, rapey, violent misogynists_" now?



Yes.  Same as they have always been.  

Like where the fuck have you been if you dont realise that the left are frequently supportive of self-entitled rapey violent misogynists.  How can you have missed Smith, Sheridan, Galloway, Assange?  Women were imprisoned for decades London in a cult that originated on the left at the same time that Health was raping and beating up women and while the Pedophile Information Exchange were gaining a level of left wing traction (and was only stopped by exactly the same flavour of feminists that were gathering in Hyde Park - at the time they were denounced as anti-Gay, despite many of them being lesbian).

Cis-women are being told "listen to trans women" which is completely fair enough and more radfems should.  But it has to be the right kind of trans woman, cos if you want to listen to the wrong kind of trans woman, you are a "FUCKING TRANSPHOBE" who deserves to be punched, should suck girl dick, and die in a fire.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 19, 2017)

Athos said:


> Possibly. But I fear you'd just get two groups in silo, talking to themselves, with no exposure to a diversity of opinions. It could become polarising and counter- productive.



Or it might just offer up some new ideas and patterns that are oft squashed/scared off by the usual constraints of a single forum.


----------



## Athos (Sep 19, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> it could be but lets face it, people avoid politics forum like the plague init so you already miss out on opinions


 fair point!


----------



## Athos (Sep 19, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Or it might just offer up some new ideas and patterns that are oft squashed/scared off by the usual constraints of a single forum.



Maybe, but to whom would they be offered up?


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 19, 2017)

Athos said:


> Retreating from the broader discussion is decreasing the number of perspectives, there,  surely?


Who's retreating? I just don't want to have my face rubbed in the shit every time I discuss the issues that affect me.

Talking about my own identity shouldn't have to be combative every time. I don't see it as political - any more than being gay or being straight is political. sure there are political aspects, but - do you know how many times a day I have to explain what cis means?


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 19, 2017)

I always get the impression that the left doesn't like minorities talking among themselves and always want to keep a nice beady eye on us to make sure we're not departing from acceptable dogma.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 19, 2017)

being tone policed as well! sometimes I want to be able to get angry without being accused of being a man for it.


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 19, 2017)

new york forum is pretty bullshit... its only got 478 discussions


----------



## Athos (Sep 19, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> Who's retreating? I just don't want to have my face rubbed in the shit every time I discuss the issues that affect me.
> 
> Talking about my own identity shouldn't have to be combative every time. I don't see it as political - any more than being gay or being straight is political. sure there are political aspects, but - do you know how many times a day I have to explain what cis means?



Fair enough, I get that. That's why I started my previous reply to you by saying that I understand why you would.

I think we fundamentally disagree about what is and what isn't political, though.  Your identity impacts on the question of what gender is; that's something that affects all of us. I don't think it's quite as simple as it being a purely individual thing.


----------



## Athos (Sep 19, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> I always get the impression that the left doesn't like minorities talking among themselves and always want to keep a nice beady eye on us to make sure we're not departing from acceptable dogma.



The saddest thing about that is that it seems to presume that minorities are outside the left.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 19, 2017)

Athos said:


> The saddest thing about that is that it seems to presume that minorities are outside the left.


I feel pushed out.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 19, 2017)

Athos said:


> Fair enough, I get that. That's why I started my previous reply to you by saying that I understand why you would.
> 
> I think we fundamentally disagree about what is and what isn't political, though.  Your identity impacts on the question of what gender is; that's something that affects all of us. I don't think it's quite as simple as it being a purely individual thing.


I think that's why we fell out in the first place. You think someone who experiences being trans from age of 4 and fighting to just exist and not be forced to be someone they are not is political. the only political thing is the push back. Transphobia is political, transgender isn't. My view only though, I know lots of trans people wouldn't agree with me here. I deeply, deeply would love to get beyond my trans identity, to never have to talk about it again, but it's the thing I'm eternally judged on whether I want to be or not, it's the thing that I get asked to talk about, to do work about. I used to do other stuff but you'd be amazed how many people don't return your phone calls when you transition.


----------



## Athos (Sep 19, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> I feel pushed out.



Don't take this the wrong way, but, sometimes - understandably given the grief you've received over the years - you seem to interpret things as attacks when they're not intended that way.  Obviously, I can understand why you are personally vested in discussions about gender, and find some views upsetting.  But not every opinion you don't like is someone having a pop.


----------



## q_w_e_r_t_y (Sep 19, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> Talking about my own identity shouldn't have to be combative every time.



That is exactly how many AFAB women feel.


----------



## Athos (Sep 19, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> I think that's why we fell out in the first place. You think someone who experiences being trans from age of 4 and fighting to just exist and not be forced to be someone they are not is political. the only political thing is the push back. Transphobia is political, transgender isn't. My view only though, I know lots of trans people wouldn't agree with me here. I deeply, deeply would love to get beyond my trans identity, to never have to talk about it again, but it's the thing I'm eternally judged on whether I want to be or not, it's the thing that I get asked to talk about, to do work about. I used to do other stuff but you'd be amazed how many people don't return your phone calls when you transition.



Yes. And partly because I was crass and unkind at times. But I just don't know how to get past the impasse of political v personal, other than by listening to one another.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 19, 2017)

q_w_e_r_t_y said:


> That is exactly how many AFAB women feel.



Sorry - didn't mean to be abrupt - but I have so much going on right now - was interrupted.

I'm not sure how you mean. Yes I do understand that women feel like this. I am a woman too as well trans so I do understand, and I have many cis allies that I discuss stuff with.

I'm just not sure how to take your post - expressing empathy or having a go. If I knew I could respond better.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 19, 2017)

Athos said:


> Yes. And partly because I was crass and unkind at times. But I just don't know how to get past the impasse of political v personal, other than by listening to one another.


can't we do both? As I said, I have no intention of retreating. I've been trying to find a way back in to politics for a number of years now that doesn't involve me becoming a bloody trans token/ political football.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 19, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> I always get the impression that the left doesn't like minorities talking among themselves and always want to keep a nice beady eye on us to make sure we're not departing from acceptable dogma.



Irony


----------



## Athos (Sep 19, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> can't we do both? As I said, I have no intention of retreating. I've been trying to find a way back in to politics for a number of years now that doesn't involve me becoming a bloody trans token/ political football.


 Sorry,  I don't follow.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 19, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Irony


there's a reason I've been ignoring you.


----------



## krink (Sep 19, 2017)

I've followed this thread from the start and I have a question if I may. What do posters mean by "the left" in this thread? I consider myself a lefty but I'm not prejudiced against minorities of any description or any of that stuff. In a thread about the importance of identity, surely blanket and meaningless terms like "the left" are useless and the posters should be more specific. Anyway, back to lurking.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 19, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> there's a reason I've been ignoring you.



Maybe you could take on board the feedback people give instead of seeing every challenge as an existential threat.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 19, 2017)

Athos said:


> Maybe, but to whom would they be offered up?



Those who want to engage and explore rather than aggravate. I reckon.


----------



## Athos (Sep 19, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Those who want to engage and explore rather than aggravate. I reckon.



And how would that be moderated? Because unless you limit who can contribute to thread in the LGBT+ forum, the same will happen there. You'll get two of this!  And, as soon as you do restrict it, you'll get two groups talking to themselves, and past each other.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 19, 2017)

Athos said:


> And how would that be moderated? Because unless you limit who can contribute to thread in the LGBT+ forum, the same will happen there. You'll get two of this!  And, as soon as you do restrict it, you'll get two groups talking to themselves, and past each other.



Maybe common sense will prevail and it wouldn't need much moderation. Like health and sexuality?


----------



## Jonti (Sep 19, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> Sorry - didn't mean to be abrupt - but I have so much going on right now - was interrupted.
> 
> I'm not sure how you mean. Yes I do understand that women feel like this. I am a woman too as well trans so I do understand, and I have many cis allies that I discuss stuff with.
> 
> I'm just not sure how to take your post - expressing empathy or having a go. If I knew I could respond better.


"You are not alone" was, I think, the sentiment. I hope so anyway. Why not take it that way in your reply (if any) and see where it goes.


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 19, 2017)

Athos said:


> And how would that be moderated? Because unless you limit who can contribute to thread in the LGBT+ forum, the same will happen there. You'll get two of this!  And, as soon as you do restrict it, you'll get two groups talking to themselves, and past each other.



well it'd be less alienating to those who avoid politics

maybe people would post about things less aggressively

it shouldnt be restricted > primarily because enabling that would force people to divulge why they should be granted access which is asking them to prove something.

one has to be braced for robust argument. I'm not sure why you would want to avoid that unless your ideas dont hold under scrutiny and you know it.


----------



## Athos (Sep 19, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Maybe common sense will prevail....



Are you new here?


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 19, 2017)

Athos said:


> Are you new here?



Just alarmingly hopefull.Or hopeless...


----------



## q_w_e_r_t_y (Sep 19, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> I'm just not sure how to take your post - expressing empathy or having a go. If I knew I could respond better.



Its frustration.  This issue goes round and round in circles with much heat being generated but little light and with each spiral it becomes more bad tempered and more polarised.  I feel that many trans women do not understand what it is like to be AFAB, and to be comfortable in their gender identity, but uncomfortable in their gender role.  

A real woman is slim and beautiful, has a dashing husband with a solid income, which she sexually satisfies to ensure he doesnt stray, two point four naturally birthed breastfed children, takes appropriate precautions in dress and travel to avoid sexual violence, keeps a lovely home, makes career sacrifices for her children and cares for elderly or infirm relatives with narry a word of complaint.

This archetype on which "woman" is based dont work for cis women as much as they dont work for trans women.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 19, 2017)

q_w_e_r_t_y said:


> Its frustration.  This issue goes round and round in circles with much heat being generated but little light and with each spiral it becomes more bad tempered and more polarised.  I feel that many trans women do not understand what it is like to be AFAB, and to be comfortable in their gender identity, but uncomfortable in their gender role.
> 
> A real woman is slim and beautiful, has a dashing husband with a solid income, which she sexually satisfies to ensure he doesnt stray, two point four naturally birthed breastfed children, takes appropriate precautions in dress and travel to avoid sexual violence, keeps a lovely home, makes career sacrifices for her children and cares for elderly or infirm relatives with narry a word of complaint.
> 
> This archetype on which "woman" is based dont work for cis women as much as they dont work for trans women.


I understand this. I don't agree completely with you, but my perspective is different.

Much of what you just said I can relate to. Believe it or not I feel a lot of the same pressures on me and always have to some extent. I won't be alone in that, in fact I know I'm not. 

Maybe even on the looks trans women feel it stronger because we have a narrower path to tread and are criticised from all sides, and have our identity erased of we take a step wrong. Being accused of having male anger when we express any kind of passion in our voice is a common one.

 I think most trans women are just invisible. The most visible ones are like me, still transitioning and still finding their way.
Trans women are as diverse as cis women. Some of them want to be the little housewife or whatever other cliché but others are out there in queer communities bucking every stereotype they can find. And everything in between. I could talk lots about this but I'd be attacked from 40 different angles and I don't have the stamina today I'm afraid.

Happy to talk off grid though, just not here.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 19, 2017)

But surely they didn't grow up in dismay at what awaited them in the adult world as women? Because they were more preoccupied with their dysphoria?


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 19, 2017)

Jonti said:


> But surely they didn't grow up in dismay at what awaited them in the adult world as women. Because they were more preoccupied with their dysphoria.




that dont really make sense


----------



## comrade spurski (Sep 19, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> FYI



Weird to use the term "beautiful" young girl.
Not trying to nit pick but beautiful is kind of irrelevant when discussing abuse.
Apologies if I am misunderstanding it.

It was wrong to punch the woman but the woman was equally wrong to be physically restraining someone else (which the original) video in the OP seems to show.

The whole episode is a god send for those who want to mock feminists, transgender people and the "left".

Referring to feminists who are not respectful or accepting of transgender women as Nazi's or Fascists is inaccurate and a nonsense imho.

For anyone to disrespect someone who identifies as transgender is shitty.

I do not pretend to have an answer but as far as I can tell identity politics missed the point and was divisive in the 1980s and 1990s and continues to be so today.

Too many want to concerntrate on our differences rather than on what unifies us. In some ways it's depressing (politically speaking) because if those who want equality can not even discuss, listen and debate in a respectful manner what hope is there of winning those who are "ignorant" of the issues and the discrimination it causes?


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 19, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> Is there any mileage in asking for urban LGBT+ forum? Not that it would stop these bunfights completely but I think it might help.





krtek a houby said:


> I think this had been requested before. A kind of "safe place"  of sorts where discussions are a little more rational and less heated. Boards.ie (Irish site) has one and it's reasonably moderated compared to the sheer ignorance elsewhere on that site. Not to ghettoise ourseleves but just somewhere to shoot the breeze without one or two of the usaual suspects weighing in.
> 
> No doubt there will be accusations of id-pol or whatevet the fuck it's called but hey.



editor 

whaddya reckon? disasterous idea or worth a trial run?


----------



## editor (Sep 19, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> editor
> 
> whaddya reckon? disasterous idea or worth a trial run?


I think you might be better off posting this in the feedback forum. My instinct is that it might prove to be catnip to the trolls and point provers, but I could be wrong.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 19, 2017)

editor said:


> I think you might be better off posting this in the feedback forum. My instinct is that it might prove to be catnip to the trolls and point provers, but I could be wrong.



Ok. Hear ya. But kind of sick of the trolls and point provers; hence the suggestion of a new forum...


----------



## Wilf (Sep 19, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> Is there any mileage in asking for urban LGBT+ forum? Not that it would stop these bunfights completely but I think it might help.


At one level I think this is fine - and why should I have anything against any particular group/social division having their own forum. More than that, why should I as a middle aged heterosexual bloke feel the need to pronounce on this (and of course any other forum around other bits of identity). It's about having a bit of self awareness, a sense that people need a place to develop ideas, experiences (you can probably guess I'm desperately avoiding the term 'safe space' ). 

But then... I'm against identarian politics, against intersectionality - and plenty of other things that have formed out of the official multiculturalism and equality policies now embedded in universities, local government and the whole twatty layer of consultancies and the rest. I believe class politics has the possibility of building working class responses in all the different areas of our lives - a genuine anticapitalism.  But that needs to put things back together rather than pull them apart into self owned and policed 'spokes'.  Should say straight away that the problems  of intersectionality _don't have to_ crop up in having different forums - on urban or wherever.  And again, what's it got to do with me as that middles aged white hetero bloke?  But ultimately I'd see the process of building a sustainable working class resistance as the starting point.

In all that contradictory musing above - the notion of having a bit of respect for people who have different social experiences to yourself + the need to pull things together rather than apart, there are probably a few of the contemporary dilemmas of the left.  Then there are groups within groups that have gone so far into identarianism that they are never to engage with working class life.  It's not just putting humpty dumpty together again.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Sep 19, 2017)

Nobbin n sobbing seems to manage to bring out the best in people...people are certainly less dickish in there than on other forums. I wonder if an LGBT+forum may be able to have the same levels of care and respect.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 19, 2017)

Let's give it a try

https://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/lgbt-forum.354488/


----------



## Wilf (Sep 19, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Let's give it a try
> 
> https://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/lgbt-forum.354488/


I very much applaud your initial attempts to relate this to a green perspective, by putting it in Recycle Your Stuff.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 19, 2017)

Wilf said:


> I very much applaud your initial attempts to relate this to a green perspective, by putting it in Recycle Your Stuff.



Yeah, fucked up there


----------



## Jonti (Sep 19, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> that dont really make sense


I was thinking that growing up with gender dysphoria would be something of a pain.

It certainly seemed so from reading this (in the comments here)


> Since my earliest memories I felt something was wrong. I felt like a freak from my childhood to an adult. I had to fake things that did not feel natural to me so I could blend in the best I could. You spend most of your life acting a part and otherwise I felt like I would not be accepted by my peers or my family. And you spend so much time acting and putting up walls that you forget why your doing it or who you are. I looked back on my life and I had many memories but in many ways it all felt like a fog. Even though I remember everything it felt like I was living some one ells's life. I could not make sense of why I felt that way. Back in 2013 my Dad past away and the walls I had put up started falling. Many memories I had stuffed away started coming back in a rush and realized why I spent so many years in depression and feeling miserable. At this point many would think I would go off and get HRT and get surgery, but no. I am one of the few that has elected not to because I can't stand the thought of losing everyone I love. And there are other reasons but many would not understand those. The reason why I commented is because its not something that comes about when you are an adult, you suffer from it your whole life. And I hate it when people that do not understand what a person like I and others like me go through talk about it as though they were an authority on my life. I have lived it, you have not and so can not begin to talk about what you do not know. I am not trying to be an ass but you have no idea what me and others have gone through our whole lives(not just adulthood). It is miserable existence, acting out a life that is not you at all. You realize that no one you know truly knows you but only the part you play. Like I said I love my family and even though they don't know me I know enough about them that I want to keep them in my life so I am one of the few that has chosen to remain silent, but your not family so I have no problem telling you.


----------



## The Flying Pig (Sep 19, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> this thread is mixed up because it was clearly intended as an attack on trans people and was never supposed to be anything else. So if it's fucked up then good.


I started the thread and it was not an attack on anybody. It was a WTF? I really had no idea this weird and wonderful world of deep hatred of some within these acronyms and abbreviations groups existed. I have no idea what some of the contributors are talking about. You would need to be deeply inbedded in their world or have a dictionary to help understand the words let alone what they mean. As i said before I just feel deep pity for all involved and a saddness of the deep rift that is obvious to all.


----------



## The Flying Pig (Sep 19, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> Who's retreating? I just don't want to have my face rubbed in the shit every time I discuss the issues that affect me.
> 
> Talking about my own identity shouldn't have to be combative every time. I don't see it as political - any more than being gay or being straight is political. sure there are political aspects, but - do you know how many times a day I have to explain what cis means?


Why do you need to explain what cis is?


----------



## Jonti (Sep 19, 2017)

19force8 said:


> ...
> Give me a break on the Bonobo thing, it was very late and the trains were shot. Also I did edit to say I'd overreacted a tad and saw the positive point you were making. And we both seem to be agreed that there are important differences with the human condition. [E2A] Howls/Bonobo, just got it  I'm slow this morning.


You might enjoy _The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee_ by Jared Diamond.


----------



## Volume One (Sep 20, 2017)

So another meeting got cancelled after the venue came under fire from Trans activists.
The title of the planned event was 'Attacks on Thinking in the Age of LGBTQWIIAP+'


 

"Led by: Anne-Marie Cummins and Bob Withers

The recent proliferation of sexual identities signals that we have reached a ‘transgender tipping point’: the entry into mainstream culture of multiple sexual identities organised around some notion of gender fluidity, intersexuality or transsexuality. But while things are being opened up they also seem to be closing down. The celebration of the rainbow and medical advances has a disturbing underbelly that is becoming increasingly apparent to academics and psychotherapists.

Researchers have been attacked viciously for raising legitimate questions, such as the feminist philosopher Rachel Tuval for suggesting that there are similarities between transracialism and trans-sexuality. At the same time psychological thinking about individual trans-peoples’ experiences is seen as increasingly unwelcome by trans-activists in a culture that still stigmatises mental illness but affirms the medicalisation of trans-phenomena. People are being shepherded into hormonal and surgical treatment while research into the growing number of those dissatisfied with its results is lobbied to be closed down.

Has the social unconscious been ‘queered’? If there is something going on in the wider social matrix about the refusal of hard gender differences, what might this be about? And what are the consequences for us as a society and the individuals concerned?"


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 20, 2017)

Volume One said:


> And what are the consequences for us as a society and the individuals concerned?"



If it feels good, do it.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 20, 2017)

q_w_e_r_t_y said:


> That is exactly how many AFAB women feel.


New borns are assessed anatomically almost first thing.  Hence the assessed female at birth acronym. This is usually all that's needed, but not always.  Sometimes it becomes apparent the medicos have been fooled.





> In CAH a female foetus has adrenal glands (small caps of glands over the kidneys) that produce high level of male hormones. This enlarges the female genitals and the female baby may be confused with a male at birth.


I think the expression that best serves your meaning is _natal women_.


----------



## belboid (Sep 20, 2017)

Jonti said:


> New borns are assessed anatomically almost first thing.  Hence the assessed female at birth acronym. This is usually all that's needed, but not always.  Sometimes it becomes apparent the medicos have been fooled.
> I think the expression that best serves your meaning is _natal women_.


'Fooled' eh? Those crafty darned babies.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 20, 2017)

That's not me saying that. My quote was from News Medical in the article (linked to previously) at Causes of Gender Dysphoria.

Why do you think it implies babies are crafty?


----------



## belboid (Sep 20, 2017)

Jonti said:


> That's not me saying that. My quote was from News Medical in the article (linked to previously) at Causes of Gender Dysphoria.
> 
> Why do you think it implies babies are crafty?


The word fooled does not appear in that link. Why claim it does?


----------



## Jonti (Sep 20, 2017)

The quote was from news medical. I was speaking ordinary english when I used fooled to describe a confusion that results in an incorrect assessment.

But you know that.


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 20, 2017)

the AFAB does not mean 'assessed' it means 'assigned'


----------



## Jonti (Sep 20, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's a big issue, isn't it? Are we in some way genetically predisposed to search for a gender identity? It's not impossible that we are, in the same way that we're predisposed to look for language and there is now growing evidence that we're predisposed to look for moral concepts like right and wrong.
> 
> That author suggests that we are predisposed to look for gender id. I don't know but the seeming ubiquity of gender id in human cultures is certainly consistent with the idea.


It's a very suggestive idea.

Presumably bonobos and other animals (although they may exhibit various personalities) are not bothered with gender ID as such (sex roles are enough for them). Nor, one would think, Australopithecus.

So at some point in our evolutionary journey we acquired this new mental organ of gender ID, to map flexible social gender categories to the unforgiving underlying biology.

It's easy to imagine that such a development would have increased the behavioural flexibility of the species.  I find it harder to imagine that such a profound change in the nature of our personhood would have left no trace in the archaeological record


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 20, 2017)

Jonti said:


> Presumably bonobos and other animals (although they may exhibit various personalities) are not bothered with gender ID as such (sex roles are enough for them). Nor, presumably Australopithecus.


The book 'Elephants on the Edge' by GA Bradshaw tackles elephant psychology and psychiatry using the tools developed for human psychology and psychiatry. She proposes that the aberrant behaviour seen in traumatised elephants is a product of lack of proper socialisation. Among other things, she suggests the violence seen in certain groups of males is the product of their not having learned how to be a responsible adult male from older males, because those older males are absent generally due to humans having killed them. A Lord of the Flies situation arises in groups of elephants that have no elders to teach them. 

I certainly wouldn't rule out the idea that elephants have the concept of gender ID in their mentality. If you have to learn your sex role, that then becomes a gender role, no?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 20, 2017)

Jonti said:


> It's easy to imagine that such a development would have increased the behavioural flexibility of the species.  I find it harder to imagine that such a profound change in the nature of our personhood would have left no trace in the archaeological record


I certainly agree with this - easy to see why it might have evolved. But I wouldn't rule out its having begun to evolve long before modern humans, nor its having evolved independently among other big-brained social animals like elephants or whales.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 20, 2017)

But as far as we know, other animals have only two genders to worry about. They have no need for a part of the personality (a mental organ, one might say) that can map many genders to the binary biology.

ETA That was very badly expressed. I'm using ‘gender’ in the connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics. I mean not many genders as such, but gender behaviours.


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 20, 2017)

animals only have sexes, they dont have genders unless yer into anthro.


----------



## belboid (Sep 20, 2017)

Jonti said:


> The quote was from news medical. I was speaking ordinary english when I used fooled to describe a confusion that results in an incorrect assessment.
> 
> But you know that.


You used an emotive term that betrays your opinion. 

But you know that.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 20, 2017)

So you came out with some guff, rather than saying what you meant.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 20, 2017)

na·tal  (nāt′l)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or accompanying birth: natal injuries.
2. Of or associated with the time or place of one's birth: a natal star.

natal


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 20, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> animals only have sexes, they dont have genders unless yer into anthro.


Hmmm. The history of the study of animal behaviour is that there have been a long line of 'only humans do/possess x' statements, only for the assertion to be proved wrong.


----------



## campanula (Sep 20, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Hmmm. The history of the study of animal behaviour is that there have been a long line of 'only humans do/possess x' statements, only for the assertion to be proved wrong.



Yep, I would be very wary of dividing sex (biological gamete size for instance) from gender...and just where the borders between biological Darwinian selection and a more fluid gender construct operates. There have been studies of non-normative behaviour in animals so I would approach this binary differentiation with some caution...but as I do not have a qualified biological/scientific background, I could be talking bollocks (literally?)


----------



## smmudge (Sep 20, 2017)

Jonti said:


> ...binary biology.



There is no such thing in nature as a sex binary, scientists have not found a set of conditions that are individually necessary and jointly sufficient to define biological femaleness and maleness. It doesn't exist. Not chromosomes, not hormones, not physical reproductive organs, not neurologically. Have you ever noticed in these studies, where they are trying to categorise sexes, they _already know who is male and female_, and they are trying to fit the world to match it??


----------



## Jonti (Sep 20, 2017)

My impression is that biologists and medical scientists have a very good grasp of what they mean when they talk about male or female animals (or even plants).


----------



## belboid (Sep 20, 2017)

Jonti said:


> So you came out with some guff, rather than saying what you meant.


Is that meant to be a reply to me?  It makes (your usual) fuck all sense, if so.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 20, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> animals only have sexes, they dont have genders unless yer into anthro.


I've been reading Wikipedia's entry on gender, and thought you'd be interested to note 





> In other contexts, including some areas of social sciences, _gender_ includes _sex_ or replaces it.[1][2] For instance, in non-human animal research, _gender_ is commonly used to refer to the biological sex of the animals.[2] This change in the meaning of gender can be traced to the 1980s. In 1993, the USA's Food and Drug Administration (FDA) started to use _gender_ instead of _sex_.[6] Later, in 2011, the FDA reversed its position and began using _sex_ as the biological classification and _gender_ as "a person's self representation as male or female, or how that person is responded to by social institutions based on the individual's gender presentation."[7]


----------



## mojo pixy (Sep 20, 2017)

I was under the impression that 'male' and 'female' are only descriptors for an individual's (potential) reproductive function, be that individual a plant, animal or other life form. If a body has certain parts included it's 'male' and if others, 'female'. Loads of other stuff is then crammed into those two groups whether it belongs there or not.


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 20, 2017)

oh yeah because people were well iffy with the word sex so used gender everywhere it means animals have a gender cus scientists used it as early as 1980.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 20, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> I was under the impression that 'male' and 'female' are only descriptors for an individual's (potential) reproductive function, be that individual a plant, animal or other life form. If a body has certain parts included it's 'male' and if others, 'female'. Loads of other stuff is then crammed into those two groups whether it belongs there or not.


I think there's tons of confusion over terms. Doesn't help that male/female and man/woman are both used to mean gender or sex or both at the same time. 

So there is biological sex and there is gender, which is the culturally determined sex role. Biological sex relates to the thing that we have in common with plants. Humans may or may not be the only animals with culturally determined sex roles (I suspect we're not). There may or may not be some genetic component to the existence of gender as there is for the existence of other culturally acquired things like language and morality. Again, I suspect there is, and would be surprised if there isn't: our cultures and genes coevolved after all. Even if there is, the very reason it's evolved is to allow a plasticity of expression, so that doesn't say anything about what those roles should consist of. 

Again, it seems to me the terms for transgender are also not helpful, as many trans people strongly feel that their sexual identification is wrong, not just their gender identification, hence the desire for medical intervention, altering the biological component as well as, or even rather than, the cultural component. Isn't 'transsexual' more apt here? 

Some so-called 'terfs' such as Maria Mac seem to seek to ignore or downplay the desire for bodily transformation that goes beyond culturally conditioned gender roles. No trans woman can ever achieve a fully biologically female body, but despite that, this is clearly not what Maria Mac and others seem to want it to be - just a case of 'feminine men'. And that's about where I get stuck.


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 20, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Again, it seems to me the terms for transgender are also not helpful, as many trans people strongly feel that their sexual identification is wrong, not just their gender identification, hence the desire for medical intervention, altering the biological component as well as, or even rather than, the cultural component. Isn't 'transsexual' more apt here?



it's transgender instead of the outdated transsexual because not everybody needs or wants to have surgery but it's still the same thing, the people who think you cant be trans unless you have surgery call themselves transexuals but really it's a term that no one uses even tho it might medically be more apt in describing and also because it's not a sexuality so got conflated as a sexual deviancy like homosexual < but then you get people using a similar argument to remove the T because the LGB refers to sexuality, but usually thats rooted in LGB people who are transphobic


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 20, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> it's transgender instead of the outdated transsexual because not everybody needs or wants to have surgery but it's still the same thing, the people who think you cant be trans unless you have surgery call themselves transexuals but really it's a term that no one uses even tho it might medically be more apt in describing


Yeah. I think it adds to the confusion, though. In this, words clearly matter.


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 20, 2017)

I dunno, I was never confused


----------



## smmudge (Sep 20, 2017)

Jonti said:


> My impression is that biologists and medical scientists have a very good grasp of what they mean when they talk about male or female animals (or even plants).



Yes they do, that's what I said. When they are trying to find differences & similarities between sexes they have already divided them into male and female. Biological sex is as cultural as gender.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 21, 2017)

weepiper said:


> These days people would be telling me I was trans and maybe suggesting I should present as a boy..



No. They wouldn't. Not if you didn;t say you were a boy or wanted to be a boy and insisted on it consistently over a long period of time. This is such a straw man!

The reality is trans kids in general have to fight to be recognised as their true gender and most (probably) don't get the chance until adulthood by which time they've suffered their way through a puberty they did not want and survived their teenage years, often suicidal, almost certainly suffering some sort of mental illness before they reach adult hood.

I speak from experience.

And this is what I mean by people talking out of their arses and just not listening to what trans people are saying.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 21, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yeah. I think it adds to the confusion, though. In this, words clearly matter.


no - extra words adds to the clarity. Only when trans people add to the human lexicon, apparently, does more precise language cause more confusion.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 21, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> no - extra words adds to the clarity. Only when trans people add to the human lexicon, apparently, does more precise language cause more confusion.


Come off it. I explained why I thought it added to the confusion. We've seen it on this very thread, and it's exactly what the likes of Maria Mac feed on - 'it's just gender and gender's just a bullshit social construct we should all be throwing away'.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 21, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Come off it. I explained why I thought it added to the confusion. We've seen it on this very thread, and it's exactly what the likes of Maria Mac feed on - 'it's just gender and gender's just a bullshit social construct we should all be throwing away'.


it's all online for anyone to look up

Why is ignorance acceptable for people who want to discuss this stuff? - they should at least look up the basic lingo before entering the argument.

(i haven't got time to explain it all to everyone)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 21, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> it's all online for anyone to look up


You've completely missed the point of what I was saying. I wasn't saying that I'm confused, but that the language surrounding these issues is a source of much of the confusion in debates.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 21, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You've completely missed the point of what I was saying. I wasn't saying that I'm confused, but that the language surrounding these issues is a source of much of the confusion in debates.


so what do you suggest? Dumbing down our language so none of us know what we're talking about?

Have you not considered that it might be a deliberate strategy?


----------



## iona (Sep 21, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You've completely missed the point of what I was saying. I wasn't saying that I'm confused, but that the language surrounding these issues is a source of much of the confusion in debates.



The same could be said for debates about any subject if someone isn't that familiar with it though, couldn't it?

I'm not sure what the alternative is - it would be a hell of a lot more confusing without the words to talk about this stuff, surely.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 21, 2017)

iona said:


> The same could be said for debates about any subject if someone isn't that familiar with it though, couldn't it?
> 
> I'm not sure what the alternative is - it would be a hell of a lot more confusing without the words to talk about this stuff, surely.


In this particular debate, I see confusion and people talking past one another as some are talking about biological sex and others culturally acquired gender, and without realising the two end up in an argument where the main problem is that they aren't using words in the same way. Our language isn't clear on it - has the same words such as 'he/she' for both biological sex and culturally acquired gender, for instance - probably because a lot of people don't really keep a clear distinction in their heads between the two most of the time.

I'm not suggesting an alternative, necessarily (language is public, not private - we don't get to go humpty dumpty on it and use words as we like), merely that it is a thing to be aware of in order to avoid misunderstandings.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Sep 21, 2017)

Does menstruation have a place in this discussion?

And if so, is there a particular/accepted trans position on/about this?


----------



## Jonti (Sep 21, 2017)

sunnysidedown said:


> Does menstruation have a place in this discussion?
> 
> And if so, is there a particular/accepted trans position on/about this?


For the first, I would say as a feminist man, yes of course.  Just having a womb makes you a target for some kinds of male oppression.  I think this is a position that marxist feminists would agree on.

I'm not calling myself a marxist (in any case I'm content to self identify as feminist) because the extent of my reading of the fellow extends to the Communist Manifisto, and, with Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State.  Just a couple of slim volumes that I read as a schoolboy that convinced me of my politics, allowing me to stay with my chief interests (then maths and science).  In a heavy marxist debate there is no doubt I would make howlers.

For the second, no, not really, though the trans chauvinists would be pretty vocal in insisting otherwise. But they are a handful of individuals, not 'transgender' as an entire concept.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 21, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> No. They wouldn't. Not if you didn;t say you were a boy or wanted to be a boy and insisted on it consistently over a long period of time. This is such a straw man!
> 
> The reality is trans kids in general have to fight to be recognised as their true gender and most (probably) don't the chance until adulthood by which time they've suffered their way through a puberty they did want and survived their teenage years, often suicidal, almost certainly suffering some sort of mental illness before they reach adult hood.
> 
> ...


I told my mum repeatedly in primary school that I hated being a girl and I wished I had been born a boy. If anyone had suggested there  was a possibility of that I'd have leapt on it but no-one ever did. But you know, I'm just talking out my arse so what does it matter.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 21, 2017)

weepiper said:


> I told my mum repeatedly in primary school that I hated being a girl and I wished I had been born a boy. If anyone had suggested there  was a possibility of that I'd have leapt on it but no-one ever did. But you know, I'm just talking out my arse so what does it matter.


You're suggesting that you'd be forcibly transitioned which is a position used to deny trans people the right to transition.
What do you think would happen? You'd be forced onto hormones and sex changed before you could change your mind?

You're talking out of your arse because you know nothing about how trans children are actually treated.

Stop playing the victim here.

Also even if it was a real risk, why do you think the risk that you might have been forced into boyhood trumps the reality of thousands of women like me who were forced into boyhood because actually it's trans voices who are forcibly silenced.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 21, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In this particular debate, I see confusion and people talking past one another as some are talking about biological sex and others culturally acquired gender, and without realising the two end up in an argument where the main problem is that they aren't using words in the same way. Our language isn't clear on it - has the same words such as 'he/she' for both biological sex and culturally acquired gender, for instance - probably because a lot of people don't really keep a clear distinction in their heads between the two most of the time.
> 
> I'm not suggesting an alternative, necessarily (language is public, not private - we don't get to go humpty dumpty on it and use words as we like), merely that it is a thing to be aware of in order to avoid misunderstandings.


Yeah, and. If a trans person attempts to define anything we get absolutely torn apart. We're not allowed to even agree terms.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 21, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> You're suggesting that you'd be forcibly transitioned which is a position used to deny trans project the right to transition.
> What do you think would happen? You'd be forced into hormones and sex changed before you could change your mind?
> 
> You're talking out of your arse because you know nothing about how trans children are actually treated.
> ...


No I'm not. This is why no-one bothers to engage with you past a certain point, you wilfully misread people and overreact to things they haven't even said. I'm not going to bother any more either.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 21, 2017)

weepiper said:


> No I'm not. This is why no-one bothers to engage with you past a certain point, you wilfully misread people and overreact to things they haven't even said. I'm not going to bother any more either.


Petulant


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 21, 2017)

People need to stop being so sensitive. If theyre going to post obvious crap I'm going to call them out. I have to put up with being called a fetishistic male, so saying some one is talking out of their arse on trans issues is not a biggie.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 21, 2017)

weepiper said:


> No I'm not. This is why no-one bothers to engage with you past a certain point, you wilfully misread people and overreact to things they haven't even said. I'm not going to bother any more either.


I haven't willfully misread anything you said. Try being clearer? 

Try answering my points. Can you not see why I had a problem with what you said?


----------



## Jonti (Sep 21, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I might come back to this. It's a contested view. This article by Frans de Waal outlines bonobo behaviour and indicates something close to your idea. It still doesn't quite involve 'complete equality', but it certainly isn't male domination, very far from it, despite the fact that male bonobos are bigger than females. I like de Waal's suggestion that a way to understand our past may involve a three-way comparison between humans, bonobos and chimps. But he also includes an important point, which is that bonobos evolved in a very specific place, a sheltered and almost idyllic place for such a primate to live. The history of pre-agricultural humans is one of movement right across the world - you don't migrate from an idyll.


Thanks for that read. A quick note of a few differences between bonobos and us. I'm sure you'll be able to add to the list, if you consider I've missed anything salient.

* sex acts in our species are private affairs
* women's sexual receptivity and fertility is not advertised in our species
* we pair bond, and the male invests in his children and their mother (rather unusual to find this in mammals)


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 21, 2017)

I don't think that worked :-/


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 21, 2017)




----------



## butchersapron (Sep 21, 2017)

She's laughing at the suggestion of getting someone half her age in headlock and lifting them up - not her saying that she did. And as posted earlier, the slowed down video shows exactly what happened. No smoking gun here i'm afraid.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 21, 2017)

Jonti said:


> Thanks for that read. A quick note of a few differences between bonobos and us. I'm sure you'll be able to add to the list, if you consider I've missed anything salient.
> 
> * sex acts in our species are private affairs
> * women's sexual receptivity and fertility is not advertised in our species
> * we pair bond, and the male invests in his children and their mother (rather unusual to find this in biology)


Of those three, I'd say the last is hugely important. The only other ape that pair-bonds is the gibbon, but gibbon males and females are the same size, which is what you normally find in animals that pair-bond, so we're doubly unusual in that respect. Humans are very likely to have evolved pair bonding from some situation along the line back to our common ancestor with bonobos/chimps where it was not the case, and we're not as strict about it as gibbons, even now. This study suggests that pair-bonding in primates evolved as a means to prevent male infanticide. I'm always a little wary of studies that run models in case the assumptions of the models are off in some small but crucial way, but it's an interesting finding. The evolution of monogamy is quite a thorny issue, generally. 

Another difference would be division of labour. It was once thought that bonobos didn't hunt in the way chimps do. It's now known that they do hunt, but unlike chimps, bonobos hunt in mixed-sex groups. There is very little division of labour by sex role in bonobos.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 21, 2017)

The division of labour, yes I was thinking that while out for my morning walk.  Who obtained the skins, who chewed the skins, who made the needles, who used the needles. Gender roles, in our ancestors at some stage, but now ones that anyone could turn to. We're flexible enough to socially construct gender roles, something of an advantage without doubt.  Our biological sex does not limit us.

I find the comparison with language interesting. Obviously English is socially constructed, but our biology impels us to create some language. Similarly gender is socially constructed, but everyone has to have one ~ it's just that everyone has their very own. It's part of the personhood of Homo sapiens.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 21, 2017)

weepiper said:


> I told my mum repeatedly in primary school that I hated being a girl and I wished I had been born a boy. If anyone had suggested there  was a possibility of that I'd have leapt on it but no-one ever did. But you know, I'm just talking out my arse so what does it matter.


I've been thinking there must be many people here who experienced gender dysphoria in childhood who found it resolved itself at adolescence. According to the Endocrine Society this happens 75% to 80% of the time, here.

I don't like to ask personal questions (nor to answer them!) but I'm interested in your experience.  You were not comfortable in your skin as a child. Would you say that now you are, and if so, what was it like to go from gp to cis in your adolescence ? How was it for you?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 21, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> You're suggesting that you'd be forcibly transitioned


No. Weepiper at no point said that.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 21, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> She's laughing at the suggestion of getting someone half her age in headlock and lifting them up - not her saying that she did. And as posted earlier, the slowed down video shows exactly what happened. No smoking gun here i'm afraid.


Yep, people can argue what they want about the underlying politics, but what actually _happened_ in the camera-smashy-scuffle is pretty clear.


----------



## 19force8 (Sep 21, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> She's laughing at the suggestion of getting someone half her age in headlock and lifting them up - not her saying that she did. And as posted earlier, the slowed down video shows exactly what happened. No smoking gun here i'm afraid.


Whilst there might not have been a headlock it certainly looked to me like someone had been grabbed and either held down or was squirming to get away. How you'd spot the difference in the heat of the moment I don't know. [E2A without the benefit of 1/4 speed replay too ]

Also, she says she kicked someone she thought was a woman and now wishes she'd kicked the *runt* harder, ie someone smaller than her. On the whole her tone is triumphalist and not remarkably different from the violence she complains of.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 21, 2017)

weepiper said:


> I told my mum repeatedly in primary school that I hated being a girl and I wished I had been born a boy. If anyone had suggested there  was a possibility of that I'd have leapt on it but no-one ever did. But you know, I'm just talking out my arse so what does it matter.



Did you experience any of these symptoms?



> Gender dysphoria behaviours in children can include:
> 
> insisting they're of the opposite sex
> disliking or refusing to wear clothes that are typically worn by their sex and wanting to wear clothes typically worn by the opposite sex
> ...





It requires a little more than a temporary period of cross gender activity before a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is reached.

Gender dysphoria - Symptoms - NHS Choices


----------



## cantsin (Sep 21, 2017)

The Flying Pig said:


> Why do you need to explain what cis is?



you spent the whole of your previous post laboriously re-emphasising just how confusing all this is to poor ol' you, now you're questioning why Stella needs to explain CiS ?

your confusion's getting confusing now eh, perplexing stuff.

baffled, me.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 21, 2017)

Because it's a minefield using the term.

Still laughing. Poor FP 

Whatever happened...


----------



## Thimble Queen (Sep 21, 2017)

weepiper said:


> I told my mum repeatedly in primary school that I hated being a girl and I wished I had been born a boy. If anyone had suggested there  was a possibility of that I'd have leapt on it but no-one ever did. But you know, I'm just talking out my arse so what does it matter.



Lots of children go through that. That's within the realms of 'normal' childhood experience. Dysphoria and being trans, and being recognised as such, is quite a way from that.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 21, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Did you experience any of these symptoms?
> 
> 
> It requires a little more than a temporary period of cross gender activity before a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is reached.
> ...


Yes, several, for years, in fact some of them I still experience now. I am getting quite offended at having my actual genuine lived experience dismissed as 'temporary cross gender activity' and 'obvious crap' and 'talking out of my arse', tbh. Fuck trying to have a proper conversation about this here.


----------



## bimble (Sep 21, 2017)

I've got a cousin in America whose youngest child (now 16) just went back to 'being' a girl after two years of presenting as and being called a boy's name etc at their request. I am not close with them as a family and I don't know if they (my 1st cousin once removed?)  have reverted / relented because of family pressure or because they just changed their mind. A couple of months ago they were a boy at school and a girl at home (two names and everything) , that must have been a very strange life. I'm not even sure if i have a point to make here tbh just an anecdote really.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 21, 2017)

weepiper said:


> Yes, several, for years, in fact some of them I still experience now. I am getting quite offended at having my actual genuine lived experience dismissed as 'temporary cross gender activity' and 'obvious crap' and 'talking out of my arse', tbh. Fuck trying to have a proper conversation about this here.



I didn't say you were talking crap.  But you're insistence that people would these days insist you were trans and presumably force you to be a boy is a bit of a straw man.  Perhaps you might have been given some counselling about your gender identity, or have been permitted to express yourself differently, but the notion that children are somehow groomed into being transsexual by a medical establishment that is unaware of the feelings you describe and how and why they manifest is just not true.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 21, 2017)

19force8 said:


> Whilst there might not have been a headlock it certainly looked to me like someone had been grabbed and either held down or was squirming to get away. How you'd spot the difference in the heat of the moment I don't know. [E2A without the benefit of 1/4 speed replay too ]
> 
> Also, she says she kicked someone she thought was a woman and now wishes she'd kicked the *runt* harder, ie someone smaller than her. On the whole her tone is triumphalist and not remarkably different from the violence she complains of.



It's a bit pointless going over that again but she resisted having her camera grabbed. She fought back, and no doubt grabbed the other person at one point - it was a bit of a grapple before the punches started flying. Not sure the road to go down is to criticise her tone now given that, whatever the details, there is no getting away from the fact that she was the one attacked and beaten up.


----------



## Sweet FA (Sep 21, 2017)

Fucking hell, I'm not surprised weepiper's pissed off. She said "I told my mum repeatedly in primary school that I hated being a girl and I wished I had been born a boy. If anyone had suggested there was a possibility of that I'd have leapt on it".

smokedout, where is the: "insistence that people would these days insist you were trans and presumably force you to be a boy"?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 21, 2017)

weepiper didn't say 'forced'...I think that is quite important to the way she is being responded to here. I really hate it when I am misread and represented in this way also.




			
				weepiper said:
			
		

> These days people would be telling me I was trans _and *maybe suggesting*_ I should present as a boy..


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 21, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> weepiper didn't say 'forced'...I think that is quite important to the way she is being responded to here.


It's crucial! Two people have misrepresented what she said.

eta: ah it was understatement. As you were.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 21, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> weepiper didn't say 'forced'...I think that is quite important to the way she is being responded to here. I really hate it when I am misread and represented in this way also.



Fair enough and apologies weepiper but the point stands, there would not be any 'insistence' she was trans, hopefully there would be a more nuanced and supportive approach than the one that might have been practiced 30 years ago.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 21, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Fair enough and apologies weepiper but the point stands, there would not be any 'insistence' she was trans, hopefully there would be a more nuanced and supportive approach than the one that might have been practiced 30 years ago.



How can the point stand if she in no way said forced or insisted?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 21, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Fair enough and apologies weepiper but the point stands, there would not be any 'insistence' she was trans, hopefully there would be a more nuanced and supportive approach than the one that might have been practiced 30 years ago.


No the point doesn't stand. You, quite reasonably, posted up a list of things to look out for, and wp's response was that yes, several of those applied to her over a period of years. But it seems you weren't posting that list to extend the conversation and see how her situation matched up, more to prove a point you'd already decided upon.


----------



## 19force8 (Sep 21, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> ...the one attacked and beaten up.


Really? That's what you call beaten up? 

All I'm saying is get a sense of perspective. This was an insignificant fracas in which nobody was seriously hurt, but it's being talked up out of all proportion for political advantage by people who seem to enjoy persecuting a vulnerable minority. Well good for them, they provoked an inappropriate response. I ain't joining in.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Sep 21, 2017)

I'd stopped contributing to this thread because I didn't really feel like I had anything else to contribute. But...  what have I come back to?  Jesus.



weepiper said:


> Yes, several, for years, in fact some of them I still experience now. I am getting quite offended at having my actual genuine lived experience dismissed as 'temporary cross gender activity' and 'obvious crap' and 'talking out of my arse', tbh. Fuck trying to have a proper conversation about this here.



Innit. I was the same.  In fact some of those symptoms only alleviated themselves into my well 20s.  And some of them still persist now.



insisting they're of the opposite sex - *yes, as a toddler, until I was told that sex is ONLY what is between your legs (my mum came from a communist country so they were way more forward thinking re: gender and sex).*

disliking or refusing to wear clothes that are typically worn by their sex and wanting to wear clothes typically worn by the opposite sex -* yes into my 20s*
disliking or refusing to take part in activities and games that are typically associated with their sex, and wanting to take part in activities and games typically associated with the opposite sex -* still now, but when I was younger my and my bother used to watch adverts and would fight over which "boys" toys were his or mine.  Screaming rows. I never owned a doll and cried out of anger and frustration when unsuspecting adults gave me them to play with.*
preferring to play with children of the opposite biological sex - *yes, all through childhood, adolescence, and my 20s* *(not that I played in my late teens 20's but certainly socially).*

disliking or refusing to pass urine as other members of their biological sex usually do – for example, a boy may want to sit down to pass urine and a girl may want to stand up -* funnily enough, YES! My mum caught me peeing up standing when I was 8 years old. By that time I'd had a lot of practice and I was a pretty good shot to. Way more difficult when hair starts to sprout.*
insisting or hoping their genitals will change – for example, a boy may say he wants to be rid of his penis, and a girl may want to grow a penis *-no.  I never thought that would happen because sex was explained to me.*
feeling extreme distress at the physical changes of puberty - *FUCK YES. I was suicidal for several years. And to some extent I still do feel some distress (my body is a reminder of the things I shouldn't be doing).*

At the time no one suggested anything other than I was a girl who was a "bit of a rebel".  It (rebellion) was welcomed by my mum.  By society and my peers not so much.

Kids bullied me ruthlessly for refusing to conform.  Perhaps had I lived in the age we are now it would have been suggested I was trans, or I may have found myself on the internet and diagnosed myself, found an echo chamber to egg me on.... or maybe not. Who the fuck knows?  I'm not a psychic and neither is anyone else posting here.

All I can say is I'm glad my non conformity was embraced by my mum and eventually myself, no matter how difficult society made it.

I came out of it, like weepiper, and I'm stronger for it. Disphoria can and *does* go away, eventually. 

Anyway,  fuck us "cis" women, right? or AFAB people, or whatever bullshit acronym we are told is ours.

What do we know?  I guess we're just "*petulant*", "*playing victim*", "*being sensitive*" or "*saying we would have been forced *into something (*thinly veiled* *accusations of hysteria*)" or* *insert bullshit misogynist put down here* *

I'm still reading this thread.  But Weepiper's abysmal dismissal has angered me because it chimes with me and many other women like me - no matter how "good" and silent we are.


Edit: I see smokedout apologised while I was typing this essay.  Good on ya!


----------



## Clair De Lune (Sep 21, 2017)

weepiper said:


> I told my mum repeatedly in primary school that I hated being a girl and I wished I had been born a boy. If anyone had suggested there  was a possibility of that I'd have leapt on it but no-one ever did. But you know, I'm just talking out my arse so what does it matter.


How do you think your story might have played out these days? As in what might you have done, rather than what others might suggest.


----------



## killer b (Sep 21, 2017)

Lived experience is most important here, except when it isn't, and points made against imagined stances are still valid. Got it.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 21, 2017)

> Anyway, fuck us "cis" women, right? or AFAB people, or whatever bullshit acronym we are told is ours.



No acronym allowed. Natal women suffices.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Sep 21, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I'd stopped contributing to this thread because I didn't really feel like I had anything else to contribute. But...  what have I come back to?  Jesus.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*some people's disphoria goes away.


Edited to say I relate very much to yours and weepipers experiences as children. Mine was very similar. But I'm not trans and neither are you.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 21, 2017)

19force8 said:


> Really? That's what you call beaten up?
> 
> All I'm saying is get a sense of perspective. This was an insignificant fracas in which nobody was seriously hurt, but it's being talked up out of all proportion for political advantage by people who seem to enjoy persecuting a vulnerable minority. Well good for them, they provoked an inappropriate response. I ain't joining in.


Nobody is suggesting it was a serious beating and I'm not worried whether we use words like attacked, twatted or whatever.  But it was what it was, 'jostling', 'fracas' or whatever terms you want to use from the last century, followed up by a punch. The point is the jostly-puncing was initiated by one side and the punch was pre-announced.  It's of no great importance, but it is what it is.  The irony is, physical confrontation between left and/or equality groups in the UK is actually very rare.

The underlying political debate is more important - and is complicated, even more so as much of it plays out through the lens of ID politics, even though it doesn't have to.  We are all learning and threads like this are important even if they do get a bit shouty.  Taking me as an example: I'm in favour of trans rights (obviously) and made a number of contributions on one of the Bahar Mustafa threads against 'exclusionary feminists'.  From memory, my line was what do feminist/women's groups lose by admitting trans women - what could they possibly object to? I think I still hold to that position, it's solidarity 101 - and it's also part of the process of overcoming the vulnerability and attacks trans people have had to cope with. But then there have been posts on this thread about women discussing reproductive issues and not necessarily wanting to do that in front of trans women who won't experience those issues.  Women also suffer oppression and that means that health issues are also power issues.  It's complicated and messy.  And I'm aware I might well be getting close to mansplaining things I don't experience myself.  I'm not an intersectionalist (to say the least), but there are difficult issues when it comes to thinking about how different identities and social divisions _interact_.  Not new issues, but difficult ones.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 21, 2017)

Clair De Lune said:


> *some people's disphoria goes away.
> 
> 
> Edited to say I relate very much to yours and weepipers experiences as children. Mine was very similar. But I'm not trans and neither are you.


I don't think she said she was trans, just that she had gd growing up.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 21, 2017)

Jonti said:


> No acronym allowed. Natal women suffices.


This is the problem of language I mentioned earlier. Our everyday terms mix up gender and sex. 

I think flb's position (forgive me if I'm wrong) is that this is right and healthy: *"sex is ONLY what is between your legs"*. So she's a woman, as a simple biological fact, but that doesn't have to restrict her to 'woman' as a gender role, which is where to my ears her mum's attitude was pretty cool. My mum wouldn't have been like that _at all_. I dunno how you square this circle, tbh - there seem to me to be competing interests that both deserve respect but that are at points in conflict with one another. Someone posted earlier (wilf?) that they were finding themselves liking posts from both sides of this debate, and I'm finding similar.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Sep 21, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is the problem of language I mentioned earlier. Our everyday terms mix up gender and sex.
> 
> I think flb's position (forgive me if I'm wrong) is that this is right and healthy: *"sex is ONLY what is between your legs"*. So she's a woman, as a simple biological fact, but that doesn't have to restrict her to 'woman' as a gender role, which is where to my ears her mum's attitude was pretty cool. My mum wouldn't have been like that _at all_. I dunno how you square this circle, tbh - there seem to me to be competing interests that both deserve respect but that are at points in conflict with one another. Someone posted earlier (wilf?) that they were finding themselves liking posts from both sides of this debate, and I'm finding similar.



Yeah,  that's exactly what my mums's attitude was.  And it was the prevailing concept in communist countries.  Sex was a circumstance of your birth but didn't tell you anything about your personality or what you could achieve.  Biological essentialism, so to speak, was out the window.  And it was a cool attitude, and a rare one too! especially in Thatcherite UK where gender was being used to sell the same thing twice (long live capitalism, eh).  Where my mum came from that just didn't exist.  Stuff was stuff and stuff was in one colour for everyone.

As to the rest, I've tried to square that circle many times, and believe it or not have changed my position on this significantly in a relatively short space of time (compared to other political viewpoints). Personally, I don't believe that this is circle that can be squared - precisely because, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, they are rooted in polar opposite philosophical theories. (materialism vs idealism)

So the best that can be done is compromise, but compromising on such a fundamental question of how reality and consciousness is formed is going to be frought. And so it's no wonder stuff gets punchy.


----------



## killer b (Sep 21, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Yeah,  that's exactly what my mums's attitude was.  And it was the prevailing concept in communist countries.


OT, but did everyone read this article in the NY Times about women under communism? Opinion | Why Women Had Better Sex Under Socialism


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 21, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> gender was being used to sell the same thing twice


That's an excellent line. I'm nicking that.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 21, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Yeah,  that's exactly what my mums's attitude was.  And it was the prevailing concept in communist countries.  Sex was a circumstance of your birth but didn't tell you anything about your personality or what you could achieve.  Biological essentialism, so to speak, was out the window.  And it was a cool attitude, and a rare one too! especially in Thatcherite UK where gender was being used to sell the same thing twice (long live capitalism, eh).  Where my mum came from that just didn't exist.  Stuff was stuff and stuff was in one colour for everyone.
> 
> As to the rest, I've tried to square that circle many times, and believe it or not have changed my position on this significantly in a relatively short space of time (compared to other political viewpoints). Personally, I don't believe that this is circle that can be squared - precisely because, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, they are rooted in polar opposite philosophical theories. (materialism vs idealism)
> 
> So the best that can be done is compromise, but compromising on such a fundamental question of how reality and consciousness is formed is going to be frought. And so it's no wonder stuff gets punchy.


That's not what's driving the punchiness though.  There's something else going on here.

eta I'm put in mind of Yuwipi Woman

eta yeah if you want to know where the madness comes from, what she said


----------



## 19force8 (Sep 21, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Nobody is suggesting it was a serious beating ...


Actually, there are people out there who are, but you're right that's not the real issue.

I agree with you on solidarity 101. I think it's been made clear several times that none of the trans-women on Urban plan to gate-crash support groups for medical complaints or other such targeted issues. But there are people out there who want to deny trans-women access to any women's services at all. I agree it's complicated and messy and none of it is helped by becoming more polarised, but if you treat people like shit long enough then they're going to see you [TERFs, not you personally] as the enemy and hit out.


----------



## iona (Sep 21, 2017)

weepiper I'm interested in what you think would have happened if people had taken the stuff you describe as a suggestion you might be trans, and what you think that might have meant for you?

I ask because my childhood was very similar in some ways - I was slightly less clear about "wanting to be a boy" if anything - only I am trans. I'm pretty certain I would have found it helpful if people had picked up on that when I was a child and given me the opportunity to untangle it all (eg sessions with a knowledgeable, experienced therapist, maybe experimenting with stuff like presentation and name/pronouns if I wanted), and I think the same would be true even if I'd ended up not transitioning.

(Genuinely interested to hear you expand on that, not trying to be aggressive or confrontational, in case that doesn't come across in text)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 21, 2017)

19force8 said:


> Actually, there are people out there who are, but you're right that's not the real issue.
> 
> I agree with you on solidarity 101. I think it's been made clear several times that none of the trans-women on Urban plan to gate-crash support groups for medical complaints or other such targeted issues. But there are people out there who want to deny trans-women access to any women's services at all. I agree it's complicated and messy and none of it is helped by becoming more polarised, but if you treat people like shit long enough then they're going to see you [TERFs, not you personally] as the enemy and hit out.


Accepting that things are complicated and messy is a good place to start, imo. For everyone.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 21, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No the point doesn't stand. You, quite reasonably, posted up a list of things to look out for, and wp's response was that yes, several of those applied to her over a period of years. But it seems you weren't posting that list to extend the conversation and see how her situation matched up, more to prove a point you'd already decided upon.



The point that no-one is going round telling children who experience some symptoms of gender dysphoria that they are transsexual, the diagnosis model is much more complicated than that.

And it may not have been her intention, but this line of argument - that I experienced gender dysphoria but I'm alright now - is regularly used to undermine transsexual people's lived experiences, as well as being used to undermine treatment for transsexuality and could skirt dangerously close to telling trans people that they just need to pull themselves together and they'll get over it.  As I say that may not have been the intention, but that might be one reason why AuntiStella reacted so spikily - this is one of the consequences of prejudice, people experience it so often that they begin to assume the worst.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 21, 2017)

smokedout said:


> The point that no-one is going round telling children who experience some symptoms of gender dysphoria that they are transsexual.



Except like literally the entire internet. Do you have a teenage daughter who reads a lot of Tumblr? Because I do, and she talks to me about this stuff, and believe you me people on the internet tell her this ALL THE TIME. 



> And it may not have been her intention, but this line of argument - that I experienced gender dysphoria but I'm alright now - is regularly used to undermine transsexual people's lived experiences, as well as being used to undermine treatment for transsexuality and could skirt dangerously close to telling trans people that they just need to pull themselves together and they'll get over it.  As I say that may not have been the intention, but that might be one reason why AuntiStella reacted so spikily - this is one of the consequences of prejudice, people experience it so often that they begin to assume the worst.


I literally never said 'but I'm alright now'. I don't think I am or will ever be 'happy being cis'. But I don't think trans is my answer either. I don't think it's the wrong answer for everyone despite what lots of posters are trying to put in my mouth. But it isn't me. But I don't think that means I should just shut up about how I feel about gender either.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Sep 21, 2017)

smokedout It was FabricLiveBaby! that said dysphoria goes away tbf.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 21, 2017)

Here, just one quick example:



Is everyone comfortable with this? Kids are so susceptible and suggestible. It worries me that this kind of thing is being held up as good and desirable and 'hey, here's your easy answer to your discomfort about puberty, kids!'. It's not an easy answer.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 21, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is the problem of language I mentioned earlier. Our everyday terms mix up gender and sex.
> 
> I think flb's position (forgive me if I'm wrong) is that this is right and healthy: *"sex is ONLY what is between your legs"*. So she's a woman, as a simple biological fact, but that doesn't have to restrict her to 'woman' as a gender role, which is where to my ears her mum's attitude was pretty cool. My mum wouldn't have been like that _at all_. I dunno how you square this circle, tbh - there seem to me to be competing interests that both deserve respect but that are at points in conflict with one another. Someone posted earlier (wilf?) that they were finding themselves liking posts from both sides of this debate, and I'm finding similar.


Interesting that the forum thread is for different sexualities, including trans. But fbl's sexual identity is natal female.


----------



## Rob Ray (Sep 21, 2017)

> _The point that no-one is going round telling children who experience some symptoms of gender dysphoria that they are transsexual._





> Except like literally the entire internet. Do you have a teenage daughter who reads a lot of Tumblr? Because I do, and she talks to me about this stuff, and believe you me people on the internet tell her this ALL THE TIME.



One problem here is that both things can be true at the same time (that people aren't specifically going round telling kids they're transsexual but it's still sort of prevalent as a concept).

It is certainly possible that the much higher profile of trans issues, coupled with social shifts and access to bespoke online environments encouraging specific approaches to life problems, can affect people in ways which are unexpected and potentially lead to kids who are struggling in multiple ways identifying the problem as being trapped in the wrong body when it might not be. And there's always pillocks who take things to extremes (eg. the above pic, or 'thinspiration' in dieting).

_However_ it is also a thing that anti-trans people systematically talk up such factors not in an effort to determine the best way to help kids who are still coming to terms with their place in the world, but to delegitmise and damage the movement for trans rights. The trans community and its allies certainly arenn't conspiring to corrupt kids, they're asking to be treated with respect and care, and focusing on/characterising the totally understandable confusion around growing up and gender/biology as a problem _created_ by that campaign breaking into wider public discussion is missing the point at best, invidious at worst (that's not an accusation but it has been an underlying insinuation in public discussion of the subject).

Connected to that, such a focus can lead to a situation where someone who is trans and identifies early is essentially told, on the grounds of "oh it's just a phase/reaction to the high profile of trans issues," that they're just being silly.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 21, 2017)

weepiper said:


> Here, just one quick example:
> 
> View attachment 116083
> 
> Is everyone comfortable with this? Kids are so susceptible and suggestible. It worries me that this kind of thing is being held up as good and desirable and 'hey, here's your easy answer to your discomfort about puberty, kids!'. It's not an easy answer.



I think that sign is daft, but also relatively harmless. You can't 'catch' transsexuality, no doctor is going to provide hormone blockers without a solid diagnosis, so it strikes me that the worst possible outcome of any peer coercion is that it might lead someone to experiment with gender. And so what if they do.

My mum used to go on about how terrible the gay switchboard was in case they convinced vulnerable young people they were gay when they weren't . Im sorry but im struggling not to see paralells with that.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 21, 2017)

smokedout said:


> no doctor is going to provide hormone blockers without a solid diagnosis



You can't get ecstasy from doctors either.

Sketchy Pharmacies Are Selling Hormones to Transgender People


----------



## weepiper (Sep 21, 2017)

Sorry to anyone who has addressed me directly that I haven't replied to btw, I'm finding it really difficult to keep up with the thread inbetween work/children/shopping/housework today. It's big stuff to think about and I don't necessarily want to dash off a flip answer.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 21, 2017)

smokedout said:


> The point that no-one is going round telling children who experience some symptoms of gender dysphoria that they are transsexual, the diagnosis model is much more complicated than that.
> 
> And it may not have been her intention, but this line of argument - that I experienced gender dysphoria but I'm alright now - is regularly used to undermine transsexual people's lived experiences, as well as being used to undermine treatment for transsexuality and could skirt dangerously close to telling trans people that they just need to pull themselves together and they'll get over it.  As I say that may not have been the intention, but that might be one reason why AuntiStella reacted so spikily - this is one of the consequences of prejudice, people experience it so often that they begin to assume the worst.


This is all fair enough, but we're being offered an experience of gd, not an argument.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 21, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> You can't get ecstasy from doctors either.
> 
> Sketchy Pharmacies Are Selling Hormones to Transgender People



You can buy ecstacy on the internet though. Thats a different issue surely, and one best dealt with by parents not giving children unrestricted access to their credit cards.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 21, 2017)

smokedout said:


> You can buy ecstacy on the internet though. Thats a different issue surely, and one best dealt with by parents not giving children unrestricted access to their credit cards.



I was just pointing out that not getting a prescription isn't an obstacle for obtaining whatever pharmaceutical product you desire. Not having a credit card perhaps isn't either. Although you would need access to money.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 21, 2017)

smokedout said:


> I think that sign is daft, but also relatively harmless. You can't 'catch' transsexuality, no doctor is going to provide hormone blockers without a solid diagnosis, so it strikes me that the worst possible outcome of any peer coercion is that it might lead someone to experiment with gender. And so what if they do.
> 
> My mum used to go on about how terrible the gay switchboard was in case they convinced vulnerable young people they were gay when they weren't . Im sorry but im struggling not to see paralells with that.


This word _gender_ what does it mean to you (unfair question)?  The kids you mention were concerned with their sexuality.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Sep 21, 2017)

Fwiw I really don't want you to shut up weepiper. I think this conversation is important even if it's a very difficult one at times.


----------



## snadge (Sep 21, 2017)

smokedout said:


> You can buy ecstacy on the internet though. Thats a different issue surely, and one best dealt with by parents not giving children unrestricted access to their credit cards.



Sometimes it is the parents, I wanted to be a fucking train when I was six.


----------



## Red Cat (Sep 21, 2017)

smokedout said:


> The point that no-one is going round telling children who experience some symptoms of gender dysphoria that they are transsexual, the diagnosis model is much more complicated than that.
> 
> And it may not have been her intention, but this line of argument - that I experienced gender dysphoria but I'm alright now - is regularly used to undermine transsexual people's lived experiences, as well as being used to undermine treatment for transsexuality and could skirt dangerously close to telling trans people that they just need to pull themselves together and they'll get over it.  As I say that may not have been the intention, but that might be one reason why AuntiStella reacted so spikily - this is one of the consequences of prejudice, people experience it so often that they begin to assume the worst.



weepiper is a really thoughtful poster who isn't given to talking out of her arse and she isn't a bigot. I'm sure you know that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 21, 2017)

The change in the law being proposed, allowing people to self-certificate a request for a legal change in their gender, as has been the case in Ireland since 2015, does bring up some odd issues. Well, those odd issues are already there, tbh. It's odd for starters that there is such a thing as legal gender in the first place, rather than legal sex. I guess a person who is biologically intersex would need a separate category if the system were based purely on biology, but I have to say that those who are gender-critical have a point when they criticise the way that we're all legally defined by a gender, not a biological sex, so we're all legally defined by what is essentially a social construct - an essentialism is granted to gender, not sex, by the law. It's a very strange situation.


----------



## elbows (Sep 21, 2017)

I'm not sure I find it that odd that the legal system has grown in a manner that pays heed to, and reinforces, various social constructs.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 21, 2017)

elbows said:


> I'm not sure I find it that odd that the legal system has grown in a manner that pays heed to, and reinforces, various social constructs.



I was pondering why we needed to have our sex/gender legally defined then remembered prison. I'm sure there's other reasons.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 21, 2017)

elbows said:


> I'm not sure I find it that odd that the legal system has grown in a manner that pays heed to, and reinforces, various social constructs.


I think it's more than that though. It's grown up in a manner that clearly at one time didn't distinguish between the social construct and the biology on which it sits. Because that social construct isn't assigned at birth according to culturally defined ideas - it's assigned attempting to follow the physical reality of biological sex. Now there is a wide recognition of a difference, but the legal framework still exists from a time before that.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 21, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I was pondering why we needed to have our sex/gender legally defined then remembered prison. I'm sure there's other reasons.



Helps in medicine.


----------



## elbows (Sep 21, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I was pondering why we needed to have our sex/gender legally defined then remembered prison. I'm sure there's other reasons.



Including some that are increasingly obsolete, like ones the applied double or triple standards to various 'morality laws' especially ones covering relationships, marriage and having sex. And various rights such as the right to vote.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 21, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Helps in medicine.


How? You'll have medical records showing details of your biological sex, no? What purpose does an additional category of legal gender have on top of that?

Strikes me that the reasons for persisting with this anachronistic legal category are quickly disappearing, and so they should be. The very fact that you will soon be able to fill out a form and send it off to get yourself reassigned is a tacit acknowledgement of that.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 21, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How? You'll have medical records showing details of your biological sex, no? What purpose does an additional category of legal gender have on top of that?



I was referring to the sex bit.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 21, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> I was referring to the sex bit.


Which isn't legally defined. Only gender is legally defined.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Sep 21, 2017)

snadge said:


> Sometimes it is the parents, I wanted to be a fucking train when I was six.


And this is the bit that really hurts. The thought that some people out there will assume that I have indoctrinated, pressured, pushed my child towards identifying as trans and a medical transition.  That I haven't spoken to him every day about how he feels, shared my own experiences of struggling with being a girl/woman, about how it's ok to be a gender non conforming person. My boy has been brought up by a strong single mother, he has seen me overcome every obstacle in my path. This isn't about him not wanting to be a woman due to our shitty patriarchal society because he's smart enough to see how it hurts boys too. This is not about choosing, just as being gay isn't a choice. He just isn't a girl and can't pretend to be one for much longer. Because the pretending is killing him. That is why he wants to transition. Not because he doesn't like girls or looks down on women or thinks being a man will be better/easier/superior. But because he simply isn't a girl. Just in the same way as a cis guy or woman would be horrified to wake up as someone else and not be able to change back. I'd imagine given that scenario then a lot of us would seek  medical interventions to correct it.

I'm not going to pretend to fully understand what my son is going through, but I am trying. It hurts to think people are thinking oh it's just a fad, it's popular right now when I see the genuine pain it causes him. It is possible to think gender roles are a pile of wank but still need to transition. It's totally possible to transition and yet still not feel the need to abide by gender expectations and actively defy them. It's also possible to be trans but not feel the need for any medical interventions at all.
 My son's already said that transitioning won't stop him wearing make up or indeed much more important stuff like being a feminist.

Just because something is really hard to relate to, doesn't mean it's not real.

 This is going to be a long process. He's already been seeing counsellors for nearly two years. He's had to have psychiatric assessments, been tested for autism, depression and goodness knows what else. They are rigorous and rightly so. He is still waiting for his first appointment at a gender identity clinic, where the rigorous process will continue, probably for years. If at any point he does change his mind, then that's fine! He knows this because we talk openly.

I might not reply if people quote me with shitty comments because quite frankly the last few days has taken its toll reading all this stuff. But I believe in authenticity and the sharing of experiences and if it helps someone to better understand or engages their empathy then it's worth it.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 21, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Of those three, I'd say the last is hugely important. The only other ape that pair-bonds is the gibbon, but gibbon males and females are the same size, which is what you normally find in animals that pair-bond, so we're doubly unusual in that respect. Humans are very likely to have evolved pair bonding from some situation along the line back to our common ancestor with bonobos/chimps where it was not the case, and we're not as strict about it as gibbons, even now. This study suggests that pair-bonding in primates evolved as a means to prevent male infanticide. I'm always a little wary of studies that run models in case the assumptions of the models are off in some small but crucial way, but it's an interesting finding. The evolution of monogamy is quite a thorny issue, generally.
> 
> Another difference would be division of labour. It was once thought that bonobos didn't hunt in the way chimps do. It's now known that they do hunt, but unlike chimps, bonobos hunt in mixed-sex groups. There is very little division of labour by sex role in bonobos.


Chimps shed a lot of light on our animal nature. I'm very comfortable with being the third chimpanzee, killing them should be considered murder. All the great apes really.

But Australopithecus was our ancestor.  A bipedal ape (as we are). It's the ape that became Homo.

Really liked Richard Leakey's The Origin of Humankind, which tells the story of how this ape's habitat was partially wooded areas, where they could climb into trees safe from the African predators.  Their habitat was the fringes of the great forests where they gave way to savanah. During the Ice Age, although it was still warm enough in Africa, the rainfall decreased markedly and the great forests retreated.  The fringes dwindled and vanished.  You cannot spend even a night on the encroaching savanna without weapons or fire without running a serious risk of death. The evolutionary pressure was as intense as it gets.  Extinction crept ever closer and eventually arrived.

But some Australopithecine responded by encaphalising into Homo, somehow surviving. Maybe some bands found refuge in geographically rugged terrain, cliffs and crags, maybe caves inaccessible to the predators, or that the clever apes could defend by chucking rocks. No one knows, but here we are.

Every one has their own gender, unlike with language. I think my daughter's gender is nerd (not usually a term of endearment, but that's how she has described herself for many years).  But she's her own nerd of course, she's very artistic. Secondary School was intolerable to her on account of "the bitches" so she's been home educated (well she's something of the autodidact, thanks to the internet). Another trip to the science museum coming up soon


----------



## Jonti (Sep 21, 2017)

Totally weird that the law talks about gender when a clear scientific understanding of the term is not available. Mind you I did use a legal judgement thinking about this (just omitting the reasoning about men and women).  It's in the Wikipedia article under Etymology and Usage.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 21, 2017)

Jonti said:


> Totally weird that the law talks about gender when a clear scientific understanding of the term is not available. Mind you I did use a legal judgement thinking about this (just omitting the reasoning about men and women).  It's in the Wikipedia article under Usage.


We're assigned a legal gender at birth based on an assessment of our biological sex - seems clear to me that the original reasoning behind this was that they were the same thing, indivisible, as some ultra-conservative religious types still think - God-given, in fact, which explains why such people will maintain that deviation from this is mental illness. Now we recognise that they aren't the same thing, and the law recognises that they aren't the same thing but it persists with the practice of a legal gender assigned at birth based on an assessment of biological sex.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 21, 2017)

Mungy said:


> I'm fortunate that I live in a trans-friendly bubble. The shit that goes on outside of it makes me angry. People are just so bloody intolerant of people who are different from them. It's women who have hurt me the most in real life and online since transition. I'm baffled by this because, well in my naivety, I thought women were the epitome of solidarity - just like I thought the left was somehow unified by ideology. I realise that putting people, principles, ideologies on a pedestal means they will fail to live up to the impossibility of my expectations. It doesn't help though.
> 
> I know this ain't my support group, just coming out quietly to urban as trans on a trans related thread that has some hostility on it, showing once again my poor choices, naivety and complete disregard for my safety


 I don't think you are naive - I think you are brave.  Nice to meet you. 

I'm sad you've have been hurt by women especially. I used to put women on a pedestal too, I stupidly thought we were somehow morally superior - but had that beaten out of me by some nasty women, one literally with her fists. It was sad to discover women could be shits too. We're all only human.


----------



## Athos (Sep 21, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> We're assigned a legal gender at birth based on an assessment of our biological sex - seems clear to me that the original reasoning behind this was that they were the same thing, indivisible, as some ultra-conservative religious types still think - God-given, in fact, which explains why such people will maintain that deviation from this is mental illness. Now we recognise that they aren't the same thing, and the law recognises that they aren't the same thing but it persists with the practice of a legal gender assigned at birth based on an assessment of biological sex.



Are we assigned a legal gender at birth? I though birth certificates record sex?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 21, 2017)

Athos said:


> Are we assigned a legal gender at birth? I though birth certificates record sex?


So did I, tbh, but whatever the word is that is used on the form, it clearly isn't biological sex that they're talking about. It's the social construct gender. If the word sex is used on the form, that really just reinforces the point that the legal system once upon a time did not recognise any difference between biological sex and socially constructed gender.


----------



## Athos (Sep 21, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So did I, tbh, but whatever the word is that is used on the form, it clearly isn't biological sex that they're talking about. It's the social construct gender.



Why do you say that?  Surely it's sex, as apparent from sex characteristics i.e. penis/vagina.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 21, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Of course. But I place them as secondary to class politics (which argues for equality to all) rather than being pleased that I now have a black manager and landlord.


Yes but do you fear personal /sexual violence and discrimation from your manager or landlord too? Maybe if you did it wouldn't seem so secondry. 



Magnus McGinty said:


> It's how I see (maybe incorrectly?) the logical destination of identity driven politics.
> Gay Pride sponsored by Barclays! Roll Eyes.


Not sure it was a logical destination. I think like our community Pride has been lost or stolen.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 21, 2017)

Athos said:


> Why do you say that?  Surely it's sex, as apparent from sex characteristics i.e. penis/vagina.


Because you can get it changed, including receiving a new birth certificate.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 21, 2017)

friendofdorothy said:


> We're all only human


----------



## Athos (Sep 21, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Because you can get it changed, including receiving a new birth certificate.



But (apart from the fact that it clearly says 'sex'), it can't be gender, since no doctor could tell what the child's gender is, if gender is a matter of self- identification independent of sex.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 21, 2017)

Athos said:


> But (apart from the fact that it clearly says 'sex'), it can't be gender, since no doctor could tell what the child's gender is, if gender is a matter of self- identification independent of sex.


Well exactly. It's this contradiction that I'm pointing out.


----------



## Athos (Sep 21, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well exactly. It's this contradiction that I'm pointing out.



There is none. It explicitly records sex. It doesn't purport to record gender; it couldn't.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 21, 2017)

Athos said:


> There is none. It explicitly records sex. It doesn't purport to record gender; it couldn't.


The law is confused on this matter. Which was my whole point. It mixes up its use of the two words still as if they were complete synonyms, hence the title of the act allowing you to change the word recorded under 'sex' on your birth certificate is called the Gender Recognition Act.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 21, 2017)

friendofdorothy said:


> Yes but do you fear personal /sexual violence and discrimation from your manager or landlord too? Maybe if you did it wouldn't seem so secondry.



Because the harm they can inflict has to be sexually or physically violent to have any impact?


----------



## Athos (Sep 21, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The law is confused on this matter. Which was my whole point. It mixes up its use of the two words still as if they were complete synonyms, hence the title of the act allowing you to change the word recorded under 'sex' on your birth certificate is called the Gender Recognition Act.



The law isn't confused.  Birth certificates record sex. That this can be changed is merely an expedient legal fiction.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 21, 2017)

Athos said:


> The law isn't confused.  Birth certificates record sex. That this can be changed is merely an expedient legal fiction.


Nah that doesn't work. All kinds of things that at root are gender-related issues, not biological sex-related, stem from that word recorded under sex on a birth certificate - fewer than there used to be but still there nonetheless. As Shirley Chisholm put it, "stereotyping of females begins when the doctor says, '_It's a girl_'." And that's both a social and legally mediated process.


----------



## Athos (Sep 21, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> ... the legal system once upon a time did not recognise any difference between biological sex and socially constructed gender.



I"m not sure it recognises such a distinction, now. Rather it recognises (to some extent) the distinction between biological sex and a  individual's right to define their own gender identity.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 21, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Because the harm they can inflict has to be sexually or physically violent to have any impact?


no but I was asking you to consider the double effect. 



friendofdorothy said:


> Yes but do you fear personal /sexual violence and discrimation from your manager or landlord *too*? Maybe if you did it wouldn't seem so secondry.


 I have had times when I feared the leery rent collector turning up when I wasn't fully dressed - was I to be more worried about the inequality of the financial oppression of renting or the fear he might try to rape me? It didn't seem secondry consideration to me.


----------



## Athos (Sep 21, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nah that doesn't work. All kinds of things that at root are gender-related issues, not biological sex-related, stem from that word recorded under sex on a birth certificate - fewer than there used to be but still there nonetheless. As Shirley Chisholm put it, "stereotyping of females begins when the doctor says, '_It's a girl_'." And that's both a social and legally mediated process.



Yes, because, historically, gender has been thought of as a set of expectations society places on a person because of their sex.  The idea that gender and sex are unrelated is a recent, and far from universally accepted, idea.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 21, 2017)

Do you even read my posts, Athos?


----------



## Athos (Sep 21, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Do you even read my posts, Athos?


Yes, but I don't find them clear. What point were you trying to make? Because I thought it was: 'we're assigned a legal gender at birth'.

Which I don't think is true, because birth certificates explicitly record sex, not gender.

That the biological/legal fact of sex has social consequences IS gender i.e. the expectations society imposes on people because of their sex. As distinct from gender identity.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 21, 2017)

Red Cat said:


> weepiper is a really thoughtful poster who isn't given to talking out of her arse and she isn't a bigot. I'm sure you know that.



I absolutely rate weepiper as a poster, I'm sorry if I came across as hostile, i've had a shitty day.  I was just trying to say that her experience of gender dysphoria is often used as an argument to undermine trans people and that might be why she received a spiky response (a response I thought was a bit over the top myself)


----------



## smokedout (Sep 21, 2017)

Jonti said:


> This word _gender_ what does it mean to you (unfair question)?  The kids you mention were concerned with their sexuality.



I would say that gender, or gender expression, is a socially formed phenomena which we are all coerced into performing from the day we are born.  For some people the gender they were assigned does not feel comfortable, so they might choose to be the opposite gender, or non-binary, agender or whatever.  My feeling is that transsexuality, as in someone feeling very uncomfortable with their physical body, often from a very early age, is possibly slightly different and may have some kind of biological root that we don't yet fully understand.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 21, 2017)

This suggests to me that the experience of gd could possibly depend on one's sex. I feel for the mothers.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 21, 2017)

.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 22, 2017)

friendofdorothy said:


> no but I was asking you to consider the double effect.
> 
> I have had times when I feared the leery rent collector turning up when I wasn't fully dressed - was I to be more worried about the inequality of the financial oppression of renting or the fear he might try to rape me? It didn't seem secondry consideration to me.



surely the two are linked though? If we had class equality you wouldn't have a leery rent collector turning up on your doorstep holding power over you (in this example)?


----------



## Jonti (Sep 22, 2017)

Athos said:


> Yes, because, historically, gender has been thought of as a set of expectations society places on a person because of their sex.  The idea that gender and sex are unrelated is a recent, and far from universally accepted, idea.


Just ran into a one time member of the French Foreign Legion on my morning walk. Describes himself as an uneducated working class guy. After a brief conversation using the examples of YW and FLB (and saying this notion of gender is a bit like language, except that everyone has their own gender) he got the idea that his gender would be a squaddie one (with no implication of biological sex), otherwise, he said, "it would be ideology".

The Marxist he was with was dismissive. Not interested. Told me how he'd only lived with women all his life.

They hadn't heard of the events at Speakers Corner, so we'd had a brief chat about no-platforming fascists and the trans chauvinists no-platforming natal women before hand.


----------



## iona (Sep 22, 2017)

weepiper said:


> Here, just one quick example:
> 
> View attachment 116083
> 
> Is everyone comfortable with this? Kids are so susceptible and suggestible. It worries me that this kind of thing is being held up as good and desirable and 'hey, here's your easy answer to your discomfort about puberty, kids!'. It's not an easy answer.



My first reaction to that is that it's probably not meant all that seriously, and it's definitely not representative of the "trans community" (whatever the fuck that is, just couldn't think of a better way to put it while I was typing - sorry) that I'm familiar with.

Not saying it doesn't happen, but stuff like that is - ime - generally confined to a small minority of people in places like Tumblr which, again, isn't representative. The most definite advice I see given online to someone questioning their gender is along the lines of _"Sounds like you could possibly be trans but we really can't tell you either way, it's something you have to work out for yourself. An experienced therapist can really help with that, you should look into seeing someone (possibly with suggestions of how to find one if they've said what country or state they're posting from)."_ 

Obviously that doesn't really help if you have a child who spends a lot of time posting on Tumblr though. I don't know what the answer is there, but I don't think giving kids space to explore their gender or the current availability of hormone blockers is the problem. No one who's actually involved in the care and treatment of trans children (or trans adults, for that matter) is offering medical transition as "an easy answer."


----------



## Jonti (Sep 22, 2017)

Just a comment that I thoroughly enjoyed The Emperor's Embrace by Jeffrey Mason. It's about fatherhood in evolution, (the Emperor penguin is one of the animals discussed) but he's also the author of Against Therapy which talks about the power relationship that exists between patient and therapist.

I've made extensive use of leaderless self-help groups and they seem to me to be a better alternative.  I'm thinking of the mothers of boys who have gd, who would seem to face very difficult problems, if their sons are accepting a toxic ideological identity.


----------



## Athos (Sep 22, 2017)

iona said:


> No one who's actually involved in the care and treatment of trans children (or trans adults, for that matter) is offering medical transition as "an easy answer."



Maybe not, but one (who continues to receive support from many in the trans community) was offering transition via cross-sex hormones to children as young as 12 (in breach of NHS guidelines which say 16), until she was suspended by the GMC.  That's an age when kids are vulnerable and probably not equipped to make such momentous decisions. So seems an odd  choice to favour ahead of reversible puberty blockers. You have to wonder if the support for it isn't partly ideological, rather than clinical.  Because the sooner people transition, the harder it is for others to deny their gender based upon the absence of a common history of socialisation.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 22, 2017)

It's possible to experience gender dysphoria as a teenager/young person and *not* ultimately identify as trans  What’s Missing From the Conversation About Transgender Kids

And I don't think (or I hope) that no one thinks you're anything less than a really supportive parent going through a really difficult time with your beloved child Clair De Lune and trying to support him the best they can.

Natal women are not allowed to take HRT for more than five years because of an increased risk of strokes and heart disease. What's the impact on transwomen's health of taking it for years and years? What's the impact of puberty blockers? And if changing birth records means that the NHS is unable to tell who is trans and who is natal, how can they ensure they're picking up health risks that impact the trans community?


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 22, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> surely the two are linked though? If we had class equality you wouldn't have a leery rent collector turning up on your doorstep holding power over you (in this example)?


 Yes obviously linked, but in tackling the leery rent collector what should I do first:
a) overthrow the capitalist system
b) fight the threat of male violence
c) move home
That is quite a 'to do' list and obviously I did (c), then I tried to do what little I could to do (b).

Haven't had much energy left over to try (a) yet. 

Edited to add - just realised what thread I'm on. Didn't mean to derail. Apologies.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 22, 2017)

friendofdorothy said:


> Yes obviously linked, but in tackling the leery rent collector what should I do first:
> a) overthrow the capitalist system
> b) fight the threat of male violence
> c) move home
> ...



Fighting capitalism isn't the only outcome of having a class analysis. In your example it could lead to setting up a tenants' union to expose and oppose dodgy landlords. The best way would involve as much of the community getting on board as possible who share those interests. Seeing it as a 'women only' problem already wipes out a good section of that support.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 22, 2017)

to get it back on track:


lazythursday said:


> I totally get that neoliberalism has co-opted identity politics, and that politics based on identity alone is not ultimately useful in transforming society, but I don't think that it therefore follows that all fights for minority rights are 'playing along with the status quo'. You can be passionate about gay rights, or trans rights or whatever and campaign on those issues and also believe in fighting together as a class, surely?





Magnus McGinty said:


> Of course. But I place them as secondary to class politics (which argues for equality to all) rather than being pleased that I now have a black manager and landlord.


 If you are trans then trans issues may dominate your everyday life.  

You may have the luxury of placing such issues secondary to your class politics because you don't have to fear sexual/other violence and discrimination on a daily basis. That was the point I was making.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 22, 2017)

friendofdorothy said:


> to get it back on track:
> 
> 
> If you are trans then trans issues may dominate your everyday life.
> ...



Those things don't affect working class people? 
You think I'm coming from an individualist perspective here when I'm actually arguing the opposite.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 22, 2017)

friendofdorothy said:


> Yes obviously linked, but in tackling the leery rent collector what should I do first:
> a) overthrow the capitalist system
> b) fight the threat of male violence
> c) move home
> ...


 Great response and questions though...i'd be tempted to carry that over IIWY.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 22, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Fighting capitalism isn't the only outcome of having a class analysis. In your example it could lead to setting up a tenants' union to expose and oppose dodgy landlords. The best way would involve as much of the community getting on board as possible who share those interests. Seeing it as a 'women only' problem already wipes out a good section of that support.


I feel you haven't really listened to what I said at all.

Have you considered that 'getting as much of the community on board as possible' is difficult, when a person is part of a minory that might not be accepted or welcomed - even shunned by that 'community'?

As a young lesbian woman, at the time of the example I gave (which was a long time ago,1982), yes I saw things from my perspective and yes I did want to live in a 'women only' home - it seemed the safest and most personally comfortable option. I knew so many young women who feared and had experienced sexual/violent threats in their own homes, in their own communities. The 'community' in general was not a place we could turn to for support. Lesbian women then became my community.



Magnus McGinty said:


> Those things don't affect working class people?
> You think I'm coming from an individualist perspective here when I'm actually arguing the opposite.


I'm not sure where you are coming from, apart from telling me I'm wrong that sexual/gender issues are only secondary to class struggles - or have I got that wrong. What are you arguing? how does this relate to trans issues? How does it help?


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 22, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Great response and questions though...i'd be tempted to carry that over IIWY.


thanks.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 22, 2017)

trashpony said:


> It's possible to experience gender dysphoria as a teenager/young person and *not* ultimately identify as trans  What’s Missing From the Conversation About Transgender Kids


That's a really good article. Ta. One of the best things I've seen written on this subject. 

This stuff is challenging. I think many on here would absolutely agree with the part that says that "gender is partly a matter of behavior and identity being learned and reinforced over time". In fact it seems a bit of an understatement - 'mostly' might be more apt; some would say 'overwhelmingly'. And so the conclusion that a 'gender-affirming' approach is likely to reduce desistance percentages seems reasonable, although it might be wrong. Would that be a bad thing in itself? I don't know. "In the long run, we’ll be better at this stuff", she says. Hope so.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 22, 2017)

friendofdorothy said:


> I feel you haven't really listened to what I said at all.
> 
> Have you considered that 'getting as much of the community on board as possible' is difficult, when a person is part of a minory that might not be accepted or welcomed - even shunned by that 'community'?
> 
> ...



Because class affects everyone including women and trans. Unless of course you happen to be part of the oppressive class but tick an LGBT box, then I can see why a class perspective wouldn't matter so much.


----------



## iona (Sep 22, 2017)

Athos said:


> Maybe not, but one (who continues to receive support from many in the trans community) was offering transition via cross-sex hormones to children as young as 12 (in breach of NHS guidelines which say 16), until she was suspended by the GMC.  That's an age when kids are vulnerable and probably not equipped to make such momentous decisions. So seems an odd  choice to favour ahead of reversible puberty blockers. You have to wonder if the support for it isn't partly ideological, rather than clinical.  Because the sooner people transition, the harder it is for others to deny their gender based upon the absence of a common history of socialisation.



I assume you mean Dr Webberley? As I understand it she only ever prescribed hormones to a handful of children including one 12 year old, who iirc was already on blockers. Can't comment on that case specifically without knowing all the facts. 

Wrt trans kids in general though, deciding when to start hormones on a case-by-case basis would be make far more sense, surely.  Being kept on blockers rather than allowed to go through puberty along with their peers can also be devastating - and it happens far more often. Wanting to help alleviate that pain isn't just some ideological thing about making it harder "for others to deny their gender based upon the absence of a common history of socialisation".

And anyway, there's a long and involved process to even get to the point where blockers, never mind hormones, are an option. No one is making kids be trans, and even kids who say they're trans or are questioning have to go through loads of appointments and assessments and therapy before anything else happens.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 22, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Because class affects everyone including women and trans. Unless of course you happen to be part of the oppressive class but tick an LGBT box, then I can see why a class perspective wouldn't matter so much.


aaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh  don't know why I bother. 

I know many queer people who have 'oppressed' by their their own families, of every class.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 22, 2017)

friendofdorothy said:


> aaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh  don't know why I bother.
> 
> I know many queer people who have 'oppressed' by their their own families, of every class.



So that means they shouldn't have a class analysis?


----------



## trashpony (Sep 22, 2017)

The problem is that blockers don't delay puberty, they stop it. And puberty affects emotional as well as physical development. There is a class action lawsuit against Lupron in the US by women who are suffering horrific side effects in their 20s and 30s: Lupron, used to halt puberty in children, may cause lasting health problems

Prescribing drugs to children to alleviate mental suffering but which also cause permanent physical damage is really problematic IMO


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 22, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> So that means they shouldn't have a class analysis?


If you cant relate it to transgender issues - why don't you go start your own thread about class analysis?


----------



## The Flying Pig (Sep 22, 2017)

cantsin said:


> you spent the whole of your previous post laboriously re-emphasising just how confusing all this is to poor ol' you, now you're questioning why Stella needs to explain CiS ?
> 
> your confusion's getting confusing now eh, perplexing stuff.
> 
> baffled, me.


Join the baffled club.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 22, 2017)

trashpony said:


> The problem is that blockers don't delay puberty, they stop it. And puberty affects emotional as well as physical development. There is a class action lawsuit against Lupron in the US by women who are suffering horrific side effects in their 20s and 30s: Lupron, used to halt puberty in children, may cause lasting health problems
> 
> Prescribing drugs to children to alleviate mental suffering but which also cause permanent physical damage is really problematic IMO


Tbh I'd be surprised if this kind of radical intervention didn't have some risks of health problems. A wider discussion perhaps, but the whole culture we have increasingly of prescribing drugs to alleviate mental suffering is problematic.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 22, 2017)

friendofdorothy said:


> aaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh  don't know why I bother.
> .



With Magnus it really is best not to


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 22, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> I always get the impression that the left doesn't like minorities talking among themselves and always want to keep a nice beady eye on us to make sure we're not departing from acceptable dogma.


This is certainly the impression I'm getting on this thread. 

We're obviously not concentrating on structural class analysis and the overthrow of the capitalist system enough. And if we're not doing that we must be oppressing someone.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 22, 2017)

friendofdorothy said:


> If you cant relate it to transgender issues - why don't you go start your own thread about class analysis?



Class affects everyone ffs. Including trans. Bizarre to think it doesn't.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 22, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Tbh I'd be surprised if this kind of radical intervention didn't have some risks of health problems. A wider discussion perhaps, but the whole culture we have increasingly of prescribing drugs to alleviate mental suffering is problematic.


Yeah, absolutely and there's a whole big pharma element in all of this that I don't like - experimenting on the vulnerable. There is a much higher bar demanded (rightly) of meds prescribed to kids and it should also be applied to puberty blockers, especially if a huge proportion of kids who id as gender dysphoric later decide they're not. The impact of puberty blockers is lifelong


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 22, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Class affects everyone ffs. Including trans. Bizarre to think it doesn't.


bizarre that no one has called you a dick ed yet. prick.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 22, 2017)

friendofdorothy said:


> bizarre that no one has called you a dick ed yet. prick.



Yep. Arguing the politics of solidarity makes me a proper wanker.


----------



## belboid (Sep 22, 2017)

friendofdorothy said:


> This is certainly the impression I'm getting on this thread.
> 
> We're obviously not concentrating on structural class analysis and the overthrow of the capitalist system enough. And if we're not doing that we must be oppressing someone.


A structural class analysis definitely has value in all spheres. Little doubt that the trans people who are in jail (a disproportionately large number) are overwhelmingly working class. Ruling class trans people almost definitely have a slightly easier time of being trans - they probably have easier access to agreeable doctors, won't have to take public transport or other areas where they are likely to be abused/threatened. 

But only a fool would say a structural class analysis is _enough_. Or that any other analysis is useless.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 22, 2017)

.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 22, 2017)

belboid said:


> A structural class analysis definitely has value in all spheres. Little doubt that the trans people who are in jail (a disproportionately large number) are overwhelmingly working class. Ruling class trans people almost definitely have a slightly easier time of being trans - they probably have easier access to agreeable doctors, won't have to take public transport or other areas where they are likely to be abused/threatened.
> 
> But only a fool would say a structural class analysis is _enough_. Or that any other analysis is useless.



Who has said that then? All I said was I thought identity should be _secondary_ to class. The oppossing view thinks class isn't relevant at all.


----------



## Athos (Sep 22, 2017)

iona said:


> I assume you mean Dr Webberley? As I understand it she only ever prescribed hormones to a handful of children including one 12 year old, who iirc was already on blockers. Can't comment on that case specifically without knowing all the facts.
> 
> Wrt trans kids in general though, deciding when to start hormones on a case-by-case basis would be make far more sense, surely.  Being kept on blockers rather than allowed to go through puberty along with their peers can also be devastating - and it happens far more often. Wanting to help alleviate that pain isn't just some ideological thing about making it harder "for others to deny their gender based upon the absence of a common history of socialisation".
> 
> And anyway, there's a long and involved process to even get to the point where blockers, never mind hormones, are an option. No one is making kids be trans, and even kids who say they're trans or are questioning have to go through loads of appointments and assessments and therapy before anything else happens.



I wish I had your confidence that treatment in this field is based on sound clinical principles.  Because it appears to me to be becoming ever more ideological e.g. Kenneth Zucker moving from world leader to pariah overnight, for daring to contest the new orthodoxy.

Nobody is making kids feels dysphoria, I'm sure. But  I'm less convinced that some aren't being steered towards permanently physically and psychological harmful treatments, who would otherwise pass through dysphoria.

But, that, in itself isn't necessarily a reason against kids transitioning. It's a matter of weighing that harm against the harm to those who wouldn't have 'grown out of it' (a clumsy phrase, as shorthand), who have been harmed by withholding treatment. And whether there's a course of action that balances those risk to minimise the overall harm.

It seems to me that a very rigourous and well regulated system of assessing young people, coupled with the use of drugs to delay puberty until the children are old enough to make an informed choice would be a sensible balance.

Unfortunately, some TRAs consider such an approach unreasonable.  They seek to exclude doctors who don't subscribe to their ideology,  they support doctors who breach NHS best practice in this area, and push to move beyond (somewhat reversible) puberty blockers and towards (irriversible) sex change hormones at an ever younger age.  That seems to me to reveal a political agenda being prioritised over children's wellbeing (which is essentially a criticism the family court levelled at the Mermaids organisation, recently).


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 22, 2017)

.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 22, 2017)

Thing about 'best clinical practice' is that in some areas - I'm thinking mental health here in particular - that 'best' is really still not very good at all. Thing I liked about the article trashpony linked to is that it acknowledges what we don't know. Any discussion of the subject needs to.


----------



## Red Cat (Sep 22, 2017)

friendofdorothy said:


> This is certainly the impression I'm getting on this thread.
> 
> We're obviously not concentrating on structural class analysis and the overthrow of the capitalist system enough. And if we're not doing that we must be oppressing someone.



I don't think that is the case. The point of a class analysis is that it isn't primarily an analysis of oppression, it's an analysis of exploitation, upon which capitalism is based. 

But I do think this should be taken to the id politics thread and that just repeating class analysis doesn't get us very far.


----------



## Athos (Sep 22, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Who has said that then? All I said was I thought identity should be _secondary_ to class. The oppossing view thinks class isn't relevant at all.



You seem to be setting up a competition for primacy between class and identity. I think that misses the point.


----------



## belboid (Sep 22, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Who has said that then? All I said was I thought identity should be _secondary_ to class.


If that is what you have been wishing to say, you've done it incredibly badly.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 22, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Who has said that then? All I said was I thought identity should be _secondary_ to class. The oppossing view thinks class isn't relevant at all.


Not sure that class analysis of intra-family conflict is going to get you very far. It might tell you a bit about why families exist as they do in the first place, but it won't tell you what to do about the conflict.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 22, 2017)

belboid said:


> If that is what you have been wishing to say, you've done it incredibly badly.



It's what I said that started this discussion!


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 22, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not sure that class analysis of intra-family conflict is going to get you very far. It might tell you a bit about why families exist as they do in the first place, but it won't tell you what to do about the conflict.



Nobody has mentioned inter-family conflict.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 22, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Nobody has mentioned inter-family conflict.


post 1260


----------



## belboid (Sep 22, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> It's what I said that started this discussion!


Of course it is, dear.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 22, 2017)

belboid said:


> Of course it is, dear.





Magnus McGinty said:


> Of course. But I place them as secondary to class politics (which argues for equality to all) rather than being pleased that I now have a black manager and landlord.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 22, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> post 1260



Ok I see what you mean, but that doesn't mean class doesn't affect them was my point. I didn't mean class analysis was applicable to explain it.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 22, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Nobody has mentioned inter-family conflict.


I did and you ignored it



friendofdorothy said:


> I know many queer people who have 'oppressed' by their their own families, of every class.





littlebabyjesus said:


> Not sure that class analysis of intra-family conflict is going to get you very far. It might tell you a bit about why families exist as they do in the first place, but it won't tell you what to do about the conflict.



So how does class analysis help intra family conflict mr McGinty? eg how would it have helped Albert Kennedy? Albert Kennedy Trust - Helping young LGBT people


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 22, 2017)

friendofdorothy said:


> I did and you ignored it
> 
> So how does class analysis help intra family conflict mr McGinty? eg how would it have helped Albert Kennedy?



Have you ignored my response to lbj? 
Anyway, I think we're done with this conversation given you've already started with the name calling.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 22, 2017)

.


----------



## Athos (Sep 22, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> And you know what is heartless, politcal, when you can look at children clearly in tomernt and begging for help and best thing you can do is delay their development and force them into a limbo for years where their psychological health will probably be damaged beyond repair, and that's if they don't kill themselves in the mean time. There is a cost to not allowing trans children to transition and everyone speaks as if only the well being of cis children matter and that anyone in this field who is working with trans people, and not against them, must have a political agenda. This is bullshit! This is toxic.
> 
> And the reason Zucker is now trash is because he was toxic and trans people always knew that, but we've only just gained a voice.



Surely, there a sensible middle ground that balances the risks of providing permanent treatment to transition (which has side effects and significant risks)  and those of nor doing so (which can also cause great harm), until children are competent to make such a significant decision?


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 22, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Yep. Arguing the politics of solidarity makes me a proper wanker.


You haven't shown any solidarity yet. Solidarity requires listening and finding the common ground


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 22, 2017)

friendofdorothy said:


> You haven't shown any solidarity yet. Solidarity requires listening and finding the common ground



Which identity politics can be the antithesis of. Anyway, Friday eve etc.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 22, 2017)

btw I'm not ignoring the discussion about children transitioning / delaying puberty etc  just don't know much about the issue and reading up about it.


----------



## bimble (Sep 22, 2017)

Clair De Lune 's post a couple of pages back, I've been trying to let it soak in a bit what she said about how sometimes you just have to accept that you don't understand a thing and that your not understanding it doesn't make it any less true or less real.
I think basically for me thats the nub of it: I'm in the habit of feeling entitled to understand or relate to something so if I can't get the answers I want that will fully satisfy my curiosity that's difficult and uncomfortable, its hard to just accept that I don't get it. In this case - re what does it mean to be trans, what does it consist of-  I reckon its my 'job' to just accept that I may never get it, that's just how it is and I have to be ok with not understanding it basically, which is a little bit hard because i'm not used to making that effort, putting my desire to make sense of it to one side and accepting my ignorance. Probably just stating the blindingly obvious sorry.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 22, 2017)

.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 22, 2017)

.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 22, 2017)

AuntiStella - no one is attacking you (I hope) or your identity. I know it's been a really long and hard road for you.

Aaand I wrote that before the last couple of posts you made which have made me realise that you've probably put me on ignore. And I don't really get your last post but I'm sure it makes sense to some people. 

I have every sympathy for gender-non-conforming children. I'm a mother of a kid who doesn't fit any of the things - not just the gender ones. I don't think it's right to give children life-altering drugs though, however much they may think they want them. It's our job as parents to choose the lesser of two evils a lot of the time. It's pretty hard going.


----------



## Athos (Sep 22, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> The reason trans children don't get the treatment we need is because no one believes us. There are literally thousands of intelligent adults who have experienced growing up trans. Most of us went through some level of torment. Few of us didn't get damaged by it. But our voice doesn't count. One parliament debate ever and that was trolled by a Labour MP who had been got at by a TERF.
> Anyone who identifies as a Marxist but stands by decisions made by the state, by the conservative patriarchical state we live in, rather than listen to lived experience of oppressed human beings is a charlatan.



This is a series of strawmen:  It's not a case of being disbelieved; nobody is denying the potential harm of withholding treatment (rather querying whether it should be balanced against the potential harms of providing it); disagreeing with you is not the same as saying your voice doesn't count; being a marxist doesn't mean thinking we should do the opposite of everything the state does (else we'd be calling to ban gay marriage, for example); and, the experience of one group of people isn't the definitive answer to any question - on this thread, weepiper offered an alternative experience, which you were quick to dismiss (quite rudely, in my opinon).

Do you at least agree there's a risk of causing harm by allowing children to transition before they're competent to appreciate the significance of that choice?


----------



## Athos (Sep 22, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> Athos is a charlatan and a hypocrite and is desperate for the favour of a bunch of abusive women who will always view men like him with complete contempt.
> 
> It's pitiful really. Sad.



I think it's really sad that we can't have a sensible dicussion, especially as I'd thought we'd reached a stage where that might be possible - me having apologised for any ill feeling in the past, and resolved to behave extra respectfully (which I think I have in this discussion).  But it still comes down to you abusing me.  I'm not abusing you, or denying your right to be a woman, or anything like that.  I'm just explaining that there's risks to what you seem to be advocating.  Of course, you're under no obligation to engage with the debate (and, if it causes you distress, it's fine to ask me not to pursue it, as you did last night, and I respected), but to try to shut it down with name calling is intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt.


----------



## Lambert Simnel (Sep 22, 2017)

trashpony said:


> I don't think it's right to give children life-altering drugs though, however much they may think they want them. It's our job as parents to choose the lesser of two evils a lot of the time. It's pretty hard going.



Does this apply to drugs for any other condition by any chance? There are plenty of life-altering drugs for life-altering conditions given to children. Presumably you're against all of them, regardless of their success rate at averting death.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 22, 2017)

Lambert Simnel said:


> Does this apply to drugs for any other condition by any chance? There are plenty of life-altering drugs for life-altering conditions given to children. Presumably you're against all of them, regardless of their success rate at averting death.


Yes it does. I thought that was pretty much the standard for most drugs. When you say 'averting death', what do you mean?


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 22, 2017)

.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Sep 22, 2017)

friendofdorothy said:


> Solidarity requires listening and finding the common ground



with who?


----------



## Athos (Sep 22, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> Funny how all these protecters of children have nothing to say about the awful treatment of intersex children. Many of whom are arbitrarily assigned a gender which they do not identify as but of course they have no rights to self identify because the basis for the intersex experiments is the belief that gender is entirely about how you are socialised.
> 
> A baby boy with abnormally small penis, yeah why not make him a girl and bring up as such? What can go wrong. Well it doesn't work. Look up John/ Joan case. Completely disproves everything that TERFs believe in, but they don't talk about it. Plus - I have a friend who is intersex, was a boy, they made him a boy at first but something went wrong post surgery so they decided to make him a girl. He remembers going in for surgery all through his childhood. They forced him through a female puberty. Now he looks like a woman but he's a man and his genitals are fucked. He had complications on his complications. This is the fucking hypocricy. No one gives a toss about children who get assigned to the wrong gender and forced to be a gender they are not - operated on in childhood, or forced to take hormones. They just hate trans people. That's what it's about. I call it now. Transphobia. Society is deeply invested in the binary and in cissexism.
> 
> First, Do No Harm: ensuring the rights of children born intersex.



Another strawman.  I don't think intersex kids should have surgery before they have the competence to make such a significant decision about their future.  Where'sthe hypocrisy? That's exactly the same line I'd take for kids with gender dysphoria.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 22, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Who has said that then? All I said was I thought identity should be _secondary_ to class. The oppossing view thinks class isn't relevant at all.


This would seem to depend very much on what you allow to be a class in the first place.

There was narry a peep from the forum thread when I posted that I found their caution with regard to the polyamourous class very interesting.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 22, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> Funny how all these protecters of children have nothing to say about the awful treatment of intersex children. Many of whom are arbitrarily assigned a gender which they do not identify as but of course they have no rights to self identify because the basis for the intersex experiments is the belief that gender is entirely about how you are socialised.
> 
> A baby boy with abnormally small penis, yeah why not make him a girl and bring up as such? What can go wrong. Well it doesn't work. Look up John/ Joan case. Completely disproves everything that TERFs believe in, but they don't talk about it. Plus - I have a friend who is intersex, was a boy, they made him a boy at first but something went wrong post surgery so they decided to make him a girl. He remembers going in for surgery all through his childhood. They forced him through a female puberty. Now he looks like a woman but he's a man and his genitals are fucked. He had complications on his complications. This is the fucking hypocricy. No one gives a toss about children who get assigned to the wrong gender and forced to be a gender they are not - operated on in childhood, or forced to take hormones. They just hate trans people. That's what it's about. I call it now. Transphobia. Society is deeply invested in the binary and in cissexism.
> 
> First, Do No Harm: ensuring the rights of children born intersex.


What the fuck are you talking about? You're calling me a TERF for being concerned about the health of trans-identified children? And intersex has nothing to do with trans and it's a total strawman that you're trying to co-opt it as a basis for argument. 

I worry about your health about being on long-term HRT even if you don't. But you're an adult and you made the choice in full knowledge of the risks. A child is unable to make those choices.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 22, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> Funny how all these protecters of children have nothing to say about the awful treatment of intersex children. Many of whom are arbitrarily assigned a gender which they do not identify as but of course they have no rights to self identify because the basis for the intersex experiments is the belief that gender is entirely about how you are socialised.
> 
> A baby boy with abnormally small penis, yeah why not make him a girl and bring up as such? What can go wrong. Well it doesn't work. Look up John/ Joan case. Completely disproves everything that TERFs believe in, but they don't talk about it. Plus - I have a friend who is intersex, was a boy, they made him a boy at first but something went wrong post surgery so they decided to make him a girl. He remembers going in for surgery all through his childhood. They forced him through a female puberty. Now he looks like a woman but he's a man and his genitals are fucked. He had complications on his complications. This is the fucking hypocricy. No one gives a toss about children who get assigned to the wrong gender and forced to be a gender they are not - operated on in childhood, or forced to take hormones. They just hate trans people. That's what it's about. I call it now. Transphobia. Society is deeply invested in the binary and in cissexism.
> 
> First, Do No Harm: ensuring the rights of children born intersex.


I agree with athos on this one. It is a straw man as nobody has said this, and that someone hasn't mentioned something doesn't mean they don't have anything to say on the subject.

fwiw I think what has happened historically to intersex people has been horrific, and it clearly highlights the inadequacy of the current system, which assigns gender at birth or soon after by apparent biological sex, and has strictly one of two boxes to tick. If you read closely what FabricLiveBaby! and others have said, I think you'll see that their positions are not incompatible with the idea that this is wrong and should be changed. In fact, they provide a way forward towards addressing it, which is to challenge the idea of assigning gender in this way in the first place.

In fact, the more I think about this, the more I think that the legal practice of assigning gender at birth with a certificate that will form the basis of your legal identity is horribly flawed and should be changed.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 23, 2017)

Also, AuntiStella  please do me the courtesy of not assuming that anyone who has a different POV is a happy heterosexual with zero understanding of struggling with gender norms.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 23, 2017)

.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 23, 2017)

trashpony said:


> It's possible to experience gender dysphoria as a teenager/young person and *not* ultimately identify as trans  What’s Missing From the Conversation About Transgender



I really think its worth reading the response to those studies which is referred to in that piece but not adequately IMO

The End of the Desistance Myth | HuffPost


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 23, 2017)

.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 23, 2017)

AuntiStella Lambert Simnel's post was in response to mine and then you replied to that. Please put me back on ignore. You're right - we cannot have a conversation, it's impossible. 

smokedout - I've read it. I've also read the studies quoted. Have you?


----------



## Athos (Sep 23, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> I love that my point that everyone tolerates what happens to intersex kids has been completely evaded.
> 
> Answer!!



Who tolerates it?


----------



## trashpony (Sep 23, 2017)

And you know that saying about how if you know one person with autism, that tells you nothing about what having autism is like, it just means you know one person with autism? Same goes with intersex. Same goes with trans. You don't speak for everyone.


----------



## Athos (Sep 23, 2017)

.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 23, 2017)

Give it a rest AuntiStella


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 23, 2017)

smokedout said:


> I really think its worth reading the response to those studies which is referred to in that piece but not adequately IMO
> 
> The End of the Desistance Myth | HuffPost


Singal tackles this head-on. In fact she appears to reference this very article. 

What is inadequate about this?



> If Tannehill, Serano, and other critics of the desistance literature like Kristina Olson and Lily Durwood in Slate are correct and the kids at the GIC and the Amsterdam clinic were really just gender nonconforming — if they were little boys who liked to do ballet and play with dolls, for example, but didn’t otherwise express any discomfort with being boys — then these critics would be right to suspect that the desistance literature is misleading. It would be garbage-in, garbage-out thing: If you aren’t studying kids who really had gender dysphoria in the first place, your followup data about them isn’t going to tell you much.
> 
> 
> But is that really what was happening? At the time of Singh’s dissertation and her subjects’ treatment at the GIC, gender dysphoria was captured by the _DSM-IV_ entry for what was then called “gender identity disorder,” which has since been renamed, in the _DSM-5_, to the less pathologizing “gender dysphoria.” Singh notes that of the 139 participants she successfully contacted for followup, “88 (63.3%) met diagnostic criteria for GID in childhood and the remaining 51 (36.7%) were subthreshold for the diagnosis,” which is close to the 70 percent figure Zucker and his colleagues have noted when describing the GID’s patient population overall. (I Twitter DMed Tannehill to ask where she got her “72 percent” and “90 percent” numbers from. She said she was extrapolating from a set of 12 random patient charts examined during the investigation of Zucker’s clinic. But there’s no need to extrapolate like this, since we have the actual percentages for both Singh’s study and the broader patient population. Tannehill has since removed those figures from her article.)



Serious q - I might have missed something - but she appears to be saying that they recognised the potential problem and went back to check.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 23, 2017)

.


----------



## Athos (Sep 23, 2017)

trashpony said:


> .



Sorry. I edited.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 23, 2017)

.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 23, 2017)

Athos said:


> Sorry. I edited.


I've deleted my reply then


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 23, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> Really! Why do we operate on kids who's genitals fall out of acceptable parameters?


This is a very good question. I think society is very fucked up over this stuff and there is a wholly unjustified imperative to make a biological judgement on babies in order to assign them a legal gender no matter what. 

But I don't see anyone disagreeing.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 23, 2017)

.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 23, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> trans people are the experts on trans - no one else is


Agreed. But not all trans people agree about all things trans. Miranda Yardley is also trans. And there are quite a few transwomen I know on the boards who haven't participated in this discussion


----------



## iona (Sep 23, 2017)

trashpony said:


> It's possible to experience gender dysphoria as a teenager/young person and *not* ultimately identify as trans  What’s Missing From the Conversation About Transgender Kids
> 
> And I don't think (or I hope) that no one thinks you're anything less than a really supportive parent going through a really difficult time with your beloved child Clair De Lune and trying to support him the best they can.
> 
> Natal women are not allowed to take HRT for more than five years because of an increased risk of strokes and heart disease. What's the impact on transwomen's health of taking it for years and years? What's the impact of puberty blockers? And if changing birth records means that the NHS is unable to tell who is trans and who is natal, how can they ensure they're picking up health risks that impact the trans community?



I've only had a brief scan through the studies linked in that article (it's a massive PITA on mobile and I'd have to go to the library for a computer) so correct me if I'm wrong, but they all seem to be about children with gender dysphoria. Desistance rates in any studies I've seen involving adolescents were all much lower (mobile bollocks, can try and dig links out over the weekend). Important distinction, since irreversible medical transition is only an option for adolescents.

Also, not all that relevant to the wider discussion but I'm not sure changing birth records affects the NHS's ability to see who's trans - you can certainly change the gender marker on your NHS records without a GRC (which is required for a new birth certificate to be issued). NHS policy is that you should be issued a new NHS number too.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 23, 2017)

.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 23, 2017)

.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 23, 2017)

iona said:


> I've only had a brief scan through the studies linked in that article (it's a massive PITA on mobile and I'd have to go to the library for a computer) so correct me if I'm wrong, but they all seem to be about children with gender dysphoria. Desistance rates in any studies I've seen involving adolescents were all much lower (mobile bollocks, can try and dig links out over the weekend). Important distinction, since irreversible medical transition is only an option for adolescents.
> .


The two recent studies she concentrates on both involve follow-up on case studies of children <12 years old, so yes, they basically both consider pre-pubescent gd and its desistance rates into adolescence/young adulthood.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 23, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Singal tackles this head-on. In fact she appears to reference this very article.
> 
> What is inadequate about this?
> 
> ...



The same charge, that many of the children were non-conforming rather than gender dysphoric, is made against the Amsterdam study and this is not addressed.  The author of that study later did a follow up however and found that the degree of gender dysphoria is in indicator of whether the dysphoria persists into adulthood.	

I'd question anything that came out of Zucker's clinic, it seems pretty clear he believe in reparative therapy and these concerns are not adequately explored in the link trashpony posted.  The fact that 80 of the subjects were not actually followed up but just assumed to be 'cured' is also not really addressed,

An example of his work by the way


> Zucker, who has worked with this population for close to 30 years, has a very specific method for treating these children. Whenever Zucker encounters a child younger than 10 with gender identity disorder, he tries to make the child comfortable with the sex he or she was born with.
> 
> 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


----------



## smokedout (Sep 23, 2017)

trashpony said:


> AuntiStella Lambert Simnel's post was in response to mine and then you replied to that. Please put me back on ignore. You're right - we cannot have a conversation, it's impossible.
> 
> smokedout - I've read it. I've also read the studies quoted. Have you?



No to be fair I haven't, I can only find the abstract for one without paying and the other seems to be 341 pager long, but I will try and have a look.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 23, 2017)

I've long thought that it is about time full access to all scientific papers was placed in the public domain. So I'm left unable to judge this paper without paying money. It's linked to in support of Brynn Tannehill's critique of the desistance studies, but I can't judge it all that well on its abstract.



> A visible and growing cohort of transgender children in North America live according to their expressed gender rather than their natal sex, yet scientific research has largely ignored this population. In the current study, we adopted methodological advances from social-cognition research to investigate whether 5- to 12-year-old prepubescent transgender children (_N_ = 32), who were presenting themselves according to their gender identity in everyday life, showed patterns of gender cognition more consistent with their expressed gender or their natal sex, or instead appeared to be confused about their gender identity. Using implicit and explicit measures, we found that transgender children showed a clear pattern: They viewed themselves in terms of their expressed gender and showed preferences for their expressed gender, with response patterns mirroring those of two cisgender (nontransgender) control groups. These results provide evidence that, early in development, transgender youth are statistically indistinguishable from cisgender children of the same gender identity.



This study doesn't seem from its abstract to support the case against desistance. Also, how many people who are transgender in later life presented socially as that gender as young children? How many were allowed to? It seems to me to be a self-selecting study, and while perhaps interesting, I'm not sure what it proves.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 23, 2017)

smokedout said:


> The same charge, that many of the children were non-conforming rather than gender dysphoric, is made against the Amsterdam study and this is not addressed.  The author of that study later did a follow up however and found that the degree of gender dysphoria is in indicator of whether the dysphoria persists into adulthood.


yes, which isn't so surprising. I'd quite like to see some more detail on that - how much of an indicator? 

Agree with you about Zucker btw. Reading more about him, he can fuck the fuck off.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 23, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I've long thought that it is about time full access to all scientific papers was placed in the public domain. So I'm left unable to judge this paper without paying money. It's linked to in support of Brynn Tannehill's critique of the desistance studies, but I can't judge it all that well on its abstract.


Have you tried Science Huβ Publishing – Leading the Information Highway ?  It's like the pirate bay of scientific papers.


----------



## purenarcotic (Sep 23, 2017)

Is this still 2017? I'm utterly confused why boys liking ballet is seen as 'gender non conforming' rather than just being that boys like ballet. Ballet isn't inherently girly, football isn't inherently boy like. I thought it was all about trying to break down these shitty stereotypes and the amount of reinforcing on this thread is a fucking joke.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 23, 2017)

To answer this, the law has only recently recognised gender at all (and just the two). I liked your post because although this is some kind of improvement gender is a very personal thing. Everyone has one of their very own, everyone different.

And of course there are male ballerinas and female squaddies.  Children of either sex doing either activity is no cause for concern, which is why we should only talk about gender dysphoria in children, and not describe them as trans.

If you're willing to think of gender like this, I'm willing to bet that the squaddie gender type is considerably older, in terms of our evolution, than the dancer gender type.


----------



## Athos (Sep 23, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> trans people are the experts on trans - no one else is



That's like saying people who've had a heart attack know more than cardiologists.

Sure,  trans people know more about what it's like to be trans, of course. But that doesn't mean that the philosophical conclusions they draw from that experience (e.g. about the nature of gender) are necessarily correct, nor any clinical ones.

And, there's the issue that not all trans people think the same.

Also, TERFs could just as easily assert authority by saying that women are the experts on women. Or anyone could say that anyone with a gender is an expert on gender.

Plus, we're currently discussing people who aren't trans i.e. children who had some level of discomfort with their gender, but did not transition.  A well respected poster gave their experience of exactly that.  But you dismissed them as speaking out of their arse.  You seem to reserve the 'experience = expert' thing for yourself (whilst calling others hypocrites).


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 23, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> I'd just taken you off ignore.
> What a big mistake.
> 
> No. I've discussed this with my intersex friend. He agreed that the gender identity struggles he's had are exactly the same as the ones I've had even though the reasons are different.
> ...


Stuff like this is why an awful lot of people have given up trying to have any kind of debate with you.


----------



## Athos (Sep 23, 2017)

purenarcotic said:


> Is this still 2017? I'm utterly confused why boys liking ballet is seen as 'gender non conforming' rather than just being that boys like ballet. Ballet isn't inherently girly, football isn't inherently boy like. I thought it was all about trying to break down these shitty stereotypes and the amount of reinforcing on this thread is a fucking joke.



I guess there's two approaches to the constraints gender puts on everyone (but which some feel much more acutely than others): first, to reject gender altogether i.e. to say that playing with dolls isn't a female thing; or, secondly, to allow people to choose which aspects of that system of constraint apply to them i.e. to allow males who play with dolls to identify as girls.

On the face of it, the former looks preferable, particularly to those who argue that the latter reinforces the the system which underpins women's oppression.  But, that places a big burden on trans people, asking them to suffer whilst the vast majority of cis people often do little to challange gender.

As a cis man, I think the best I can do to balance the long-term need to move beyond gender against the immediate goal of compassion for the suffering of trans people, is to respect trans people's gender identity, whilst trying to break down the idea of gender e.g. by setting an example for my kids that it's possible for people of either sex to behave how they want.

But, I disagree with some trans people that my respecting their gender identity requires me to accept uncritically all their ideas about gender, or how society should react to every trans issue.  Indeed, in many instances, I think challenging those ideas is necessary as part of that second goal (and other concerns).  But, given the shit they get, any such disagreement should be done sensitively and respectfully. And that, sometimes, it's more important not to take up every point of disagreement, because of the risk of undermining that general solidarity.


----------



## purenarcotic (Sep 23, 2017)

I have no desire to see trans people suffer. I'm unclear why my post might have suggested that.


----------



## Athos (Sep 23, 2017)

purenarcotic said:


> I have no desire to see trans people suffer. I'm unclear why my post might have suggested that.



Is that a reply to me? If so, I apologise if I implied that; I certainly don't think you do.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 23, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> trans people are the experts on trans - no one else is





AuntiStella said:


> I'm allowed to change my mind aren't I? Still learning.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 23, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Yeah,  that's exactly what my mums's attitude was.  And it was the prevailing concept in communist countries.  Sex was a circumstance of your birth but didn't tell you anything about your personality or what you could achieve.  Biological essentialism, so to speak, was out the window.  And it was a cool attitude, and a rare one too! especially in Thatcherite UK where gender was being used to sell the same thing twice (long live capitalism, eh).  Where my mum came from that just didn't exist.  Stuff was stuff and stuff was in one colour for everyone.
> 
> As to the rest, I've tried to square that circle many times, and believe it or not have changed my position on this significantly in a relatively short space of time (compared to other political viewpoints). Personally, I don't believe that this is circle that can be squared - precisely because, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, they are rooted in polar opposite philosophical theories. (materialism vs idealism)
> 
> So the best that can be done is compromise, but compromising on such a fundamental question of how reality and consciousness is formed is going to be frought. And so it's no wonder stuff gets punchy.


Worth noting here that a materialist theory of consciousness doesn't have to be true, it only has to be useful.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 23, 2017)

.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 23, 2017)

.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 23, 2017)

I said 'natal women' actually. FFS if you're going to slag me off, at least quote me accurately


----------



## Athos (Sep 23, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> And I didn't pick up on it earlier but I think it was trashpony that said something like even women have health issues on HRT. Obviously then I'm not a woman. Just been told there loud and clear!!



You're arguing against stuff people haven't even said.  And, worse, accusing them of being transphobic on the basis of something they haven't said!

What trashpony pony actually said was:



trashpony said:


> Natal women are not allowed to take HRT for more than five years because of an increased risk of strokes and heart disease.





trashpony said:


> I worry about your health about being on long-term HRT even if you don't. But you're an adult and you made the choice in full knowledge of the risks. A child is unable to make those choices.


----------



## Athos (Sep 23, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> Silence this person who exists outside all good people's experience and ability to empathize with!
> 
> Sick of this



Being disagreed with is not the same as being silenced (or attacked). And, frankly, you're going to be disagreed with if you keep posting stuff that's demonstrably rubbish e.g. accusing people of saying something that they quite clearly haven't.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 23, 2017)

AuntiStella, I'm not trying to get at you but I really think you're best off walking away from this thread (for a couple of days at least). It's obviously upsetting you and I'm sorry for that but from where I'm standing over the last few pages people have tried to be really respectful of your feelings. They disagree with what you've said but that doesn't mean they are gas lighting you, displaying fake concern or anything else.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 23, 2017)

The irony of having an ignore list whilst bemoaning not being listened to.


----------



## bimble (Sep 23, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> Why are people talking about gender expression still?
> 
> It's almost as if trans people's instance that our condition is nothing to do with gender expression is being utterly ignored.
> [..]



For me, when you explain that being trans has nothing to do with gender expression it leaves me feeling totally clueless about what trans does mean. That's a bit difficult for me, the fact that I just don't get it,  but doesn't make it your job to satisfy my curiosity and explain things to me so that i can feel like I do fully understand.

I would like to know though, does it matter to you either way whether I (cis person) understand what it means to be trans - or does it actually only matter that I respect you as a person and treat you how you wish to be treated ?


----------



## Red Cat (Sep 23, 2017)

I think wanting to understand can feel very controlling and oppressive. However, treatments sought cost money, and may be harmful. It is a social issue.


----------



## TikkiB (Sep 23, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> Why are people talking about gender expression still?
> 
> It's almost as if trans people's instance that our condition is nothing to do with gender expression is being utterly ignored.
> 
> ...




And this is exactly why I made my (overly diplomatic) post about solidarity earlier on.  Both Weepiper and Trashpony posted about experiences in their own or their children's lives, and rather than attempt to see how much you may have in common with them, you choose to go on the attack.  You clearly didn't read Trashpony's post properly - as has been pointed out, she did not say 'even women'.  And your refusal to engage with other women posters looks a lot like a blanket dismissal of other women's experience.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 23, 2017)

.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 23, 2017)

.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 23, 2017)

.


----------



## iona (Sep 23, 2017)

Athos said:


> I guess there's two approaches to the constraints gender puts on everyone (but which some feel much more acutely than others): first, to reject gender altogether i.e. to say that playing with dolls isn't a female thing; or, secondly, to allow people to choose which aspects of that system of constraint apply to them i.e. to allow males who play with dolls to identify as girls.
> 
> On the face of it, the former looks preferable, particularly to those who argue that the latter reinforces the the system which underpins women's oppression.  But, that places a big burden on trans people, asking them to suffer whilst the vast majority of cis people often do little to challange gender.
> 
> ...



Trans people aren't saying "I liked playing with dolls as a child so I must be a woman" though. Rejecting gender stereotypes should be beneficial for everyone, cis and trans; it only becomes harmful to trans people when you (one) start using that reasoning to invalidate someone's gender because "men/women can do that too" or insist that they're just cis and gnc.

Gender stereotypes might be harmful and a social construct, but we haven't succeeded in getting rid of them yet. We all, cis people and trans people alike, have to live with them and make choices every day about what extent we adhere to the expectations attached to our gender. There are many different reasons someone might make the choice to go along with or against a particular expectation. It's a double standard; a cis woman wears a dress, high heels & makeup and it's her choice (and rightly so - many years ago I used to make the mistake of confusing contempt for the stereotype with contempt for those who were "stupid" or "weak" enough to go along with it, and it's bollocks), but a trans woman wearing the same outfit is reinforcing stereotypes and contributing to the oppression of women. Yet a trans woman deemed "not feminine enough" is told she's actually a man!

By all means let's stop enforcing that gender crap - that doesn't mean stopping individuals from doing anything that happens to conform though.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 23, 2017)

.


----------



## Red Cat (Sep 23, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> and doctors are trained to look at that. The treatments are not harmful for most people but can impact on some conditions and have rare side effects occasionally, but doctors are trained for that and checks are frequent and rigorous, and this needs to be balanced against the suffering and possible harm/ health effects of doing nothing. Even in my case I reached 45 and realised I've been living an empty, unfuffiled and miserable life. I was ready to die, wheras transitioned trans people generally do well, are successful and pretty much as happy as they would have been if they'd been cis. Please don't keep building the negative up into something that it isn't. Think about the negative that happens if nothing is done - people don;t do this enough.



I said that we have a responsibility to take into account the potential harm of treatment which means the attempt to understand is necessary. That would also be the case for not intervening.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 23, 2017)

.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 23, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Of those three, I'd say the last is hugely important. The only other ape that pair-bonds is the gibbon, but gibbon males and females are the same size, which is what you normally find in animals that pair-bond, so we're doubly unusual in that respect. Humans are very likely to have evolved pair bonding from some situation along the line back to our common ancestor with bonobos/chimps where it was not the case, and we're not as strict about it as gibbons, even now. This study suggests that pair-bonding in primates evolved as a means to prevent male infanticide. I'm always a little wary of studies that run models in case the assumptions of the models are off in some small but crucial way, but it's an interesting finding. The evolution of monogamy is quite a thorny issue, generally.
> 
> Another difference would be division of labour. It was once thought that bonobos didn't hunt in the way chimps do. It's now known that they do hunt, but unlike chimps, bonobos hunt in mixed-sex groups. There is very little division of labour by sex role in bonobos.


I can well believe that pair-bonding in primates evolved as a means to prevent male infanticide. Its gender expression would have been profoundly unhelpful to Australopithecus.  Pair bonding was undoubtedly part of the evolutionary transition to Homo.

The adorable Meerkat has the highest rate of murder in mammals, mostly infanticide, but in their case we're talking female gender expression.

And so we arrive back at "for the overwhelming span of human history prior to the creation of class women were not oppressed by men if you ignore the occasional raid for wives by men from neighbouring villages".

This is not human gender expression, female squaddies would find the very idea of a raiding party for husbands absurd. You'd never get them interested. It's just Dawkin's cold calculus at work. As JBS Haldane said "I would to save two brothers or eight cousins". Related men will die (not willingly, but their genes don't care about that, they care only about themselves and to work with each other) for each other.  This is why men can find the idea of such raids interesting. The important thing is, that's nothing to do with their individual unique genders.

At some stage in our evolution the squaddie gender type emerged, willing to risk death for unrelated men or women and their children. That's an impressive feat, made possible only by decoupling the squaddie gender type from biological sex. Incidently squaddies can be very likeable. 

Gender types didn't all spring into existence at once.  The decoupling that gave us human gender as we understand it here was one of the benefits of our encaphalisation.  Human gender has released us from the horrors of gender expression.


----------



## Athos (Sep 23, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> Accept that we are in pain and we need help.



I accept this 100%. But that's not the same as accepting all your ideas uncritically (not least of all because there's a range a views amongst trans people, and your opinions change over time, too).


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 23, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> go on call me a misogynist man - I'm waiting for that. I know some of you are thinking it.



Fucks sake.


----------



## Athos (Sep 23, 2017)

iona said:


> Trans people aren't saying "I liked playing with dolls as a child so I must be a woman" though. Rejecting gender stereotypes should be beneficial for everyone, cis and trans; it only becomes harmful to trans people when you (one) start using that reasoning to invalidate someone's gender because "men/women can do that too" or insist that they're just cis and gnc.
> 
> Gender stereotypes might be harmful and a social construct, but we haven't succeeded in getting rid of them yet. We all, cis people and trans people alike, have to live with them and make choices every day about what extent we adhere to the expectations attached to our gender. There are many different reasons someone might make the choice to go along with or against a particular expectation. It's a double standard; a cis woman wears a dress, high heels & makeup and it's her choice (and rightly so - many years ago I used to make the mistake of confusing contempt for the stereotype with contempt for those who were "stupid" or "weak" enough to go along with it, and it's bollocks), but a trans woman wearing the same outfit is reinforcing stereotypes and contributing to the oppression of women. Yet a trans woman deemed "not feminine enough" is told she's actually a man!
> 
> By all means let's stop enforcing that gender crap - that doesn't mean stopping individuals from doing anything that happens to conform though.



Yes. That's essentially my position.  (The dolls thing was crude shorthand; I don't think boys who like dolls grow up to think they must be women, of course.)


----------



## Athos (Sep 23, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> go on call me a misogynist man - I'm waiting for that. I know some of you are thinking it.



Do you appreciate how much this shit harms your credibility?


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 23, 2017)

.


----------



## Red Cat (Sep 23, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> you will never understand. You don;t need to. Drives me mad people who are attempting to empathise with something they have no experience of. Can't be done. Listen and accept. Accept that we are in pain and we need help.



I was talking about understanding as something more wide-ranging than empathising. I don't know of any other mental distress that is responded to by services only on the basis of empathy.


----------



## TikkiB (Sep 23, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> this is utter bullshit. I'm really not refusing to engage with women. I'm refusing to engage with transphobia. I don;t even know if half the posters on here are men or women. I'm pretty sure Athos is a man though.


Weepiper was writing about her experience as a young woman, and you dismissed her experience out of hand.  

That wasn't transphobia, that was one woman telling another woman about her experience.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 23, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> go on call me a misogynist man - I'm waiting for that. I know some of you are thinking it.


No-one here thinks you're a trans chauvinist.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Sep 23, 2017)

bimble said:


> Clair De Lune 's post a couple of pages back, I've been trying to let it soak in a bit what she said about how sometimes you just have to accept that you don't understand a thing and that your not understanding it doesn't make it any less true or less real.
> I think basically for me thats the nub of it: I'm in the habit of feeling entitled to understand or relate to something so if I can't get the answers I want that will fully satisfy my curiosity that's difficult and uncomfortable, its hard to just accept that I don't get it. In this case - re what does it mean to be trans, what does it consist of-  I reckon its my 'job' to just accept that I may never get it, that's just how it is and I have to be ok with not understanding it basically, which is a little bit hard because i'm not used to making that effort, putting my desire to make sense of it to one side and accepting my ignorance. Probably just stating the blindingly obvious sorry.


 A dear friend of mine (who happens to be trans) taught me that. She gets people shouting at her in the street 'are you a man?' 'are you a sex change?' and when she just smiles and doesn't respond they get angry and say ' I just don't understand??' and she says 'so what? what is there to get? you don't have to understand'

I'm in the don't fully understand camp, so I appreciate the confusion and wanting to make it fit in a way that makes sense. The bit I have come to fully accept is that my son is a boy and my best mate is a woman. There is no doubt there for me anymore. Do I treat them differently than I did before? Nope cos I don't believe in that.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 23, 2017)

Jonti said:


> No-one here thinks you're a chauvinist.


She's a fucking liar though


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 23, 2017)

.


----------



## Sue (Sep 23, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> It's a cliche but you'll only seek enlightment by engaging with me not just seeking to attack me, trip me up or make up lies.


 Stella, it feels very much like you're not listening to/engaging with people on the thread. Which it is absolutely your right to do. But please don't accuse people of doing things they haven't, like trashpony (for example) who clearly didn't say what you claimed she did.

Maybe you need to step away for a bit if this thread is making you feel bad?


----------



## Athos (Sep 23, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> The concern on here is fake because the only people who have asked if I'm ok - in relation to the increased dysphoria that I'm experiencing now by discussing this stuff are other trans people.



That might be because you've alienated a lot of others with dishonest name-calling.



AuntiStella said:


> And yet so many demand that I engage with you so you understand.



This is dishonest; nobody demands that.



AuntiStella said:


> It's a cliche but you'll only seek enlightment by actually engaging with me not just seeking to attack me, trip me up or make up lies I have to answer.



This is dishonest;  nobody is attacking you.



AuntiStella said:


> I'm not going to let you ruin my weekend.



Good. Nobody wants that. I'm glad you're taking responsibility for your own wellbeing. 



AuntiStella said:


> It's clear from the way you other me and demand that I "engage with women" that you don't accept me as a woman.



This is dishonest.  I accept you as a woman, always have, and have been at pains to say so.



AuntiStella said:


> Until that happens I can't discuss anything with you because you will always use my "maleness" to attack me.



This is dishonest; nobody here had done that.

I thought carefully whether to say 'dishonest' or 'untrue', given you might genuinely believe what you say. But, you're a grown woman, so it's incumbent on you to check what you say, before you say it, even if feels that way, especially when slinging accusations at others.  Being repeatedly reckless with the truth crosses the line into dishonesty.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 23, 2017)

> you'll only seek enlightment by actually engaging with me


Sounds like the victim of a cult.


----------



## TikkiB (Sep 23, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> T
> 
> It's clear from the way you other me and demand that I "engage with women" that you don't accept me as a woman. Until that happens I can't discuss anything with you because you will always use my "maleness" to attack me.



What i actually said was 'engage with OTHER women'.  

I accept you fully as a woman, but that does not mean that I don't have the right to point out that you dismissed the experiences of other women, when at the same time you are calling for acceptance of your own experience.


----------



## iona (Sep 23, 2017)

bimble said:


> For me, when you explain that being trans has nothing to do with gender expression it leaves me feeling totally clueless about what trans does mean. That's a bit difficult for me, the fact that I just don't get it,  but doesn't make it your job to satisfy my curiosity and explain things to me so that i can feel like I do fully understand.
> 
> I would like to know though, does it matter to you either way whether I (cis person) understand what it means to be trans - or does it actually only matter that I respect you as a person and treat you how you wish to be treated ?



I'm not the poster you quoted but I can give another trans person's perspective on this if you're interested.

I'm not a ... whatever kind of scientist looks at this stuff (?) I'm not one of them so I don't know if this is right, but something that made a lot of sense to me when I read it in a discussion was the idea that gender ROLES etc are a social construct, but having some kind of internal gender identity is inate. (I think that was touched on earlier in the thread, a suggestion that there's a genetic element?). _As a side note, I do wonder whether it's even possible to get rid of gender roles etc completely or whether the best we can hope for is stereotypes that are much less harmful, not linked to oppression etc and not enforced._

So anyway, you have your internal gender identity which is who you are; gender roles which is what society says [gender] should do; and gender expression which is how you express your identity through manipulation of the roles available. They're not entirely separate things, but gender expression and identity aren't linked in a simple, x=y way.

To give a personal example, I didn't choose to transition so I can lift weights and do martial arts and have short hair. I could, and did, do all of those things as a (often gnc) woman. Being masculine or feminine wasn't the problem - being a woman was the problem, for me. I chose to transition because my body on testosterone is so, so right and wonderful and having breasts is just wrong. I chose to transition because as far back as age 4 I remember looking at the boys, or later men, and having a feeling that I should be there. Not because of anything they were doing, just a certainty that _I should be in that group too._

There's a thousand little things I could list and none of them are specifically what determines my gender, but they all add up to a bigger picture.

Some of the "masculine" stuff I do is unconscious; I just do it without thinking and always have done. Some is a choice but unrelated to gender expression; I do it because I want to, not because it makes me male or female. Some is a choice and related to gender expression; I do it because it's easier, or I don't want to draw attention to myself at that moment, or to avoid being read as female.
Same with "feminine" things. Some are unconscious; I just do them without thinking. Some are intentional; I do them because it's who I am or what I want to do. Some I do intentionally because fuck nonsense gender bullshit.

Cis people do the same thing. We can all choose how and to what extent we use gender expression & roles/stereotypes to express our gender. They only express gender though, not determine it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 23, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> The concern on here is fake because the only people who have asked if I'm ok - in relation to the increased dysphoria that I'm experiencing now by discussing this stuff are other trans people.



On this thread, which I've followed closely, I'm pretty sure this is the first you've mentioned that you're experiencing increased dysphoria. How could anyone show concern for something you haven't mentioned? 

I'm sorry if you find various posters' attempts to engage to be 'demands'. I'm pretty sure they're not intended to be. But you yourself have failed to engage several times now, to the extent of badly misrepresenting two other posters as you go on the attack. I've yet to see you acknowledge that. This is not all everyone else's fault.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 23, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> go on call me a misogynist man - I'm waiting for that. I know some of you are thinking it.


You fucking twat.


----------



## Athos (Sep 23, 2017)

iona said:


> I'm not the poster you quoted but I can give another trans person's perspective on this if you're interested.
> 
> I'm not a ... whatever kind of scientist looks at this stuff (?) I'm not one of them so I don't know if this is right, but something that made a lot of sense to me when I read it in a discussion was the idea that gender ROLES etc are a social construct, but having some kind of internal gender identity is inate. (I think that was touched on earlier in the thread, a suggestion that there's a genetic element?). _As a side note, I do wonder whether it's even possible to get rid of gender roles etc completely or whether the best we can hope for is stereotypes that are much less harmful, not linked to oppression etc and not enforced._
> 
> ...



Interesting. I think the only potentially controversial bit is the idea that gender is innate. Can you understand why, for women in particular, there's a reluctance to accept this without sufficient scientific evidence, given that the idea of innate psychological/behavioural differences between the sexes (and the content of some of those differences) has long been a tool for the oppression of women?

Personally, as a man, it's less of an issue for me, so I'm happy to subscribe to a model where gender identity = gender (not least of all because the harm to trans purple that can arise from not doing so).  But, unlike too many trans people, I wouldn't seek to stop women having the discussion.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 23, 2017)

iona said:


> I'm not the poster you quoted but I can give another trans person's perspective on this if you're interested.
> 
> I'm not a ... whatever kind of scientist looks at this stuff (?) I'm not one of them so I don't know if this is right, but something that made a lot of sense to me when I read it in a discussion was the idea that gender ROLES etc are a social construct, but having some kind of internal gender identity is inate. (I think that was touched on earlier in the thread, a suggestion that there's a genetic element?). _As a side note, I do wonder whether it's even possible to get rid of gender roles etc completely or whether the best we can hope for is stereotypes that are much less harmful, not linked to oppression etc and not enforced._
> 
> ...



Thanks for that iona. I recognise that it might be wearying for people to feel they need to understand. But at the same time, I hate the idea that it's inevitable that we're all just locked up inside ourselves and any understanding is impossible. Surely we communicate in order to try to understand each other better. I think this post has helped me to understand something more of what it is to be you. I certainly think such a thing is possible.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 23, 2017)

Athos said:


> Interesting. I think the only potentially controversial bit is the idea that gender is innate. Can you understand why, for women in particular, there's a reluctance to accept this without sufficient scientific evidence, given that the idea of innate psychological/behavioural differences between the sexes (and the content of some of those differences) has long been a tool for the oppression of women?
> 
> Personally, as a man, it's less of an issue for me, so I'm happy to subscribe to a model where gender identity = gender (not least of all because the harm to trans purple that can arise from not doing so).  But, unlike too many trans people, I wouldn't seek to stop women having the discussion.


My gender is nerd. But it's my own personal nerd, so it fits me well. It's not perfect because to some fascinating extent* it's imposed, unlike language. I think sex is just what's between my legs, it doesn't limit me as a person.

I've no idea what gender AS is, that's for her to tell me, if she feels like it.

We have a prim barbarism alright.

* almost too fascinating

eta third edit


----------



## iona (Sep 23, 2017)

Athos said:


> Interesting. I think the only potentially controversial bit is the idea that gender is innate. Can you understand why, for women in particular, there's a reluctance to accept this without sufficient scientific evidence, given that the idea of innate psychological/behavioural differences between the sexes (and the content of some of those differences) has long been a tool for the oppression of women?
> 
> Personally, as a man, it's less of an issue for me, so I'm happy to subscribe to a model where gender identity = gender (not least of all because the harm to trans purple that can arise from not doing so).  But, unlike too many trans people, I wouldn't seek to stop women having the discussion.



Like I said, I'm not an expert.

Of course I can understand resistance given the history you mention, but it seems to me that's also largely down to confusion between gender identity, expression and roles/stereotypes. Trans women (or men) aren't saying they think, feel or act a certain way because they're women (or men).


----------



## Mungy (Sep 23, 2017)

I struggle expressing my thoughts properly. So please forgive me if this gets a bit jumbled up, or doesn't quite make sense it's not intentional.

As the only openly transwoman in a fb group, I am often asked, raher indirectly about what it feels like to be a woman. I know I don't have to answer, but to not answer would be rude and ignorant. Sometimes people make comments about transwoman that my lived experience says is not correct, again I don't have to engage, but if I don't give them a real life viewpoint, they may hold my silence as conformation, or as there are no dissenting voices, that they are bang on the money.

We transpeople are a minority. People don't listen to us, even when we tell our truth, some will still insist we are the gender we were assigned at birth, we have some kind of mental problem, you can always tell who is trans and who isn't that we never "pass", that we are perverts, that we are stereotypes and hold back society becoming genderless. Our voices are small, we are made to feel small by the low level drip  drip of tiny drops of transphobic rhetoric we face day to day. Even people trying to be helpful, we can't shine a light on it to make everything clear so you can understand us, what we go through each day, what we compartmentalise each day.

I read a post on the fb i am part of, in response to a video I put up of a transman clearly delighted with his constructed penis, I could see the sheer happiness of being in his face, the same joy I felt when I realised I wasn't a freak, but trans. The comment was "She hasn't got a penis, that just a bit of thigh muscle rolled up" That was just fucking horrible to read the first time, it's horrible to read now and horrible to post. I'm sure he knows it's just leg muscle, he has the scars to prove it, but he will bury that, compartmentalise it, come to terms with it in some way that he has a penis and can have a normal life as a man - standing up at peeing was high on his list, if I remember right.

We do just want to be accepted be that as trans*, as woman, as a man, as whatever we are. We want a bit of respect and dignity and to live our lives as part of society.

I had more to say, but i think I made the points I wanted to without the extra words.


----------



## Athos (Sep 23, 2017)

iona said:


> Like I said, I'm not an expert.
> 
> Of course I can understand resistance given the history you mention, but it seems to me that's also largely down to confusion between gender identity, expression and roles/stereotypes. Trans women (or men) aren't saying they think, feel or act a certain way because they're women (or men).



 No, I realise you're not saying that trans people are saying that.  I think it's more about that being a consequence of the idea that gender is innate.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 23, 2017)

nt


----------



## Clair De Lune (Sep 23, 2017)

That was a really good post iona


----------



## killer b (Sep 23, 2017)

Jonti said:


> Jonti said:
> 
> 
> > My gender is nerd. But it's my own personal nerd, so it fits me perfectly. I think sex is just what's between my legs, it doesn't limit me in any way.
> ...


It was shit first time round.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 23, 2017)

bimble said:


> For me, when you explain that being trans has nothing to do with gender expression it leaves me feeling totally clueless about what trans does mean. That's a bit difficult for me, the fact that I just don't get it,  but doesn't make it your job to satisfy my curiosity and explain things to me so that i can feel like I do fully understand.
> 
> I would like to know though, does it matter to you either way whether I (cis person) understand what it means to be trans - or does it actually only matter that I respect you as a person and treat you how you wish to be treated ?


Challenging.


----------



## iona (Sep 23, 2017)

Athos said:


> No, I realise you're not saying that trans people are saying that.  I think it's more about that being a consequence of the idea that gender is innate.



Well it doesn't have to be.

We all just need to stop policing gender roles and oppressing people, then it wouldn't even be an issue. Simple.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 23, 2017)

Clair De Lune said:


> That was a really good post iona


It was. Thank you iona


----------



## Jonti (Sep 23, 2017)

killer b said:


> It was shit first time round.


Just thinking aloud.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 23, 2017)

Jonti said:


> Because it's a minefield using the term.
> 
> Still laughing. Poor FP
> 
> Whatever happened...


Think I might have found a minefield


----------



## Athos (Sep 23, 2017)

iona said:


> Well it doesn't have to be.



That's wishing away sexism. Not sure it's that simple, sadly.  



iona said:


> We all just need to stop policing gender roles and oppressing people, then it wouldn't even be an issue. Simple.



But this I agree.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 23, 2017)

just to say - I'm more than happy to talk about this stuff one to one with anyone on these boards. Even Athos.

But I'm not prepared to sit here on a public forum and be a target for anyone to have a go.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 23, 2017)

.


----------



## Athos (Sep 23, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> just to say - I'm more than happy to talk about this stuff one to one with anyone on these boards. Even Athos.



 And I'm sure that if we did chat in real life, you'd see I'm not the bogey-terf you've built me up to be. 

Enjoy the rest of Bi Visibility day.


----------



## Voley (Sep 23, 2017)

iona said:


> I'm not the poster you quoted but I can give another trans person's perspective on this if you're interested.
> 
> I'm not a ... whatever kind of scientist looks at this stuff (?) I'm not one of them so I don't know if this is right, but something that made a lot of sense to me when I read it in a discussion was the idea that gender ROLES etc are a social construct, but having some kind of internal gender identity is inate. (I think that was touched on earlier in the thread, a suggestion that there's a genetic element?). _As a side note, I do wonder whether it's even possible to get rid of gender roles etc completely or whether the best we can hope for is stereotypes that are much less harmful, not linked to oppression etc and not enforced._
> 
> ...


This is a great post. Really helpful, iona. I know nothing about trans issues and that's really helped, thanks.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 23, 2017)

Jonti said:


> Challenging.


fucking hell


----------



## smokedout (Sep 23, 2017)

Red Cat said:


> I said that we have a responsibility to take into account the potential harm of treatment which means the attempt to understand is necessary. That would also be the case for not intervening.



The early evidence shows using hormone blockers has a good outcome: Young Adult Psychological Outcome After Puberty Suppression and Gender Reassignment | Articles | Pediatrics
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2014/09/02/peds.2013-2958
A bigger study is in progress.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 23, 2017)

smokedout said:


> The early evidence shows using hormone blockers has a good outcome: Young Adult Psychological Outcome After Puberty Suppression and Gender Reassignment | Articles | Pediatrics
> A bigger study is in progress.


And what about the physical outcome?


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 23, 2017)

can someone give minutes of the last 30 pages please?


----------



## trashpony (Sep 23, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> can someone give minutes of the last 30 pages please?


I said I was worried about the lifelong impact of drugs on children. Stella ranted on the basis of things I hadn't said and hasn't apologised. iona made a cracking post explaining gender dysphoria to those of us who don't experience it. There was a fair bit of shouting. Stella told us she hated everyone but kept coming back again to say 'and another thing!'

So normal urban


----------



## smokedout (Sep 23, 2017)

trashpony said:


> And what about the physical outcome?



Been used for a long time to treat other conditions, considered safe, some concerns about bone density but latest research seems to indicate not a problem: 



> Full-blown puberty is irreversible, but for transgender children, it’s no longer inevitable. By taking a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist, secretion of the sex hormones can be stopped and the onset of puberty suppressed, so that the body does not develop secondary sex characteristics. This has been done safely for decades to suppress sex hormones in children who develop too early, a condition known as precocious puberty. Suppressors have also been used to treat endometriosis, uterine fibroids and prostate cancer.
> 
> It was only in 2008 that the Endocrine Society approved puberty suppressors as a treatment for transgender adolescents as young as 12 years old. The Society, with members in more than 100 countries, has since declared that the intervention appears to be safe and effective. In 2011 the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), also issued Standards of Care for the treatment of patients with gender dysphoria, which include puberty suppression.
> 
> There are few reported side effects to this off-label use of sex hormone suppressors. Despite early concerns that blocking sex hormones might harm bone development, a recent study from the Netherlands found no evidence of long-term effects on bone mineral density. If the suppressors are halted, puberty resumes as if there had been no treatment.



Puberty blockers may improve the mental health of transgender adolescents


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 23, 2017)

this touches on most of the things if yer bored and wanna watch a lecture

it's good


----------



## Red Cat (Sep 23, 2017)

smokedout said:


> The early evidence shows using hormone blockers has a good outcome: Young Adult Psychological Outcome After Puberty Suppression and Gender Reassignment | Articles | Pediatrics
> A bigger study is in progress.



Thanks for the links.

I haven't actually argued for or against any kind of treatment on this thread. I was saying that however uncomfortable it may be when there is an attempt by others to understand there is a social responsibility to _attempt _that when the issue is about medical treatment, particularly medical treatment for children. That includes the evidence.


----------



## Red Cat (Sep 23, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> this touches on most of the things if yer bored and wanna watch a lecture
> 
> it's good




Thanks, that looks very interesting, just watched the first 5 mins, will watch the rest later.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 23, 2017)

Just to make a random comment


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 23, 2017)

trashpony said:


> I said I was worried about the lifelong impact of drugs on children. Stella ranted on the basis of things I hadn't said and hasn't apologised. iona made a cracking post explaining gender dysphoria to those of us who don't experience it. There was a fair bit of shouting. Stella told us she hated everyone but kept coming back again to say 'and another thing!'
> 
> So normal urban



What about the impact of capitalism on kids, or ubiquitous social media, or our increasingly demented school system? We're happy to inflict all that shit on kids with no real understanding of the long term effects and, unlike with puberty blocking drugs, no choice on the part of the child.


----------



## Red Cat (Sep 23, 2017)

Jonti said:


> Just to make a random comment



Is that in response to me? I was acknowledging it looked interesting based on the few minutes I watched, but I'm getting my youngest to bed atm.


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 23, 2017)

it is well interesting tho


----------



## Red Cat (Sep 23, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> What about the impact of capitalism on kids, or ubiquitous social media, or our increasingly demented school system? We're happy to inflict all that shit on kids with no real understanding of the long term effects and, unlike with puberty blocking drugs, no choice on the part of the child.



Who is this we? I'm not happy about that at all and I wouldn't assume others were either.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 23, 2017)

Red Cat said:


> Who is this we? I'm not happy about that at all and I wouldn't assume others were either.


Nor am I.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 23, 2017)

.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 23, 2017)

.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 23, 2017)

People being idiots on twitter isn't really news...


----------



## Athos (Sep 23, 2017)




----------



## Sea Star (Sep 23, 2017)

.


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 23, 2017)

I dont think this is helpful.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 23, 2017)

.


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 23, 2017)

fuckin smashing it then, carry on


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 23, 2017)

.


----------



## Athos (Sep 23, 2017)

.


----------



## iona (Sep 23, 2017)

Red Cat said:


> Is that in response to me? I was acknowledging it looked interesting based on the few minutes I watched, but I'm getting my youngest to bed atm.



No, they're just being a twat posting random irrelevant bollocks on the thread. One or two word posts or quoting their own nonsense post twice with nothing else written, that sort of thing


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 23, 2017)

.


----------



## Athos (Sep 23, 2017)

.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 23, 2017)

I know this thread has been a bit tough but I'm quite pissed off by the lack of acknowledgement that I didn't say what was alleged. How on earth can we have a reasonable discourse if this kind of shit goes on? 

You owe me an apology Stella


----------



## Jonti (Sep 24, 2017)

Jonti said:


> Challenging.





Red Cat said:


> Is that in response to me? I was acknowledging it looked interesting based on the few minutes I watched, but I'm getting my youngest to bed atm.


Nothing to be with you, thank you.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 24, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> can someone give minutes of the last 30 pages please?


random


----------



## Jonti (Sep 24, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> I dont think this is helpful.


random


----------



## Jonti (Sep 24, 2017)

You have to be very careful what you say on the internet pengaleng.


----------



## bimble (Sep 24, 2017)

Saw this (on tweeter). Pretty stark example of what FabricLiveBaby! said about how ideas about gender help people to sell the same thing twice.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Sep 24, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> this touches on most of the things if yer bored and wanna watch a lecture
> 
> it's good



I'm still watching this but for anyone who doesn't want to watch the whole way through, there are really interesting points made in the questions at the end relevant to the thread from around 57 minutes onwards


----------



## PursuedByBears (Sep 24, 2017)

trashpony said:


> I know this thread has been a bit tough but I'm quite pissed off by the lack of acknowledgement that I didn't say what was alleged. How on earth can we have a reasonable discourse if this kind of shit goes on?
> 
> You owe me an apology Stella


You're probably on ignore.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 24, 2017)

Baffled, me, but I just had a visit from SELDOC.


----------



## Athos (Sep 24, 2017)

That video is very interesting. But I'd imagine much of what's said would be very controversial to large parts of the trans community e.g. the stuff about children online telling others how to game the medical system, and the proposed response to that. 

I found the stuff about the rejection of identarian politics interesting.

Would like to understand more about the idea of indeterminacy.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 24, 2017)

> But I'd imagine much of what's said would be very controversial to large parts of the trans community e.g. the stuff about children online telling others how to game the medical system, and the proposed response to that.


Not sure what to say about this, except that the kids are alright.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Sep 24, 2017)

I've started wondering if jonti is A.I.  calling Turing.


----------



## TikkiB (Sep 24, 2017)

Clair De Lune said:


> I've started wondering if jonti is A.I.  calling Turing.


If they are A.I, I don't think they're going to pass the test.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 24, 2017)

Violence has no place in transgender debate | Letters


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 24, 2017)

Athos said:


> the stuff about children online telling others how to game the medical system, and the proposed response to that.



I dunno what bit yer referring to?


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 24, 2017)

trashpony said:


> Violence has no place in transgender debate | Letters




does violence have a place in any debate tho? I'd say no.


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 24, 2017)

Jonti said:


> You have to be very careful what you say on the internet pengaleng.




You have to be very careful who you talk to on the internet jonti.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 24, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> does violence have a place in any debate tho? I'd say no.


No, it doesn't. But it's been condoned by quite a few people on this thread who as good as said she was asking for it


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 24, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> just to say - I'm more than happy to talk about this stuff one to one with anyone on these boards. Even Athos.
> 
> But I'm not prepared to sit here on a public forum and be a target for anyone to have a go.


Just to say, if anyone does want to chat to me and I have you on ignore you might have to post on the LGBT sofa thread to get my attention. I'm taking all  posters off ignore in there because I assume everyone will be showing respect


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 24, 2017)

trashpony said:


> I said I was worried about the lifelong impact of drugs on children. Stella ranted on the basis of things I hadn't said and hasn't apologised. iona made a cracking post explaining gender dysphoria to those of us who don't experience it. There was a fair bit of shouting. Stella told us she hated everyone but kept coming back again to say 'and another thing!'
> 
> So normal urban


Yeah that's such an accurate portrayal of my involvement. 

Well no one has apologised to me and I think I've had the rough end of the stick here.

Taking (nearly) everyone off ignore now.

Haven't said I hated anyone.

Have to look after myself

I apologise for yesterday I think I had a kind of mini breakdown. Not surprsiing really.


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 24, 2017)

i dont even know what happened i been away and i am high and trying to order takeaway


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 24, 2017)

Go for it. 

Apart from yesterday when I admit I became irrational I think I was doing ok on here.


----------



## Athos (Sep 24, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> I dunno what bit yer referring to?



From about 1:08:35.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 24, 2017)

Mungy said:


> ...my experience is that TE people try to discredit me and chip away at my existence, rather than me doing the same to them.



Because you're tolerant, and they're intolerant.  They may try to justify their position via various routes, but at the end of the day, they're intolerant, and none of their justifications hold enough water for their position to have become even a minor philosophical tendency.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 24, 2017)

i do think that me arguing about this stuff is pointless as (mostly) everyone still sees me through the lens of having once been identfied as male and that - whether you like it or not and whether you are conscious of it or not* - is the sad reality which I've had to get used to since transitioning. Fpr example - the constant attacks on me for not answering some points from some women - and even though I've pretty much mostly engaged with posters i believe to be women in this debate and that most of the people I had an issue with were posters i believe to be male i still get accused of not enaging with women. This to me says I am not accepted as a woman - as I'm always having to justify why i disagree with a woman on this subject which i have been living and breathing for about 5 years now.

What iona said in that post that some of you have rightly praised. There's nothing in there i haven't already said.

I just don't think that me talking about trans is ever going to be accepted on Urban 75 and other than if people wish to chat one to one I'm disengaging.

You'll all be a lot happier hearing it from a person who was assigned female at birth I'm sure.

*interesting study shows that people show an unconscious bias to spotting male features in people - that even observing a cis woman who is thought by the observer to be trans, 'male' features will be identified. It's why cis women sometimes experience transphobic attacks.

I've spent 5 years trying to work the internalised transphobia out of myself. I'm damned sure that most (all?) cis people who haven't had the experience of discovering they were trans, and having to come to terms with that, are going to be very transphobic in their view of the world, whether they intend to or not. Me calling a viewpoint transphobic though was often met with denials, open hostility towards me and demands for an apology.

If i can admit my intenralised transphobia then I'm sure you all can.


This is a friendly post and my last on this subject.


----------



## Athos (Sep 24, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> i do think that me arguing about this stuff is pointless as (mostly) everyone still sees me through the lens of having once been identfied as male and that - whether you like it or not and whether you are conscious of it or not - is the sad reality which I've had to get used to since transitioning. Fpr example - the constant attacks on me for not answering some points from some women - and even though I've pretty much mostly engaged with posters i believe to be women in this debate and that most of the people I had an issue with were posters i believe to be male i still get accused of not enaging with women. This to me says I am not accepted as a woman - as I'm always having to justify why i disagree with a woman on this subject which i have been living and breathing for about 5 years now.



Where are these "constant attacks on [you] for not answering some points from women"?  Yes, people ask you to justify why you disagree with women.  That's not because you're not accepted as a woman, but becasue we're all expected to justify what we say.  None of us can reasonably expect for our opinions to be immune from scrutiny becasue of our identity.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 24, 2017)

Athos said:


> Where are these "constant attacks on [you] for not answering some points from women"?  Yes, people ask you to justify why you disagree with women.  That's not because you're not accepted as a woman, but becasue we're all expected to justify what we say.  None of us can reasonably expect for our opinions to be immune from scrutiny becasue of our identity.


Athos. I'm done here. Believe me. I mean it.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Sep 24, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> Athos. I'm done here. Believe me. I mean it.



Stella, I think you should put this thread on ignore x


----------



## Athos (Sep 24, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> Me calling a viewpoint transphobic though was often met with denials, open hostility towards me and demands for an apology.



The requests for an apology on this thread haven't been that, though.  They've been examples of where you've accused people of saying something they didn't.  I'm sure you're right that all of us could benefit from some self-reflection about unconscious transphobia, but you also need to think about your conduct.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 24, 2017)

Athos said:


> Where are these "constant attacks on [you] for not answering some points from women"?  Yes, people ask you to justify why you disagree with women.  That's not because you're not accepted as a woman, but becasue we're all expected to justify what we say.  None of us can reasonably expect for our opinions to be immune from scrutiny becasue of our identity.


Damn it you've drawn me in. Yes justify things i say but no - not justifying things i didn't say.

Taking TQ's advice now and putting this on ignore


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 24, 2017)

Athos said:


> The requests for an apology on this thread haven't been that, though.  They've been examples of where you've accused people of saying something they didn't.  I'm sure you're right that all of us could benefit from some self-reflection about unconscious transphobia, but you also need to think about your conduct.


bye


----------



## Athos (Sep 24, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> Athos. I'm done here. Believe me. I mean it.



Ok, fine.  I wrote my last post before i'd seen this.  Of course, you're under no obligation to post on this thread, or any oter on this subject.  But, from my perspective, I think you have an important perspective to offer if you were able to engage a bit differently.  Maybe when you've had a breather, you'll change your mind.


----------



## TikkiB (Sep 24, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> i do think that me arguing about this stuff is pointless as (mostly) everyone still sees me through the lens of having once been identfied as male and that - whether you like it or not and whether you are conscious of it or not* - is the sad reality which I've had to get used to since transitioning. Fpr example - the constant attacks on me for not answering some points from some women - and even though I've pretty much mostly engaged with posters i believe to be women in this debate and that most of the people I had an issue with were posters i believe to be male i still get accused of not enaging with women. This to me says I am not accepted as a woman - as I'm always having to justify why i disagree with a woman on this subject which i have been living and breathing for about 5 years now.
> 
> What iona said in that post that some of you have rightly praised. There's nothing in there i haven't already said.
> 
> ...


  None of that addresses your misrepresentation of what Trashpony said though, and the way you are skating over it, is what makes it hard to discuss things with you.  Does it not occur to you that other posters who have identified as trans, and who have talked in this thread about their experiences, have been involved in discussions which have been calm and thoughtful?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 24, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> Damn it you've drawn me in. Yes justify things i say but no - not justifying things i didn't say.



You're better off avoiding the thread then. The irony of your post here is clearly lost on you.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 24, 2017)

trashpony said:


> Violence has no place in transgender debate | Letters


A perhaps pointless aside from me:
I happen to agree with the content of that letter, but marshalling the great and good to write to the guardian ain't a good look.  Does nothing to dispel the notion of this as the liberal political class talking to itself.


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 24, 2017)

I got internalised transphobia, it'd be weird if I didnt tbh.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 24, 2017)

Thimble Queen said:


> Stella, I think you should put this thread on ignore x


Yeah, god forbid she has to actually justify and argue for some of the things she's said.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Sep 24, 2017)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Yeah, god forbid she has to actually justify and argue for some of the things she's said.



Or maybe it's better for Stella's involvement in this to end. She's obviously been distressed by the interactions here. Whatever the rights and wrongs are sometimes it's best to just leave things.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 24, 2017)

An apology isn't difficult.


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 24, 2017)

Athos said:


> From about 1:08:35.




I went back and looked again, tbh it's something I have seen talked about, it kinda used to be framed in a 'this is how you do it' way due to invisibility/gatekeeping, but informed consent is more of a thing now, so the questions I see are mainly 'am i trans' and then you get a bunch of people with no qualifications in anything but their own selves telling someone they sound like they are trans < some people discuss the negative implications of this and they are the ones who will advise speaking to a therapist or going to a support group


----------



## weepiper (Sep 25, 2017)

University 'blocks transgender research'



> The fundamental reason given was that it might cause criticism of the research on social media and criticism of the research would be criticism of the university and they also added it was better not to offend people," he said.
> 
> According to the Times, it was rejected because "engaging in a potentially politically incorrect piece of research carries a risk to the university".


----------



## Wilf (Sep 25, 2017)

weepiper said:


> University 'blocks transgender research'


That's interesting, but begs a few questions.  I can see that aspects of what the bloke is researching might concern trans people and the trans community - and I don't know what his particular line is. But the interesting bit to me is whether the university itself has simply absorbed the notion that the research might be 'politically incorrect' (if that's was the actual wording used). Whether their decision is part of the internal logic of public sector 'diversity management' or whether it reflects any input at all from trans people with concerns.

Pedant point: it probably doesn't reflect any active concerns from trans people, ethics committees are internal university processes. But still, it's interesting - if the story is as reported - how they reached that decision.


----------



## Athos (Sep 25, 2017)

Surely it can't be as reported. Can it?


----------



## killer b (Sep 25, 2017)

Athos said:


> Surely it can't be as reported. Can it?


All they have is what the guy who's had his research bid turned down says. Smells a bit fishy to me.


----------



## killer b (Sep 25, 2017)

It's an actual PC gone mad story ffs. I don't think I've ever seen one which didn't turn out to be bollocks (or at least much more complex than at first glance)


----------



## Clair De Lune (Sep 25, 2017)

Given he is studying counselling and psychology, he should be well aware of not only the ethics but the risk of opening up trauma in his interviewees. Very hard to research if you don't have willing participants. Interesting though. I would like to read his research proposal to judge for myself where he was going with this/what his agenda was.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 25, 2017)

The report is pretty crap and as killer b said smells fishy to me.

Radio 4 interview mentioned in is on Today (not listened to it yet) at the 1:43 mark


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 25, 2017)

Just listened to it now, and I have to say Wilchins argument is going down a dangerous path IMO.



Wilf said:


> But the interesting bit to me is whether the university itself has simply absorbed the notion that the research might be 'politically incorrect' (if that's was the actual wording used).


In the R4 report I linked to above he directly says that wording was used, could be lying but it would be bloody stupid to do so. Of course the full context isn't known but some of the statements from the university are very, very dodgy.


----------



## Athos (Sep 25, 2017)

killer b said:


> All they have is what the guy who's had his research bid turned down says. Smells a bit fishy to me.





killer b said:


> It's an actual PC gone mad story ffs. I don't think I've ever seen one which didn't turn out to be bollocks (or at least much more complex than at first glance)



That's my suspicion.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 25, 2017)

killer b said:


> It's an actual PC gone mad story ffs. I don't think I've ever seen one which didn't turn out to be bollocks (or at least much more complex than at first glance)


To be fair, Christmas did get banned.


----------



## captainmission (Sep 25, 2017)

Article here that gives some background as to where the psychotherapist is coming from.



> Caspian, who has left the field of gender counselling, is prepared to be the whistleblower. “We are seeing,” he says, “what Jung called a ‘collective complex’.” He compares this mass hysteria about being trapped in the wrong body to the “glass delusion”, an odd medieval phenomenon where people believed they were made of glass and might shatter. Other clinicians mention the 1990s faux scandals of satanic ritual abuse and false memory syndrome. But unlike them, gender anxiety is supercharged by the internet.
> 
> That is not to say any experts I’ve met dispute the existence of gender dysphoria or the need for better treatment and social tolerance of trans people. But they feel what they call the “trans trend” needs analysing as a cultural phenomenon as much as a medical one. “St Paul’s School suddenly has a lot of non-binary girls,” said one child gender expert, “but when I was growing up, that’s where all the anorexics went.”
> 
> There is no blood test or pathogen to diagnose you as trans; it is solely a matter of interpreting human experience. With children, the dominant interpretation that is currently shouting down all others is that, say, a boy who enjoys “female” toys or clothes must really be a girl.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 25, 2017)

Challenge


----------



## Clair De Lune (Sep 25, 2017)

For balance- on the theme of trans desistence and the most well known and possibly inaccurate studies. More thorough and less biased studies now taking place.  The pernicious junk science stalking trans kids


----------



## Athos (Sep 25, 2017)

captainmission said:


> Article here that gives some background as to where the psychotherapist is coming from.



Not sure that takes us much further.  But what would be conclusive is publication of the university's written decision, which, 'strangely' the press don't claim to have seen. I suspect they didn't formally give the reasons claimed. (Which, of course, doesn't mean that's not the real reason, just that it's not proven.)


----------



## campanula (Sep 25, 2017)

I started to read the above article (thank you, Claire de Lune) but stopped in confusion after reading that the totals of childrens desisting transition did not stack up 'because they were not trans to begin with'...and at this point, my brain collapsed since it seems we are still awash in misconceptions, assumptions, misidentifications. Obviously, still early days and I am uncomfortably reminded of another syndrome which was (claimed) to be internet driven - the strange case of Morgellons. Presumably, a child does not wake up one day and insist that they have issues with gender assignment (my youngest went through a three year stage of dressing in female (?) clothing, playing only with other girls and showing a huge sensitivity towards the feel of various fabrics, styles of clothing, colours and scents...as well as expressing an alarming range of tics, grunts, twitches) but I admit to being adrift...and also needing to examine some of the varying and inconsistent demands made by children at various stages of their social, emotional and physical development.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 25, 2017)

campanula said:


> I started to read the above article (thank you, Claire de Lune) but stopped in confusion after reading that the totals of childrens desisting transition did not stack up 'because they were not trans to begin with'...and at this point, my brain collapsed since it seems we are still awash in misconceptions, assumptions, misidentifications. Obviously, still early days and I am uncomfortably reminded of another syndrome which was (claimed) to be internet driven - the strange case of Morgellons. Presumably, a child does not wake up one day and insist that they have issues with gender assignment (my youngest went through a three year stage of dressing in female (?) clothing, playing only with other girls and showing a huge sensitivity towards the feel of various fabrics, styles of clothing, colours and scents...as well as expressing an alarming range of tics, grunts, twitches) but I admit to being adrift...and also needing to examine some of the varying and inconsistent demands made by children at various stages of their social, emotional and physical development.


The article goes into that. It's a problem faced surrounding many psychiatric disorders and the DSM, the 'bible' of many psychiatrists, whose diagnostic criteria can change drastically over time (or, in the case of homosexuality, disappear entirely). So the DSM has changed its diagnostic criteria, insisting that 'desire to be or insisting that you are the other sex' is essential to a diagnosis, but old studies were done using the old criteria. It's the old junk in-junk out argument.


----------



## snadge (Sep 25, 2017)

There is also the autism angle.

The Link Between Autism and Trans Identity

Autism and (trans)gender: dysphoria, and gender fluidity in ASD

There is more info available with some reports also, some are pretty biased though.

There are a few other researchers that also have had their funding cut for the same type of research that Caspian was implementing.

Also follow the money, The Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust


----------



## bimble (Sep 25, 2017)

Its more likely that its a shit decision by someone at the university than that he had some underhand agenda, i reckon. Transgender Awareness Training | James Caspian Transgender Awareness


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 25, 2017)

snadge said:


> There is also the autism angle.
> 
> The Link Between Autism and Trans Identity
> 
> ...


Much as I like Simon Baron-Cohen, there are big problems with his 'extreme male' model of autism. We're floundering with most of this stuff really, aren't we.


----------



## snadge (Sep 25, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Much as I like Simon Baron-Cohen, there are big problems with his 'extreme male' model of autism. We're floundering with most of this stuff really, aren't we.




He has a point though, it is always the male autists that are the most destructive.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 25, 2017)

snadge said:


> He has a point though, it is always the male autists that are the most destructive.


Always?

More males are destructive than females full stop. Just take a peek at the prison populations. Suicides. Homeless. Males fuck up more than females in lots of ways. We don't have good answers for why.


----------



## snadge (Sep 25, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Always?
> 
> More males are destructive than females full stop. Just take a peek at the prison populations. Suicides. Homeless. Males fuck up more than females in lots of ways. We don't have good answers for why.




I agree, maybe all males are autistic in varying ways, I know I am, getting my nuts cut off helped that a bit.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 25, 2017)

snadge said:


> I agree, maybe all males are autistic in varying ways, I know I am, getting my nuts cut off helped that a bit.


I dunno. I'll dig out some links when I have time. I was attracted by Baron-Cohen's idea when I first read about it, but for various reasons I now don't think it really stands up. Its basic assumptions - that there exist 'male traits' and 'female traits'  like systematising or empathising - are highly questionable and not really backed up by the data, in fact there is a growing body of data saying that this really isn't true.


----------



## Red Cat (Sep 25, 2017)

snadge said:


> Also follow the money, The Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust



What do you mean by this?


----------



## snadge (Sep 25, 2017)

Red Cat said:


> What do you mean by this?



NHS budget is about £131 billion in 2017.

Getting the loose change is a huge amount in reality, I should have posted this link instead, Home - Clinic for Dissociative Studies

But the initial place does have an agenda also.


----------



## Red Cat (Sep 25, 2017)

snadge said:


> NHS budget is about £131 billion in 2017.
> 
> Getting the loose change is a huge amount in reality, I should have posted this link instead, Home - Clinic for Dissociative Studies
> 
> But the initial place does have an agenda also.



What is that agenda?


----------



## snadge (Sep 25, 2017)

Red Cat said:


> What is that agenda?



More funding. You seem to be very defensive about a trust which by nature is there to enrich people.


----------



## bimble (Sep 25, 2017)

snadge said:


> More funding. You seem to be very defensive about a trust which by nature is there to enrich people.


Are you suggesting that the Tavistock clinic in London had something to do with this man's research proposal being turned down because a study on people who want to reverse their transition would be bad for their funding? That sounds .. a bit far fetched.


----------



## snadge (Sep 25, 2017)

bimble said:


> Are you suggesting that the Tavistock clinic in London had something to do with this man's research proposal being turned down because a study on people who want to reverse their transition would be bad for their funding? That sounds .. a bit far fetched.




lol, no. They have a different agenda.


----------



## Red Cat (Sep 25, 2017)

snadge said:


> More funding. You seem to be very defensive about a trust which by nature is there to enrich people.



You weren't clear about that, because you seem to be insinuating something other than competition for funds.


----------



## bimble (Sep 25, 2017)

What then was your point snadge? You mentioned other researchers having their funding cut who wanted to do similar studies and then you said to follow the money to the Tavistock.


----------



## snadge (Sep 25, 2017)

bimble said:


> What then was your point snadge? You mentioned other researchers having their funding cut who wanted to do similar studies and then you said to follow the money to the Tavistock.




I'm following up on some investigations atm, it looks like Tavistock are looking for some of that wedge, they are late to the show and seem to be taking an unique approach to the transgender gravy train, for such a small proportion of society, there seems to be an inordinate amount of wonga available.


----------



## Red Cat (Sep 25, 2017)

snadge said:


> I'm following up on some investigations atm, it looks like Tavistock are looking for some of that wedge, they are late to the show and seem to be taking an unique approach to the transgender gravy train, for such a small proportion of society, there seems to be an inordinate amount of wonga available.



I still don't understand what you're saying. Can you try and speak more plainly please.

The Tavistick has the oldest GI clinic in the country (for young people). What do you mean it's late to the show?

eta looks like the Tavistock has taken over the GI clinic in Hammersmith, is that what you're referring to? I'll read some more.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 25, 2017)

Assigned female at birth is almost a bullshit acronym because the assigned can easily be taken to mean assessed and AFAB is a bullshit acronym.

The medically useful term is natal female which should come as no great surprise really.

edit:  even though natal women is preferable


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 25, 2017)

assigned is just offensive to borg identities imo so i refuse to use it


----------



## Jonti (Sep 26, 2017)

If it helps, both assigned and assessed have more than one meaning.

eta: here, the assignation of female is based on an anatomical assessment at birth

eta: our sexuality (qv) is a lot to do with our anatomy, which is how we are perceived by others (but not all others, of course)


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 26, 2017)

thanks for sharing.

any reason you are?

its more to do with the mind, thats why people like shoes.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 26, 2017)

Have we really got this far thinking about gender?

eta: surely we agree that the the shoes you like your "anatomical others" to see you wearing are a lot about this idea of "gender", but I'm just a nerd. Everyone likes shoes.


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 26, 2017)

wearing? not that, no.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 26, 2017)

snadge said:


> He has a point though, it is always the male autists that are the most destructive.



Care to elaborate?


----------



## Jonti (Sep 26, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Care to elaborate?


----------



## Jonti (Sep 26, 2017)

Only androids dream of electric fish?


----------



## Jonti (Sep 26, 2017)

Good enough, but got any good adventure books for individual girls thinking they may be boys? Escaping from a submarine in your dreams sounds like something of an adventure book for girls, but still dreaming.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 26, 2017)

Something to do with essentialism, dreams, and biology if I'm a terf, and the questions are about something called electric fish.

My father was always getting mixed up with essentialism, dreams and electricity and he often gets confused with Alan Turing too, but he was definitely not a terf or a fascist, whatever that is. He called electricity "Elect trickery" if that helps.

Quite happy to talk about what that means for individual electric fish though, just not here if that means anything to people who may be electric fish?

No questions. Lots of WTF though.  There are some book titles that you just have to be extraordinarily careful to spell out exactly if you live in Brixton and can dream.

Other Minds by Peter Godfrey-Smith is one of them and I'm not dreaming.


----------



## Red Cat (Sep 26, 2017)

Can you stop fucking about?


----------



## mojo pixy (Sep 26, 2017)

snadge said:


> He has a point though, it is always the male autists that are the most destructive.



Not where I work; the person most likely to hit you or throw something in your face or smash the place up is a woman.
The autistic men I work with are all quite chill by comparison.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 26, 2017)

Perhaps we should have a discussion whether it’s black men or black women who are most likely to be violent


----------



## Clair De Lune (Sep 26, 2017)

backs away from thread. Did I drop acid...no I didn't. Hmm.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 26, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Perhaps we should have a discussion whether it’s black men or black women who are most likely to be violent



Or whether black people like being used as a yard stick.


----------



## campanula (Sep 26, 2017)

Clair De Lune said:


> backs away from thread. Did I drop acid...no I didn't. Hmm.



Tempted to scurry off quicksmart myself. Not sure whether to invest the time and effort to do the (contentious) reading...or wander off to different untroubled pastures.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 26, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Perhaps we should have a discussion whether it’s black men or black women who are most likely to be violent


Can you not do this please. Bloody hell.

Sensible discussion was threatening to break out here.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 26, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Can you not. Bloody hell.
> 
> Sensible discussion was threatening to break out here.



The sensible discussion about whether it’s autistic men or women who are ‘the most destructive’. 

A discussion started by snadge who has posted up anti autistic crap before (and refused to explain when called on it). 

You’re happy with that?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 26, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> The sensible discussion about whether it’s autistic men or women who are ‘the most destructive’.
> 
> A discussion started by snadge who has posted up anti autistic crap before (and refused to explain when called on it).
> 
> You’re happy with that?


No I'm not. But bringing in race like that is a fucking shit way to respond.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 26, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No I'm not. But bringing in race like that is a fucking shit way to respond.



It’s shit to equate disabilist hate speech to racism. Right. 

 Crack on then


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 26, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No I'm not. But bringing in race like that is a fucking shit way to respond.


Funny how people never use their own ethnicity in these shitty kinds of comparisons isn't it?


----------



## trashpony (Sep 26, 2017)

Back on track and back on my concern for the health of transpeople - on changing medical records to reflect an acquired gender: Transgender records:
"The practice is advised to explain that the patient may not be contacted for current or future screening programmes associated with the sex at birth and explain the implications of this"

I fully understand why transpeople want to move beyond their deadname but I can't see how this is a good thing


----------



## Athos (Sep 26, 2017)

trashpony said:


> Back on track and back on my concern for the health of transpeople - on changing medical records to reflect an acquired gender: Transgender records:
> "The practice is advised to explain that the patient may not be contacted for current or future screening programmes associated with the sex at birth and explain the implications of this"
> 
> I fully understand why transpeople want to move beyond their deadname but I can't see how this is a good thing



People take all sorts of risks, for all sorts of reasons. I can't see that trans adults choosing to take that risk is an issue, really.


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 26, 2017)

you can choose to not have treatment for cancer, so am pretty sure choosing not to have screening for it isnt a issue.

people still smoke with giant warnings on the packets that it will kill them.

I dont think other peoples medical choices or their records are anything to do with anyone else.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 26, 2017)

Athos said:


> People take all sorts of risks, for all sorts of reasons. I can't see that trans adults choosing to take that risk is an issue, really.


Well except there's no way of knowing if there's a higher risk of prostrate cancer or DVT or whatever in the trans population. Do we just say that's not that interesting and we don't care? How can we deliver public health programmes if we can't target those at risk?

ETA and what the is the point (and cost involved) of inviting transwomen for endless smears and mammograms?


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 26, 2017)

trashpony said:


> *Well except there's no way of knowing if there's a higher risk of prostrate cancer or DVT or whatever in the trans population*. Do we just say that's not that interesting and we don't care? How can we deliver public health programmes if we can't target those at risk?



there is when they end up with symptoms or die, the same as anyone else who doesnt go for their appt.

but people who dont go to appts generally know the risk they take.


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 26, 2017)

trashpony said:


> ETA and what the is the point (and cost involved) of inviting transwomen for endless smears and mammograms?



what happens to those who have had hysterectomies? do they still get invited for smears? if not then it'll be a similar system thats implemented, and anyone can get breast cancer. not quite sure why this was included.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 26, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> what happens to those who have had hysterectomies? do they still get invited for smears? if not then it'll be a similar system thats implemented, and anyone can get breast cancer. not quite sure why this was included.


You can still get cervical cancer if you've had a hysterectomy. And women get breast cancer in much much higher numbers than men. 

But guess this is none of my business as you and Stella have made clear.


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 26, 2017)

I aint got much interest in arguing about women, dont make out i am being a sly dickhead to you, me and stella what? I ainyt done shit all with stella or you so you need to watch the fuck what you say. 

fucking have a word with yourself.


----------



## Mungy (Sep 26, 2017)

I did have a leaflet about trans health issues. It'll be somewhere in this tip of a room. I'm supposed to be tidying it tomorrow. It had good info on it, if I find it I will read and tell you what it says, if someone hasn't already posted something up already or by then.


----------



## Mungy (Sep 26, 2017)

Screening for Life | AAA

This is the info pretty much


----------



## trashpony (Sep 26, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> I aint got much interest in arguing about women, dont make out i am being a sly dickhead to you, me and stella what? I ainyt done shit all with stella or you so you need to watch the fuck what you say.
> 
> fucking have a word with yourself.


Stella said I had faux concern and I thought you were thinking the same. 

Sorry. I'm being clumsy.


----------



## trashpony (Sep 26, 2017)

Mungy said:


> Screening for Life | AAA
> 
> This is the info pretty much


Thank you! That's a really good leaflet   

Your room is clearly a lot fucking tidier than my house


----------



## iona (Sep 26, 2017)

trashpony said:


> Well except there's no way of knowing if there's a higher risk of prostrate cancer or DVT or whatever in the trans population. Do we just say that's not that interesting and we don't care? How can we deliver public health programmes if we can't target those at risk?
> 
> ETA and what the is the point (and cost involved) of inviting transwomen for endless smears and mammograms?



I get that it's probably far from simple with something as huge and complex as the NHS, but surely just allowing the relevant screening reminders to be turned on or off for patients of whatever gender is the answer? Or some other workaround that's less work to set up but achieves the same - medical software isn't something I know about. Forcing people to remain registered as the wrong gender doesn't seem like the right solution anyway (iirc it's actually illegal to refuse to update records?) and I'm not sure what other alternatives there are.


----------



## Mungy (Sep 26, 2017)

trashpony said:


> Thank you! That's a really good leaflet
> 
> Your room is clearly a lot fucking tidier than my house


that was found on the internet. no fucking idea where anything is in this room


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 27, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> you can choose to not have treatment for cancer, so am pretty sure choosing not to have screening for it isnt a issue.
> 
> people still smoke with giant warnings on the packets that it will kill them.
> 
> I dont think other peoples medical choices or their records are anything to do with anyone else.



Until there's bad effects and people look for someone to sue. 
I'm sure you wouldn't argue for the right to choose thalidomide?


----------



## nardy (Sep 27, 2017)

Fifty two pages? FIFTY TWO???


----------



## Yu_Gi_Oh (Sep 27, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Until there's bad effects and people look for someone to sue.
> I'm sure you wouldn't argue for the right to choose thalidomide?



One's own body, and the choices one makes for it, must be allowed to be decided and defined by the individual whose body it is. How can I passionately want the right to decide whether I can have an abortion, and believe fundamentally that it's my body, my choice, yet tell transgender people they can't decide what to do with their bodies? In fact, I have serious reservations about menopausal women being denied HRT after a certain length of time. If they are aware of the risks of continuing it, and believe that the benefits outweigh those risks, then I think they should be allowed to make that call themselves, as adults. In the same way, I believe transgender people should be able to make the same call in their own use of hormones.


----------



## Athos (Sep 27, 2017)

trashpony said:


> Well except there's no way of knowing if there's a higher risk of prostrate cancer or DVT or whatever in the trans population. Do we just say that's not that interesting and we don't care? How can we deliver public health programmes if we can't target those at risk?
> 
> ETA and what the is the point (and cost involved) of inviting transwomen for endless smears and mammograms?



It's not that we're not interested, but that it's disproportionate to require trans people to be registered in the wrong gender against their will for the purposes of gathering statistical data.  And the cost of sending out those letters is pretty trivial, and could probably be worked around.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 27, 2017)

Yu_Gi_Oh said:


> One's own body, and the choices one makes for it, must be allowed to be decided and defined by the individual whose body it is. How can I passionately want the right to decide whether I can have an abortion, and believe fundamentally that it's my body, my choice, yet tell transgender people they can't decide what to do with their bodies? In fact, I have serious reservations about menopausal women being denied HRT after a certain length of time. If they are aware of the risks of continuing it, and believe that the benefits outweigh those risks, then I think they should be allowed to make that call themselves, as adults. In the same way, I believe transgender people should be able to make the same call in their own use of hormones.



I wasn't really arguing against the right to choose, more of having an unregulated pharmaceutical industry.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Sep 27, 2017)

Two local lgbt groups around here over the past few years were promoting cervical screening for trans men fwiw. One even arranged a drop in service at their centre. Trans women can have it marked on their files not to be called. I don't know about breast screening but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 27, 2017)

nardy said:


> Fifty two pages? FIFTY TWO???


Why not?  Been a few spats and the like, but it's an important thread/discussion.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 27, 2017)

Can I bring this here, please. I dont really understand the stuff on the Identity politics thread


friendofdorothy said:


> I recall when I was young, hetro nuclear family normality was the only option on offered to me. My not wanting to get married when I was young was seen as a bit odd by many of my family and my peers.
> 
> In my upbringing being single, unless you had a religious vocation, was not viewed as an acceptable option and was generally considered to be sad. Married women without children were pitied. Unmarried women with children were scandalous and a problem. Intersex children were a medical problem often subjected to surgery. Everyone had to be either totally male or totally female, and being either would limit your life choices. Being a gay male was barely legal, in no way socially acceptable and was a media joke. Lesbians were hidden by total invisibility. I'd never heard of bi or trans then. This was before recent equality legislation, mostly before the equality acts of the early 70s.
> 
> ...


----------



## Clair De Lune (Sep 28, 2017)

Good post. Sums up precisely my confusion with I.d politics. Cos so far I haven't seen anyone offer a positive solution/alternative. It's all just been criticism but no answers to what should be done instead.


----------



## Athos (Sep 28, 2017)

friendofdorothy said:


> Can I bring this here, please. I dont really understand the stuff on the Identity politics thread



I think the confusion stems from a mistaken belief that any activity which aims to improve the lot of oppressed minorities is identity politics.


----------



## Athos (Sep 28, 2017)

Clair De Lune said:


> Good post. Sums up precisely my confusion with I.d politics. Cos so far I haven't seen anyone offer a positive solution/alternative. It's all just been criticism but no answers to what should be done instead.



There's loads about the alternatives on danny la rouge 's thread.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 28, 2017)

Athos said:


> I think the confusion stems from a mistaken belief that any activity which aims to improve the lot of oppressed minorities is identity politics.


so is a womens/queer/bme campaign fighting for equal rights definitely not identity politics then? is it or isn't it - that is my confusion. 

I've read danny la rouge 's thread and I'm not the wiser. which is why I brought it here.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Sep 28, 2017)

Athos said:


> There's loads about the alternatives on danny la rouge 's thread.


I will hold my hands up and say that I am struggling to understand some of it. I have liked the posts that were clear and helped illustrate/teach me something


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 28, 2017)

tbh editor is well phobic.


----------



## Athos (Sep 28, 2017)

friendofdorothy said:


> so is a womens/queer/bme campaign fighting for equal rights definitely not identity politics then? is it or isn't it - that is my confusion.
> 
> I've read danny la rouge 's thread and I'm not the wiser. which is why I brought it here.



It may or may not be.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 28, 2017)

Athos said:


> It may or may not be.


well thats clear then!


----------



## Athos (Sep 28, 2017)

friendofdorothy said:


> well thats clear then!



I guess what I was getting at is the idea that whether or not something is ID pol doesn't simply turn on whether or not its aim is to improve the lot a certain group.  But I wonder if we're derailing this thread, and should keep it in Danny's one, on this specific topic?


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 28, 2017)

I'd still be interested to know how ID politics / Marxian structual analysis helps frame any approach to dealing with trans/ gender issues.


----------



## editor (Sep 28, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> tbh editor is well phobic.


And on that note you can fuck off for two days. I've had enough complaints about you and your LOOKATME behaviour.


----------



## Athos (Sep 28, 2017)

friendofdorothy said:


> I'd still be interested to know how ID politics / Marxian structual analysis helps frame any approach to dealing with trans/ gender issues.



Fair enough. I guess a starting point would be to think about why trans people are discriminated against under capitalism.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 29, 2017)

Athos said:


> Fair enough. I guess a starting point would be to think about why trans people are discriminated against under capitalism.


Who has access to the levers of power?  It's not just economic power that create social structure. The structures of religion have historically been just as if not more important, even though they have waned post-industrialisation.  But those religious structures have interests in buttressing the basis on which they are maintained, which includes control over sex and sexuality.


----------



## Athos (Sep 29, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Who has access to the levers of power?  It's not just economic power that create social structure. The structures of religion have historically been just as if not more important, even though they have waned post-industrialisation.  But those religious structures have interests in buttressing the basis on which they are maintained, which includes control over sex and sexuality.



You're getting into the distinction Marx makes between base and superstructure.


----------



## Athos (Sep 29, 2017)

The religions which (are allowed to) prevail reflect and typically serve material interests.  Look at way our state religion historically facilitated the transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, both explicitly (taxes and tithes), and implicitly (with ideas that those who suffer patiently in this life will be rewarded in the next).


----------



## kabbes (Sep 29, 2017)

Athos said:


> The religions which (are allowed to) prevail reflect and typically serve material interests.  Look at way our state religion historically facilitated the transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, both explicitly (taxes and tithes), and implicitly (with ideas that those who suffer patiently in this life will be rewarded in the next).


Of course, because power is power and those with it use whatever means are at their disposal to maintain it. I do think that the key element is the power, though, and not the economics.  You can just as well say that those at the top of religion used the transfer of wealth to maintain their religious interests as vice versa.  It's true both ways round, but both perspectives miss the point that it is the maintenance of power that is central.


----------



## Athos (Sep 29, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Of course, because power is power and those with it use whatever means are at their disposal to maintain it. I do think that the key element is the power, though, and not the economics.  You can just as well say that those at the top of religion used the transfer of wealth to maintain their religious interests as vice versa.  It's true both ways round, but both perspectives miss the point that it is the maintenance of power that is central.



"Religious interests" are not fixed, though.  Take homosexuality.  It went from being accepted to a crime punishable by death, when the church decided it was a heinous sin. Which coincided with a move towards celibacy in the clergy, which was the church's response to a feudalist mode of production i.e. to prevent the church's wealth being dissipated by it being passed to the eldest son.

The superstructure is informed by the base.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 29, 2017)

By religious interests, I mean the interests of those who run the religion in maintaining power, not in specific beliefs.  They will direct their rules towards the maintenance of that power.  This frequently involves manipulating economic rules as well as religious ones, such as the establishment of tithes, just as economic interests will manipulate religious rules as well as economic ones.


----------



## Athos (Sep 29, 2017)

kabbes said:


> By religious interests, I mean the interests of those who run the religion in maintaining power, not in specific beliefs.  They will direct their rules towards the maintenance of that power.  This frequently involves manipulating economic rules as well as religious ones, such as the establishment of tithes, just as economic interests will manipulate religious rules as well as economic ones.



Sorry, I'm not sure I understand the point you're making in the last few posts? Mine was that social phenomena like religions are dependent on the underlying economic structure of a society.  Is that something we agree on?


----------



## kabbes (Sep 29, 2017)

Athos said:


> Sorry, I'm not sure I understand the point you're making in the last few posts? Mine was that social phenomena like religions are dependent on the underlying economic structure of a society.  Is that something we agree on?


Yes, we agree on that.  But my point is that the reverse is also true.  Or rather, that these things are both just manifestations of the overall levers of power.  I think it is a mistake to believe that power is synonymous with economic power and that all other forms of power are merely subservient to it.  The point of power isn't to accumulate wealth -- the point of wealth is to accumulate power.

Power wants to propagate itself and it will use whatever tools it has at its disposal to manage this, be they economic, religious or anything else.


----------



## Athos (Sep 29, 2017)

kabbes said:


> I think it is a mistake to believe that power is synonymous with economic power and that all other forms of power are merely subservient to it.



Who believes that?


----------



## kabbes (Sep 29, 2017)

Athos said:


> Who believes that?


Somebody who is making a mistake.


----------



## Athos (Sep 29, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Somebody who is making a mistake.



Riiiiiight.

I'm still a bit unclear where you're going with this. Given the context in which you started down this route, am I right in thinking you're arguing that discrimination against trans people doesn't arise from the material conditions of society's way of producing and reproducing the means of human existence in the capitalist mode of production?


----------



## kabbes (Sep 29, 2017)

Athos said:


> Riiiiiight.
> 
> I'm still a bit unclear where you're going with this. Given the context in which you started down this route, am I right in thinking you're arguing that discrimination against trans people doesn't arise from the material conditions of society's way of producing and reproducing the means of human existence in the capitalist mode of production.


I'm saying that there can be other structural problems beyond the means of production.  Religious power predates capitalism and was causing problems well before the invention of abstracted wealth.  The solutions are still structural in nature, and the overlay of capitalism on top of the pre-existing strucutres of power certainly adds additional complexity to the issue, but I think it's a mistake to look for root causes to all problems purely in terms of the means of production.


----------



## Athos (Sep 29, 2017)

kabbes said:


> I'm saying that there can be other structural problems beyond the means of production.  Religious power predates capitalism and was causing problems well before the invention of abstracted wealth.  The solutions are still structural in nature, and the overlay of capitalism on top of the pre-existing strucutres of power certainly adds additional complexity to the issue, but I think it's a mistake to look for root causes to all problems purely in terms of the means of production.



You didn't really answer the specific question.

But, more importantly, you're missing the point that there was a relation of production which pre-dated capitalism, and which, at that time, formed the base upon which the superstructure rested.

In your model, where do these 'pre-existing structures' come from?


----------



## kabbes (Sep 29, 2017)

To be honest, I get what I am saying, but I have no idea whatsoever what your point is, Athos.


----------



## Athos (Sep 29, 2017)

kabbes said:


> To be honest, I get what I am saying, but I have no idea whatsoever what your point is, Athos.



What don't you understand about it?


----------



## Athos (Sep 29, 2017)

By the way, I should add some heavy caveats about the possibility of my crude simplification giving a misleading idea about Marx's conception of base/superstructure e.g. it doesn't recognise the dialectical nature of the relationship, or subtleties like the idea of relative autonomy, and might misrepresent historical materialism as a set of facts rather than an historiographical methodology.


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 29, 2017)

Athos said:


> By the way, I should add some heavy caveats about the possibility of my crude simplification giving a misleading idea about Marx's conception of base/superstructure e.g. it doesn't recognise the dialectical nature of the relationship, or subtleties like the idea of relative auronomy.




fuckin hell m8 words. wtf. its friday you know?


----------



## emanymton (Sep 29, 2017)

I think the question Athos is getting at is that while religious institutions played a role promoting homophobia and transphobia the deeper question is why those particular institutions, with that particular ideology existed at a certain point in history.


----------



## andysays (Sep 29, 2017)

Athos said:


> Riiiiiight.
> 
> I'm still a bit unclear where you're going with this. Given the context in which you started down this route, am I right in thinking you're arguing that discrimination against trans people doesn't arise from the material conditions of society's way of producing and reproducing the means of human existence in the capitalist mode of production?



Rather than asking questions like this, maybe you could attempt to explain why you think discrimination against trans people specifically *does* arise from the material conditions of society's way of producing and reproducing the means of human existence in the capitalist mode of production.

I'm not suggesting it doesn't, but I would certainly be interested to read you (or anyone) attempting to make that case rather than this cagey dance you're currently doing.


----------



## Athos (Sep 29, 2017)

andysays said:


> Rather than asking questions like this, maybe you could attempt to explain why you think discrimination against trans people specifically *does* arise from the material conditions of society's way of producing and reproducing the means of human existence in the capitalist mode of production.
> 
> I'm not suggesting it doesn't, but I would certainly be interested to read you (or anyone) attempting to make that case rather than this cagey dance you're currently doing.



At the risk of over simplifying, that capital requires the reproduction of labour, so has an interest in promoting the 'traditional' nuclear family.


----------



## belboid (Sep 29, 2017)

Capitalism, and class society in general, promotes a particular notion of the _family. _It varies slightly from place to place but is remarkably similar all over the world. That isn't entirely true for trans or gay people. The discrimination faced there has it roots in the family, true, but how it is expressed is very different.  Iran, for example, is pretty much fine with trans people, as are many many ME countries, gay people rather less so. Various ideological factors, most notably religion, have had a massive impact upon the precise nature of the oppression, so it isn't enough to simply say its economics. or that base determines superstructure.


----------



## Athos (Sep 29, 2017)

belboid said:


> Capitalism, and class society in general, promotes a particular notion of the _family. _It varies slightly from place to place but is remarkably similar all over the world. That isn't entirely true for trans or gay people. The discrimination faced there has it roots in the family, true, but how it is expressed is very different.  Iran, for example, is pretty much fine with trans people, as are many many ME countries, gay people rather less so. Various ideological factors, most notably religion, have had a massive impact upon the precise nature of the oppression, so it isn't enough to simply say its economics. or that base determines superstructure.



I wouldn't say the things in your last sentence.  That's what I was getting at in the post where I added caveats about this being a gross oversimplification.

But, whilst other factors have an impact on the expression of oppression, the fact of oppression (and here we need to look at all groups) is underpinned by the base.  Not least of all because it also underpins the other ideological factors to which you refer e.g. why do clerics have such power in Iran?


----------



## kabbes (Sep 29, 2017)

emanymton said:


> I think the question Athos is getting at is that while religious institutions played a role promoting homophobia and transphobia the deeper question is why those particular institutions, with that particular ideology existed at a certain point in history.


Ok, that I understand.

The fact that the religious, economic, military and cultural powers have always gone hand in hand is not a particular revelation though (in fact, it's rather my point).  I'm not saying that the religious structure created the economic one any more than I am claiming the reverse.  I'm saying that they developed together, all as different facets of the way power can propagate.


----------



## Athos (Sep 29, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> fuckin hell m8 words. wtf. its friday you know?


----------



## andysays (Sep 29, 2017)

Athos said:


> That capital requires the reproduction of labour, so has an interest in promoting the 'traditional' nuclear family.



On a very simple level, I agree that social/sexual norms are connected to the reproduction of labour, but the relatively small numbers of trans people who don't themselves reproduce are not significant in terms of the reproduction of labour overall. And the traditional nuclear family itself is clearly in decline, even without trans people's contribution, and not essential to the reproduction of labour either.

What we appear to have is a situation where old and now outdated social/sexual norms are still having a social influence even though they are no longer materially important, or at least important to their original extent.

But my original question asked you to focus on discrimination against trans people *specifically*, and I don't think you've done that.

You've also qualified your original answer by adding "at the risk of oversimplifying". It would be useful if you could take a little time to provide an answer which attempts not to oversimplify.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 29, 2017)

belboid said:


> Capitalism, and class society in general, promotes a particular notion of the _family. _It varies slightly from place to place but is remarkably similar all over the world. That isn't entirely true for trans or gay people. The discrimination faced there has it roots in the family, true, but how it is expressed is very different.  Iran, for example, is pretty much fine with trans people, as are many many ME countries, gay people rather less so. Various ideological factors, most notably religion, have had a massive impact upon the precise nature of the oppression, so it isn't enough to simply say its economics. or that base determines superstructure.


This does seem to me to carry the danger of post hoc ergo prompter hoc.  If you start with an observation and then derive a theory about how that observation occurred, you can't use that same observation to prove the theory.

Yes, you can theorise that family is useful for capital to propagate itself (although I would again note that the religious structures I am talking about massively pre-date capitalism).  However, you can equally note that agents outside of nuclear family structures make excellent consumers, which is one reason that the forces of capitalism are so suddenly keen to embrace gay rights.  Trans individuals can exist outside traditional family structures and be just as useful to capital.  Hell, trans individuals can also exist INSIDE traditional family structures for all capital cares.


----------



## Athos (Sep 29, 2017)

andysays said:


> On a very simple level, I agree that social/sexual norms are connected to the reproduction of labour, but the relatively small numbers of trans people who don't themselves reproduce are not significant in terms of the reproduction of labour overall. And the traditional nuclear family itself is clearly in decline, even without trans people's contribution, and not essential to the reproduction of labour either.
> 
> What we appear to have is a situation where old and now outdated social/sexual norms are still having a social influence even though they are no longer materially important, or at least important to their original extent.
> 
> ...



I don't really have the time or inclination not to oversimplify, for the purposes of this discussion, I'm afraid.

The significance is wider than the challenge to direct reproduction, there's the question of capital's need for unpaid work in reproducing labour, which requires women to accept their gender roles as carers of children. Trangenderism is a threat to those gender roles.

Also, there's questions around the value to capital of intra- working class division like transphobia.


----------



## Athos (Sep 29, 2017)

kabbes said:


> This does seem to me to carry the danger of post hoc ergo prompter hoc.  If you start with an observation and then derive a theory about how that observation occurred, you can't use that same observation to prove the theory.
> 
> Yes, you can theorise that family is useful for capital to propagate itself (although I would again note that the religious structures I am talking about massively pre-date capitalism).  However, you can equally note that agents outside of nuclear family structures make excellent consumers, which is one reason that the forces of capitalism are so suddenly keen to embrace gay rights.  Trans individuals can exist outside traditional family structures and be just as useful to capital.  Hell, trans individuals can also exist INSIDE traditional family structures for all capital cares.



They may pre-dated capitalism, but they can't predate what was then the current mode of production.  Did you have in mind any particular religious structure which you say isn't fundamentally based on the extant relations of production? And, if so, where did it come from?


----------



## andysays (Sep 29, 2017)

Athos said:


> I don't really have the time or inclination not to oversimplify, for the purposes of this discussion, I'm afraid.
> 
> The significance is wider than the challenge to direct reproduction, there's the question of capital's need for unpaid work in reproducing labour, which requires women to accept their gender roles as carers of children. Trangenderism is a threat to those gender roles.
> 
> Also, there's questions around the value to capital of intra- working class division like transphobia.



TBH, it's looking more like you don't really have the ability to go beyond oversimplification, prefering instead to make snippy criticisms like those directed at kabbes but unable to go beyond the banal yourself.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 29, 2017)

You're arguing against things I'm not saying, Athos.  In fact, you're arguing against things I'm actually saying the opposite of.


----------



## Athos (Sep 29, 2017)

andysays said:


> TBH, it's looking more like you don't really have the ability to go beyond oversimplification, prefering instead to make snippy criticisms like those directed at kabbes but unable to go beyond the banal yourself.



I didn't think I was being snippy or critical, to be honest.  But you are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Albeit it seems to be founded on a misapprehension that I'm suggesting the only way in which transgenderism might undermine the reproduction of labour is directly i.e. by trans people not reproducing, rather than indirectly i.e. by undermining gender roles.


----------



## Athos (Sep 29, 2017)

kabbes said:


> You're arguing against things I'm not saying, Athos.  In fact, you're arguing against things I'm actually saying the opposite of.



Then what point were you trying to make when you referred to religious structures pre-dating capital, in the post I quoted?


----------



## kabbes (Sep 29, 2017)

Athos said:


> Then what point were you trying to make when you referred to religious structures pre-dating capital, in the post I quoted?


It was just an observation, because belboid had specifically referred to capital, whereas the consideration of power structures needs to be more general.  It wasn't important in and of itself.


----------



## bimble (Sep 29, 2017)

Athos said:


> They may pre-dated capitalism, but they can't predate what was then the current mode of production.  Did you have in mind any particular religious structure which you say isn't fundamentally based on the extant relations of production? And, if so, where did it come from?


What actually is this? 
I thought you were arguing earlier that discrimination against trans people was in some way caused by the capitalist means of production. You know, when you said to kabbes "_am I right in thinking you're arguing that discrimination against trans people doesn't arise from the material conditions of society's way of producing and reproducing the means of human existence in the capitalist mode of production?"_

But now you're shuffling about vaguely gesturing that all discrimination ever was based on whatever the mode of production was at the time - is that right?
What was the means of production in 2nd century India ? Was the means of production responsible for the caste system that included a special place for Hijra people where they still live, as a caste apart?
(not that i'm trying to suggest a simple equivalence between hijras and trans people in western society)
I think this is nuts, to reduce all of human us and them-ness to the means of production just doesn't make sense, surely.


----------



## Athos (Sep 29, 2017)

kabbes said:


> It was just an observation, because belboid had specifically referred to capital, whereas the consideration of power structures needs to be more general.  It wasn't important in and of itself.



Fair enough.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 29, 2017)

bimble said:


> What actually is this?
> I thought you were arguing earlier that discrimination against trans people was in some way caused by the capitalist means of production. You know, when you said to kabbes "_am I right in thinking you're arguing that discrimination against trans people doesn't arise from the material conditions of society's way of producing and reproducing the means of human existence in the capitalist mode of production?"_
> 
> But now you're shuffling about vaguely gesturing that all discrimination ever was based on whatever the mode of production was at the time - is that right?
> ...



Are the different castes not in any way connected to wealth?


----------



## bimble (Sep 29, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Are the different castes not in any way connected to wealth?


Why yes Magnus, yes they are. But it doesn't overlap as neatly as you might wish, traders being often richer than priests etc. I was asking Athos about a particular thing though.

It's interesting to learn just now that Nepal, Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh have all already legally decided that there are 3 genders. A different approach due to different options available to people for centuries maybe.


----------



## Athos (Sep 29, 2017)

bimble said:


> What actually is this?
> I thought you were arguing earlier that discrimination against trans people was in some way caused by the capitalist means of production. You know, when you said to kabbes "_am I right in thinking you're arguing that discrimination against trans people doesn't arise from the material conditions of society's way of producing and reproducing the means of human existence in the capitalist mode of production?"_
> 
> But now you're shuffling about vaguely gesturing that all discrimination ever was based on whatever the mode of production was at the time - is that right? What was the means of production in 2nd century India ? Was the means of production responsible for the caste system that included a special place for 'hijra's? I think this is nuts, to reduce all of human us and them-ness to the means of production just doesn't make sense, surely.



There's no shuffling.  I think you may have misunderstood what I said.  More recently, I was talking about a contemporary aspect of the superstructure (i.e. social attitudes towards transgenderism) being based upon the current "ways of producing and reproducing..." (i.e. capitalism).  Earlier in the thread, I was talking about how, in earlier times, the superstructure was linked to what was then the base.  There's no contradication there. (And also important to note that base isn't just mode r means of production, as your post seems to suggest I'm saying.)

I'm no  expert on 2nd centuary India, but, in _'The Future Results of British Rule in India'_ Marx argued that the caste system of India was based on the hereditary division of labour.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 29, 2017)

This is a pretty good critique of identity politics. 



> The meaning of solidarity has transformed. Politically, the sense of belonging to a group or collective has historically been expressed in two broad forms: through the politics of identity and through the politics of solidarity. The former stresses attachment to common identities based on such categories as race, nation, gender or culture. The latter draws people into a collective not because of a given identity but to further a political or social goal. Where the politics of identity divides, the politics of solidarity finds collective purpose across the fissures of race or gender, sexuality or religion, culture or nation. But it is the politics of solidarity that has crumbled over the past two decades as radical movements have declined. For many today, the only form of collective politics that seem possible is that rooted in identity.
> 
> ‘Solidarity’, therefore, has become increasingly defined not in political terms – as collective action in pursuit of certain political ideals – but in terms of ethnicity or culture. The answer to the question ‘In what kind of society do I want to live?’ has become shaped less by the kinds of values or institutions we want to establish, than by the group or tribe to which we imagine we belong.
> 
> NOT ALL POLITICS IS IDENTITY POLITICS


----------



## bimble (Sep 29, 2017)

Athos Of course the Indian caste system is 'based on the hereditary division of labour', it basically _Is _the hereditary division of labour, isn't it?
But if it was _only_ that then arguably by sheer numbers it would have been overthrown centuries ago, by people who did not want to be toilet cleaners just because their parents were. It hasn't been because its deeply embedded in an all-embracing religious and 'moral' worldview, for want of better words. The concept of karma has a lot to answer for, has served the upper echelons very well.

Leaving India aside for now I still don't understand what you're saying though, unless its that all human prejudice and oppression (all Us versus Them groupings) should be explained primarily by reference to whatever the means of production of goods is in that place and time - is that it?


----------



## Athos (Sep 29, 2017)

bimble said:


> Athos Of course the Indian caste system is 'based on the hereditary division of labour', it basically _Is _the hereditary division of labour, isn't it?
> But if it was _only_ that then arguably by sheer numbers it would have been overthrown centuries ago, but it hasn't been because its deeply embedded in an all-embracing religious and 'moral' worldview, for want of better words. The concept of karma has a lot to answer for, has served the upper echelons very well.



Exactly!  The moral worldview is the superstructure that grows from the base (part of which is the reations of production, one of which is the division of labour), and, importantly, bolsters it.



bimble said:


> Leaving India aside for now I still don't understand what you're saying though, unless its that all human prejudice and oppression (all Us versus Them groupings) should be explained with reference to whatever the means of production of goods is in that place and time - is that it?



No.  Take a look at some of the stuff on the web about base and superstructure, and you'll get a clearer idea.


----------



## Red Cat (Sep 30, 2017)

kabbes said:


> This does seem to me to carry the danger of post hoc ergo prompter hoc.  If you start with an observation and then derive a theory about how that observation occurred, you can't use that same observation to prove the theory.
> 
> Yes, you can theorise that family is useful for capital to propagate itself (although I would again note that the religious structures I am talking about massively pre-date capitalism).  However, you can equally note that agents outside of nuclear family structures make excellent consumers, which is one reason that the forces of capitalism are so suddenly keen to embrace gay rights.  Trans individuals can exist outside traditional family structures and be just as useful to capital.  Hell, trans individuals can also exist INSIDE traditional family structures for all capital cares.



Capital isn't a homogeneous force though, there is also conflict within capital.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 30, 2017)

I should have known it was down to the capitalists.


----------



## xenon (Sep 30, 2017)

Marx  is a hammer .


----------



## krink (Sep 30, 2017)

Gooner, surely?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 30, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> It's no less acceptable than anyone else being beaten up.  That's quite an important bit of feminism, TBH.  And sixty is middle aged.  It's a decade younger than Trump, and I don't think he's so frail as not to be fair game in a street fight.
> 
> And reading her fb post, if those kind of views are typical for her, then I can see why people might be a bit fucked off with her.   Like, if you're a rabid anti-immigration type and you turn up to that place in Croydon where they process people's leave to remain,  filming people and mouthing off about immigration... you can't be too shocked if you get a slap.


Well, yes you can. No one is entitled to strike another, unless in self defence.


----------



## Athos (Sep 30, 2017)

Sasaferrato said:


> Well, yes you can. No one is entitled to strike another, unless in self defence.



I guess it's the diffrence between saying somethng is predictable and something is justified.

My issue with some of what happened on this thread is that, whilst it purports to be the former, the subtext is very much the latter.  People saying this woman cant be surprised, in a way they wouldn't dream of saying that e.g. a muslim shoulldn't be surprised at getting hit at an EDL rally.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 30, 2017)

Sasaferrato said:


> Well, yes you can. No one is entitled to strike another, unless in self defence.



Or unless ordered to do so by your superiors.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 30, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Or unless ordered to do so by your superiors.



I was responding to a specific post, within the context of this thread. 

Your post concerns a much wider scenario, and probably could benefit from its own thread.


----------



## emanymton (Sep 30, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> I should have known it was down to the capitalists.


But it's not. Sexism, rascsim, homophobia and transphobia, do not exist because a group of rich White men meet in some shadowery room to smoke cigars and plot oppression. They exist because they benefit capitalism as a system by helping to facilitate the extraction of surplus value. Some form of oppression and prejudice has existed in all forms of class society (by which I mean an society in which the direct producers loose control over some or all of what they produce). I would guess they will exist in any society in which scarcity or competition for resources exists. 

The exact type of oppression and how it manifests and the ideological justification for it will vary from place to place and time to time. The prejudice we see around us today, did not exist in the same way under feudalism. As capitalism emerged it emphasised the importance of reason and science. And so oppression begins to assume a verner of scientific rationality. Rascsim is biological, sexism is explained by differing brain chemistry, homosexually becomes a disease to be 'cured' and so on. At the same time the old prejudices lumber on, updating and adapting themselves to new times but still rooted in the past. 'The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living'. As some bloke with a beard once said.

The form of oppression changes over time as the capitalist system changes and seeks to find the best way to maximise profits. But the old oppressions do not vanish, they sit alongside each other at times contradicting each other and creating conflict within the system. 

In the earliest factories women and children worked hours as long as the men, but it was unsustainable as the working class, was essentially working itself to death. The factory acts limited the working hours of women and children and allows the working class to reproduce itself. This required an act of parliament because any single factory doing so would become less profitable. It had to be enforced on all of the equally. 

Eventually the ideology of the nuclear family emerged, with the male breadwinner and stay at home housewife. Of course this was always more of an ideal than a reality for much of the working class. 

But capitalism always needs to expand its workforce so eventually more and more women return to being workers. Throughout all these stages women have been oppressed, but the nature of that oppression has changed, while retaining elements of the past. But those elements often create conflict.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 2, 2017)

chilango said:


> Since when has been ok to rock up and film a protest without permission?


Always.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 2, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why? Cos real women don't start fights?


Apparantly so. Not like beastly men.


----------



## Fatuous Sunbeam (Oct 2, 2017)

I only read the first few pages in this thread and I guess it's moved on a lot but I did see the victim of the assault being called a 'renowned transphobe' on what evidence I do not know but evidence doesn't seem to be much of a concern when people want to silence women criticising transgender ideology. She was a renowned skeptic blogger until a couple of years ago and has recently updated her blog with a full account of what happened from her perspective. Sorry if it's been posted before. 
When vicious entitled thugs attack, I fight back!


----------



## editor (Oct 2, 2017)

chilango said:


> Since when has been ok to rock up and film a protest without permission?


Isn't one of the primary aims of a protest to attract media attention?


----------



## The Flying Pig (Oct 2, 2017)

Finally made up my mind that the people that attacked that 60 year old woman are just a bunch of bullying arseholes and are unfortunately just children of our time. Confused lock stock and barrel by the capitalist system into turning on other more similar to themselves that they are too indoctrinated to see.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 2, 2017)

editor said:


> Isn't one of the primary aims of a protest to attract media attention?



Depends what kind of action.


----------



## editor (Oct 2, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Depends what kind of action.


Be a bit naive to hold any kind of protest in a public place and not expect someone to come along and film the action, particularly if it's a noisy/lively kind of protest.

Either way, if it's taking place in a public place, people don't need to ask impression to film it. Besides, it'll all be on state/police CCTV anyway.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 2, 2017)

editor said:


> Be a bit naive to hold any kind of protest in a public place and not expect someone to come along and film the action, particularly if it's a noisy/lively kind of protest.
> 
> Either way, if it's taking place in a public place, people don't need to ask impression to film it. Besides, it'll all be on state/police CCTV anyway.



Oh I agree. There’s kind of an unwritten rule in antifascism that you don’t film comrades and then publish it. But you can’t expect that to be understood outside of that context - especially if you’re rocking up as an opponent. Fash will gladly film people as well as journalists and CCTV like you say.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 2, 2017)

Sirena said:


> Can we just agree that some punchy little oik (no gender pronouns) went out looking for trouble and didn't stop till they found some?
> 
> And, in the process, set back the transgender cause and further solidified the reasons why some feminists have a problem with m/f transgenders?


Oik? They could well be a Clarissa darling.


----------



## Fatuous Sunbeam (Oct 2, 2017)

That she was filming was just as an excuse to attack someone on the other side. It's clear from the footage (there are 3 vids from different angles on her blog) that most of them didn't mind being filmed and if they didn't like it they could have told her to eff off but they didn't. The dude who took a run at her had said earlier in the day he wanted to 'fuck some terfs up' and he saw this as the chance to be a warrior but he was so inept he couldn't even swipe a camera off an old lady. Tosser.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 2, 2017)

Fatuous Sunbeam said:


> That she was filming was just as an excuse to attack someone on the other side. It's clear from the footage (there are 3 vids from different angles on her blog) that most of them didn't mind being filmed and if they didn't like it they could have told her to eff off but they didn't. The dude who took a run at her had said earlier in the day he wanted to 'fuck some terfs up' and he saw this as the chance to be a warrior but he was so inept he couldn't even swipe a camera off an old lady. Tosser.



Don’t say old and definitely don’t say lady though!


----------



## spanglechick (Oct 2, 2017)

Fatuous Sunbeam said:


> That she was filming was just as an excuse to attack someone on the other side. It's clear from the footage (there are 3 vids from different angles on her blog) that most of them didn't mind being filmed and if they didn't like it they could have told her to eff off but they didn't. The dude who took a run at her had said earlier in the day he wanted to 'fuck some terfs up' and he saw this as the chance to be a warrior but he was so inept he couldn't even swipe a camera off an old lady. Tosser.


Not a dude. Not a he.  Your prejudices are showing.


----------



## Fatuous Sunbeam (Oct 3, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> Not a dude. Not a he.  Your prejudices are showing.


So what was it then that attacked her? I mean it's not as if he introduced himself before taking a swipe at her camera and punching her and she said it was a bloke so on what grounds are you disagreeing?
Oh and I don't have any prejudices but nor would I insult a woman who's been a victim of unprovoked violence by dismissing her testimony.


----------



## Fatuous Sunbeam (Oct 3, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Don’t say old and definitely don’t say lady though!


I'm just being polite - you know she described herself as a "mad old bitch" right?


----------



## chilango (Oct 3, 2017)

editor said:


> Isn't one of the primary aims of a protest to attract media attention?



It wasn't for much of the stuff I was involved with.

However, I (grudgingly) accept that for others it may be.

I guess that's one of the distinctions between "direct action" and "protest".

No matter. It's clear I'm in a minority on this question.


----------



## iona (Oct 3, 2017)

Fatuous Sunbeam said:


> So what was it then that attacked her?


"*Who* was it?" Not "what". Your prejudices are showing again.



> I mean it's not as if he introduced himself before taking a swipe at her camera and punching her and she said it was a bloke so on what grounds are you disagreeing?
> Oh and I don't have any prejudices but nor would I insult a woman who's been a victim of unprovoked violence by dismissing her testimony.


She. Herself. Not him, himself or a bloke.

Intentionally misgendering someone isn't any more ok because someone else said it first.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 3, 2017)

Fatuous Sunbeam said:


> I'm just being polite - you know she described herself as a "mad old bitch" right?


anyone who chooses the name fatuous sunbeam deserves a ban from the off.

it would sit well among the other spam names on the ban list


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 3, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> anyone who chooses the name fatuous sunbeam deserves a ban from the off.
> 
> it would sit well among the other spam names on the ban list



Been posting for many years haven’t they?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 3, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Been posting for many years haven’t they?


no they haven't. just look at that postcount.

e2a: no posts for more than five years. until yesterday.


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 3, 2017)

iona said:


> "*Who* was it?" Not "what". Your prejudices are showing again.
> 
> 
> She. Herself. Not him, himself or a bloke.
> ...




Tara identifies as a woman. That doesn’t stop others from describing him as male (based on his biological sex), nor from arguing that that his behaviour is an example of male violence/misogyny.


----------



## Fatuous Sunbeam (Oct 3, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> anyone who chooses the name fatuous sunbeam deserves a ban from the off.
> 
> it would sit well among the other spam names on the ban list


What have you got against Wilfred Owen's poetry?

True. I hadn't posted here for years but after her blog, which I've been following for years for posts on quackery and pseudo science, I googled Maria's name to see if I could find some of the hate she describes and I found this thread. 

But in what way have I spammed? Is disagreeing called spamming these days?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 3, 2017)

Fatuous Sunbeam said:


> What have you got against Wilfred Owen's poetry?
> 
> True. I hadn't posted here for years but after her blog, which I've been following for years for posts on quackery and pseudo science, I googled Maria's name to see if I could find some of the hate she describes and I found this thread.
> 
> But in what way have I spammed? Is disagreeing called spamming these days?


spam names. those names which appear on the banned users list which the mods have annotated as spammers.

oh: and i think w.o. rather overrated.


----------



## belboid (Oct 3, 2017)

The Ravishing Beauties did a good version. (edit: actually, I've just listened to it again.  It's rubbish)


I'm not sure if Wilfred would have approved of your fibs tho. You claim both to have read the first few pages of the thread and to have seen no evidence of her being a bigot, and yet the evidence was posted on those pages.  You could try and argue that what she said wasn't bigoted, but you should at least acknowledge it is there.


----------



## Fatuous Sunbeam (Oct 3, 2017)

iona said:


> "*Who* was it?" Not "what". Your prejudices are showing again.
> 
> 
> She. Herself. Not him, himself or a bloke.
> ...



And this is the crux of the matter isn't it?

MadelnBedlam nailed it and it's ironic that this is basically the issue that got her beaten up by a bunch of MALE thugs. 

Women are concerned that proposed changes to the law are going to affect their safety and well-being by making it easier for violent men like Tara to just declare they are women. A group of women wanted to go to a public meeting to discuss the proposals, which anyone could have gone to and made their case, and men like Tara and resorted to bullying, intimidation and ultimately violence to try to silence them. The violence is widely celebrated by misogynists online and the victim, who has no history of being involved in campaigning on this issue, gets gaslighted and dismissed as a bigot.

But the most important thing in all this for some of you here is the criminal's "gender id". This is why we've ended up with rapists in women's prisons. How can you be OK with that?

You say that this violent male thug shouldn't be called "he" but you haven't said why he shouldn't be. If you actually have an argument, let's hear it otherwise stop trying to police my language.


----------



## Fatuous Sunbeam (Oct 3, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> spam names. those names which appear on the banned users list which the mods have annotated as spammers.
> 
> oh: and i think w.o. rather overrated.


That doesn't answer my question - in what way have I spammed?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 3, 2017)

Fatuous Sunbeam said:


> That doesn't answer my question - in what way have I spammed?


you seem to think i've said something i haven't. please to revisit my post and see what i in fact said.


----------



## Fatuous Sunbeam (Oct 3, 2017)

belboid said:


> The Ravishing Beauties did a good version.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if Wilfred would have approved of your fibs tho. You claim both to have read the first few pages of the thread and to have seen no evidence of her being a bigot, and yet the evidence was posted on those pages.  You could try and argue that what she said wasn't bigoted, but you should at least acknowledge it is there.


Don't accuse me of fibbing. I read the first few pages and saw no evidence of her being a bigot. Of course I saw the screenshot of what she said a few hours after she was assaulted and there is nothing bigoted in it. If you think there is, it's up to you to make that case  and you haven't done so.


----------



## belboid (Oct 3, 2017)

Fatuous Sunbeam said:


> the victim, who has no history of being involved in campaigning on this issue,


that's another lie.  She has plenty of history, she has always misgendered trans women (as you do). She has always called trans campaigners Mens Rights Activists, and talks about the 'trans cult'.  She is a bigot.


----------



## belboid (Oct 3, 2017)

Fatuous Sunbeam said:


> Don't accuse me of fibbing.


I'll stop when you do. You're doing badly so far.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 3, 2017)

Fatuous Sunbeam said:


> And this is the crux of the matter isn't it?
> 
> MadelnBedlam nailed it and it's ironic that this is basically the issue that got her beaten up by a bunch of MALE thugs.
> 
> ...


why violent men like tara and not violent people like tara?


----------



## Fatuous Sunbeam (Oct 3, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> you seem to think i've said something i haven't. please to revisit my post and see what i in fact said.


I did. I may have misunderstood but it looks as if you are accusing me of spamming and that I should be banned? If that's not what you meant then fine.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 3, 2017)

Fatuous Sunbeam said:


> I did. I may have misunderstood but it looks as if you are accusing me of spamming and that I should be banned? If that's not what you meant then fine.


yes


----------



## Fatuous Sunbeam (Oct 3, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> yes


LOL!


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 3, 2017)

Fatuous Sunbeam said:


> LOL!


yes, it's fine


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Oct 3, 2017)

Fatuous Sunbeam said:


> And this is the crux of the matter isn't it?
> 
> MadelnBedlam nailed it and it's ironic that this is basically the issue that got her beaten up by a bunch of MALE thugs.
> 
> Women are concerned that proposed changes to the law are going to affect their safety and well-being by making it easier for violent men like Tara to just declare they are women.



Seriously, how likely is that to happen?  You think violent men will "just declare" they are women, so that they can attack women?


----------



## Fatuous Sunbeam (Oct 3, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> why violent men like tara and not violent people like tara?


Why not men like Tara?


----------



## Fatuous Sunbeam (Oct 3, 2017)

belboid said:


> I'll stop when you do. You're doing badly so far.


I haven't accused you of fibbing and I'm not really interested in silly tit for tat exchanges. Now I've got work to do. I'll be back later if anyone is interested in engaging in a serious grown-up discussion about this issue.


----------



## belboid (Oct 3, 2017)

Fatuous Sunbeam said:


> I haven't accused you of fibbing and I'm not really interested in silly tit for tat exchanges. Now I've got work to do. I'll be back later if anyone is interested in engaging in a serious grown-up discussion about this issue.


Funny that.  Evidence has been posted to show your (let's be generous) factual errors, and you run away.  I wonder why?



Fatuous Sunbeam said:


> Why not men like Tara?


You are a bigot


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 3, 2017)

Fatuous Sunbeam said:


> Why not men like Tara?


because if people are going to be transgender then referring to them as men or women is going to offend and irritate. that seems an ignoble aim.


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 3, 2017)

I said something like that to my dad once, he answered _well calling a man a woman offends me_, so I called him a stupid cunt. One of a number of reasons that stupid cunt who sired me won't talk to me.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 3, 2017)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Seriously, how likely is that to happen?  You think violent men will "just declare" they are women, so that they can attack women?


I can think of at least 4 men in the last couple of months who've been reported in the media as 'just declaring' they're women since being incarcerated for raping and murdering women and girls. Given that, I can't see why violent men who haven't yet been convicted won't do the same.


----------



## belboid (Oct 3, 2017)

trashpony said:


> I can think of at least 4 men in the last couple of months who've been reported in the media as 'just declaring' they're women since being incarcerated for raping and murdering women and girls. Given that, I can't see why violent men who haven't yet been convicted won't do the same.


I have seen _one _case of a rapist being moved to a women's prison following their decision to transition. They are segregated.  Trans women in mens prisons face appalling abuse, and rape, so where should they be held?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Oct 3, 2017)

trashpony said:


> I can think of at least 4 men in the last couple of months who've been reported in the media as 'just declaring' they're women since being incarcerated for raping and murdering women and girls. Given that, I can't see why violent men who haven't yet been convicted won't do the same.



Really?  Do you have links?


----------



## trashpony (Oct 3, 2017)

belboid said:


> I have seen _one _case of a rapist being moved to a women's prison following their decision to transition. They are segregated.  Trans women in mens prisons face appalling abuse, and rape, so where should they be held?


On their own? Not with the class of people they committed a hate crime against.



ElizabethofYork said:


> Really?  Do you have links?


'Call me Lian': Child killer Ian Huntley 'has told inmates to call him by feminine version of his name'
I think this is the one that belboid mentioned: Rapist who attacked two girls 'moved to women's jail after £10k NHS sex change'
Sex swap prisoner sparks revolt among female warders at Scots jail
Transgender woman found dead in her cell at all male prison


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Oct 3, 2017)

Bloody hell, trashpony, I'm shocked.  I didn't know about any of that stuff.


----------



## belboid (Oct 3, 2017)

trashpony said:


> On their own? Not with the class of people they committed a hate crime against.


That is generally what segregated means, so I presume so. Meanwhile, other women will be sharing prison cells with other women who have assaulted and even killed women, but that's okay?  _Everyone _has the right to be safe in jail.





> 'Call me Lian': Child killer Ian Huntley 'has told inmates to call him by feminine version of his name'





> I think this is the one that belboid mentioned: Rapist who attacked two girls 'moved to women's jail after £10k NHS sex change'
> Sex swap prisoner sparks revolt among female warders at Scots jail
> Transgender woman found dead in her cell at all male prison


ffs, the last one of those people _killed themself _in a male prison. Are you really saying that was where they should have been held?


----------



## xenon (Oct 3, 2017)

It does say Huntley is not planning to transition. In any case, male offenders can't get moved to womens prisons just by saying they are now a woman.

If he did transition, then subsequently move , he'd be on the nonce wing, what ever it's called anyway, I'd have thought.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 3, 2017)

xenon said:


> It does say Huntley is not planning to transition. In any case, male offenders can't get moved to womens prisons just by saying they are now a woman.
> 
> If he did transition, then subsequently move , he'd be on the nonce wing, what ever it's called anyway, I'd have thought.



The entire crux of this debate is centred around a change in law that means someone can be legally recognised as a gender of their choosing from the moment they come out.
That’s what the kerfuffle in Hyde Park was all about.


----------



## xenon (Oct 3, 2017)

Prisoners are separated by sex though, not gender.

A person who's transitioned has changed sex legally recognisably. AFAIK.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 3, 2017)

xenon said:


> Prisoners are separated by sex though, not gender.
> 
> A person who's transitioned has changed sex legally recognisably. AFAIK.



So there’s different legal documents for sex and gender?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 3, 2017)

xenon said:


> Prisoners are separated by sex though, not gender.
> 
> A person who's transitioned has changed sex legally recognisably. AFAIK.


Legally there's no difference. In fact, I think the law is pretty confused over this stuff. A change in 'gender' allows a new birth certificate with 'sex' altered.


----------



## xenon (Oct 3, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> So there’s different legal documents for sex and gender?





littlebabyjesus said:


> Legally there's no difference. In fact, I think the law is pretty confused over this stuff. A change in 'gender' allows a new birth certificate with 'sex' altered.




I knew I should have stayed out of this thread...
Apologies trashpony

So do we think it's possible, to use Huntley as an example, by simply declairing himself to be a woman, that under the provision of the new law, he could be moved to a women's prison?

Marginel such cases might be, that's obviously a fucked up state of affairs.


----------



## belboid (Oct 3, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> The entire crux of this debate is centred around a change in law that means someone can be legally recognised as a gender of their choosing from the moment they come out.


No it doesn't. It means they can apply for a GRC at any time, something which takes up to five years at the moment. It is impossible to obtain one in less than two years. 

Surely we can all agree that that is a load of nonsense, and the process as it currently exists is fucked up and in need of change?


----------



## pengaleng (Oct 3, 2017)

I thought the change in law was in america tbh not brexit.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 3, 2017)

belboid said:


> No it doesn't. It means they can apply for a GRC at any time, something which takes up to five years at the moment. It is impossible to obtain one in less than two years.



Apologies, I’ve misread/misunderstood.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Oct 3, 2017)

What they are planning on changing is sexual reassignment (ie legal transition) as a protected characteristic,  which requires a number of standards to be met by observation,  to be changed to "gender identity" (which apperently everyone is born witg apart from a-gender people who aren't), which is based entire on self declaration with no standards.

The thing is "gender identity" is, like a soul, unmeasurable and undefibable.

That's where the problem lies. We are about to legislate for something that is undefinable and therefore unfalsifyable. Anyone can claim it just by self declaration, regardless of the truth of their statement or not it will need to be respected.

Including in places that hold vulnerable adult females (formerly women).


----------



## trashpony (Oct 3, 2017)

belboid said:


> ffs, the last one of those people _killed themself _in a male prison. Are you really saying that was where they should have been held?



I don't really care where someone who raped a 15 year old at knifepoint is held tbh but they shouldn't be held with women.


----------



## pengaleng (Oct 3, 2017)

are they tho??


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 3, 2017)

xenon said:


> I knew I should have stayed out of this thread...
> Apologies trashpony
> 
> So do we think it's possible, to use Huntley as an example, by simply declairing himself to be a woman, that under the provision of the new law, he could be moved to a women's prison?
> ...


I don't know what provisions are made in the new law. And I don't know how you solve the problem of prisons. It's a very difficult problem, one of the last remaining areas of life where questions of gender/biological sex are important. And as I said, imo the law is confused on the issue.

I just looked up the Irish case and it appears that the self-assessed legal gender change there does not apply to prison assignment. Appears to be something they haven't thought about too much. 



> Broden Giambrone of Transgender Equality Network, said that since the Gender Recognition Act 2015 people can self-determine their gender by way of a statutory declaration, yet the prison service allocated people to male and female prisons based on their genitalia or their birth certificates..



Irish Prison Service ‘has no policies to protect LGBT prisoners’


----------



## pengaleng (Oct 3, 2017)

are you saying a prison full of women wont be able to handle themselves against a single inmate? 

i bet loads of you watch orange is the new black.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 3, 2017)

Written evidence - British Association Of Gender Identity Specialists

The evidence submitted by the British Association of Gender Specialists to Maria Miller is very interesting because it raises a number of concerns - both with the current law and the proposed one. In regards to sex offenders identifying as women, it has this to say: 


> ... the ever-increasing tide of referrals of patients in prison serving long or indeterminate sentences for serious sexual offences. These vastly outnumber the number of prisoners incarcerated for more ordinary, non-sexual, offences. It has been rather naïvely suggested that nobody would seek to pretend transsexual status in prison if this were not actually the case. There are, to those of us who actually interview the prisoners, in fact very many reasons why people might pretend this. These vary from the opportunity to have trips out of prison through to a desire for a transfer to the female estate (to the same prison as a co-defendant) through to the idea that a parole board will perceive somebody who is female as being less dangerous through to a [false] belief that hormone treatment will actually render one less dangerous through to wanting a special or protected status within the prison system and even (in one very well evidenced case that a highly concerned Prison Governor brought particularly to my attention) a plethora of prison intelligence information suggesting that the driving force was a desire to make subsequent sexual offending very much easier, females being generally perceived as low risk in this regard.


----------



## pengaleng (Oct 3, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> What they are planning on changing is sexual reassignment (ie legal transition) as a protected characteristic,  which requires a number of standards to be met by observation,  to be changed to "gender identity" (which apperently everyone is born witg apart from a-gender people who aren't), which is based entire on self declaration with no standards.




change it where? laws? legislation? documentation? source?

oh you know what actually, fuck this argument, I am going to do something productive. yous carry on with yer reactionary terf shit.


----------



## belboid (Oct 3, 2017)

trashpony said:


> I don't really care where someone who raped a 15 year old at knifepoint is held tbh but they shouldn't be held with women.


isn't it great that they killed themself then? Much better than the idea that prisons should be made safer for everyone.


----------



## belboid (Oct 3, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> The thing is "gender identity" is, like a soul, unmeasurable and undefibable.


Or a bit like 'race'


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Oct 3, 2017)

Statistically the majority of women are not held in prison for violent offences, rather nonviolent offences such as (benefit) fraud or theft. 84% of women in prison are there for non violent offences.  They make up  about 4% of the entire prison population in the UK (about 4000 people) 

Men overwhelmingly are incarcerated for violent crimes. There are 84,000 male inmates in the UK. 

Clearly some of the women will be able to fight back (presumably some of the 15%) but the prisons duty is to actively protect *ALL* their inmates. Not just the strong ones.


----------



## pengaleng (Oct 3, 2017)

no one cares apart from you and two other people lol three if you count magnus

like I dont even know half this shit and like I gotta talk to a therapist about it, so I am guessing it's a full time hobby.

no one was bothered about people in prison before.


----------



## belboid (Oct 3, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Statistically the majority of women are not held in prison for violent offences, rather nonviolent offences such as (benefit) fraud or theft. 84% of women in prison are there for non violent offences.  They make up  about 4% of the entire prison population in the UK (about 4000 people)
> 
> Men overwhelmingly are incarcerated for violent crimes. There are 84,000 male inmates in the UK.
> 
> Clearly some of the women will be able to fight back (presumably some of the 15%) but the prisons duty is to actively protect *ALL* their inmates. Not just the strong ones.


And?  Who has said they should just be thrown in alongside every other woman prisoner?  That doesn't happen now with the (small number of) women who have carried out violence against other women. This is a complete misnomer.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 3, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> no one was bothered about people in prison before.


Speak for yourself. Some on here have long been bothered by issues surrounding prisons and prison reform.


----------



## pengaleng (Oct 3, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Speak for yourself. Some on here have long been bothered by issues surrounding prisons and prison reform.




ffs i cant even be arsed to reply properly to this. you missed me point. well done for being bothered about prison reform.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Oct 3, 2017)

Kind of, actually. Felungi Sheth wrote a great book about it called "toward a political philosophy of race"

Basically, racism happens through the process of racialisation is which is built on observable human features and then packaged together in rough boxes to keep a certain category of person oppressed. Ideas of race are fluid so you only need a couple of features for the oppressor to recognise you as that race.

The thing about the concept race is that it's built on observable phenomenon (ethnic background). And that observation serves white supremacy and capitalism in the form of an exploited labour force.

What you have are people from various ethnic backgrounds (observable)  being packaged into "race" boxes. Those "races" then start taking on the identity for themselves as a kind of feedback loop. And it becomes very difficult to decouple race (the social construction) to ethnic background (the observable).

Gender works in the same way pretty much with sex (sets of observable features but far more binary than ethnic heritage), being genderised in order to keep certain genders (the social construct), reproducing the workforce.

That's why "race" doesn't really exist, but racism does.

Edit to add its also why claims of "colour blindness" are problematic. Being as colour is the main observable  component of the racialisation process.


----------



## pengaleng (Oct 3, 2017)

so does transphobia.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Oct 3, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> no one cares apart from you and two other people lol three if you count magnus
> 
> like I dont even know half this shit and like I gotta talk to a therapist about it, so I am guessing it's a full time hobby.
> 
> no one was bothered about people in prison before.



I used to work in the "Violence Reduction and Suicide Prevention" department in a (male)  prison. I was reading files and photos, inputting data. 

Fucking grim it was.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 3, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> are you saying a prison full of women wont be able to handle themselves against a single inmate?
> 
> i bet loads of you watch orange is the new black.


Don't know what point you have with any of your recent posts, tbh. This one is particularly stupid.


----------



## pengaleng (Oct 3, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Don't know what point you have with any of your recent posts, tbh. This one is particularly stupid.



gonna say WHY it's stupid? come on tell me why all my posts are stupid? PM it if it's an essay. yes send me an essay on why i am stupid and I will look at it tonight when I am having my stupidity rundown for the day. I bet it's cus of how I talk. it better be good cus like yer taking time out to tell me I'm stupid so it must affect your life quite deeply. actually I might do a thread on why I am stupid so you can post it there if you see it.

tbh I think you posting about fucking monkeys all the time is fucking ridiculous.

a tiny man in the internet thinks my posts are stupid. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ give a fuck.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 3, 2017)

trashpony said:


> On their own? Not with the class of people they committed a hate crime against.
> 
> 
> 'Call me Lian': Child killer Ian Huntley 'has told inmates to call him by feminine version of his name'


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...r-ian-huntley-has-told-inmates-call-feminine/

"A Prison Service spokesman told the newspaper that Huntley was not planning transitioning to switch gender."  So not a transwoman and so will not be moved to a women's prison..



> Transgender woman found dead in her cell at all male prison



This is a story of a transwoman who killed herself whilst in a male prison. ETA sorry see above



> Sex swap prisoner sparks revolt among female warders at Scots jail



"Last year, warders at Glenochil prison near Alloa were furious when bosses told them they had to address Burns as Mighty Almighty after he changed his name.

“He files stacks of complaints and every crazy whim he comes up with, the bosses bend over backwards to accommodate him. They don’t seem to realise it only encourages him.”

 So a wind up merchant who is not diagnosed, with no plans to fully transition and as such will stay in the male prison he is in.  Also not convicted of rape or sexual assault.



> I think this is the one that belboid mentioned: Rapist who attacked two girls 'moved to women's jail after £10k NHS sex change'



As just pointed out, they have been segregated, and this seems to be the only case that has been reported.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 3, 2017)

There are no rules or laws about 'fully transitioning' (whatever that means).

At no point did I say that all four of those were being held in a women's prison. I said: 





> I can think of at least 4 men in the last couple of months who've been reported in the media as 'just declaring' they're women since being incarcerated for raping and murdering women and girls. Given that, I can't see why violent men who haven't yet been convicted won't do the same.



On what basis do you propose that Huntley and Burns are kept out of women's prisons if they decide they identify as women? Or indeed any of the other men identified in the report I linked to above?


----------



## Athos (Oct 3, 2017)

trashpony said:


> On what basis do you propose that Huntley and Burns are kept out of women's prisons if they decide they identify as women? Or indeed any of the other men identified in the report I linked to above?



Presently, one hurdle would be that they'd need a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Dropping that requirement is one aspect of the proposed change to the law.


----------



## belboid (Oct 3, 2017)

trashpony said:


> On what basis do you propose that Huntley and Burns are kept out of women's prisons if they decide they identify as women? Or indeed any of the other men identified in the report I linked to above?


the grounds that you have reason to believe that they are lying?


If you do believe them (or if they convince a court it is their right), then they should be treated as any other woman who it is believed poses a genuine risk to other inmates. You do a full risk assessment and place them where that risk is minimised, as you would any other violent woman.


----------



## Athos (Oct 3, 2017)

Those who've shown an interest in the discussions around a materialist analysis of transgenderism might be interested in this discussing of homosexuality, here: Queer Materialism


----------



## Fatuous Sunbeam (Oct 3, 2017)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Seriously, how likely is that to happen?  You think violent men will "just declare" they are women, so that they can attack women?


No, that's not what I said. However, men are just declaring they are women and the rate of male violence among men who have done so is no lower than among men who haven't. That is one of the main reasons women are challenging their right to just declare they are women.


----------



## Athos (Oct 3, 2017)

Fatuous Sunbeam said:


> No, that's not what I said. However, men are just declaring they are women and the rate of male violence among men who have done so is no lower than among men who haven't. That is one of the main reasons women are challenging their right to just declare they are women.



That's a big claim.  Any evidence?


----------



## Fatuous Sunbeam (Oct 3, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> because if people are going to be transgender then referring to them as men or women is going to offend and irritate. that seems an ignoble aim.


I think there are more important things to worry about offending and irritating violent criminals. Everyone is either a man or a woman and forcing people to refer to them by the wrong pronoun is ideological and all ideologies are or should be up for debate.

Personally I will only use what Richard Dawkins called 'courtesy pronouns' for those who deserve courtesy - which is most trans people who just trying to get on with their lives do. But men who just declare they are women yet carry on displaying male socialisation to the extent that they will use unprovoked violence don't deserve courtesy and I won't give it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 3, 2017)

Fatuous Sunbeam said:


> I think there are more important things to worry about offending and irritating violent criminals. Everyone is either a man or a woman and forcing people to refer to them by the wrong pronoun is ideological and all ideologies are or should be up for debate.
> 
> Personally I will only use what Richard Dawkins called 'courtesy pronouns' for those who deserve courtesy - which is most trans people who just trying to get on with their lives do. But men who just declare they are women yet carry on displaying male socialisation to the extent that they will use unprovoked violence don't deserve courtesy and I won't give it.


Right-ho. Men are socialised to use unprovoked violence. Don't know where you get that from, chuck, but you're talking out your arse.


----------



## Fatuous Sunbeam (Oct 3, 2017)

belboid said:


> Funny that.  Evidence has been posted to show your (let's be generous) factual errors, and you run away.  I wonder why?
> 
> You are a bigot


What? I haven't run away. I have a job and a life outside this forum - don't you? And no, calling a male thug a man doesn't make me a bigot and I have neither lied nor made any factual errors. But you have and I'll deal with them below.



belboid said:


> that's another lie.  She has plenty of history, she has always misgendered trans women (as you do). She has always called trans campaigners Mens Rights Activists, and talks about the 'trans cult'.  She is a bigot.


While you are obviously incapable of having an exchange of views without resorting to calling people liars and bigots, I must point out that if you are going to state that she has plenty of history campaigning on this issue, the onus is on you to prove it. I said she had no history of campaigning on this issue prior to being assaulted and she doesn't. You are calling her a bigot based on what she has posted since being assaulted (which is not what I mean by 'campaigning' anyway) and you have failed to explain why calling people who behave in a cultish manner 'a cult' is bigoted, especially when even trans people who are brave enough disassociate themselves from the misogyny and bigotry of most online trans activists refer to them as such. You also haven't explained why men who demand the right to be called women and invade women's spaces regardless of the feelings of women shouldn't be called men's rights activists. These are not flattering descriptions but they are hardly unreasonable in the circumstances.

Now, to turn to your factual errors:


belboid said:


> MacLachlan - aka Skepticat_uk - is a renowned transphobe who decided to video people at a protest.


Factual error number one: She is not and never has been a transphobe. In her blog she posted evidence of her previous support for trans people and it's obvious from her twitter activity that some trans people support her. What is your evidence that she's a 'renowned transphobe'. None! This is a lie probably spread by one of the online hate campaigners that you are just regurgitating.



> Someone seemingly objected to her shoving a camera in their face and slapped it away, leading to a kerfuffle. No excuse for violence, of course, but this seems a tad overblown.


Factual error two: She didn't shove a camera in anyone's face. All three of the videos posted on her blog show she was filming from a good few metres away and as I said in a previous comment, nobody told her not to film, it was just an excuse for the guy who had already said earlier in the day that he wanted to "fuck up some terfs" to attack her. 



> The person who was slightly injured had been trying to provoke the protestors. She had been sticking her camera in there faces, to what purpose?


Repetition and embellishment of factual error. Now she's deliberately trying to provoke the protestors? As you say, to what purpose would a woman of 60 isolate herself from a group of other peaceful women and deliberately try to provoke a bunch of people more than half her age? Can you really not see how stupid this accusation is? And again SHE DOES NOT STICK HER CAMERA IN ANYONE'S FACE. But when she tries to film the criminal running away, a bunch of his thuggish mates get in HER face and physically assault her. You can all this quite clearly in the videos so don't bother denying it.



belboid said:


> Shoving your camera in someone's face is always going to provoke.  Especially when such photos have frequently been used to harass and intimidate trans women.  I haven't seen anyone say the attack was 'justified', just plenty saying it was hardly surprising.


Yet another repeat of the factual error? OK, let's cut the crap and call it what it is - a straightforward lie accompanied now by a generous dollop of victim-blaming. Shame on you.


----------



## Fatuous Sunbeam (Oct 3, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Right-ho. Men are socialised to use unprovoked violence. Don't know where you get that from, chuck, but you're talking out your arse.


Either you're being deliberately obtuse or you don't understand what socialisation actually means. But leaving that aside for a moment, what would be your explanation for the fact that around 90% of violent crime is carried out by men?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 3, 2017)

Fatuous Sunbeam said:


> Either you're being deliberately obtuse or you don't understand what socialisation actually means. But leaving that aside for a moment, what would be your explanation for the fact that around 90% of violent crime is carried out by men?


I know what socialisation means, my lovely. What percentage of men commit this 90% of violent crime? Oh: and what's your source for this claim, sweetling?


----------



## belboid (Oct 3, 2017)

[QUOTE="Fatuous Sunbeam, post: 15257977, member: 25090]Personally I will only use what Richard Dawkins called 'courtesy pronouns'.[/QUOTE]
Quoting Dawkins hardly helps you on the ‘not a bigot’ front these days.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 3, 2017)

belboid said:


> Fatuous Sunbeam said:
> 
> 
> > Personally I will only use what Richard Dawkins called 'courtesy pronouns'.
> ...


fatuity shining through f.s.'s posts


----------



## Fatuous Sunbeam (Oct 3, 2017)

Athos said:


> That's a big claim.  Any evidence?


Hardly a big claim - why would the rate be expected to be any lower? Here's my source Statistics Show the Difference in Rates of Violent Crimes Against Women Committed by ‘Transwomen’ Versus Non-Transgender Males

I would of course be interested to see any sources that contradict.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 3, 2017)

As a point of order belboid has been calling mm a bigot since before she put anything on the internet post assault


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 3, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> As a point of order belboid has been calling mm a bigot since before she put anything on the internet post assault


That's not a point of order, it's a point of information.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 3, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> That's not a point of order, it's a point of information.


https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/cka/ABC-Chairmanship-Citrine/B0007JI7DQ


----------



## Fatuous Sunbeam (Oct 3, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> I know what socialisation means, my lovely. What percentage of men commit this 90% of violent crime? Oh: and what's your source for this claim, sweetling?


There are many sources from many different countries if you'd care to do a bit of research - the picture is fairly consistent. Here's one source Overview of violent crime and sexual offences - Office for National Statistics

Here's another and it's got a nice infographic you might find simpler to comprehend Fifteen years after Columbine, are we still asking the wrong questions? - Media Education Foundation | educational documentary films

What's with the 'my lovely' and 'sweetling', btw? Feeling a bit wound-up are we?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 3, 2017)

Fatuous Sunbeam said:


> There are many sources from many different countries if you'd care to do a bit of research - the picture is fairly consistent. Here's one source Overview of violent crime and sexual offences - Office for National Statistics
> 
> Here's another and it's got a nice infographic you might find simpler to comprehend Fifteen years after Columbine, are we still asking the wrong questions? - Media Education Foundation | educational documentary films
> 
> What's with the 'my lovely' and 'sweetling', btw? Feeling a bit wound-up are we?


By no means, chuck. As your sources show, the great majority of men do not commit violent crime, the marker you've selected to substantiate your assertion about male socialisation. Why not withdraw it so you don't look stupid and crass.


----------



## Fatuous Sunbeam (Oct 3, 2017)

belboid said:


> Shoving your camera in someone's face is always going to provoke.  Especially when such photos have frequently been used to harass and intimidate trans women.  I haven't seen anyone say the attack was 'justified', just plenty saying it was hardly surprising.





Pickman's model said:


> fatuity shining through f.s.'s posts



It may be the most helpful thing Dawkins has ever said outside of zoology but in any event I am reassured by the petulance and emptiness of your responses


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 3, 2017)

Oh dear oh dear Fatuous Sunbeam


----------



## Fatuous Sunbeam (Oct 3, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> By no means, chuck. As your sources show, the great majority of men do not commit violent crime, the marker you've selected to substantiate your assertion about male socialisation. Why not withdraw it so you don't look stupid and crass.


I've a better idea - why not explain why you think that of all violent crime, around 90% is committed by men? What is it about some men that makes them resort to violence when such a comparatively tiny number of women do? Do you think it's innate - something to do with their hormones? Or do you think it might be something to do with traditional ideas of gender that defines violence as something only men can do and that in fact applauds it in certain circumstances. Maybe a combination of both? What's your view? I'm all ears.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 3, 2017)

Given the er range of opinion on the subject it's to Urban's credit that more has been debated here than elsewhere


Pickman's model said:


> Right-ho. Men are socialised to use unprovoked violence. Don't know where you get that from, chuck, but you're talking out your arse.


Well it's an interesting assertion to be fair. Up there with mens genetic make up harbours violence.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 3, 2017)

Fatuous Sunbeam said:


> I've a better idea - why not explain why you think that of all violent crime, around 90% is committed by men? What is it about some men that makes them resort to violence when such a comparatively tiny number of women do? Do you think it's innate - something to do with their hormones? Or do you think it might be something to do with traditional ideas of gender that defines violence as something only men can do and that in fact applauds it in certain circumstances. Maybe a combination of both? What's your view? I'm all ears.


No.

You made a claim - a stupid claim, a crass claim, and frankly a sexist claim - that men are socialised to use unprovoked violence. Yes, some men do use unprovoked violence; the great majority do not. You should withdraw your claim and stop trying to muddy the waters.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 3, 2017)

Fatuous Sunbeam said:


> I've a better idea - why not explain why you think that of all violent crime, around 90% is committed by men? What is it about some men that makes them resort to violence when such a comparatively tiny number of women do? Do you think it's innate - something to do with their hormones? Or do you think it might be something to do with traditional ideas of gender that defines violence as something only men can do and that in fact applauds it in certain circumstances. Maybe a combination of both? What's your view? I'm all ears.


Why dont you give your own answers to those questions? I would read with interest.


----------



## Fatuous Sunbeam (Oct 3, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> As a point of order belboid has been calling mm a bigot since before she put anything on the internet post assault


I don't see how that can be true, when MM posted online about the assault within hours of being assaulted. On what grounds would belboid have been calling mm a bigot prior to that comment?



Pickman's model said:


> That's not a point of order, it's a point of information.


It's not a point of information, it's an opinion by someone who seems to be very bigoted themselves.



Pickman's model said:


> Oh dear oh dear Fatuous Sunbeam


This is probably your most intelligent comment to date.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 3, 2017)

Fatuous Sunbeam said:


> I don't see how that can be true, when MM posted online about the assault within hours of being assaulted. On what grounds would belboid have been calling mm a bigot prior to that comment?
> 
> 
> It's not a point of information, it's an opinion by someone who seems to be very bigoted themselves.
> ...


Points of order relate to the running of a meeting, sweetling. Points of information relate to what's actually being said.

As for my 'most intelligent comment' it relates to one of your cock-ups.


----------



## Athos (Oct 3, 2017)

Fatuous Sunbeam said:


> Hardly a big claim - why would the rate be expected to be any lower? Here's my source Statistics Show the Difference in Rates of Violent Crimes Against Women Committed by ‘Transwomen’ Versus Non-Transgender Males
> 
> I would of course be interested to see any sources that contradict.



Did that study control for other factors e.g. that trans women are more likely to be involved in sex work than cis men, meaning an elevated likelihood of conviction?  And did it consider the victims of their crimes, sufficient to draw the conclusion that trans women are as likely as cis men to convict violent or sexual crimes against women (rater than other sorts of crime)?  Also, didn't the correlation to which you refer only apply to those who transitioned before 1989?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 3, 2017)

Fatuous Sunbeam said:


> It may be the most helpful thing Dawkins has ever said outside of zoology but in any event I am reassured by the petulance and emptiness of your responses


What's it like to be called out for sexism, chuck?


----------



## belboid (Oct 3, 2017)

Fatuous Sunbeam said:


> What? I haven't run away. I have a job and a life outside this forum - don't you? And no, calling a male thug a man doesn't make me a bigot and I have neither lied nor made any factual errors. But you have and I'll deal with them below.


oh yes you have and oh no you wont, but lets see, shall we:




> While you are obviously incapable of having an exchange of views without resorting to calling people liars and bigots, I must point out that if you are going to state that she has plenty of history campaigning on this issue, the onus is on you to prove it. I said she had no history of campaigning on this issue prior to being assaulted and she doesn't. You are calling her a bigot based on what she has posted since being assaulted (which is not what I mean by 'campaigning' anyway) and you have failed to explain why calling people who behave in a cultish manner 'a cult' is bigoted, especially when even trans people who are brave enough disassociate themselves from the misogyny and bigotry of most online trans activists refer to them as such. You also haven't explained why men who demand the right to be called women and invade women's spaces regardless of the feelings of women shouldn't be called men's rights activists. These are not flattering descriptions but they are hardly unreasonable in the circumstances.


right, so you accept she said all these things, but think they're fine.  You're a bigot.



> Now, to turn to your factual errors:
> 
> Factual error number one: She is not and never has been a transphobe. In her blog she posted evidence of her previous support for trans people and it's obvious from her twitter activity that some trans people support her. What is your evidence that she's a 'renowned transphobe'. None! This is a lie probably spread by one of the online hate campaigners that you are just regurgitating.


Well you've just admitted she is renowned, and I maintain that her long held views of descriptions of trans people are bigoted, hence she is a renowned bigot.

It's funny, last time I looked at her website there seemed to be more articles on it.  Suddenly all but one from the last few years has disappeared.

So let's look at her twitter - "trans cult" from:Skepticat_uk - Twitter Search

Seems she has been fond of the term 'trans cult' for a while now. It's not a new thing, as you claim.  It is her whole schtick.  It is why she was at the meeting - filming people. She is a childish provocateur. Agree with her if you want (to be a bigot), but don't deny the poor woman the chance to be who she is!



> Factual error two: She didn't shove a camera in anyone's face. All three of the videos posted on her blog show she was filming from a good few metres away and as I said in a previous comment, nobody told her not to film, it was just an excuse for the guy who had already said earlier in the day that he wanted to "fuck up some terfs" to attack her.
> 
> 
> Repetition and embellishment of factual error. Now she's deliberately trying to provoke the protestors? As you say, to what purpose would a woman of 60 isolate herself from a group of other peaceful women and deliberately try to provoke a bunch of people more than half her age? Can you really not see how stupid this accusation is? And again SHE DOES NOT STICK HER CAMERA IN ANYONE'S FACE. But when she tries to film the criminal running away, a bunch of his thuggish mates get in HER face and physically assault her. You can all this quite clearly in the videos so don't bother denying it.
> ...


well, these three are all the same point.  I saw the video's, and the first one shows her wandering over there to the large group. She is shoving her camera in peoples faces.  Most people on here seemed to accept she did that, even if they were sympathetic to her.  Your denial, BLOCK CAPITALS AND ALL, is to no avail.


----------



## Fatuous Sunbeam (Oct 3, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> No.
> 
> You made a claim - a stupid claim, a crass claim, and frankly a sexist claim - that men are socialised to use unprovoked violence. Yes, some men do use unprovoked violence; the great majority do not. You should withdraw your claim and stop trying to muddy the waters.



LMAO! I'm not withdrawing a claim just because it upsets you. You've said it's stupid, crass and sexist (if you think it's sexist then you don't understand sexism, btw) it's up to you to act like a grown up and present an argument that gives the lie to my claim or go to a safe space with some crayons. 

Just to be clear because I am not at all convinced that you do actually understand what I meant:

1. I did not say or imply that all men are brought up to be violent.
2. That the vast majority of violence is carried out by men cannot be disputed.
3. This raises the question of not only why men are responsible for so much of the violence that takes place in the world; it also raises the question of why women are responsible for so little of it.
4. The claim I make is that socialisation according to traditional gender roles plays a large part in it. (I also think there are evolutionary reasons too).
5. This is why, although the people Maria was filming included a majority of women, it was the men who became violent both to her and to one of their female supporters who tried to stop them from battering her.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 3, 2017)

Fatuous Sunbeam said:


> Hardly a big claim - why would the rate be expected to be any lower? Here's my source Statistics Show the Difference in Rates of Violent Crimes Against Women Committed by ‘Transwomen’ Versus Non-Transgender Males
> 
> I would of course be interested to see any sources that contradict.



How about the author of the study that claim is based on:



> *Dhejne:* The individual in the image who is making claims about trans criminality, specifically rape likelihood, is misrepresenting the study findings. The study as a whole covers the period between 1973 and 2003. If one divides the cohort into two groups, 1973 to 1988 and 1989 to 2003, one observes that for the latter group (1989 – 2003), differences in mortality, suicide attempts and crime disappear. This means that for the 1989 to 2003 group, we did not find a male pattern of criminality.
> 
> As to the criminality metric itself, we were measuring and comparing the total number of convictions, not conviction type. We were not saying that cisgender males are convicted of crimes associated with marginalization and poverty. We didn’t control for that and we were certainly not saying that we found that trans women were a rape risk. What we were saying was that for the 1973 to 1988 cohort group and the cisgender male group, both experienced similar _rates_ of convictions. As I said, this pattern is _not_ observed in the 1989 to 2003 cohort group.


----------



## Athos (Oct 3, 2017)

Fatuous Sunbeam said:


> LMAO! I'm not withdrawing a claim just because it upsets you. You've said it's stupid, crass and sexist (if you think it's sexist then you don't understand sexism, btw) it's up to you to act like a grown up and present an argument that gives the lie to my claim or go to a safe space with some crayons.
> 
> Just to be clear because I am not at all convinced that you do actually understand what I meant:
> 
> ...



Even if (and it's only an 'if') one to four are true, five is not the logical conclusion of them.  You don't know what other factors influenced that assailant; you can't reliably attribute it to the fact that they were born with male biology.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 3, 2017)

Fatuous Sunbeam said:


> I think there are more important things to worry about offending and irritating violent criminals. Everyone is either a man or a woman and forcing people to refer to them by the wrong pronoun is ideological and all ideologies are or should be up for debate.
> 
> Personally I will only use what Richard Dawkins called 'courtesy pronouns' for those who deserve courtesy - which is most trans people who just trying to get on with their lives do. But men who just declare they are women yet carry on displaying male socialisation to the extent that they will use unprovoked violence don't deserve courtesy and I won't give it.


What a pity none of the caveats you give in 1709 appear in this post.

I am not upset, btw. Just disappointed by your unrepentant sexism.


----------



## Athos (Oct 3, 2017)

Fatuous Sunbeam I have some significant issues with some parts of trans ideology and practice, and feel that both too frequently prevent women disucssing legitimate issues, but even I can see that a lot of what you're saying is intellectualy dishonest, which suggests to me it's motivated by bigotry.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Oct 3, 2017)

Who is this fucking cockwomble?


----------



## Fatuous Sunbeam (Oct 3, 2017)

belboid said:


> right, so you accept she said all these things, but think they're fine.  You're a bigot.


Nope. You are confusing bigotry, which is "obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, and intolerant towards other people's beliefs and practices" with justifiable anger against people trying to silence you. The fact that you blindly support bigots who try to silence feminists standing up for women makes you much more of a bigot than most.



> Well you've just admitted she is renowned,


Admitted? That she was renowned as a skeptic blogger wasn't in dispute.



> and I maintain that her long held views of descriptions of trans people are bigoted, hence she is a renowned bigot.


Critical thinking isn't your strong suit, obviously.

And I maintain that you're full of it. "Long held views"? You mean just the last six months. And only on twitter. I repeat she has never been involved in campaigning on this issue - that meeting was the first time she'd ever been to anything to do with anti-trans cult campaigning.



> It's funny, last time I looked at her website there seemed to be more articles on it.  Suddenly all but one from the last few years has disappeared.


Wrong. I've been subscribed to her blog from almost the beginning in 2009. She stopped blogging two years ago. The one describing the assault is the first one since 2015.



> So let's look at her twitter - "trans cult" from:Skepticat_uk - Twitter Search
> 
> Seems she has been fond of the term 'trans cult' for a while now. It's not a new thing, as you claim.  It is her whole schtick.  It is why she was at the meeting - filming people. She is a childish provocateur. Agree with her if you want (to be a bigot), but don't deny the poor woman the chance to be who she is!


Yes, "a while" being a mere six months. If you do a search you can find the very first tweet where she declared her previous sympathies for trans people were evaporating. I maintain that 'trans cult' is an apt description  for people who push mindless violence in defence of a demonstrably false narrative - a narrative that you can't support with reason and evidence so you resort to calling those who challenge it to stand up for women and girls 'bigots' instead. Given both the style and content of your posts, you are hardly best placed to call anyone else 'childish'. You still haven't made any kind of cogent argument in support of the trans agenda and I suspect that's because you know you don't have one and are trying to divert attention from that fact.



> well, these three are all the same point.  I saw the video's, and the first one shows her wandering over there to the large group. She is shoving her camera in peoples faces.  Most people on here seemed to accept she did that, even if they were sympathetic to her.  Your denial, BLOCK CAPITALS AND ALL, is to no avail.


Well now, remember your allegation is that "someone seemingly objected to her shoving a camera in their face and slapped it away"

The third video on her blog shows just how far she was from the group when she was filming and it shows the moment Tara tried to slap her camera away. The three videos combined show:

1. Maria filming people from a few metres away and nobody objecting.
2. Tara Flik Wood running at her to slap the camera away
3. Maria continuing to film trying to get footage of the criminal as he's running away and raising her camera well above people's faces to do so
4. People assaulting Maria

Of course, if you want to look at the videos and note the time when she is "shoving her camera in people's faces" feel free. At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter what you or anybody on this forum thinks - it's what the police and courts think and the police seem to agree with me.


----------



## Fatuous Sunbeam (Oct 3, 2017)

Athos said:


> Fatuous Sunbeam I have some significant issues with some parts of trans ideology and practice, and feel that both too frequently prevent women disucssing legitimate issues, but even I can see that a lot of what you're saying is intellectualy dishonest, which suggests to me it's motivated by bigotry.


For example?

ETA: I meant an example of what you think I'm saying is intellectually dishonest and/or motivated by bigotry. I genuinely have no idea what you are talking about and I take strong exception to you just throwing it out there if you're not prepared to actually engage with what I've said, which suggests a certain intellectual cowardice on your part.


----------



## Athos (Oct 3, 2017)

Fatuous Sunbeam said:


> For example?
> 
> ETA: I meant an example of what you think I'm saying is intellectually dishonest and/or motivated by bigotry. I genuinely have no idea what you are talking about and I take strong exception to you just throwing it out there if you're not prepared to actually engage with what I've said, which suggests a certain intellectual cowardice on your part.



The stuff I'd mentioned in my post before the one you quoted, which points towards your misuse of the study you cited, for example.


----------



## Sweet FA (Oct 3, 2017)

Er... Clair De Lune; Athos, Athos; Clair...


 eta Tho yes, FS clearly the shiny end of a bell.


----------



## Athos (Oct 3, 2017)




----------



## smokedout (Oct 3, 2017)

Fatuous Sunbeam said:


> For example?
> 
> ETA: I meant an example of what you think I'm saying is intellectually dishonest and/or motivated by bigotry. I genuinely have no idea what you are talking about and I take strong exception to you just throwing it out there if you're not prepared to actually engage with what I've said, which suggests a certain intellectual cowardice on your part.



Your claim that transwomen retain male patterns of violent crime for a start


----------



## belboid (Oct 3, 2017)

Fatuous Sunbeam said:


> Nope. You are confusing bigotry, which is "obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, and intolerant towards other people's beliefs and practices" with justifiable anger against people trying to silence you. The fact that you blindly support bigots who try to silence feminists standing up for women makes you much more of a bigot than most.
> 
> 
> Admitted? That she was renowned as a skeptic blogger wasn't in dispute.
> ...


The fucking irony of this post. You’ve been caught out in an untruth and are desperately backtracking. You’ve been caught out misrepresenting studies and are silent. Ramble on all you like, repeating the same thing as if mere repetition makes it so. It’ll change nowt, probably the only thing you’ve got right the whole thread.


----------



## Fatuous Sunbeam (Oct 3, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Your claim that transwomen retain male patterns of violent crime for a start



How is that intellectually dishonest? I gave a source. If you have evidence to contradict it, I will amend my views. Do you have evidence to contradict it?


----------



## Fatuous Sunbeam (Oct 3, 2017)

belboid said:


> The fucking irony of this post. You’ve been caught out in an untruth and are desperately backtracking. You’ve been caught out misrepresenting studies and are silent. Ramble on all you like, repeating the same thing as if mere repetition makes it so. It’ll change nowt, probably the only thing you’ve got right the whole thread.


I haven't been caught in an untruth - you have. The evidence is strongly against all your contentions.
And I certainly haven't been caught out misrepresenting studies - where are you even getting this from?


----------



## smokedout (Oct 3, 2017)

Fatuous Sunbeam said:


> How is that intellectually dishonest. I gave a source. If you have evidence to contradict it, I will amend my views. Do you have evidence to contradict it?



I already posted it


----------



## spanglechick (Oct 3, 2017)

Clair De Lune said:


> Who is this fucking cockwomble?


I have a feeling it might be the camera woman herself.  

Feeling deflated after the fifteen minutes has passed, she vanity searches herself to find fresh audiences so that she can relive all the arguments and chase the buzz of righteous indignation once more.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 3, 2017)

Fatuous Sunbeam said:


> How is that intellectually dishonest. I gave a source. If you have evidence to contradict it, I will amend my views. Do you have evidence to contradict it?


You can give a source and through mishandling it be intellectually dishonest. As you have been by extrapolating from 300something people to everywhere. Your case not proved my sweet as you rely on only one study whose results remain to be confirmed by other authorities.


----------



## Fatuous Sunbeam (Oct 3, 2017)

Athos said:


> The stuff I'd mentioned in my post before the one you quoted, which points towards your misuse of the study you cited, for example.


Hold on, there are a lot of posts and I may have missed some. I'll go back and read through them. In the meantime, I'd be grateful if you don't just sling out accusations of intellectual dishonesty until I've had a chance to respond to whatever you said.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Oct 3, 2017)

Fatuous Sunbeam said:


> Hold on, there are a lot of posts and I may have missed some. I'll go back and read through them. In the meantime, I'd be grateful if you don't just sling out accusations of intellectual dishonesty until I've had a chance to respond to whatever you said.


How about you read the whole thread and we'll see you in a week?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 3, 2017)

Clair De Lune said:


> How about you read the whole thread and we'll see you in a week?



Odd isn't it...before yesterday they hadn't posted anything since 2011.



Went back further and this user was pretty much obsessed with the Apprentice or Big brother...


----------



## David Clapson (Oct 3, 2017)

58 pages in 17 days. Wtf? This must be a record. I read page 1 and can't be arsed with the rest so I'll just casually stick my oar in and say that I used to have a m2f girlfriend. She reported much hostility from feminists who saw mtf women as pseudo-men who were muscling in on their patch and undeserving of feminist support. Very confusing. I'll never understand that point of view, but being a man I wouldn't, would I?


----------



## TopCat (Oct 3, 2017)

David Clapson said:


> 58 pages in 17 days. Wtf? This must be a record. I read page 1 and can't be arsed with the rest so I'll just casually stick my oar in and say that I used to have a m2f girlfriend. She reported much hostility from feminists who saw mtf women as pseudo-men who were muscling in on their patch and undeserving of feminist support. Very confusing. I'll never understand that point of view, but being a man I wouldn't, would I?


And on we go.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 3, 2017)

Fatuous Sunbeam said:


> Of course, if you want to look at the videos and note the time when she is "shoving her camera in people's faces" feel free. At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter what you or anybody on this forum thinks - it's what the police and courts think and the police seem to agree with me.



How would you know what the police think?  I suspect you just outed yourself.


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 3, 2017)

smokedout said:


> How would you know what the police think?  I suspect you just outed yourself.



Outed themselves as...?


----------



## smokedout (Oct 3, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Outed themselves as...?



someone who knows what the police think in this case, suggestesting someone a bit closer to the events than has been presented.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 3, 2017)

smokedout said:


> How would you know what the police think?  I suspect you just outed yourself.


Yes, how do you know what the police think Fatuous Sunbeam ?


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 3, 2017)

smokedout said:


> someone who knows what the police think in this case, suggestesting someone a bit closer to the events than has been presented.



What of it?


----------



## Fatuous Sunbeam (Oct 3, 2017)

smokedout said:


> How about the author of the study that claim is based on:


Thank you. Although I haven't read through  either study carefully, I accept that the study mentioned in the article I posted is undermined by this study though it is surprising that, as the article said 


> The Transgender Law Center, HRC, GLAAD, ACLU, National Center for Transgender Equality, et al., have failed to cite a single study refuting the evidence that transgender males (“transwomen”) commit crimes against women and girls at exactly the same rate as any other males.


You'd think they would have cited that Swedish study.

I'll amend my claim to "it is widely believed that men who have transitioned are no less likely to commit violence than men who haven't". There are certainly enough reports of extremely violent men carrying out assaults - including rape - and subsequently transitioning to make this easy enough to believe and my question remains as to why anyone would expect the rate of violence to be lower among men who have transitioned? Anyone care to answer?


----------



## Fatuous Sunbeam (Oct 3, 2017)

Athos said:


> Even if (and it's only an 'if') one to four are true, five is not the logical conclusion of them.  You don't know what other factors influenced that assailant; you can't reliably attribute it to the fact that they were born with male biology.


I agree it's not the logical conclusion and there may be other factors. The fact remains that men are responsible for the vast majority of violence. At the meeting in question it seems men were actually in a small minority and protestors on both sides were women. Yet those guilty of violence were apparently biological males. Who'd have thunk it?


----------



## Athos (Oct 3, 2017)

Fatuous Sunbeam said:


> Thank you. Although I haven't read through  either study carefully, I accept that the study mentioned in the article I posted is undermined by this study though it is surprising that, as the article said
> 
> You'd think they would have cited that Swedish study.
> 
> I'll amend my claim to "it is widely believed that men who have transitioned are no less likely to commit violence than men who haven't". There are certainly enough reports of extremely violent men carrying out assaults - including rape - and subsequently transitioning to make this easy enough to believe and my question remains as to why anyone would expect the rate of violence to be lower among men who have transitioned? Anyone care to answer?





Fatuous Sunbeam said:


> I agree it's not the logical conclusion and there may be other factors. The fact remains that men are responsible for the vast majority of violence. At the meeting in question it seems men were actually in a small minority and protestors on both sides were women. Yet those guilty of violence were apparently biological males. Who'd have thunk it?



Widely held belief and anecdote are not the same as evidence and reason.


----------



## Fatuous Sunbeam (Oct 3, 2017)

smokedout said:


> How would you know what the police think?  I suspect you just outed yourself.


From what mm posted both publicly as well as in places you can't see, like her fb page and her forum at Think Humanism. Not to mention what several newspapers have reported about the police investigation.

ETA: Oh I've just realised what you mean by outing myself. You think I'm her. I like it.


----------



## Fatuous Sunbeam (Oct 3, 2017)

Athos said:


> Wide belief and anecdote are not the same as evidence and reason.


I know. So perhaps you'd like to provide some evidence for whatever it is you believe?


----------



## Fatuous Sunbeam (Oct 3, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Odd isn't it...before yesterday they hadn't posted anything since 2011.
> 
> Went back further and this user was pretty much obsessed with the Apprentice or Big brother...


We've already been through this. I read her blog, I googled her name to see what people were saying about her, I found this thread and being already registered here it was easy enough to post here. 
You're bringing up my posting history is a bit creepy.


----------



## Athos (Oct 3, 2017)

Fatuous Sunbeam said:


> I know. So perhaps you'd like to provide some evidence for whatever it is you believe?



I'm not the one making assertions that require evidence.


----------



## Fatuous Sunbeam (Oct 3, 2017)

Clair De Lune said:


> How about you read the whole thread and we'll see you in a week?


Having seen the quality of discussion since I arrived here yesterday. I'll pass thanks.


----------



## pengaleng (Oct 3, 2017)

Fatuous Sunbeam said:


> Having seen the quality of discussion since I arrived here yesterday. I'll pass thanks.




fuck off then.,


----------



## Fatuous Sunbeam (Oct 3, 2017)

pengaleng said:


> fuck off then.,


Will do, snowflake.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 3, 2017)

Fatuous Sunbeam said:


> Thank you. Although I haven't read through  either study carefully, I accept that the study mentioned in the article I posted is undermined by this study though it is surprising that, as the article said
> 
> You'd think they would have cited that Swedish study.
> 
> I'll amend my claim to "it is widely believed that men who have transitioned are no less likely to commit violence than men who haven't". There are certainly enough reports of extremely violent men carrying out assaults - including rape - and subsequently transitioning to make this easy enough to believe and my question remains as to why anyone would expect the rate of violence to be lower among men who have transitioned? Anyone care to answer?



They are the same study you clown.

So perhaps amend your claim to saying the only study carried out found that transowmen did not retain male patterns of conviction.


----------



## belboid (Oct 3, 2017)

Fatuous Sunbeam said:


> Having seen the quality of discussion since I arrived here yesterday. I'll pass thanks.


Maybe you’d learn why people can’t be arsed to repeat the same bloody points for a third (at least) time, if you did do so.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 3, 2017)

Fatuous Sunbeam said:


> We've already been through this. I read her blog, I googled her name to see what people were saying about her, I found this thread and being already registered here it was easy enough to post here.
> You're bringing up my posting history is a bit creepy.


Nothing for 6 years then you wade in on a subject /thread like this? Before that a clear fascination with c'lebs in training/reality tv. Not creepy as t all. Context. You still get a hard on for drama clearly.


----------



## A380 (Oct 3, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Yes, how do you know what the police think Fatuous Sunbeam ?


I imagine what the police (officer in the case) most likely thinks is "why me? What did I do to pick up this fucking investigation? Why does my DI hate me?"


----------



## pengaleng (Oct 3, 2017)

'clown'


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 4, 2017)

Fatuous Sunbeam said:


> ETA: Oh I've just realised what you mean by outing myself. You think I'm her. I like it.



I must say, your knowledge of mm to the point of being able to cite timelines of her twitter usage from memory did raise my eyebrows somewhat.

But then I suppose it’s no more strange than belboid having personally witnessed her transformation from skeptic blogger to feminist campaigner, to the point of insinuating she’d deleted previous posts to suit a narrative.


----------



## Mation (Oct 4, 2017)

Fatuous Sunbeam said:


> Thank you. Although I haven't read through  either study carefully, I accept that the study mentioned in the article I posted is undermined by this study though it is surprising that, as the article said
> 
> You'd think they would have cited that Swedish study.
> 
> I'll amend my claim to "it is widely believed that men who have transitioned are no less likely to commit violence than men who haven't". There are certainly enough reports of extremely violent men carrying out assaults - including rape - and subsequently transitioning to make this easy enough to believe and my question remains as to why anyone would expect the rate of violence to be lower among men who have transitioned? Anyone care to answer?


You make some very strong claims, supposedly based on a study you admit to not having read carefully. Why don't you go away and come back when you have some actual evidence for your assertions.

(That would be never, in case it wasn't clear.)


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 4, 2017)

Fatuous Sunbeam said:


> We've already been through this. I read her blog, I googled her name to see what people were saying about her, I found this thread and being already registered here it was easy enough to post here.
> You're bringing up my posting history is a bit creepy.


your


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 4, 2017)

Fatuous Sunbeam said:


> I don't see how that can be true, when MM posted online about the assault within hours of being assaulted. On what grounds would belboid have been calling mm a bigot prior to that comment?
> 
> 
> It's not a point of information, it's an opinion by someone who seems to be very bigoted themselves.
> ...


Belboid's very first post on this thread referred to mm's twitter feed, skepticat_uk, which, on even the most cursory of glances, gives a lie to a lot of what you've been saying about her lack of previous involvement in trans issues. She has a long-standing involvement based on a very clear position - that trans women are men and that trans activists are men's rights groups. It's a long-standing and dominant theme to her twitter feed. And the tone to her feed is also very clear, from long before she was attacked - it is one of mockery and dismissal.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 4, 2017)

Fatuous Sunbeam said:


> Thank you. Although I haven't read through  either study carefully, I accept that the study mentioned in the article I posted is undermined by this study though it is surprising that, as the article said
> 
> You'd think they would have cited that Swedish study.
> 
> I'll amend my claim to "it is widely believed that men who have transitioned are no less likely to commit violence than men who haven't". There are certainly enough reports of extremely violent men carrying out assaults - including rape - and subsequently transitioning to make this easy enough to believe and my question remains as to why anyone would expect the rate of violence to be lower among men who have transitioned? Anyone care to answer?


there are many millions of articles in pubmed. there is, you declare, only one on the subject in which you're interested. i don't know what you know about the hierarchy of medical evidence, but here's a handy graphick to explain it:







at the top are your actual systematic reviews, which combine evidence from lots of articles under a strict methodology outlined in this widely cited article: Five steps to conducting a systematic review

your article is not a systematic review.

neither is your article a randomized controlled trial, the next highest level of medical evidence.

this is one cohort study. it has been cited by 27 articles also in pubmed. there are more than twenty million papers in pubmed. you can't really put the weight on it you suggest and expect to be taken seriously. you really can't.


----------



## pengaleng (Oct 4, 2017)

pwned by sci fi


----------



## Clair De Lune (Oct 4, 2017)

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/10/0...-transgender-students/comments/#disqus_thread


Depending on who you are you will either see this as good news or OMG MEN PRETENDING TO BE WOMEN WILL NOW RAPE YOUNG STUDENTS. You choose which side you're on init


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 4, 2017)

fatuous sunbeam's turned brave sir robin


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2017)

tara - nicked for common assault and criminal damage today.


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 4, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> tara - nicked for common assault and criminal damage today.



Source?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2017)

Ian bone on twitter. Or it was, he's since deleted.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 4, 2017)

oh well, that'll chill everything out.


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 4, 2017)

smokedout said:


> oh well, that'll chill everything out.



The (apparent) arrest or the tweet/delete?


----------



## smokedout (Nov 4, 2017)

the apparent arrest, I think I was trying to be sarcastic


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 7, 2017)

I would be interested in seeing an analysis of "Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminism" as a movement, where it comes from, what sustains it etc. Usually I only see it examined in terms of its ideas. Or even less usefully either naturalised as something that simply reflects the natural attitudes of women ("women just asking questions about gender ideology") or conversely is demonised as simply the product of personal malice or intrinsic moral failings or bigotry as a kind of abstract force. Just as it's unwise to take current versions of identitarian politics at face value, without looking at the US campus milieus that produced and shaped most of those ideas, it seems to me that "TERFism" should be examined in a concrete way.

For instance, anti-trans feminism seem to me much stronger in Britain than it is elsewhere in the anglophone world.

Ireland has a proportionately larger feminist movement (not because Ireland is more progressive but as a result of the centrality of the abortion issue to mainstream politics). When the Irish equivalent of the Gender Recognition Act was passed two years ago, it was entirely uncontroversial in that movement. As far as I'm aware no organisation, from the respectable semi-QUANGOs all the way across to the most radical groups, opposed it. The most frequent context in which I see anti-trans variants of feminism even discussed by feminist activists here is an occasional complaint about British TERFs causing hassle on the social media pages of abortion rights groups.

There are definitely groups with those politics in the US, but they are much more marginal than in Britain. There trans issues are overwhelmingly framed as a left/right argument and transphobic arguments in the media are almost always from conservatives. Hostility to trans politics from an avowedly feminist standpoint is something you'd have to go looking for (although you will certainly find it if you do). In Britain it has a significant mainstream media footprint and has a visible activist presence.

So what's different about Britain? And more generally, what subcultures/scenes/political milieus/etc have tended to produce these politics and why?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 7, 2017)

My own very provisional answers to those last questions:

The proximate cause of the unusual strength of, ahem, "gender critical feminism" in Britain is probably the presence of a cohort of people with such views in sections of the media. That also explains the similarly localised phenomenon of trans-exclusionary feminisms which are not politically radical - there are plenty of liberal centrist feminists elsewhere who aren't too keen on trans politics, but only in Britain are such people likely to consider combatting trans politics to be an important focus. Outside Britain, specifically feminist opposition to trans demands is almost entirely a left wing phenomenon.

In turn, the existence of that cohort in the media stems from the relative strength of radical feminism in Britain in the 80s and the lingering influence of some of the people and analyses that came out of that moment.

More generally, it seems to me that for all the occasional sloganising about "gender abolition", TERFism is a stasis oriented movement rather than a transformational one. On the face of it, it seems bizarre that people who allegedly want to abolish gender are seeking to do so by vigorously policing the borders of gender and even demanding that the Tories police those borders harder. But it starts to be more comprehensible if you understand that "gender abolition" and its necessarily associated social upheavals is a vestigial demand that's now only invoked ritually, while the real business of TERFism is to defend the boundaries of "women's spaces" within a patriarchy without end. What might more obviously be perceived as a threat to patriarchal norms is instead perceived first and foremost as a threat to existing refuges from patriarchal norms. So it can be appealing to - for instance - some older lesbians who may experience the rapid growth among the young of all kinds of new sexual or gender identities not as a welcome step forward but as sudden and unwelcome changes to a cherished subculture. Or the presence of trans women who are victims of male violence can be seen by some other victims of male violence as a change to what they experienced as sanctuaries from a male presence etc.


----------



## shygirl (Nov 8, 2017)

ETA, a friend just recommended I check out Peachyoghurt on Youtube, thought I'd share with Urban.


----------



## shygirl (Nov 8, 2017)




----------



## belboid (Nov 8, 2017)

shygirl said:


> ETA, a friend just recommended I check out Peachyoghurt on Youtube, thought I'd share with Urban.



I hope you told your friend to recommend something less full of shit next time.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Nov 8, 2017)

She started off with facts but then just went off on her personal opinions. She made it clear she feels 'us and them' about trans people and that she feels trans people are forcing a label on her  Opressed by the 1% huh. 

She is confusing gender expression/non gender conformity with assigned sex. Anyone can express their gender in non typical ways and be critical of and non conforming to gender roles, be they cis or trans. But yeah she doesn't need to accept cis as a label, none of us do. We can use 'not trans' if it bothers us that much eh.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 8, 2017)

If belboid thinks it’s full of shit it probably has some merit.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 8, 2017)

shygirl said:


> ETA, a friend just recommended I check out Peachyoghurt on Youtube, thought I'd share with Urban.



Among many things, she says ' there is no transgender'. It's thrown in almost as an aside, but it is pretty revealing of the speaker's attitude towards trans people, which is similar to that of Maria Mac, that their issues are at root _trivial_ issues.

It's also a very weak way of arguing to concentrate on the 'comfortable in skin' part, given how many trans people reject that as the stupid thing it is.


----------



## The Pale King (Nov 8, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> My own very provisional answers to those last questions:
> 
> The proximate cause of the unusual strength of, ahem, "gender critical feminism" in Britain is probably the presence of a cohort of people with such views in sections of the media. That also explains the similarly localised phenomenon of trans-exclusionary feminisms which are not politically radical - there are plenty of liberal centrist feminists elsewhere who aren't too keen on trans politics, but only in Britain are such people likely to consider combatting trans politics to be an important focus. Outside Britain, specifically feminist opposition to trans demands is almost entirely a left wing phenomenon.
> 
> ...



This is interesting, ta. Fwiw I think it's interesting how terfism seems to provide a bridge between 'radical' feminists and political centrists/Blairites, or rather an issue around which these groups can coalesce (which of course also forms an onward bridge to hard right/US Christians/republicans). For some mainstream journalists, trans stuff seems to be a 'safe space' where they can do class politics (women are exploited as a class) without allowing class politics of any kind to spill over into their other politics.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 8, 2017)

The Pale King said:


> This is interesting, ta. Fwiw I think it's interesting how terfism seems to provide a bridge between 'radical' feminists and political centrists/Blairites, or rather an issue around which these groups can coalesce (which of course also forms an onward bridge to hard right/US Christians/republicans). For some mainstream journalists, trans stuff seems to be a 'safe space' where they can do class politics (women are exploited as a class) without allowing class politics of any kind to spill over into their other politics.



Liberal-centrist media types are always vulnerable to the appeal of arguments denouncing the kids today with their ID politics and their new words and their refusal to listen respectfully and are also very prone to adopting reactionary "common sense" views. In an American context though they don't often go full anti-trans, because the argument is culturally subordinated to partisan politics. There is a strong peer pressure not to give succour to Republican bigots with their bathroom bills. Mouthing off about trans people is not a good idea either socially or in career terms, so even those who likely have little real sympathy for or understanding of trans people tend to simply shut the fuck about it.

In a British context, there isn't the disciplining effect of a culture war with the sides clearly demarcated. And there is a cohort of people with hardened "gender critical feminist" views in the media already, some of whom are radical feminists, others of whom are "radical feminists without the radicalism" (which is to say centrist-liberals with a rather peculiar attachment to parts of radfem analyses of gender but no other discernible traces of the general political radicalism of almost all radfems). That preexisting milieu has a normalising effect on the expression of views that are hostile to trans political demands among a wider layer of liberal-centrists in British media circles and gives others permission to allow their reactionary commonsensical opinions to run wild.

I'm not sure whether the "gender critical" Blairite half of the hard core in the media used to be political radicals and just kept hold of some of the gender stuff when they moved right or if they were liberal feminists who were then influenced by parts of the politics of their radical feminist colleagues. It probably doesn't much matter as we are only talking about a handful of individuals.

In Ireland these currents have no presence in either the media or in activist circles. My suspicion is that this is because there's very little continuity between today's very vigorous feminist movement and those of previous generations. Pretty much everything bar a very timid semi-QUANGO or two died during a long doldrums period. Today's groups and campaigns are influenced by all kinds of stuff, socialist feminism, liberal feminism, US identitarianism, etc. But if there was a radical feminist tradition here, the transmission belt was broken at some point. Every feminist grouping that I'm aware of regarded the Irish equivalent of the Gender Recognition Act as a step forward, regardless of their differing general politics and media opposition was a conservative/religious phenomenon.


----------



## Athos (Nov 8, 2017)

Interesting posts Nigel Irritable.  But...



Nigel Irritable said:


> On the face of it, it seems bizarre that people who allegedly want to abolish gender are seeking to do so by vigorously policing the borders of gender...



Recognising, and seeking to ensure the focus of feminism remains on, the fact that that sex discrimination is underpinned by socially constructed expectations we call gender isn't necessarily the same thing as 'policing gender' (albeit it sometimes is).



Nigel Irritable said:


> What might more obviously be perceived as a threat to patriarchal norms is instead perceived first and foremost as a threat to existing refuges from patriarchal norms.



Why would that be a more obvious perception?  TERFs would argue the opposite. That transgenderism reinforces patriarchal norms by, at once,  ignoring the material i.e. biological base of sex discrimination (i.e. men's control of women's reproductive capacity), and bolstering the essentialism that facilitates that discrimination (i.e. that men and women differ in ways other than biology).


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 8, 2017)

I don't have time to respond to that right now Athos. I'll try to get back to you later, but to be blunt about it the point of my posts wasn't to invite yet another debate on TERF talking points. I'm all too familiar with their arguments and have come to the conclusion that they are so incoherent that they are of little interest in themselves. I'm more interested in the material and sociological factors that go into creating a movement nominally committed to gender abolition that spends most of its time angrily insisting that people are whatever gender they are told they are and lobbying the Tories to keep medical gatekeepers to gender recognition. That I have a certain amount of sympathy for members of an oppressed group who have ended up with these weird politics doesn't mean I have any particular respect for those politics.


----------



## Thora (Nov 8, 2017)

Are you confusing gender and sex here?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 8, 2017)

Thora said:


> Are you confusing gender and sex here?



No. I'm just not pandering to TERF attitudes by pretending that there's a functionsl difference outside of their heads between snarling "you're a man" or "you're male" at a trans woman. Even within their own framework they slip and slide between the two all the time, as can be seen in their current agitation for continued medical gatekeeping in legal gender recognition.


----------



## Athos (Nov 9, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I'm all too familiar with their arguments...
> 
> a movement nominally committed to gender abolition that spends most of its time angrily insisting that people are whatever gender they are told they are ...



You may be familiar with the arguments,but it deosn't appear from your characterisation of them that you've understood them.  Recognising the biological fact of sex is not antithetical to abolishing gender (the socially constructed expectations imposed on the bearers of sex).


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 9, 2017)

Athos said:


> You may be familiar with the arguments,but it deosn't appear from your characterisation of them that you've understood them.  Recognising the biological fact of sex is not antithetical to abolishing gender (the socially constructed expectations imposed on the bearers of sex).



Being condescended to in defence of transphobia is quite genuinely one of the more entertaining aspects of discussing the pathologies of terfery.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 9, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> No. I'm just not pandering to TERF attitudes by pretending that there's a functionsl difference outside of their heads between snarling "you're a man" or "you're male" at a trans woman. Even within their own framework they slip and slide between the two all the time, as can be seen in their current agitation for continued medical gatekeeping in gender reassignment.


tbh I think there's still loads of confusion re gender/sex throughout this discussion. The very phrase 'gender reassignment' sums it up. A medical treatment is a sex reassignment, not a gender reassignment - must be if you're defining gender as only a social construct. What any person who seeks medical intervention really wants cannot be merely something to do with 'gender' as defined as purely a social construct. 

The definitions of sex/gender get hopelessly confused here so that the same person can at one time talk of gender a purely a social construct and at the same time either downplay or simply dismiss the fact of medical intervention. 

It's a basic contradiction that cannot be wished away.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 9, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> tbh I think there's still loads of confusion re gender/sex throughout this discussion. The very phrase 'gender reassignment' sums it up. A medical treatment is a sex reassignment, not a gender reassignment



What TERFS are currently agitating against is not surgery, but the possible removal of medical gatekeeping from changes in legal gender. Which is to say, they wish to force trans people to pass an arbitrary test administered by medical professionals before they can have their gender legally recognised. That this has always and without exception acted as a compulsion to behave and present in exactly the gender stereotyped ways TERFs denounce trans people for allegedly reinforcing would seem disconcertingly ironic if you were gullible enough to think that TERFs were actually for the abolition of gender. The point of my earlier posts was precisely that while "gender abolition" was indeed the aim of historical radical feminist movements, the TERF faction of that movement has long since given up on such goals and instead acts as if gender cannot be abolished and instead little oases away from discrimination or male violence are all that can be hoped for. Thus people rejecting gender assignments are perceived not as an incoherent but important step towards undermining gender but instead as a threat to existing escapes from gender. Like any movement they should be evaluated not by their rhetorical claims but by their social role.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 9, 2017)

Short version: anyone who claims to be for gender abolition who responds to an explosion of younger people refusing to accept their assigned gender and announcing instead that they are trans men or trans women or non binary or one of three dozen newly invented genders by denouncing those people as a terrifying threat is stupid, dishonest or self-deceiving about their own political goals.


----------



## Athos (Nov 9, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> No. I'm just not pandering to TERF attitudes by pretending that there's a functionsl difference outside of their heads between snarling "you're a man" or "you're male" at a trans woman. Even within their own framework they slip and slide between the two all the time, as can be seen in their current agitation for continued medical gatekeeping in legal gender recognition.



You're conflating two very different things. Questioning gender and verbally abusing trans people.


----------



## Athos (Nov 9, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Being condescended to in defence of transphobia is quite genuinely one of the more entertaining aspects of discussing the pathologies of terfery.



I don't defend transphobia. I don't accept that women questioning what it means to be a woman is transphobia.


----------



## Athos (Nov 9, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> What TERFS are currently agitating against is not surgery, but the possible removal of medical gatekeeping from changes in legal gender. Which is to say, they wish to force trans people to pass an arbitrary test administered by medical professionals before they can have their gender legally recognised. That this has always and without exception acted as a compulsion to behave and present in exactly the gender stereotyped ways TERFs denounce trans people for allegedly reinforcing would seem disconcertingly ironic if you were gullible enough to think that TERFs were actually for the abolition of gender. The point of my earlier posts was precisely that while "gender abolition" was indeed the aim of historical radical feminist movements, the TERF faction of that movement has long since given up on such goals and instead acts as if gender cannot be abolished and instead little oases away from discrimination or male violence are all that can be hoped for. Thus people rejecting gender assignments are perceived not as an incoherent but important step towards undermining gender but instead as a threat to existing escapes from gender. Like any movement they should be evaluated not by their rhetorical claims but by their social role.



I do agree, however, that the effect of this medical gatekeeping by some TERFs had the effect of reinforcing gender. But would note that is not a necessary ingredient of being a gender critical feminist.

Though I would add that we're not necessarily talking about "people rejecting gender assignments", so much as people accepting gender reassignment, but redefining what that means.

And, whilst I disagree with you about the aims of gender critical feminists, even if you are right, it ill-becomes you to sneer at women who seek oases from male violence.


----------



## bimble (Nov 9, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> ... Thus people rejecting gender assignments are perceived not as an incoherent but important step towards undermining gender but instead as a threat to existing escapes from gender.


Incoherent but important. Ok. 
How does someone saying ‘I feel like a woman’ undermine gender?


----------



## Athos (Nov 9, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Short version: anyone who claims to be for gender abolition who responds to an explosion of younger people refusing to accept their assigned gender and announcing instead that they are trans men or trans women or non binary or one of three dozen newly invented genders by denouncing those people as a terrifying threat is stupid, dishonest or self-deceiving about their own political goals.



Now it's you who is condescending to a massive number of women, by dismissing their fears so casually.


----------



## Thora (Nov 9, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Short version: anyone who claims to be for gender abolition who responds to an explosion of younger people refusing to accept their assigned gender and announcing instead that they are trans men or trans women or non binary or one of three dozen newly invented genders by denouncing those people as a terrifying threat is stupid, dishonest or self-deceiving about their own political goals.


Isn't the issue that the boundaries between sexes are being blurred, rather than gender?  So a man can for eg. gain access to a sex segregated space (whether that's a hospital ward, prison or refuge) by declaring himself female.  As women are oppressed on the basis of sex, this undermines women's ability to organise against and resist sex based oppression?


----------



## 19force8 (Nov 9, 2017)

Thora said:


> Isn't the issue that the boundaries between sexes are being blurred, rather than gender?  So a man can for eg. gain access to a sex segregated space (whether that's a hospital ward, prison or refuge) by declaring himself female.  As women are oppressed on the basis of sex, this undermines women's ability to organise against and resist sex based oppression?


I'd be more tolerant of this argument about women's spaces / ability to organise if it was evidence based. The Republic of Ireland, Denmark, Malta and India all have self-identification laws already. If it was causing such problems for women then I think we'd be hearing a lot about it.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 9, 2017)

I feel if a bunch of men were loudly and publicly telling F->M trans men that they were not welcome in men's spaces and they were really still women there'd be quite a shitstorm. We may see it yet.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 9, 2017)

19force8 said:


> I'd be more tolerant of this argument about women's spaces / ability to organise if it was evidence based. The Republic of Ireland, Denmark, Malta and India all have self-identification laws already. If it was causing such problems for women then I think we'd be hearing a lot about it.



Isn't this key?  I think if someone who could have legally been a woman for decades, who could have an externally female body and may not be admitted, or would certainly not be safe, in a men's homeless shelter, is being told they have to return to a violent partner when there's a bed in a refuge down the road then that person deserves an pretty solid explanation of why.  Backed up by some evidence that she would be a risk, and there's very little of that been presented as far as I can tell.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Nov 9, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> I feel if a bunch of men were loudly and publicly telling F->M trans men that they were not welcome in men's spaces and they were really still women there'd be quite a shitstorm. We may see it yet.



Nah.

Why would men be fussed about people *they* consider female in their spaces?


That's not how the power dynamics work.

Why would they give a flying fuck? Why would they have any concerns apart from (*maybe*) mild embarrassment?

Why wouldn't some of them be going "kor go on then"?


The only time I see men complain about sex boundaries is when:

A) Heterosexual men are told that it's transphobic not to see them as fully women and demand to be considered as sexual partners. Otherwise the men are transphobic (a la Zinna Jones).

This ensued in a massive massive shitstorm and Zinnia promptly shut up. Boundaries were maintained. Howls of transphobia dismissed.

B) Gay men are told by trans men they should be at least considered as sexual otherwise they are transphobic.

Less of a shitstorm. But it was quashed pretty quickly.

The rest of the time men don't give a shit because it's not about them. It's the women that have to suck it up.

1) Women's concerns ALWAYS disregarded. TERF Transphobe "suck my dick" #NoDebate


2) Lesbians don't want dick? Shut up bitch No one gives a shit you vagina fetishist TERF.

Always.

Rinse and repeat.

Most of these people aren't even radical feminists. Just normal everyday working women.

All these people loudly proclaiming TERF at every fucking opportunity :

Go out on the street, pick a random woman,  and ask if they want intact males to be able to give them intimate physical exams if they "identify" as women. Ask them if they think it's "transphobic" to request female clinicians.  Ask them if they think their request is hateful and discriminatory.

Ask them if they think they're as good as NAZIS.

Ask them if they deserve to be beaten for thier views (reminding me of the quite frankly disgusting excuses for violence against women at the start of this thread).

I dare you.

I fucking dare you.

It's almost like sexism is a real thing and not based at all on how you feel about yourself.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 9, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Nah.
> 
> Why would men be fussed about people *they* consider female in their spaces?
> 
> ...



At one time many men, and women, had concerns about lesbian and gay people being in sex segregated spaces, as well as in schools for much the same reasons now being directed at transwomen - that they represented some kind of existential sexual threat.



> Go out on the street, pick a random woman,  and ask if they want intact males to be able to give them intimate physical exams if they "identify" as women. Ask them if they think it's "transphobic" to request female clinicians.  Ask them if they think their request is hateful and discriminatory.
> 
> I dare you.
> 
> ...



Try the same thing in 1980 and see how many women would be happy to be examined by a lesbian  identifying woman.  People seem to have short memories and a conservative view of how quickly and radically social attitudes can change.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Nov 9, 2017)

Intact males  What delightful term have you coined for post op trans women? 

It's so mind bendingly bizarre that anyone would think someone would transition in order to rape women. And yet this ugly trope is trotted out so frequently.


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 9, 2017)

Clair De Lune said:


> Intact males  What delightful term have you coined for post op trans women?



Why do you think she was referring to post-op TW?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Nov 9, 2017)

I'm not in a delightful mood today.

I'm pissed off. I just found out I might be pregnant in a country that doesn't allow abortions, epidurals, or give cesarean sections unless your life is in danger. Funnily enough *just like* in Ireland and Malta.

Remember how I said that I had disphoria? Well all that is fucking flooding back right now.

It's horrific. I feel gross, disgusting, I want to jump out my skin and there's fuck all I can do about it without being seen as a criminal.

So excuse me for very much being aware  right now about how no one gives a shit what women want. And how no one really gives a shit about "identity".

Forgive me for knowing that no identifying as a man is going to save my feelings or wishes. And forgive me for not giving a shit about lying about the reality of male and female bodies. Forgive me for putting my thoughts down.

Excuse me for not merrily jumping up and down that the reality of being seen by the majority of most societies as a fuck hole and baby incubator (the reason for my disphoria in the first place) has just come and smacked me right between the eyes. 

Pre-op transwomen are genitally in tact males. It's not a value judgement. It's a description because we are talking about males.

How would you describe it? Should we be allowed to describe it? Am I a bigot now for knowing penises are male? Vaginas are female?

I'm not going to live in denial. Sorry. I can't afford to right now.

And why are we conflating gender identity with sexuality anyway?  The two are totally different.

Some women are uncomfortable around and males.  Mainly because of the endless allowances and excuses society makes for men.

And mainly because men ask and men get.

 Because men police our bodies.

Tell us what we should and shouldn't feel comfortable with what's good for us.

Last time a checked gay and lesbians rights wasn't about asking the rest of society to deny that sex is irrelevant and to pretend it has no bearing on anyone's life. Quite the opposite. The whole point of gay rights was to accept that sexuality is tied to sex.

People can identify however they want. I don't give a shit. It doesn't magically disappearo the reality.

Sex is still important because sexism exists.

And women are entitiled to complain when they aren't listened to.

Fuck this.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Nov 9, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Why do you think she was referring to post-op TW?


I don't.

Calling a trans woman an intact man is shitty enough tbh.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Nov 9, 2017)

As a cis AFAB terfy uterus bearer I should sit down and shut the fuck up? Right?


----------



## Clair De Lune (Nov 9, 2017)

No. 

Sorry for the situation you find yourself in and much luck to you.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 9, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Nah.
> 
> Why would men be fussed about people *they* consider female in their spaces?



This is something you might want to think about for yourself, because I get the impression from reading you on this thread that no answer from anyone else will satisfy you. Perhaps consider why a group of men might want a male-only space, what it might be for, and whether there are men who might feel uncomfortable with someone they consider female in it. There are many power dynamics between and within groups of men and women, and blanket assertions along with binary attitudes don't seem to be creating anything but more conflict.

Also IMO it's important to consider _why_ someone might reject their assigned-at-birth sex and adopt another. Is it just about power games, or is there something else, something internal? At what point is it OK to second-guess someone's identity for them? Who gets to do this? Who doesn't? How do we decide?

I have to confess I'm not as certain about all this as you appear (from your posts) to be, and I'm more comfortable reading than commenting.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 9, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Am I a bigot now...
> As a cis AFAB terfy uterus bearer I should sit down and shut the fuck up? Right?



Teetering on the edge of an epiphany.


----------



## weepiper (Nov 9, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Teetering on the edge of an epiphany.


That's really fucking unkind in the context of the previous post.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 9, 2017)

weepiper said:


> That's really fucking unkind in the context of the rest of the post.



Is there any other form of bigotry that you believe should be responded to with kindness? Racism? Misogyny? Homophobia? Or is it only transphobia? 

If she'd engaged in the same scaremongering about say, lesbians or gay men, you would consider it incumbent on you to be "kind" in response?


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 9, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Why wouldn't some of them be going "kor go on then"?



This is why I didn't answer the rest of that post btw. If this is where you're at I don't think I'm in a position to engage all that seriously.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Nov 9, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Is there any other form of bigotry that you believe should be responded to with kindness? Racism? Misogyny? Homophobia? Or is it only transphobia?
> 
> If she'd engaged in the same scaremongering about say, lesbians or gay men, you would consider it incumbent on you to be "kind" in response?



Fuck off.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 9, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> This is something you might want to think about for yourself, because I get the impression from reading you on this thread that no answer from anyone else will satisfy you. Perhaps consider why a group of men might want a male-only space, what it might be for, and whether there are men who might feel uncomfortable with someone they consider female in it. There are many power dynamics between and within groups of men and women, and blanket assertions along with binary attitudes don't seem to be creating anything but more conflict.
> 
> Also IMO it's important to consider _why_ someone might reject their assigned-at-birth sex and adopt another. Is it just about power games, or is there something else, something internal? At what point is it OK to second-guess someone's identity for them? Who gets to do this? Who doesn't? How do we decide?
> 
> I have to confess I'm not as certain about all this as you appear (from your posts) to be, and I'm more comfortable reading than commenting.


Tbh I struggle to imagine a situation in which cis men would object to the presence of trans men in a men-only space.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 9, 2017)

OK it probably won't happen then


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 9, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> OK it probably won't happen then


You asked the poster to consider why men might want men-only spaces and not want 'people they consider to be female' there. First, there is the point of how many of those men would consider trans men to be female, but then there is the point that even if they have a problem accepting them as men, which I don't think many men would, tbh, what exactly would be their problem in this instance if the trans man is socially 'presenting as a man'? I can't imagine such a situation arising. You haven't presented one either, you've just asked this question.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 9, 2017)

Athos said:


> I don't defend transphobia. I don't accept that women questioning what it means to be a woman is transphobia.


 
As I said in my first post on this thread, that is a disingenuous way of discussing this conflict. What is happening is that a fragment of a minority faction of the feminist movement, having long since abandoned their own overarching aim, gender abolition, as impractical have turned to policing the boundaries of gender and furthering the oppression of another marginalised group. This is not some natural result of "women questioning" something, with TERF obsessions somehow standing in for the collective response of billions of women. Nor is it the result of some generic evil or inexplicable personal malice as some trans activists assume. TERFery is a phenomenon produced by the slow death of some minor political subcultures.

It's about as useful to talk about TERF pathologies as the response of women as it would be to treat hoteps or the Nation of Islam as spokespersons for the concerns of black people. Or to take the RCP/LM/Spiked as representatives of the working class.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 9, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You asked the poster to consider why men might want men-only spaces and not want 'people they consider to be female' there. First, there is the point of how many of those men would consider trans men to be female, but then there is the point that even if they have a problem accepting them as men, which I don't think many men would, tbh, what exactly would be their problem in this instance if the trans man is socially 'presenting as a man'? I can't imagine such a situation arising. You haven't presented one either, you've just asked this question.



I have, because I've seen a row erupt over it, at a hippy retreat that had a men's lodge and women's lodge. In the end it was the troublemaking pair of (AMAB) men who had to leave, and they actually left the site entirely.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 9, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> I have, because I've seen a row erupt over it, at a hippy retreat that had a men's lodge and women's lodge. In the end it was the troublemaking pair of men who had to leave, and they actually left the site entirely.


Right, ok. By the troublemaking pair of men, I assume you mean the men who objected to the presence of trans men in their lodge? Still doesn't sound to me like an issue that's likely to grow, though. I would think that the very idea of a 'men's lodge' is already extremely niche, but it also sounds like this particular one in the end decided that it was going to be trans-inclusionary.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 9, 2017)

In a society as integrated as ours, any single-sex space is bound to be fairly niche.
The point is, surely, who should ultimately be made to leave a single-sex space, assuming everyone there considers _themselves_ [key concept] to be the same sex?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 9, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> In a society as integrated as ours, any single-sex space is bound to be fairly niche.


Outside of particular groups of Muslims or Orthodox Jews, yes.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 9, 2017)

_Niche_, then.


----------



## xenon (Nov 9, 2017)

Also, hippies. Pfft


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 9, 2017)

Fair enough, but at least they weren't transphobes


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Nov 9, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> This is why I didn't answer the rest of that post btw. If this is where you're at I don't think I'm in a position to engage all that seriously.



Sorry Mojo. I didn't intend to come across as raging at you. Just at the shitty situation of shouting TERF at any dissenting voice.

Concerned about the female sex? TERF it seems. Suffer disphoria but refuse the trans label (and trust I've been so often told I'm agender or a closeted trans man BY TRANS PEOPLE)? Still a TERF. Aren't convinced gender identity is real? Nasty evil TERF.

Don't want to walk over eggshells by saying women are discriminated against due to their reproductive class? Fucking die in a fire.

(I'm not saying that's you btw, I'm just sick of hearing it).

So that's why I'm annoyed at this. I'm sorry for your quote getting in the crossfire and I'm an emotional wreck atm, so again, apologies for seeming like I was attacking you. I promise I wasn't.

So onto the point:

There was a case of a transman being raped in the news recently despite saying to the rapist he identified as a man.

Now, f transmen wish to use mens intimate spaces, and men are asked and approve after consultation and consideration of the needs of everyone and the consistency and checks and balances, then I don't see why not. But it doesn't stop them being at risk of rape, pregnancy and in my country, forced labour.


Personally, I don't know why what be believe ourselves to be should be protected. Becuase unfortunately, the reality is the way we "perceive ourselves to be" doesn't really matter. It didn't matter to the raped transman's rapist. It doesn't matter to my country that sees me as a walking womb.

What matters is how the world perceives us.

What I mean is how the world perceives us, not through language, but through our physical observable selves is what leads to discrimination.

Trans people who decide to transition really need to be protected as trans people, and not as members of the opposite sex.

Because the world perceives them as trans.

It's not what they are not that needs protection, but what they *are*.

When rights of protected groups clash, then  every group should be consulted as a collective. And I'm thinking of lesbians here, does your innermost belief about yourself rule out that objectively some people are same sex attracted? Isn't denying that lesbians like females straight up homophobia?

Do lesbians (who are exclusively female female sex) get to have their own sex segregated spaces?

I'm pretty sure no one here wants anyone to suffer any violence, or discrimination of work, education and all that stuff. And in most cases sex segregation doesn't need to happen. 

But sometimes, SOMETIMES it does, for good reasons.

I hope that was a bit more balanced

And again sorry being short.


----------



## Athos (Nov 9, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> As I said in my first post on this thread, that is a disingenuous way of discussing this conflict. What is happening is that a fragment of a minority faction of the feminist movement, having long since abandoned their own overarching aim, gender abolition, as impractical have turned to policing the boundaries of gender and furthering the oppression of another marginalised group. This is not some natural result of "women questioning" something, with TERF obsessions somehow standing in for the collective response of billions of women. Nor is it the result of some generic evil or inexplicable personal malice as some trans activists assume. TERFery is a phenomenon produced by the slow death of some minor political subcultures.
> 
> It's about as useful to talk about TERF pathologies as the response of women as it would be to treat hoteps or the Nation of Islam as spokespersons for the concerns of black people. Or to take the RCP/LM/Spiked as representatives of the working class.



You're the one conflating gender critical women with TERFs!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 9, 2017)

Athos said:


> You're the one conflating gender critical women with TERFs!



No, I'm just not using TERF language. Nobody who wants to reinforce and police the boundaries of gender is "gender critical".


----------



## xenon (Nov 9, 2017)

FLB. Your posts make my brain hurt.... Not in a bad way. In perspectiv e to consider. As cis bloke, I don't have to deal with or encounter much of the stuff raised . I hope you can sort something out.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 9, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> When rights of protected groups clash, then  every group should be consulted as a collective. And I'm thinking of lesbians here, does your innermost belief about yourself rule out that objectively some people are same sex attracted? Isn't denying that lesbians like females straight up homophobia?


On this bit, I may have it wrong, but aren't the few trans people commenting on the presence/absence of sexual attraction towards them really an unrepresentative fringe, a bit like the idiots shouting how they're chicks with dicks? Sad truth is that none of us has the right to expect anybody else to be sexually attracted to us, and that's that. It's simply not something we are entitled to demand.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 9, 2017)

It _seems_ fair that any self-selecting group of people should be allowed to exclude anyone, for any reason they see fit. But some groups aren't allowed to do this, eg. christians or muslims who disapprove of homosexuality.

sixty+ pages in and nothing that was unclear at the start is any clearer for me.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Nov 9, 2017)

xenon said:


> FLB. Your posts make my brain hurt.... Not in a bad way. In perspectiv e to consider. As cis bloke, I don't have to deal with or encounter much of the stuff raised . I hope you can sort something out.



Thanks mate. We just have to be strong, deal the hand we're dealt and fight when it's possible, withdraw when needed, and walk the line where there's no alternative and straight up look shit in the eyes and fucking roar and do it better than men.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 9, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> It _seems_ fair that any self-selecting group of people should be allowed to exclude anyone, for any reason they see fit. But some groups aren't allowed to do this, eg. christians or muslims who disapprove of homosexuality.
> 
> sixty+ pages in and nothing that was unclear at the start is any clearer for me.


Sometimes there are no good solutions where competing interests clash, which is the case here. We need to find a way to rub along without necessarily ever coming to a full agreement over certain issues. I said earlier in the thread that I've found myself 'liking' posts from various perspectives. I think xenon said the same thing. It's that kind of issue.


----------



## killer b (Nov 9, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! 's posts are some of the best things I've read on this stuff. Cheers actually. (lol at some smug twit calling you a bigot)


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 9, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Is there any other form of bigotry that you believe should be responded to with kindness? Racism? Misogyny? Homophobia? Or is it only transphobia?
> 
> If she'd engaged in the same scaremongering about say, lesbians or gay men, you would consider it incumbent on you to be "kind" in response?



Given you’re responding to a woman as a man, how do we know your position isn’t informed by bigotry?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 9, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sometimes there are no good solutions where competing interests clash, which is the case here.


yeh it is obviously beyond the wit of people to come to some acceptable compromises here


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 9, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> On this bit, I may have it wrong, but aren't the few trans people commenting on the presence/absence of sexual attraction towards them really an unrepresentative fringe



Yes. The frequency with which TERFs return to this trope - lesbians (in particular) will be forced to have sex with trans people! - reflects the paranoia and irrationalism of the milieu.


----------



## Athos (Nov 9, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> No, I'm just not using TERF language. Nobody who wants to reinforce and police the boundaries of gender is "gender critical".



No, but that's not what the vast majority of gender critical feminists do, no matter how many times you assert it.  Again, you've confused recognising the boundaries of sex with policing the boundaries of gender.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Nov 9, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Yes. The frequency with which TERFs return to this trope - lesbians (in particular) will be forced to have sex with trans people! - reflects the paranoia and irrationalism of the milieu.



Entitled trans women punching terfs and telling lesbians to suck their dicks. Tbf it sounds so plausible, I bet it happens all the time. This thread really has taught us so much. Fucking woke.


----------



## Cloo (Nov 9, 2017)

It seems pretty impossible to solve some of the conundrums of sexual identity that have been highlighted in recent months. I'm not comfortable with what I call 'But there was this guy who...' arguments against full access of anyone who identifies as female to female spaces (as in 'There was this guy who said he was trans and sexually assaulted a woman') and I'm a bit like If a guy wanted to sexual assault a women in the Ladies he could just go into a Ladies unobserved and wait there, he wouldn't have to go to the trouble of claiming to identify as female in order to do so. Apologies if that seems flippant.

I have never felt any need personally for exclusively female space, so I don't feel strongly about access to them. However, I recognise plenty of people do, I am not a survivor of sexual abuse, for example and I can't know what it might mean to someone in that situation, or for someone who just feels strongly about their being such spaces, for there to be the possibility of someone being there who has for part of their life been identified and treated as male (even if they didn't wish to be).

I do get annoyed at arguments that transwomen can't be women because they weren't socialised as female when children, and I have heard transwomen being told 'You haven't experienced constant harassment, you haven't experienced being belittled and descriminated against at work, so you can't be a woman', to which I just think 'Well, I haven't been constantly harassed or discriminated at work either, does that mean I'm not a woman?!' There are different ways of being a woman, there are different experiences of being a woman and to me, being a transwoman is one of those ways and there are many ways and experiences of being a transwoman, too.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 9, 2017)

Not everyone’s experiences are the same shocker but the fracture point appears to be the fact that women are oppressed due to their biological being controlled by capital and by being forced into gender roles.
Trans can never be oppressed by the former and are moving into the realm of the latter by choice. 
Of course they’ll experience oppression and abuse as trans but that’s separate to what ‘cis’ women experience. How can’t it be?


----------



## spanglechick (Nov 9, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Not everyone’s experiences are the same shocker but the fracture point appears to be the fact that women are oppressed due to their biological being controlled by capital and by being forced into gender roles.
> Trans can never be oppressed by the former and are moving into the realm of the latter by choice.
> Of course they’ll experience oppression and abuse as trans but that’s separate to what ‘cis’ women experience. How can’t it be?


Can you explain/paraphrase you first point?  I dont quite understand - perhaps there's a word missing?.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 9, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> Can you explain/paraphrase you first point?  I dont quite understand - perhaps there's a word missing?.



Capital controls and oppresses women’s biological functions to produce the next wave of workers off the production line. Perhaps too Marxist for this debate but materialist feminist thought springs from those ideas afaik.


----------



## spanglechick (Nov 9, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Capital controls and oppresses women’s biological functions to produce the next wave of workers off the production line. Perhaps too Marxist for this debate but materialist feminist thought springs from those ideas afaik.


Well, except that I am subject to oppression as a woman despite not having children and happily rejecting female gender roles to a large extent (I've never felt like i had to fit into them, really).  I'm not sure on those grounds why I'm better qualified as an oppressed woman, than a trans woman might be.

Most of my oppression as a woman comes in the form of male sexual entitlement. Trans women are very much subject to this oppression too.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 9, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> Well, except that I am subject to oppression as a woman despite not having children and happily rejecting female gender roles to a large extent (I've never felt like i had to fit into them, really).  I'm not sure on those grounds why I'm better qualified as an oppressed woman, than a trans woman might be.
> 
> Most of my oppression as a woman comes in the form of male sexual entitlement. Trans women are very much subject to this oppression too.



Of course that applies across the board but you can’t deny what I stated exists just because you don’t personally experience it. And I think that’s the crux here. Trans women will have shared experiences with with some women but you can’t call the women who see it differently bigots for simply seeing it differently. There’s no hive mind.


----------



## Lilith Morris (Nov 9, 2017)

I think it's a mistake to consider that the position that sex is important in a sexist society belongs to radical feminism.  At least some socialist feminists seems to be taking that view too Equality Act 2010 Exemptions Should Be Retained, Strengthened And Extended – SocialistFeminist.network


----------



## Sue (Nov 9, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> As I said in my first post on this thread, that is a disingenuous way of discussing this conflict. What is happening is that a fragment of a minority faction of the feminist movement, having long since abandoned their own overarching aim, gender abolition, as impractical have turned to policing the boundaries of gender and furthering the oppression of another marginalised group. This is not some natural result of "women questioning" something, with TERF obsessions somehow standing in for the collective response of billions of women. Nor is it the result of some generic evil or inexplicable personal malice as some trans activists assume. TERFery is a phenomenon produced by the slow death of some minor political subcultures.
> 
> It's about as useful to talk about TERF pathologies as the response of women as it would be to treat hoteps or the Nation of Islam as spokespersons for the concerns of black people. Or to take the RCP/LM/Spiked as representatives of the working class.


So if a man's going to explain stuff about women to me, making it vaguely comprehensible would be a start.

AKA What the fuck are you on about.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 10, 2017)

Lilith Morris said:


> I think it's a mistake to consider that the position that sex is important in a sexist society belongs to radical feminism.  At least some socialist feminists seems to be taking that view too Equality Act 2010 Exemptions Should Be Retained, Strengthened And Extended – SocialistFeminist.network



Hmm, a new website which contains nothing but posts about the gender recognition consultation and a dig at Eddie Izzard.  How long has this network been about and what are the wider aims?


----------



## 19force8 (Nov 10, 2017)

Sue said:


> So if a man's going to explain stuff about women to me, making it vaguely comprehensible would be a start.
> 
> AKA What the fuck are you on about.


I think he's saying that the radical wing of the feminist movement started from a position of wanting to abolish gender, but over the long grind of not making progress with that aim has somehow ended up being more concerned with policing the boundaries of gender, ie excluding trans-women from their essentialist definition of the female gender. And, although they're called TERFs, a small proportion of other feminists have bought into this idea.

Also, they're about as relevant to the views of most women as the tiny, loony fringe of the black or socialist movements are to black people or the working class.


----------



## weepiper (Nov 10, 2017)

Sue said:


> So if a man's going to explain stuff about women to me


I'm not the only one sitting here thinking 'so tell me more about my experience Nigel' then.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Nov 10, 2017)

19force8 said:


> I think he's saying that the radical wing of the feminist movement started from a position of wanting to abolish gender, but over the long grind of not making progress with that aim has somehow ended up being more concerned with policing the boundaries of gender, ie excluding trans-women from their *essentialist definition of the female gender*. And, although they're called TERFs, a small proportion of other feminists have bought into this idea.
> 
> Also, they're about as relevant to the views of most women as the tiny, loony fringe of the black or socialist movements are to black people or the working class.



I think part of the problem is that people conflate sex and gender. I think I said this before.

Feminists don't want to abolish sex because they can't. They don't police the boundaries of sex because sex recognition is hardwired into the brain. Sex isn't a social construct. And you can't police something that people can instinctivey recognise.

A social construct is something that disappears when a society dies. If the human race dies animals will still reproduce, in the case of mammals through male and female. Those animals will instinctive recognise each other.

Female isn't the gender.

Feminine and masculine is the gender. That is the social construct - because feminine and masculine changes over time and culture. There's no such thing as a feminine bird or cat.

 As for essentialism. People forget what it is:



Clearly. No feminist believes that women have a "natural essence" or that there's a universal type of or character for men.

That's the point.

The existence of trans people proves it.

So how do we tackle this?

Some people want to blur the sex lines without actually having abolished gender (masculine and feminine) at any meaningful level structural societal level.

Some people think that blurring the lines of what being the opposite sex physically is will eventually lead to parity because if we change our language (the meaning of man and woman) so that any sex can be male or female, then eventually the world will change.

Other people think it's important to monitor sex because otherwise how would you even know that sexism has disappeared? If a sex can be anything (male OR female)  how do you monitor if those are still tied to masculine and feminine power structures or not?

Now,clearly I think one thing, and other people think another thing and I'm really not sure where the middle ground is.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Nov 10, 2017)

Here's an example: Under the current GRA transmen are banned from inheriting a title if they are the oldest in the family.

If society truly believes trans men are men, why is there this exemption?

It still looks to me like female opression through the gender system because we automatically but not always instantly (instinctivey - sex recognition is hardwired) recognise the sex of transmen as female, and gender is at play here.  The idea that women aren't built for power or to run society but for being pretty and making babies.

Likewise the number of transwomen earning titles of "top female earners" or "women of the year" when the reverse is not true of transmen. 

Can we really say female pairity is reached or is the gender system still at play?

The only time I hear of transmen in the news if if they are raped or get pregnant.

That we've automatically and subconsciously recognise trans women as male, and then place them at the top of because men are smarter, and more capable then weak brained women.

What does that do for women and transmen clocked as female? How does it help them?

Honestly I think the denial of the fact that we recognise physical differences in each other and the idea that those differences don't exist is really unhelpful in combating any structural opression.

Denying my female body *actually* exists doesn't help me or women in my situation at all. Or transmen. Or anyone.

It's kind of the equivalent of "colour blindness". The idea that I'm not racist because I just *don't* see colour.

Sex-blindness, the exually unhelpful cousin of colour-blindness.


----------



## belboid (Nov 10, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Clearly. No feminist believes that women have a "natural essence" or that there's a universal type of or character for men.
> 
> That's the point.
> 
> The existence of trans people proves it


Except, plenty of feminists _do_ believe in universal behaviour, that’s why they’re separatists. That’s why some women were castigated as gender traitors if they slept with men.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Nov 10, 2017)

belboid said:


> Except, plenty of feminists _do_ believe in universal behaviour, that’s why they’re separatists. That’s why some women were castigated as gender traitors if they slept with men.



Sure some of the separatists think that.

Others see it as punishment of men for refusing to change thier bad bad ways.

Feminist MGTOW

Sometimes even very liberal feminists think that way too. I have a lesbian mate who is into queer theory, art, and identities and all that stuff so naturally really doesn't think much Julie Bindel, but says "Her lesbian separatist work is really good".

Always kind of seemed to be a bit weird and dissonant, that statement.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 10, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I think part of the problem is that people conflate sex and gender. I think I said this before.
> 
> Feminists don't want to abolish sex because they can't. They don't police the boundaries of sex because sex recognition is hardwired into the brain. Sex isn't a social construct. And you can't police something that people can instinctivey recognise.
> 
> A social construct is something that disappears when a society dies. If the human race dies animals will still reproduce, in the case of mammals through male and female. Those animals will instinctive recognise each other.



Do you at least accept that many transgender people report discomfort with their physical sex, not their gender?  Hence the surgery and hormones.


----------



## lazythursday (Nov 10, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Likewise the number of transwomen earning titles of "top female earners" or "women of the year" when the reverse is not true of transmen.



So - is it the case that transwomen as a whole benefit from some hangover of maleness, or is it that you are highlighting some high profile, high status individuals who are very much exceptions to the rule? I haven't read anything statistical on this but my sense is that transwomen as a group do not retain vestiges of male privilege as you seem to suggest - on the contrary, they seem to face levels of prejudice and discrimination that see them having very low levels of power. To be blunt, those who would view them as male would also generally view them as freaks. This line of argument that somehow transwomen have some kind of status that women lack just seems so completely contrary to what I've actually seen (in my limited experience).

Could the reason that transmen get ignored be the fact that given the higher status of men under patriarchy, there's a kind of underlying commensense view that it's quite sensible for a woman to want to become a man whereas to do the reverse is to invite ridicule?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Nov 10, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Do you at least accept that many transgender people report discomfort with their physical sex, not their gender?  Hence the surgery and hormones.



I accept that many transgender people do,  of course!  I know what disphoria feels like so *of course* I can understand why someone would want to change their body. I know how it feels to feel disgusted with your physicality.

The thing, though, is discomfort with your sex,  as you put it, and wanting to change *physically* to the other sex isn't NECESSARY to diagnosed with gender disphoria in adults.

Here is the Criteria from the DSM-5 which is the gold standard for diagnosing gender disphoria. My notes are in italics.

*In adolescents and adults gender dysphoria diagnosis involves a difference between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender, and significant distress or problems functioning. It lasts at least six months and is shown by at least two of the following: *(_so only two) _


*A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and primary and/or secondary sex characteristics *_this is an incongruence, and doesn't refer to wanting to change your body to the other sex. I certainly feel this now. My sex chatacterists box me in. _
*A strong desire to be rid of one’s primary and/or secondary sex characteristics *_(this is the need for medicalisation, but again doesn't say you want to be the other sex, just discomfort with your body, plenty of people who describe themselves as "agender" have surgery. I had this as a teen asking my uterus to be removed, and I expect many if not most pubescent girls don't like their boobs growing.)  _
*A strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the other gender* (so this is what we would traditionally see as trans, wanting the sex characteristics of the other- was never me)
*A strong desire to be of the other gender *_(this is about the role of man and a woman) _
*A strong desire to be treated as the other gender *_(treated by society as males are. I certainly feel this now, it says nothing about appearance or discomfort, just treatment) _
*A strong conviction that one has the typical feelings and reactions of the other gender *_(simply a conviction of typical feelings, so entirely reliant on stereotypes. I use to say I feel like a gay man in a woman's body) _
I still hit at least four of them now.

What should be clear from this diagnostic set though, is that you don't need discomfort with your body. From this diagnostic criteria you just a desire to be treated as such and have a strong inner conviction you have the "feelings" of the other sex/gender.

The current political situation is that even this very loose (in my opinion) criteria for gender disphoria is considered gatekeeping. And this is what the new GRA will be about because currently you need this diagnosis to change legal sex.

See Alex Drummond of Stonewall, currently in support of the updated GRA-  Not diagnosed, no discomfort with body, no desire for any alteration. Quoted as saying "I bring out the inner lesbian in women" (please do watch these videos)



Now if I were to say that trans people *should* experience a personal need for medical intervention that would open me to accusations of "truscum" and "transmedicalist". And quite frankly I'm done with insults.





I said earlier on in the thread that even the word "trans" seems to mean something different to everyone even in the case in the trans community.

So if I'm honest I really don't know what the word is supposed to mean. Evidenced by the Dsm 5, and evidenced by the fact even the trans community can't agree.


----------



## lazythursday (Nov 10, 2017)

This is just fucking impossible isn't it? So yeah, I can see why women would not be comfortable with Alex, above, claiming to be a woman when he seems comfortable with male secondary sex characteristics and therefore isn't really living as a woman other than wearing feminine clothes and doesn't seem to be on a journey towards some kind of deeper transition. He's blurring the boundaries of gender, which I applaud, but I struggle to accept that he's crossed some sort of line into womanhood. 

But does the existence of transpeople like Alex justify excluding transwomen who have been living as women for decades from being treated equally as women? There has to be some sort of collective agreement on where the boundaries are. Perhaps I'm coming round to the idea that the GRA is flawed. But I can't see a sensible way forward either.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 10, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Now,clearly I think one thing, and other people think another thing and I'm really not sure where the middle ground is.


I agree with you completely about conflating sex and gender. I think I do it sometimes. I think most people do it at some point, and this thread is evidence enough of that. The law definitely does it, and I think some of this is a hang-over from a time, not so long ago, when sex/gender essentialism was pretty mainstream thinking and there wasn't much if any distinction between the two in many people's minds. You still see this in, for instance, conservative religious groups for whom gender roles are in some way 'god-given'. 

As to the possible middle ground, again I think this thread shows how hard it is to find any. I'm not sure we can reach agreement, we can merely find a means of coexistence. Perhaps acknowledging that this stuff is difficult and messy, whatever your pov on it, is a start. That may be the only real middle ground that can be shared by everyone.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 10, 2017)

lazythursday said:


> There has to be some sort of collective agreement on where the boundaries are.


But surely those boundaries are going depending on situations as well. I think trying to make hard lines in the sand is just going to make more problems rather than less.


----------



## iona (Nov 10, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Tbh I struggle to imagine a situation in which cis men would object to the presence of trans men in a men-only space.



Just off the top of my head - 

Trans men have often been (and still are, although I think to a lesser extent) excluded from gay mens' spaces. Some cis gay men see them as "not real men" due to their not having a natal penis.

I've heard of people having issues with accessing segregated spaces within their religion. 

I know of a BJJ club where I'd be made to get changed in the women's changing room too. (Not that I'd ever visit because I think the instructor's a dick)


----------



## Clair De Lune (Nov 10, 2017)

lazythursday said:


> This is just fucking impossible isn't it? So yeah, I can see why women would not be comfortable with Alex, above, claiming to be a woman when he seems comfortable with male secondary sex characteristics and therefore isn't really living as a woman other than wearing feminine clothes and doesn't seem to be on a journey towards some kind of deeper transition. He's blurring the boundaries of gender, which I applaud, but I struggle to accept that he's crossed some sort of line into womanhood.
> 
> But does the existence of transpeople like Alex justify excluding transwomen who have been living as women for decades from being treated equally as women? There has to be some sort of collective agreement on where the boundaries are. Perhaps I'm coming round to the idea that the GRA is flawed. But I can't see a sensible way forward either.


I'm a woman. I am absolutely fine and accepting of Alex Drummond as a fellow woman. Think about it, if you say I am not comfortable around Alex because she has a beard and therefore is not a woman, its rather damning of any woman who is not perceived as a stereotypical female. Example - I’m not sorry I’m a bearded lady - BBC Three By your rationale she is not a woman either. Nor is any butch/masculine presenting woman. 

I would argue that our eyes do not determine gender well. They do not determine sexuality either which is why it's polite not to make assumptions.


----------



## lazythursday (Nov 10, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> But surely those boundaries are going depending on situations as well. I think trying to make hard lines in the sand is just going to make more problems rather than less.


I think the problem with this debate is it end up focusing on either extreme and probably unlikely scenarios (the transwoman raping a woman in a toilet) or the outliers (the person with male genitalia and a beard in a dress) rather than the broad mass of transpeople and their needs. And my gut feeling is that the acceptance of transpeople has to in the end be a positive thing for breaking down gender that will benefit all of us. But if I was a lesbian I'd be fucking deeply uncomfortable accepting Alex into a lesbian only space (no idea what her sexual preferences are) whereas I think I might feel differently about, say, a transwoman who retained male genitalia but had had hormone treatment and been presenting as a woman for a long period. But then we get into a prurient and invasive focus on individual sexual characteristics.


----------



## lazythursday (Nov 10, 2017)

Clair De Lune said:


> I'm a woman. I am absolutely fine and accepting of Alex Drummond as a fellow woman. Think about it, if you say I am not comfortable around Alex because she has a beard and therefore is not a woman, its rather damning of any woman who is not perceived as a stereotypical female. Example - I’m not sorry I’m a bearded lady - BBC Three By your rationale she is not a woman either. Nor is any butch/masculine presenting woman.
> 
> I would argue that our eyes do not determine gender well. They do not determine sexuality either which is why it's polite not to make assumptions.


As I wrote that I did think of the cis woman who lives locally to me who proudly sports a beard - so yes, I fully understand what you are saying. I also agree that you might well be correct that if I met Alex I'd accept her as a woman and a video doesn't necessarily get this across. 

I'm just vocalising my personal struggle with some of this. I suppose in my head there are a series of tickboxes that makes a man or a woman. You don't have to have all of them to qualify, and don'#t necessarily need the appropriate genitals, but you need some of them. Perhaps that's horribly bigoted but I think it's how a lot of people currently think.


----------



## Athos (Nov 10, 2017)

Clair De Lune said:


> I'm a woman. I am absolutely fine and accepting of Alex Drummond as a fellow woman. Think about it, if you say I am not comfortable around Alex because she has a beard and therefore is not a woman, its rather damning of any woman who is not perceived as a stereotypical female. Example - I’m not sorry I’m a bearded lady - BBC Three By your rationale she is not a woman either. Nor is any butch/masculine presenting woman.
> 
> I would argue that our eyes do not determine gender well. They do not determine sexuality either which is why it's polite not to make assumptions.



Can you think of any circumstances in which you would not accept someone as a fellow woman, if they asked you to?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 10, 2017)

iona said:


> Just off the top of my head -
> 
> Trans men have often been (and still are, although I think to a lesser extent) excluded from gay mens' spaces. Some cis gay men see them as "not real men" due to their not having a natal penis.
> 
> ...


I was clearly underestimating the prevalence of this. More people feel threatened by trans people than I had thought. Presumably in this case, not so much physically threatened as psychologically. What a fuck up.


----------



## iona (Nov 10, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Not everyone’s experiences are the same shocker but the fracture point appears to be the fact that women are oppressed due to their biological being controlled by capital and by being forced into gender roles.
> Trans can never be oppressed by the former and are moving into the realm of the latter by choice.
> Of course they’ll experience oppression and abuse as trans but that’s separate to what ‘cis’ women experience. How can’t it be?



Firstly (start of your second paragraph) "trans" is an adjective, not a noun.

Wrt to oppression based on biological sex and reproductive (capability? potential? function? Not sure what word to use here) - as a more general response, not just aimed at the post or poster I've quoted - while that's obviously a factor it isn't quite that simple.

Not every transgender person is obviously, visibly trans, for a start. If you're read as female or male you'll often be treated as such, regardless of what reproductive organs you have. There are also many situations where physical appearance doesn't come into it - my old employer never stopped to consider whether any of the women whose CVs he discarded due to their age ("they'll be going off and having babies") might be trans, or cis and infertile.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Nov 10, 2017)

I am reminded of this - Richard Spencer telling Gary Younge he will never be an Englishman.

I feel the exact same distaste, anger and deep sadness when people tell trans people they are not women or men. It comes imo from the same place of arrogance, bigotry and ignorance and has very similar results of dehumanizing, policing what is allowed and who someone can be and can lead to the most inhumane treatment, prejudice and scapegoating.


----------



## Athos (Nov 10, 2017)

Clair De Lune said:


> I am reminded of this - Richard Spencer telling Gary Younge he will never be an Englishman.
> 
> I feel the exact same distaste, anger and deep sadness when people tell trans people they are not women or men. It comes imo from the same place of arrogance, bigotry and ignorance and has very similar results of dehumanizing, policing what is allowed and who someone can be and can lead to the most inhumane treatment, prejudice and scapegoating.




I agree that a lot of that sort of stuff is just nasty abuse.  But wouldn't you accept that there's some trans exclusion that's not motivated by hate? And that there's an extra layers of nuance in the trans woman scenario (compared to the race one), given that the person seeking to exclude the trans woman is from an oppressed group themselves i.e. women (and sincerely believes the person they seek to exclude is from the group of oppressors, notwithstanding that you might not share that belief)?  Isn't this a case of competing goods (or bads), rather than a straightforward good versus bad?


----------



## Clair De Lune (Nov 10, 2017)

Athos said:


> Can you think of any circumstances in which you would not accept someone as a fellow woman, if they asked you to?


Going to try to answer this as honestly as possible. I think I would struggle if that person was known to me to be openly misogynistic, had been violent to women, expressed sexist views, wielded male privledge  in order to enact that violence ...had never expressed feelings of disphoria. Now that example I am thinking of a specific person that I knew who I have rid from my life. He's a bloke and a shit one at that. But I guess in my head he is as far from a woman as you can get. So yeah if he told me he was a woman I wouldn't be starting a go fund me campaign or circling in empathic support.

I have never met a trans woman like that and I've met many over the last 7 years and in every stage of transition. Some 'passed' some didn't. Some were hoping to pass one day, some were ok where they were. I've never met the trope of the entitled trans woman who insists men or women should fancy her. Trans women are more than aware of how unnaccepting society is of them. Our media makes a mockery of trans identities daily while at the same time whipping up fear and prejudice.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 10, 2017)

Athos said:


> wouldn't you accept that there's some trans exclusion that's not motivated by hate?



The motivation is fear IMO, not hate.

I mean (EtA) nobody _hates _trans people, do they? They might think they do, but what they really feel is fear. Fear of their comfort zone being broken by other people (better yet, ''other'' people), essentially. Fear of something they can't control and perhaps don't even understand.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Nov 10, 2017)

Athos said:


> I agree that a lot of that sort of stuff is just nasty abuse.  But wouldn't you accept that there's some trans exclusion that's not motivated by hate? And that there's an extra layers of nuance in the trans woman scenario (compared to the race one), given that the person seeking to exclude the trans woman is from an oppressed group themselves i.e. women (and sincerely believes the person they seek to exclude is from the group of oppressors, notwithstanding that you might not share that belief)?  Isn't this a case of competing goods (or bads), rather than a straightforward good versus bad?


We've been over this before. Women can have 'safe spaces' to discuss things such as abortion, miscarriage, abuse...etc. I am not aware of trans people trying to stop cis women having that. So for me it's a bit of a straw man.

I do hope that more mixed spaces and conversations can happen with the hope of reducing fear and prejudice though. Can a Terf remain a Terf when she has trans sisters?


----------



## Athos (Nov 10, 2017)

Clair De Lune said:


> Going to try to answer this as honestly as possible. I think I would struggle if that person was known to me to be openly misogynistic, had been violent to women, expressed sexist views, wielded male privledge  in order to enact that violence ...had never expressed feelings of disphoria. Now that example I am thinking of a specific person that I knew who I have rid from my life. He's a bloke and a shit one at that. But I guess in my head he is as far from a woman as you can get. So yeah if he told me he was a woman I wouldn't be starting a go fund me campaign or circling in empathic support.
> 
> I have never met a trans woman like that and I've met many over the last 7 years and in every stage of transition. Some 'passed' some didn't. Some were hoping to pass one day, some were ok where they were. I've never met the trope of the entitled trans woman who insists men or women should fancy her. Trans women are more than aware of how unnaccepting society is of them. Our media makes a mockery of trans identities daily while at the same time whipping up fear and prejudice.



That all makes sense to me.  But, there are some who'd label you a TERF for your stance in respect of the first point.


----------



## Athos (Nov 10, 2017)

Clair De Lune said:


> We've been over this before. Women can have 'safe spaces' to discuss things such as abortion, miscarriage, abuse...etc. I am not aware of trans people trying to stop cis women having that. So for me it's a bit of a straw man.
> 
> I do hope that more mixed spaces and conversations can happen with the hope of reducing fear and prejudice though. Can a Terf remain a Terf when she has trans sisters?



Well, if some women feel unsafe as a result of trans women being admitted, then an insistence on admission is denying some women that safe space.  Accepting of course that non-admission would deny other women (trans women) that safe space.  The competing goods point. 

I've said it before that I would prefer that women choose to admit all other women (including trans women), and I think you're right that the more it happens, the more some of those fears would be seen to be without foundation. But I recognise that it's not my place to say, really. And that a decision not to might be a legitimate expression of the prioritisation  of competing goods, rather than of hatred or bigotry.  There needs to be more compassionate discussion and seeing things from other sides, and less absolutism, on both sides. Though things seem to moving the other way at the moment.


----------



## hot air baboon (Nov 10, 2017)

Clair De Lune said:


> I am reminded of this - Richard Spencer telling Gary Younge he will never be an Englishman.



except a TERF would see themsleves as a black person telling serried ranks of Rachel Dolezals that they aren't black


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Nov 10, 2017)

Athos said:


> I agree that a lot of that sort of stuff is just nasty abuse.  But wouldn't you accept that there's some trans exclusion that's not motivated by hate? And that there's an extra layers of nuance in the trans woman scenario (compared to the race one), given that the person seeking to exclude the trans woman is from an oppressed group themselves i.e. women (and sincerely believes the person they seek to exclude is from the group of oppressors, notwithstanding that you might not share that belief)?  Isn't this a case of competing goods (or bads), rather than a straightforward good versus bad?



Richard Spencer there is deliberately conflating Nationality with Ethnicity via race.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 10, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I accept that many transgender people do,  of course!  I know what disphoria feels like so *of course* I can understand why someone would want to change their body. I know how it feels to feel disgusted with your physicality.
> 
> The thing, though, is discomfort with your sex,  as you put it, and wanting to change *physically* to the other sex isn't NECESSARY to diagnosed with gender disphoria in adults.
> 
> ...




So if you accept some people have a dysphoria about their physical sex, and those feelings are authentic, then would you oppose this group being denied access to women's refuges for example?  Because this probably presents the largest group of transpeople currently accessing women's refuges and if those campaigning against the GRA amendments get their way this group will get thrown under a bus.  These are people who have lived in their aquired gender/sex for some time and have had medical intervention to correct what they feel is sex dysmorphia, and who just want to be able to go to the fucking toilet, or access services should they need them.  A bit of empathy for them might go a long way.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 10, 2017)

hot air baboon said:


> except a TERF would see themsleves as a black person telling serried ranks of Rachel Dolezals that they aren't black


I think the Rachel case will be more in yer face in the coming years with more people claiming that they are in fact black or feel black etc.


----------



## krink (Nov 10, 2017)

hot air baboon said:


> except a TERF would see themsleves as a black person telling serried ranks of Rachel Dolezals that they aren't black


I wanted to bring this up but was too scared, such is the nature of this discussion here and even more so elsewhere online 
If someone says they truly feel like a woman, I'd probably be happy to accept that but then I remembered the woman who truly feels black and I know she would be dismissed by both sides of the trans/Terf debate and I can't think what the difference is.
*Eta I'm not saying there isn't a difference just that I don't know either way


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 10, 2017)

krink said:


> I wanted to bring this up but was too scared, such is the nature of this discussion here and even more so elsewhere online
> If someone says they truly feel like a woman, I'd probably be happy to accept that but then I remembered the woman who truly feels black and I know she would be dismissed by both sides of the trans/Terf debate and I can't think what the difference is.
> *Eta I'm not saying there isn't a difference just that I don't know either way


Well here we tip-toe on dangerous territory to do with gender identity and whether or not it is something that we have evolved to seek out. I would argue that we have, given the universal existence of gender identity in various forms across cultures and its social role. Very different from race. Young children don't seek out a racial identity. I'm not even really sure what a racial identity is supposed to mean in the context of Dolezal. It's very certainly something highly particular to the US concept and experience of race. tbh in this instance, Dolezal just strikes me as someone who was caught out in a lie and was desperately trying to justify herself.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 10, 2017)

krink said:


> I wanted to bring this up but was too scared, such is the nature of this discussion here and even more so elsewhere online
> If someone says they truly feel like a woman, I'd probably be happy to accept that but then I remembered the woman who truly feels black and I know she would be dismissed by both sides of the trans/Terf debate and I can't think what the difference is.
> *Eta I'm not saying there isn't a difference just that I don't know either way



She was rightly dismissed because she openly lied and concocted stories to validate/bolster her lies. It's not comparable at all unless you believe that transwomen are lying and making up stories to hide behind.


----------



## Athos (Nov 10, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> She was rightly dismissed because she openly lied and concocted stories to validate/bolster her lies. It's not comparable at all unless you believe that transwomen are lying and making up stories to hide behind.



Come on, be honest, even if she hadn't lied, there's no way you'd consider her black on her own say-so, would you?  I wouldn't either.

For what it's worth, it seems to me there is a difference between trans gender and trans race, but I can't explain it, and haven't heard anyone else do so convincingly.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 10, 2017)

Athos said:


> Come on, be honest, even if she hadn't lied, there's no way you'd consider her black on her own say-so, would you?  I wouldn't either.
> 
> For what it's worth, it seems to me there is a difference between trans gender and trans race, but I can't explain it, and haven't heard anyone else do so convincingly.


One is deeply embedded in every society, is experienced by every young child, and is very likely to be the kind of thing that young children look out for in the world in an attempt to make sense of things. It is so deeply embedded that in many languages you can't even talk about people without assigning them this thing. And the other is race. 

They're obviously entirely different things. 'trans race' is just bollocks. imo it's insulting to make the comparison.


----------



## Athos (Nov 10, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> One is deeply embedded in every society, is experienced by every young child, and is very likely to be the kind of thing that young children look out for in the world in an attempt to make sense of things. It is so deeply embedded that in many languages you can't even talk about people without assigning them this thing. And the other is race.
> 
> They're obviously entirely different things. 'trans race' is just bollocks. imo it's insulting to make the comparison.



Not sure I but the innate argument. Surely both are socially constructed, but that gender hag had much longer to be constructed, since there's always been both sexes living side-by-side in every society, whereas it's relatively recently that there's been any significant race mixing.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 10, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> One is deeply embedded in every society, is experienced by every young child, and is very likely to be the kind of thing that young children look out for in the world in an attempt to make sense of things. It is so deeply embedded that in many languages you can't even talk about people without assigning them this thing. And the other is race.
> 
> They're obviously entirely different things. 'trans race' is just bollocks. imo it's insulting to make the comparison.



Reminds me of the thing where kids of differing ethnicities are asked to describe their differences and they talk about different interests etc they don’t mention skin pigmentation. That’s taught.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Nov 10, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> She was rightly dismissed because she openly lied and concocted stories to validate/bolster her lies. It's not comparable at all unless you believe that transwomen are lying and making up stories to hide behind.


Absolutely this. And again the media help spread this idea that trans people are masquerading and trying to deceive people when they are simply being themselves. 
This whipping up of fear ironically adds to rates trans people are abused, attacked and murdered globally. Yet we're still told we should fear _them. _Our culture is very keen to keep oppressing and scapegoating minorities it seems.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 10, 2017)

Athos said:


> Not sure I but the innate argument. Surely both are socially constructed, but that gender hag had much longer to be constructed, since there's always been both sexes living side-by-side in every society, whereas *it's relatively recently that there's been any significant race mixing*.


Really? You ever seen ancient Egyptian/Babylonian artwork - plenty of 'race mixing' (ugh) back then.

But that's the whole point - that the sexes have lived side-by-side in every society and that the social construct of gender allows a huge plasticity of behaviour and culture, rather than stereotyped sex roles that we're just born with. That's how we've evolved. I'd compare it more to language acquisition - we're born with a propensity to actively search for something like language, and I would say it is very strongly likely that something similar is true of gender. That's how evolution works - someone born with a propensity to actively seek out the identities that will be important to them will fare better, but not having the behaviour rigidly 'hard-wired' into them allows huge flexibility of expression of that identity.

That 'they're both social constructs' is a surface similarity that hides hugely important differences. Languages are also social constructs, but it's entirely uncontroversial that humans are born with a propensity to look for it in the world, that they actively seek it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 10, 2017)

It was touched on above that other animals make do with sex roles and no gender roles. 

I would question to what extent that is true - don't think it's entirely true about elephants, for instance, as seen when dysfunctional, antisocial males develop following culls, during years when there are no elder males around to provide a role model for how adult males should behave: to a certain extent, elephants have to learn their sex role and behaviours that are expected of their sex, ie they have gender. 

But to the extent that it is true, it means that the often elaborate mating rituals of those animals must be innate (although songbirds have to learn their songs, their urge to sing is innate and they have an urge to sing in a particular way depending on their species). 

We humans have pretty complex mating rituals, which vary across cultures precisely because they have a learned aspect to them, so there's a huge non-innate component. But that a particular function has evolved to be dealt with culturally doesn't lessen that function's importance or its evolved nature. Among other things, the social construct gender can play a central role in human mating rituals. That would suggest that, while the content of gender may not be determined, its existence has been selected by evolution. That doesn't make it something we can't change - it's evolved to become something that we can change radically - but it places gender in a very different place from other social constructs that do not have comparable evolved functions.


----------



## snadge (Nov 10, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> We humans have pretty complex mating rituals, which vary across cultures precisely because they have a learned aspect to them



You are over complicating the mating procedure massively, the end result is always the same, propagation of the human race. It's not rocket science, children are born, the next generation will do it again, it doesn't matter how you pair up, children are the result.

Every FtM trans I have come across try to pass as male, they do an amazing job to combat their disphoria and really do become male in every way they can, MtF are a different breed though, they have even coined their own division amongst themselves, Truscum and Trucute, coined by the Trucutes ( to blame a faction).

Zinnia Jones is a trucute by their own admission and is a fetishist, they are not alone and are the majority I just mention Zinnia because their name has popped up in this discussion earlier, I will also add that the truscum tag is disgusting to me and it is thrown maliciously by the likes of Zinnia and their ilk, if I have a side to pick, I'm firmly in the truscum side and will defend them to the death.

Here is an interesting article, trucute telling women they don't know what being a woman is.

The Cotton Ceiling Is Real and It’s Time for All Queer and Trans People to Fight Back

By the way, I have a dog in this race, I explained my background previously but was called a transphobe for it, so I can't be bothered explaining again, I will say my situation was created through medical necessity and not by choice though.


----------



## weepiper (Nov 10, 2017)

An Open Letter to Topshop – Harvey Jeni – Medium


----------



## Athos (Nov 10, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Really? You ever seen ancient Egyptian/Babylonian artwork - plenty of 'race mixing' (ugh) back then.
> 
> But that's the whole point - that the sexes have lived side-by-side in every society and that the social construct of gender allows a huge plasticity of behaviour and culture, rather than stereotyped sex roles that we're just born with. That's how we've evolved. I'd compare it more to language acquisition - we're born with a propensity to actively search for something like language, and I would say it is very strongly likely that something similar is true of gender. That's how evolution works - someone born with a propensity to actively seek out the identities that will be important to them will fare better, but not having the behaviour rigidly 'hard-wired' into them allows huge flexibility of expression of that identity.
> 
> That 'they're both social constructs' is a surface similarity that hides hugely important differences. Languages are also social constructs, but it's entirely uncontroversial that humans are born with a propensity to look for it in the world, that they actively seek it.



I don't know what the 'ugh' is for; I literally meant people of different races mixing together i.e. day-to-day interaction in society.  Which, clearly, has less historical precedent than sexes mixing (notwithstanding Babylonian art).

You keep asserting this idea of an inate tendency to search for gender identity, without offering any evidence for it.

Of course we're not born with stereotyped sex roles; they're socially constructed.


----------



## Nigel (Nov 11, 2017)

Looks like Eddie Izzard is on the slate for Labour NEC elections & more than likely gain a seat !
He is backed by Labour First among other 'centrist' 'moderate' anti Corbyn campaigners/ groups lobbying in opposition to left slates by Momentum, CLPD, Labour Rep. Committee etc.
Although good on many social issues is this another example of 'identity' politics undermining even semantically class orientated left political movement for social change
Labour First


----------



## Raheem (Nov 11, 2017)

Athos said:


> Of course we're not born with stereotyped sex roles; they're socially constructed.



But stereotyped sex roles != gender.


----------



## 19force8 (Nov 11, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I think part of the problem is that people conflate sex and gender. I think I said this before.


But I wasn't conflating them. True, I referred to "the female gender" when I should have said feminine. Put this down to lack of familiarity with the jargon rather than a conflation of sex and gender.


FabricLiveBaby! said:


> As for essentialism. People forget what it is:


Yep, that's what I understand by "essentialist." Who forgot it?


----------



## killer b (Nov 11, 2017)

Nigel said:


> Looks like Eddie Izzard is on the slate for Labour NEC elections & more than likely gain a seat !
> He is backed by Labour First among other 'centrist' 'moderate' anti Corbyn campaigners/ groups lobbying in opposition to left slates by Momentum, CLPD, Labour Rep. Committee etc.
> Although good on many social issues is this another example of 'identity' politics undermining even semantically class orientated left political movement for social change
> Labour First



He was way behind all three of the left slate last time I looked.


----------



## 19force8 (Nov 11, 2017)

Athos said:


> Not sure I but the innate argument. Surely both are socially constructed, but that gender hag had much longer to be constructed, since there's always been both sexes living side-by-side in every society, whereas it's relatively recently that there's been any significant race mixing.


Technically, this is true since race is a social construct that's less than 500 years old. The reality is that people have always migrated, mixed and mingled, maybe not to the extent they do now that we have globespanning transport networks, but at times quite widely.


----------



## Nigel (Nov 11, 2017)

killer b said:


> He was way behind all three of the left slate last time I looked.



He was surprisingly one of three nominees elected on a slate for East Oxford & promoted by the notorious Luke Akehurst among others of similar ilk; they appear to see Eddie Izzard as their main wedge against Lansman !

Had the impression this was happening nationally and orchaestrated by moderates, new labour sympathisers et al.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 11, 2017)

I haven't read the whole thread but looks a really good level of discussion..I will read it, I'm sure I'll learn a lot. I'm glad its here.
Its really worrying that if this conversation were to be had at a public meeting it would be in danger of being be shut down. If it were contained in a book or pamphlet the shop/stall/venue selling the literature could be picketed if 'found out'. Even on big social media it would escalate into war.
I appreciate bridges have been burnt and there are people out there who are antagonistic and spiteful but turning this into a taboo subject can't be right.


mojo pixy said:


> I mean (EtA) nobody _hates _trans people, do they? They might think they do, but what they really feel is fear. Fear of their comfort zone being broken by other people (better yet, ''other'' people), essentially. Fear of something they can't control and perhaps don't even understand.


Without getting all pop-psychology thats exactly where a lot of hatred comes from


----------



## killer b (Nov 11, 2017)

Nigel said:


> He was surprisingly one of three nominees elected on a slate for East Oxford & promoted by the notorious Luke Akehurst among others of similar ilk; they appear to see Eddie Izzard as their main wedge against Lansman !
> 
> Had the impression this was happening nationally and orchaestrated by moderates, new labour sympathisers et al.


He's been on the Labour moderate slate for the NEC a few times recently, never in with a chance. The moderates can't really orchestrate anything nationally atm (not where the membership is being consulted anyway), they don't have the numbers.


----------



## killer b (Nov 11, 2017)

(in fact they're struggling even in some previous local strongholds - there's been a spate of centrist timeservers deselected in Manchester lately, and they had to resort to some fairly dodgy shit to get the leader of Haringey council re-selected the other night)


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 11, 2017)

ska invita said:


> Without getting all pop-psychology thats exactly where a lot of hatred comes from



Definitely, I just prefer to focus on the (primary) fear rather than the (secondary) hate. I think more people who express hate need to be pushed towards expressing it in terms of fear instead. It's more honest and ultimately easier to defuse / unpick.


----------



## trashpony (Nov 11, 2017)

It's not fear of comfort zones being broken, it's fear of being in the same space as people with penises. That's a legitimate fear for many women, particularly those who have been abused. And if you think that some men won't exploit this to terrorise and abuse women, you're being really naive. Have a look at the links I posted upthread.


----------



## elbows (Nov 11, 2017)

trashpony said:


> It's not fear of comfort zones being broken, it's fear of being in the same space as people with penises. That's a legitimate fear for many women, particularly those who have been abused. And if you think that some men won't exploit this to terrorise and abuse women, you're being really naive. Have a look at the links I posted upthread.



Is this the post you are referring to? Since it was a while ago and the thread is long, I thought it would be useful to link to it but want to make sure I've got the right one:

#1665


----------



## comrade spurski (Nov 11, 2017)

krink said:


> I wanted to bring this up but was too scared, such is the nature of this discussion here and even more so elsewhere online
> If someone says they truly feel like a woman, I'd probably be happy to accept that but then I remembered the woman who truly feels black and I know she would be dismissed by both sides of the trans/Terf debate and I can't think what the difference is.
> *Eta I'm not saying there isn't a difference just that I don't know either way



Am not digging but what does feeling black involve?
If there was no racism I am not sure there'd be anything for me to think or feel about skin colour. Not sure that's the same with being male or female due to hormones (as one example). I kind of get the point of drawing comparisons but don't think it works on this occasion.
I could be wrong of course.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 11, 2017)

trashpony said:


> It's not fear of comfort zones being broken, it's fear of being in the same space as people with penises. That's a legitimate fear for many women, particularly those who have been abused.



I agree, the bit about comfort zones was a general point about hate. In this case, it would IMO help if there was more acknowledgement from more people that genuine fear of men is what a lot of this trouble is about. If we admit fear we can expect compassion. If we just yell _fuck off_ we can expect to have it yelled back at us.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 11, 2017)

trashpony said:


> It's not fear of comfort zones being broken, it's fear of being in the same space as people with penises. That's a legitimate fear for many women, particularly those who have been abused. And if you think that some men won't exploit this to terrorise and abuse women, you're being really naive. Have a look at the links I posted upthread.



Except the evidence of anyone actually ever doing this is virtually non-existent.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 11, 2017)

It's worth noting in the context of today's Times newspaper pieces, that with TERFs pretty much entirely defeated and isolated within broader left, feminist and LGBT circles, they are almost inevitably going to end up making common cause with right wing, socially conservative transphobia. They are already holding meetings alongside right wing Tories who oppose the government on trans recognition. And given the difference in power and influence between mainstream social conservatism on the one hand and a rump of dissident radfems on the other, that's not going to be an equal relationship. Who will be used by whom is not a difficult question to answer. Their main role for the foreseeable future will be to provide a "progressive" angle for some of the trans scare stories the right wing press will be running.

You might hope that those among them who still see themselves as generally political radical might pull back from that kind of alliance, but ultimately it's a matter of power. Thwarting the "trans agenda" has become not just a point of identity but an obsessional* focus and it doesn't take long for anyone to realise that small numbers of people with what they think of as a "gender critical" analysis forming an unpopular fringe of the feminist movement have little capacity to stop anything. Mainstream social conservatism on the other hand is still powerful (although also prone to sudden collapses). Much the same set of circumstances led some radical feminists into close alliances with the religious right in America over issues like pornography in the past for much the same reasons - it wasn't because they were stupid or deep down were actually conservatives. It was a rational choice from their point of view.

*It should be pointed out that just as TERFs have an obsession with trans people that isn't actually an automatic result of holding Radical Feminist views and owes more to subcultural considerations, trans activists can be obsessed with denouncing TERF views in a way that misses their essential irrelevance as compared to socially conservative transphobia. This is also a result of largely subcultural pressures - TERFs are the transphobes nearest to hand, the ones most likely to be actually encountered in left wing milieus, and the ones who actually can, unlike the Daily Mail, be marginalised. These dual disproportionate focuses are mutually reinforcing.


----------



## weepiper (Nov 11, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It's worth noting in the context of today's Times newspaper pieces, that with TERFs pretty much entirely defeated and isolated within broader left, feminist and LGBT circles, they are almost inevitably going to end up making common cause with right wing, socially conservative transphobia. They are already holding meetings alongside right wing Tories who oppose the government on trans recognition. And given the difference in power and influence between mainstream social conservatism on the one hand and a rump of dissident radfems on the other, that's not going to be an equal relationship. Who will be used by whom is not a difficult question to answer. Their main role for the foreseeable future will be to provide a "progressive" angle for some of the trans scare stories the right wing press will be running.
> 
> You might hope that those among them who still see themselves as generally political radical might pull back from that kind of alliance, but ultimately it's a matter of power. Thwarting the "trans agenda" has become not just a point of identity but an obsessional* focus and it doesn't take long for anyone to realise that small numbers of people with what they think of as a "gender critical" analysis forming an unpopular fringe of the feminist movement have little capacity to stop anything. Mainstream social conservatism on the other hand is still powerful (although also prone to sudden collapses). Much the same set of circumstances led some radical feminists into close alliances with the religious right in America over issues like pornography in the past for much the same reasons - it wasn't because they were stupid or deep down were actually conservatives. It was a rational choice from their point of view.
> 
> *It should be pointed out that just as TERFs have an obsession with trans people that isn't actually an automatic result of holding Radical Feminist views and owes more to subcultural considerations, trans activists can be obsessed with denouncing TERF views in a way that misses their essential irrelevance as compared to socially conservative transphobia. This is also a result of largely subcultural pressures - TERFs are the transphobes nearest to hand, the ones most likely to be actually encountered in left wing milieus, and the ones who actually can, unlike the Daily Mail, be marginalised. These dual disproportionate focuses are mutually reinforcing.



You talk pish son.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 12, 2017)

Athos said:


> I.
> 
> Of course we're not born with stereotyped sex roles; they're socially constructed.


Yes of course. You didn't understand my point at all.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 12, 2017)

weepiper said:


> An Open Letter to Topshop – Harvey Jeni – Medium



Top Shop changing rooms are supervised and have cubicals.  Is people with different genitals changing clothes in cubicles next to each other whilst under supervision and CCTV in any points of possible contact with each other really such a threat?  Transpeople have been using changing rooms and toilets appropriate to their gender for decades, is there any evidence, anywhere in the world, that this has posed a danger to non trans women?


----------



## Athos (Nov 12, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes of course. You didn't understand my point at all.



What was your point?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Nov 12, 2017)

Dawn Foster:

The bigoted British media actively endangers trans people


----------



## Clair De Lune (Nov 12, 2017)

weepiper said:


> An Open Letter to Topshop – Harvey Jeni – Medium



As you posted this, what do you think about this weeps? I think you know me well enough by now to realise I'm not here to attack you even if we have very different views. I think this conversation is important for us all. If we understand each other maybe we can also help each other move past fear. (The rest of my post is in reaction to the letter not aimed explicitly at you for clarity)

Personally I felt empathy for her concern for her daughter, but it became clear she had another agenda as soon as she heard the story. She searched these people's posting history for 'dirt' in order to strengthen her argument. She states "Now I am not suggesting for one second that anyone who identifies as non-binary or transfemme is likely to share these worrisome attitudes towards female children — that would be a terrible slander and is categorically untrue." and yet she concentrates on and magnifies that 'paedo fear' for the rest of her letter.

If it really is as simple as fear of penises- how do you know who has one and who doesn't? Is it ok to discriminate against anyone who might have those type of genitals? Where *should* trans people try on clothes? Might you feel differently if one of your son's came out as trans? Please imagine that for a moment.


If it's a row of individual changing rooms with their own mirrors (rather than group changing) then does it matter who is in the next one? Ime in some shops the male and female dressing rooms have been along one corridor and if one was full I was allowed to use the other...cos they are private anyway and nobody is wandering round in the nude.

I might be on my own with this, my life has clearly given me very different feelings about this stuff than some of you but personally I find that letter scaremongering and reactionary. It doesn't take into account the fact that people using changing rooms are doing it to try on clothes and nothing else. They tend to be busy and public spaces with attendants- therefore pretty bloody safe.

I'd appreciate people's thoughts on this. Let's  bring our ideas out into the light and examine them without attacking one and other.




 We know that young trans people don't access surgery until they are older...it may surprise you but there are probably a few trans girls (and boys) in your kids high school, some may be open about it but others will be living in stealth for their own safety as much as there being no rule stating they have to tell everyone about their genitals.

 How do we decide who is a threat and who isn't? The lady who wrote the letter seems to think you will  be able to tell by looking, if they look masculine then they are a possible threat. Its too simplistic and it reeks of ignorance. If she knew trans women, if she spoke to and listened to trans women, I believe her fears would be reduced. I believe that to be the case for some of you here too.

Please speak to trans women, for your own sake as much as theirs. Nobody wants to be labelled a Terf, transphobe or bigot and sometimes people are too quick to throw those labels about. But it's not hard to see why trans people feel attacked. My eyes have been opened to this stuff more because I have trans mates and a trans kid.

 I was drawn to this place because people seemed to be on the whole a little  more intelligent, well read, open minded, critical of the establishment, anti racist, less sexist, less homophobic than some parts of the internet. I noticed how caring a place it could be in k&s but *we can do so much better when it comes to standing up for transgender people here.* It's about educating ourselves and ffs realising trans people have WAY more to fear from us than we them.


----------



## elbows (Nov 12, 2017)

Tricky stuff. How to deal with edge cases without pretending they never exist, but not play into the realm of people using that stuff to push agendas that are shit?


----------



## Clair De Lune (Nov 12, 2017)

This article addresses much of this even though it's related to bathrooms (bogs) rather than changing rooms. 

Why LGBT Advocates Say Bathroom 'Predators' Are Red Herring


----------



## elbows (Nov 12, 2017)

Lilith Morris said:


> I think it's a mistake to consider that the position that sex is important in a sexist society belongs to radical feminism.  At least some socialist feminists seems to be taking that view too Equality Act 2010 Exemptions Should Be Retained, Strengthened And Extended – SocialistFeminist.network





smokedout said:


> Hmm, a new website which contains nothing but posts about the gender recognition consultation and a dig at Eddie Izzard.  How long has this network been about and what are the wider aims?



If it has wider aims its made very little attempt to describe them. As best I can tell its been around a matter of months and people such as Ruth Serwotka are the driving force of at least the online, public facing bit of it.


----------



## bimble (Nov 12, 2017)

Personally I find the focus on toilets changing rooms etc completely bizarre. I don’t feel worried about people with whatever genitalia sharing the same physical space at all. My interest is nothing to do with fear of penises or the idea that trans people might be some sort of sexual predators. 

I’m not worried about any of that but do find the apparent entrenching of rigid gender roles that is going on as a result of the desire to support trans people scary and depressing:
My cousins kid (now 15) just did a couple of years living as a boy, boys name etc, and has now decided to try being a girl again. When they were talking about being trans (during the boy-ness) it was all about how they like mechanics and aren’t interested in nail polish or clothes (i.e girly things). I’m glad she’s decided to try being a girl who likes football and has short hair, instead of going ahead and transitioning. If that makes me transphobic so be it.


----------



## elbows (Nov 12, 2017)

bimble said:


> I’m not worried about any of that but do find the apparent entrenching of rigid gender roles that is going on as a result of the desire to support trans people scary and depressing:
> My cousins kid (now 15) just did a couple of years living as a boy, boys name etc, and has now decided to try being a girl again. When they were talking about being trans (during the boy-ness) it was all about how they like mechanics and aren’t interested in nail polish or clothes (i.e girly things). I’m glad she’s decided to try being a girl who likes football and has short hair, instead of going ahead and transitioning. If that makes me transphobic so be it.



I read a long article on that theme just the other day and just found the link to it again. It was very interesting and raised a bunch of interesting points, but I found it hard to escape the idea that there were a few other things at work in the article and the author/parents beliefs that gave me concern. I also have no idea what 4th wave stuff means.

Born in the right body: Introducing 4thWaveNow’s new spokesperson, mom of a teen desister


----------



## Clair De Lune (Nov 12, 2017)

bimble said:


> Personally I find the focus on toilets changing rooms etc completely bizarre. I don’t feel worried about people with whatever genitalia sharing the same physical space at all. My interest is nothing to do with fear of penises or the idea that trans people might be some sort of sexual predators.
> 
> I’m not worried about any of that but do find the apparent entrenching of rigid gender roles that is going on as a result of the desire to support trans people scary and depressing:
> My cousins kid (now 15) just did a couple of years living as a boy, boys name etc, and has now decided to try being a girl again. When they were talking about being trans (during the boy-ness) it was all about how they like mechanics and aren’t interested in nail polish or clothes (i.e girly things). I’m glad she’s decided to try being a girl who likes football and has short hair, instead of going ahead and transitioning. If that makes me transphobic so be it.


Personally I don't think that makes you transphobic at all. I feel happy for your cousin- they were allowed and supported to socially transition and work it out for themselves, that's lovely. 
There will be young people who question gender for a while but not go on to transition and that's ok. But there are many more that do wish to go on to transition and because it is about much more than not conforming to societies idea of gendered interests and expressions.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 12, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Dawn Foster:
> 
> The bigoted British media actively endangers trans people



I was going to post this as well, I really rate Dawn Foster. Probably the consistently best British journalist in mainstrea media at the moment, at least that I know of.

I fully admit to not understanding the nuances of issues relating to sex and gender, I could easily say that I agree with the title of this thread. However, it's interesting how this debate manifests itself differently in Britain and other countries in Europe to how it does in America. Over there you would expect this sort of transphobic bluster to come from prominent bigoted politicians in North Carolina, and it would accompany outlandish ideas about climate change, and here it comes from establishment 'newspapers of record' and even 'Fabians' like Helen Lewis.

I suppose part of what is different is that there is no real constituency for transphobia in the same way as there is in parts of America. There just aren't that many people out there who are socially conservative in the same right-wing Evangelical way, and Radical Feminists are a very small subset of the population with transphobic Radical Feminists being an even smaller subset of that subgroup.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 12, 2017)

Clair De Lune said:


> This article addresses much of this even though it's related to bathrooms (bogs) rather than changing rooms.
> 
> Why LGBT Advocates Say Bathroom 'Predators' Are Red Herring



Well worth reading the linked letter in that piece, partcularly in the context of complaints that the recent transgender enquiry didn't effectively consult with women's groups. 

Link is here,the link in the original piece no longer works: http://endsexualviolence.org/files/...tTransAccessWithSignatoriesUpdated4-29-16.pdf



> We the undersigned sexual assault and domestic violence organizations oppose anti transgender initiatives.  These initiatives utilize and perpetuate the myth that protectingtransgender people’s access to restrooms and locker rooms endangers the safety or privacy of others. As organizations that care about reducing assault and violence, we favor laws and policies that protect transgender people from discrimination, including in accessing facilities that match the gender they live every day.





> Nondiscrimination laws protecting transgender people have existed for a long time. Over 200 municipalities and 18 states have nondiscrimination laws protecting transgender people’s access to facilities consistent with the gender they live every day. In some cases, these protections have been in place for decades. These laws have protected people from discrimination without creating harm.  None of those jurisdictions have seen a rise in sexual violence or other public safety issues due to nondiscrimination laws. Assaulting another person in a restroom or changing room remains against the law in every single state. We operate and advocate for rape crisis centers and shelters all over the country, including in cities and states with non-discrimination protections for transgender people. Those protections have not weakened public safety or criminal laws, nor have they compromised their enforcement.





> It is natural to be concerned about safety and privacy. As advocates and survivors, we know the threat of sexual assault is real and pervasive. Every time we hear of someone who speaks of their assault or abuse, we feel their pain. The safety fears that many have, especially those who are survivors, are not baseless or irrational, nor should they be dismissed. However, discriminating against transgender people does nothing to decrease the risk of sexual assault.
> 
> Discriminating against transgender people does not give anyone more control over their body or security. Those who perpetuate falsehoods about transgender people and nondiscrimination laws are putting transgender people in harm’s way and making no one safer. We cannot stand by while the needs of survivors, both those who are transgender and those who are not, are obscured in order to push a political agenda that does nothing to serve and protect victims and potential victims.  We will only accomplish our goal of ending sexual violence by treating all people, including those who are transgender, with fairness and respect.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Nov 12, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Well worth reading the linked letter in that piece, partcularly in the context of complaints that the recent transgender enquiry didn't effectively consult with women's groups.
> 
> Link is here,the link in the original piece no longer works: http://endsexualviolence.org/files/...tTransAccessWithSignatoriesUpdated4-29-16.pdf


It's really encouraging. Was glad to find that today  Facts


----------



## Humirax (Nov 12, 2017)

It's awesome that this can be discussed in an rational, mature, intelligent way, unlike certain other forums I can think of where people just get over emotional and sling shit at each other and people are banned simply for just having a different opinion that the admins don't like. I can relate to not wanting to be alpha male but I don't understand the need for transitioning, but then I don't have gender dysphoria. About gender dysphoria though, what is it? I can only come to the conclusion that it is a psychological disorder of some type. Surely if you look in the mirror and you hate yourself then that is some type of psychological disorder. The idea that trans people have a brain with a different gender doesn't sit right with me either, this is because women have had to fight the idea of a female brain for a hell of a long time and this idea has been used to oppress women. I don't think I'm transphobic, but then I have a vested interest in thinking that don't I? But, I don't hate trans people, that's what I'm getting at, if I am indeed transphobic it's not deliberate. Infact, I understand that trans people suffer from patriarchy, which ofcourse, is often implemented by and enforced by alpha males, who also have a habit of oppressing women as part of patriarchy. I also understand that being trans is very tough. I think people have shared some interesting things on this thread and it's just nice to see it discussed openly in the proper way. If I have posted anything deemed ignorant or wrong then perhaps those that see things differently or who have better knowledge of this than myself could reply to this post, instead of just insulting or banning me.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 12, 2017)

Humirax said:


> It's awesome that this can be discussed in an rational, mature, intelligent way, unlike certain other forums I can think of where people just get over emotional and sling shit at each other and people are banned simply for just having a different opinion that the admins don't like. I can relate to not wanting to be alpha male but I don't understand the need for transitioning, but then I don't have gender dysphoria. About gender dysphoria though, what is it? I can only come to the conclusion that is a psychological disorder of some type. Surely if you look in the mirror and you hate yourself then that is some type of psychological disorder. The idea that trans people have a brain with a different gender doesn't sit right with me either, this is because women have had to fight the idea of a female brain for a hell of a long time and this idea has been used to oppress women. I don't think I'm transphobic, but then I have a vested interest in thinking that don't I? But, I don't hate trans people, that's what I'm getting at, if I am indeed transphobic it's not deliberate. Infact, I understand that trans people suffer from patriarchy, which ofcourse, is often implemented by and enforced by alpha males, who also have a habit of oppressing women as part of patriarchy. I also understand that being trans is very tough. I think people have shared some interesting things on this thread and it's just nice to see it discussed openly in the proper way. If I have posted anything deemed ignorant or wrong then perhaps those that see things differently or who have better knowledge of this than myself could reply to this post, instead of just insulting or banning me.



The most important thing is to be aware that just because we can't personally understand how something feels, because we haven't experienced it, that does not mean it isn't real when experienced by others.

It's strange how we are all perfectly capable of understanding the subjectivity of human experience in most other contexts, and yet so many people refuse to acknowledge the experiences of trans folk as valid. This often leads to the creation of bizzarre narratives about people's motivations (like the idea that people would restructure their entire lives and potentially their bodies too just to get a peek inside the ladies' toilets) none of which ever fit the facts as well as the theory that people feel what they say they feel and are who they say they are.

There are lots of things people do that I will never be able to comprehend. But there's always a reason people do what they do, and that reason is always a little more complex than, 'they're just trying to wind me up'.


----------



## bimble (Nov 12, 2017)

Humirax said:


> About gender dysphoria though, what is it? I can only come to the conclusion that is a psychological disorder of some type.


I think that this is true, at the moment anyway, as it’s listed in the big book of mental disorders & conditions (DSM) but there is lots of debate going on at the moment about ‘demedicalising’ the whole thing.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Nov 12, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Of course that applies across the board but you can’t deny what I stated exists just because you don’t personally experience it. And I think that’s the crux here. Trans women will have shared experiences with with some women but you can’t call the women who see it differently bigots for simply seeing it differently. There’s no hive mind.



You're mixing up two distinct things, the historical (and necessary) oppression of women and the logical preconditions of capitalism at a high level of abstraction. 

And social reproduction isn't just about who produces the worker biologically, it is also the necessary unwaged care and domestic work to produce these social relationships conducive to capital in the privatised home.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 12, 2017)

Humirax said:


> I can only come to the conclusion that it is a psychological disorder of some type. Surely if you look in the mirror and you hate yourself then that is some type of psychological disorder.



Dysphoria isn't really a matter of _hating_, it's more a matter of _this is wrong_, it's not _me_. Discomfort. It can become hate, definitely, but that's as much because of other peoples' reactions and attitudes, as anything internal.

On the point about psychological disorder, more and more we're understanding that people are just different and as long as someone isn't a danger to themselves or other people, and as long as that person doesn't want treatment (many people don't) there's no reason necessarily to ''treat'' psychological disorders. It's often (usually?) more compassionate and more effective (in the long term) to offer _support _rather than treatment.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 13, 2017)

Are we understanding that? The classification system seems to me to be very much part of capitalism, used by and maintained by it, beginning in early childhood.


----------



## bimble (Nov 13, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> On the point about psychological disorder, more and more we're understanding that people are just different and as long as someone isn't a danger to themselves or other people, and as long as that person doesn't want treatment (many people don't) there's no reason necessarily to ''treat'' psychological disorders. It's often (usually?) more compassionate and more effective (in the long term) to offer _support _rather than treatment.


Is that so? I don't recognise that in for instance the recent stats on ADHD prescriptions for children .


----------



## trashpony (Nov 13, 2017)

ADHD isn't a psychological disorder - it's a neurological one.


----------



## iona (Nov 13, 2017)

Humirax said:


> Surely if you look in the mirror and you hate yourself then that is some type of psychological disorder.



I don't look in the mirror and hate myself 

Gender dysphoria is difficult to describe to someone who's never experienced it, but I'll give it a try (bear in mind this is only what it's like for ME - it will be different for other people).

Imagine waking up one morning and your nose or eyebrows were a different shape, or you'd grown a beard (or had it shaved off if you have one), or you'd lost or gained a couple of stone in weight. Imagine walking past a mirror like this, and catching a glimpse of yourself - just for a second - and doing a double take because of the mismatch between what your brain expects and the reflection you actually saw. Now imagine feeling that way when you look at your actual reflection, without anything having changed. 

I used to do this all the time, whenever I wore a bra & top that emphasised my breasts. I know to expect them when I intentionally look in a mirror, but after 15 years they still surprise me at times because part of my brain thinks they shouldn't be there.

I used to have a particular outfit that always made me feel great. I wasn't sure why,  exactly - it was nothing special, just some trackies and a free t-shirt from a jiu jitsu competition - but whenever I put those clothes on I could look in the mirror and think I looked good. I worked it out, eventually  The print on that t-shirt and the thick, stiff fabric make my chest look flat with just a sports bra underneath. That particular pair of tracksuit bottoms makes my hips look narrower and hides the shape of my legs & bum. I get this when I wear a [chest] binder now, too - I just look _right_ this way. My voice sounds right at this pitch. The stubble on my chin when I've not shaved feels right. The shape of my body on testosterone is right - not in terms of aesthetic appearance, but how I fit properly in my own skin now; it's no longer jarring, like looking at a stranger. 

Have you ever felt a nagging discomfort or unease, and eventually realised there was a noise in the background or a label in your clothes rubbing and that's what was causing it? And then the feeling of relief, after, when it's gone and you just feel fine again? It's a bit like that.


----------



## elbows (Nov 13, 2017)

Ugh at the way this guy apologises and says it was a slip of the tongue, yet takes the opportunity to go on about his beliefs and what he considers reasonable.

Teacher faces action over 'misgendering'



> A teacher is facing disciplinary action at his school after he referred to a transgender pupil as a girl, although the student identifies as a boy.





> "While the suggestion that gender is fluid conflicts sharply with my Christian beliefs... I have never looked to impose my convictions on others", he said
> 
> He said he had apologised to the student, but said he did not consider it "unreasonable" to call someone a girl "if they were born a girl".



I had a quick look at the church he is a pastor of. I was not shocked to discover that its evangelical.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 13, 2017)

trashpony said:


> ADHD isn't a psychological disorder - it's a neurological one.



Curiously, it was not something that manifested itself during my school days five decades ago.


----------



## Teaboy (Nov 13, 2017)

Sasaferrato said:


> Curiously, it was not something that manifested itself during my school days five decades ago.



Yes it did, it just would have been called something different like hyperactive.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 13, 2017)

Sasaferrato said:


> Curiously, it was not something that manifested itself during my school days five decades ago.


Yeah it did. But those kids were just called naughty or difficult.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 13, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Yes it did, it just would have been called something different like hyperactive.


 Nope. It didn't happen. Children came into the classroom and worked, or at least behaved as required, until the class was over.

I strongly suspect that the much much higher levels of discipline, together with whole class teaching had something to do with it, as did the level of respect extended at that time to the teaching profession by the community in general.

In those days, schools were not personality development centers, they were places of learning. My male teachers wore a suit and tie, female teachers equally formally dressed. Anything else was not acceptable. Because there was no disruption to deal with, teachers could spend more time on individual tuition for those who were slipping behind a bit.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Nov 13, 2017)

5 decades ago, My Uncle has forced to write with his right hand at a Scottish school- being left handed was seen as wrong - he was also constantly being punished for transgressions - both physical like caning and strapping - and detentions/ Lines.  he was also sent out to run around the football field when he started to get fidgety, and was bullied by the gym teachers who supervised  him when this happened. yep, he realised he was ADHD when his grandkids were seen to exhibit the same symptoms & were diagnosed about a decade ago.


----------



## Thora (Nov 13, 2017)

Yeah, there were definitely no naughty children in the good old days.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 13, 2017)

Thora said:


> Yeah, there were definitely no naughty children in the good old days.


Nobody got caned. Ever.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 13, 2017)

Sasaferrato said:


> Nope. It didn't happen. Children came into the classroom and worked, or at least behaved as required, until the class was over.
> 
> I strongly suspect that the much much higher levels of discipline, together with whole class teaching had something to do with it, as did the level of respect extended at that time to the teaching profession by the community in general.
> 
> In those days, schools were not personality development centers, they were places of learning. My male teachers wore a suit and tie, female teachers equally formally dressed. Anything else was not acceptable. Because there was no disruption to deal with, teachers could spend more time on individual tuition for those who were slipping behind a bit.



Eh? Come off it Sass what is this meloncholy nonsense?  Did you have corporal punishment at your school?


----------



## belboid (Nov 13, 2017)

Sasaferrato said:


> Nope. It didn't happen. Children came into the classroom and worked, or at least behaved as required, until the class was over.
> 
> I strongly suspect that the much much higher levels of discipline, together with whole class teaching had something to do with it, as did the level of respect extended at that time to the teaching profession by the community in general.
> 
> In those days, schools were not personality development centers, they were places of learning. My male teachers wore a suit and tie, female teachers equally formally dressed. Anything else was not acceptable. Because there was no disruption to deal with, teachers could spend more time on individual tuition for those who were slipping behind a bit.


Even if all of that is entirely accurate, it still ignores the large numbers attending 'special schools' which were overwhelmingly done away with in the nineties


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 13, 2017)

Out of sight, out of mind. :/


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 13, 2017)

With the Sun and the Daily Mail devoting front pages to scaremongering today, following on from the three Times articles at the weekend, it appears that the right wing media is gearing up for a full assault on trans rights.

Pick your side.


----------



## elbows (Nov 13, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> With the Sun and the Daily Mail devoting front pages to scaremongering today, following on from the three Times articles at the weekend, it appears that the right wing media is gearing up for a full assault on trans rights.
> 
> Pick your side.



I think the Sun and Mail front pages would have happened at any stage where the Church of England came out with those guidelines, not sure its indicative that they are ramping up for something in particular, just their usual crap?


----------



## elbows (Nov 13, 2017)

I also, perhaps optimistically, take it as a sign that their miserable side are losing.


----------



## killer b (Nov 13, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Pick your side.


I thought we were all about rejecting binaries?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 13, 2017)

elbows said:


> I think the Sun and Mail front pages would have happened at any stage where the Church of England came out with those guidelines, not sure its indicative that they are ramping up for something in particular, just their usual crap?



Three of the main right wing papers going heavily on multiple different attacks on trans people in three days is pretty clear evidence that there's a conservative backlash gearing up and only one of the six articles (that I've seen) was about the CofE. There will be quite a lot more of this stuff in the period running up to the Gender Recognition Act review and then the period afterwards when it becomes clear that the sky hasn't fallen.

I agree by the way that the conservative side is losing, but they can cause quite a bit of misery in the process.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 13, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> 5 decades ago, My Uncle has forced to write with his right hand at a Scottish school- being left handed was seen as wrong - he was also constantly being punished for transgressions - both physical like caning and strapping - and detentions/ Lines.  he was also sent out to run around the football field when he started to get fidgety, and was bullied by the gym teachers who supervised  him when this happened. yep, he realised he was ADHD when his grandkids were seen to exhibit the same symptoms & were diagnosed about a decade ago.



My late father  was left handed, but forced to write with his right hand. At the time that actually made sense, when writing was done with liquid ink that probably wasn't the most quick to dry. When we started writing with ink at school, it was with dip pens, steel nib. If you pressed slightly too hard, the points of the nib crossed, splattering your work. You then started all over again.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 13, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Eh? Come off it Sass what is this meloncholy nonsense?  Did you have corporal punishment at your school?


 Of course we did. Oh, my second secondary school had 900 pupils, so a fair sample.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 13, 2017)

Sasaferrato said:


> My late father  was left handed, but forced to write with his right hand. At the time that actually made sense, when writing was done with liquid ink that probably wasn't the most quick to dry. When we started writing with ink at school, it was with dip pens, steel nib. If you pressed slightly too hard, the points of the nib crossed, splattering your work. You then started all over again.


There was a reason for doing it - convenience for the teachers as much as anything else. That's not the same as it making sense. It was an awful practice that fucked people up.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 13, 2017)

It literally does not make sense to force kids to write with the wrong hand. If there's a problem with the ink, give them different ink, pencils, or show them how to write with the hand curved over the top to avoid smudging. Those solutions wouldn't have been considered in those days because it was OK to bully people into conformity.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 13, 2017)

belboid said:


> Even if all of that is entirely accurate, it still ignores the large numbers attending 'special schools' which were overwhelmingly done away with in the nineties



Perhaps in England... In Scotland the only children who were not educated in mainstream school were the mentally subnormal, to use the charming terminology of the time. 

When I was a student nurse in Inverness, I did a stint at Craig Phadrig,which was the 'hospital' for mentally subnormal children. It covered everything from hydrocephalus to microcephaly, from Down's Syndrome to outright psychosis. I remember it well, as I nearly got snuffed out by a 13 year old Down's boy. He was as tall as me, but stronger. I was in a corner, with his hands round my throat. I finally punched him in the face as hard as I could. Fully expecting to be 'sacked' on the spot, I went and reported what had happened to the Charge Nurse. He said that he would note it in the Day Book, and that was that. The absolute irony of Craig Phadrig was that the daughter of the Medical Superintendent was a patient, an absolutely beautiful little girl called Naomi who was micro-cephalic. I see children in the community on a daily basis that would have been imprisoned in there back in the day. We are going forwards. all be it slowly.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 13, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There was a reason for doing it - convenience for the teachers as much as anything else. That's not the same as it making sense. It was an awful practice that fucked people up.



I fail to see why it would be convenient or otherwise for the teacher. It makes no odds to them which hand you use, well not nowadays. Try writing left handed with a fountain pen, and avoid streaking your work. Even with today's quick drying ink, it is difficult. Back then, it was damn near impossible. My daughter is left handed, and after watching her struggle, I almost wished she had been made to write right handed. Writing left handed, you cannot see what you have just written, without lifting you hand away. She is damn near ambidextrous, so I don't think writing right handed would have been too much of a trauma. When she was little, and cutting things out, she cut to the top with the right hand, then swapped the scissors over, completely oblivious to having done so.

I don't expect that we will ever agree on the merits of then as opposed to now, so I don't have anything further to say on the matter.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 13, 2017)

Sasaferrato said:


> I was in a corner, with his hands round my throat. I finally punched him in the face as hard as I could.



The problem was that the situation got to that point in the first place. I can confidently assert that there would have been _no_ need for it to get there, and the reason it did is because that lad was being institutionally abused by a ''care'' system / institution that treated eg an assault on the residents as something to note in the day book and nothing more.

Things in both care and education have improved considerably since those days, in terms of how challenging behaviour is dealt with. It's not even really called _challenging behaviour_ any more, at least in more progressive organisations. What gets acknowledged now is that_ challenging behaviour is a coping strategy for distress_. So then the question becomes, why is this person in distress and what can I do to help them with that?

Hitting a service user deliberately in the face, no matter what the context, would now - thankfully - mean instant dismissal and probably also arrest.

EtA, sorry for the off-topic post but this is an issue I feel very strongly about and am deeply invested in.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 13, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> It literally does not make sense to force kids to write with the wrong hand. If there's a problem with the ink, give them different ink, pencils, or show them how to write with the hand curved over the top to avoid smudging. Those solutions wouldn't have been considered in those days because it was OK to bully people into conformity.



My father died 16 years ago, at the age of 86. He would have been 103 this year. When he was in primary school it would have been 1909, they used slates and slate pencils until they started writing in ink. What the fuck else, in your infinite wisdom, was available then? Eh?


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 13, 2017)

There's no need to write right-handed with slates and chalk. Even the thing about ink is IMO a massive red herring used to justify abusive treatment.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Nov 13, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> The problem was that the situation got to that point in the first place. I can confidently assert that there would have been _no_ need for it to get there, and the reason it did is because that lad was being institutionally abused by a ''care'' system / institution that treated eg an assault on the residents as something to note in the day book and nothing more.
> 
> Things in both care and education have improved considerably since those days, in terms of how challenging behaviour is dealt with. It's not even really called _challenging behaviour_ any more, at least in more progressive organisations. What gets acknowledged now is that_ challenging behaviour is a coping strategy for distress_. So then the question becomes, why is this person in distress and what can I do to help them with that?
> 
> ...



Oh my. The pitiful ignorance of youth. Knows fuck all, but knows it all.

Rise in violent attacks by patients on NHS mental health staff

*Assaults on mental health staff up 25% in four years - BBC News*

The prosecution of psychiatric patients for assaults on staff: a preliminary empirical study.  - PubMed - NCBI

Assault on staff in psychiatric hospitals: a safety issue.  - PubMed - NCBI


----------



## klang (Nov 13, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> There's no need to write right-handed with slates and chalk. Even the thing about ink is IMO a massive red herring used to justify abusive treatment.


Millions or Arabs seem to be doing just fine, writing right-handed with ink.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 13, 2017)

I'm hardly a youth


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 13, 2017)

littleseb said:


> Millions or Arabs seem to be doing just fine, writing right-handed with ink.



Quite so.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Nov 13, 2017)

Who is this fucking horrible woman? Ugh.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 13, 2017)

Sasaferrato said:


> Rise in violent attacks by patients on NHS mental health staff
> 
> *Assaults on mental health staff up 25% in four years - BBC News*
> 
> ...



So? What this tells me is that those institutions are treating people terribly. Underfunding and under-resourcing leads to shortcuts, pressure and stress. Leads to abuse and mistreatment.
But it is off-topic. Maybe a subject for one of the mental-health threads.


----------



## klang (Nov 13, 2017)

Sasaferrato said:


> Perhaps in England... In Scotland the only children who were not educated in mainstream school were the mentally subnormal, to use the charming terminology of the time.
> 
> When I was a student nurse in Inverness, I did a stint at Craig Phadrig,which was the 'hospital' for mentally subnormal children. It covered everything from hydrocephalus to microcephaly, from Down's Syndrome to outright psychosis. I remember it well, as I nearly got snuffed out by a 13 year old Down's boy. He was as tall as me, but stronger. I was in a corner, with his hands round my throat. I finally punched him in the face as hard as I could. Fully expecting to be 'sacked' on the spot, I went and reported what had happened to the Charge Nurse. He said that he would note it in the Day Book, and that was that. The absolute irony of Craig Phadrig was that the daughter of the Medical Superintendent was a patient, an absolutely beautiful little girl called Naomi who was micro-cephalic. I see children in the community on a daily basis that would have been imprisoned in there back in the day. We are going forwards. all be it slowly.


I wouldn't expect people who hit _*13 yo Down's boys in the face as hard as they could*_ to be *'sacked'*, but to be sacked, taken to court, and never to be allowed around vulnerable people again. I'd expect a thorough investigation involving the code of  conduct of managers and other superiors.


----------



## elbows (Nov 13, 2017)

Clair De Lune said:


> Who is this fucking horrible woman? Ugh.



Andrea Williams, CEO of Christian Concern and the Christian Legal Centre.

I mentioned the broader story earlier, but that didn't include the tv performance so I am researching her and the org more at the moment.


----------



## elbows (Nov 13, 2017)

Although a key word I used earlier also applies to that group - evangelical.


----------



## elbows (Nov 13, 2017)

She's got plenty of form, this is from 2013:

Tom Daley ‘is gay because his father died’ says UK evangelist


----------



## Clair De Lune (Nov 13, 2017)

She is a professional fuckwit then. She proper made my blood boil ...then I cringed at how sociopathic she seemed ...so fake, so arghhh. Not had such a visceral reaction to a stranger in a long time.


----------



## klang (Nov 13, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> So? What this tells me is that those institutions are treating people terribly. Underfunding and under-resourcing leads to shortcuts, pressure and stress. Leads to abuse and mistreatment.


Underfounding also leads to people working in the care industry who shouldn't be working anywhere near the care industry as funding cuts and bad pay encourages 'good' staff to seek more lucrative employment opportunities and also encourages 'bad' staff with few other employment opportunities who lack a basic understanding of dignity and empathy (even a basic 'like' for human beings).
I've seen (and reported) horrendous things in my 20plus years as a front line worker in various care settings. Stuff as bad as what Sas described.
Equally, I know people who worked in institutions over 50 years ago and who even then wouldn't have hit another human being in a more vulnerable position in the face with full force.


mojo pixy said:


> But it is off-topic. Maybe a subject for one of the mental-health threads.


Quite.
ETA I've largely left care a few years ago, partly due to other stuff I fancied giving a shot, partly due to pure frustration.


----------



## elbows (Nov 13, 2017)

Clair De Lune said:


> She is a professional fuckwit then. She proper made my blood boil ...then I cringed at how sociopathic she seemed ...so fake, so arghhh. Not had such a visceral reaction to a stranger in a long time.



Also worked with Nadine Dorries on anti-abortion stuff in 2008. Sounds like there is an old Channel 4 dispatches doc that had undercover footage, but I can't be watching that due to the sort of blood pressure rises experienced.

Think I can probably get away with pretending she doesn't exist since her side are not going to get many victories this century, praise the lord.


----------



## Celyn (Nov 13, 2017)

Sasaferrato said:


> Perhaps in England... In Scotland the only children who were not educated in mainstream school were the mentally subnormal, to use the charming terminology of the time...



No, I'm fairly sure there were "Approved Schools", and then "List D" school, for pupils given to delinquency or truancy or whatever.


----------



## xenon (Nov 13, 2017)

In England there were certainly special schools in the 80s and early 90s.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 13, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Three of the main right wing papers going heavily on multiple different attacks on trans people in three days is pretty clear evidence that there's a conservative backlash gearing up and only one of the six articles (that I've seen) was about the CofE. There will be quite a lot more of this stuff in the period running up to the Gender Recognition Act review and then the period afterwards when it becomes clear that the sky hasn't fallen.
> 
> I agree by the way that the conservative side is losing, but they can cause quite a bit of misery in the process.



Greening has said the consulation now won't be published until after xmas now, thats just the consultation, we were supposed to have the amendments being laid before parliament this Autumn.  So it looks like it's being kicked into the long grass.  David Davis must be pissing himself about his new radical feminist 'friends'.


----------



## Athos (Nov 13, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> With the Sun and the Daily Mail devoting front pages to scaremongering today, following on from the three Times articles at the weekend, it appears that the right wing media is gearing up for a full assault on trans rights.
> 
> Pick your side.



Or refuse to allow the right wing press to set an agenda that forces a false dichotomy.


----------



## xenon (Nov 13, 2017)

Yotu voted for this. Like brexit. Too DM types. Not the point philosophicaly i know. But nail them to the wall they built anyway.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 13, 2017)

Sasaferrato said:


> Of course we did. Oh, my second secondary school had 900 pupils, so a fair sample.



If everyone just merrily slotted in amongt the Mary Poppins world of well dressed, revered teachers; no one misbehaved, was different, defiant or whatever why did you need to have corporal punishment sass?


----------



## Yossarian (Nov 13, 2017)

Sasaferrato said:


> When he was in primary school it would have been 1909, they used slates and slate pencils until they started writing in ink. What the fuck else, in your infinite wisdom, was available then? Eh?



Awareness of what later became known as ADHD.

_England’s first professor in child medicine presented on 4th, 6th and 11th March 1902 a series of three lectures to the Royal College of Physicians in London, under the name “Goulstonian lectures” on ‘some abnormal psychical conditions in children’, which were published later the same year in the Lancet. He described 43 children who had serious problems with sustained attention and self-regulation, who were often aggressive, defiant, resistant to discipline, excessively emotional or passionate, who showed little inhibitory volition, had serious problems with sustained attention and could not learn from the consequences of their actions; though their intellect was normal._

The history of ADHD 1902, Sir George Frederick Still | ADHD  ADD


----------



## smokedout (Nov 14, 2017)

Back on topic, it's been a good couple of months for the terfs and their evangelical and tory allies.  A proposed law that had no bearing at all on whether transpeople would be able to access women only spaces looks increasingly set to be sidelined and now everyone's talking about whether they should use women's toilets and changing rooms - something that had been pretty much taken for granted as being both legally and socially accepted for close to a couple of decades.  Meanwhile the shocking news that one in ten thousand children (roughly) has been referred to a gender identity clinic is prompting an attack from the tory right and in the press on trans healthcare for kids.

Be in no doubt, the architects of recent events are ideologically opposed to transgender people, and they will be chuckling with glee.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 14, 2017)

There’s loads of women who have questions/concerns who aren’t Terf/Tories or however you want to characterise them though.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 14, 2017)

Athos said:


> Or refuse to allow the right wing press to set an agenda that forces a false dichotomy.



They aren't "refusing to allow" the Tory press or their friends and allies like David Davis to do anything. Nor are they capable of setting a different agenda for public debate if they wanted to. They are acting as a mildly useful progressive or "pro woman" cover for actually significant social forces on the socially conservative right. it's a strategic choice - not one that's inherent to their politics, but a choice made on the basis of an assessment of the balance of forces.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 14, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> There’s loads of women who have questions/concerns who aren’t Terf/Tories or however you want to characterise them though.



Of course, but they weren't behind the recent campaigns.  People like Sheila Jeffries and David Davies were.


----------



## Athos (Nov 14, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> They aren't "refusing to allow" the Tory press or their friends and allies like David Davis to do anything. Nor are they capable of setting a different agenda for public debate if they wanted to. They are acting as a mildly useful progressive or "pro woman" cover for actually significant social forces on the socially conservative right. it's a strategic choice - not one that's inherent to their politics, but a choice made on the basis of an assessment of the balance of forces.



I meant that we don't have to pick a side on the basis of being on the side of the right wing press or not.


----------



## bimble (Nov 14, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> They aren't "refusing to allow" the Tory press or their friends and allies like David Davis to do anything. Nor are they capable of setting a different agenda for public debate if they wanted to. They are acting as a mildly useful progressive or "pro woman" cover for actually significant social forces on the socially conservative right. it's a strategic choice - not one that's inherent to their politics, but a choice made on the basis of an assessment of the balance of forces.


What? Who is this they ?


----------



## TopCat (Nov 14, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> She was rightly dismissed because she openly lied and concocted stories to validate/bolster her lies. It's not comparable at all unless you believe that transwomen are lying and making up stories to hide behind.


Im speculating that plenty of trans women lied as to what they were up to when confronted unexpectedly wearing lingerie etc. Defensive actions are pretty common especially if the person confronted fears the loss of everything due to exposure by another.


----------



## 19force8 (Nov 14, 2017)

TopCat said:


> Im speculating that plenty of trans women lied as to what they were up to when confronted unexpectedly wearing lingerie etc. Defensive actions are pretty common especially if the person confronted fears the loss of everything due to exposure by another.


What you're speculating doesn't bear thinking about.


----------



## Athos (Nov 14, 2017)

TopCat said:


> Im speculating that plenty of trans women lied as to what they were up to when confronted unexpectedly wearing lingerie etc. Defensive actions are pretty common especially if the person confronted fears the loss of everything due to exposure by another.



It's a red herring. Dolzeal wouldn't have been accepted as black if she'd been honest and said she was born white but identifies as black. The fact that she lied was particularly egregious, but is not the determinative feature.


----------



## weepiper (Nov 14, 2017)

Clair De Lune said:


> As you posted this, what do you think about this weeps? I think you know me well enough by now to realise I'm not here to attack you even if we have very different views. I think this conversation is important for us all. If we understand each other maybe we can also help each other move past fear. (The rest of my post is in reaction to the letter not aimed explicitly at you for clarity)
> 
> Personally I felt empathy for her concern for her daughter, but it became clear she had another agenda as soon as she heard the story. She searched these people's posting history for 'dirt' in order to strengthen her argument. She states "Now I am not suggesting for one second that anyone who identifies as non-binary or transfemme is likely to share these worrisome attitudes towards female children — that would be a terrible slander and is categorically untrue." and yet she concentrates on and magnifies that 'paedo fear' for the rest of her letter.
> 
> ...



Sorry Clair, I saw this at the time but I've been really busy with work and family illness and didn't want to snap off a quick reply just for the sake of it.

Re the letter, and re the TopShop rule change specifically, I find it worrying that they have changed their policy so easily for a couple of guys complaining at them on social media. And before anyone jumps on me, these two aren't trans women, they are non-conforming males, they don't describe themselves as trans women, just 'feminine presenting'. Not women by anyone's definition. Why should they be in the women's changing area? If the men's changing area feels unsafe for them, why are they not demanding better safer men's changing provision, or an extra gender neutral area, rather than demanding women give up our own safe changing area? Why do we have to move over and have them in our space? By allowing them in the women's changing area we have to allow any man in there. Not all men just want to try on clothes. Some of them just want to be close to young women in a state of undress. I don't care how unpalatable that may be, it's the truth. And I'm not smearing trans women as perverts by saying that. Of course trans women should have somewhere safe to try on clothes, but not at the expense of teenage girls' privacy. Changing rooms are often quite difficult vulnerable-making areas for everyone, not just trans women. I think a redesign of shop changing areas completely would be far better than just lazily (and cheaply) making the women's area gender neutral and saying yay everyone can use it now, how inclusive we are! Along the lines of a staffed room of larger individual doored cubicles that you can get a couple of people inside at once to change together and lock the door. I'm thinking like Bravissimo have, if you've been in one of those. I'd have no problems with that being the norm and whoever wants can use them regardless of sex. I have a big problem with the usual small cubicles that just have a curtain and you can't swing a cat inside, so you have to go out into the main area if you want to show your pal. I was a teenage girl once (  ) and I found that sort of thing quite anxiety-making enough without the possibility of running into a grown-up man in there. I find it quite frightening how little consultation with actual women TopShop appear to have bothered with before deciding to do this.

I actually do know a few trans people, I'm not afraid of them because they're unfamiliar or distant to me (I'm not afraid of them at all, but ykwim). I can think of two trans women customers at my work that I see/speak to quite regularly and several of my 14 year old daughter's friends are at various levels of coming out as trans boys (one who's totally out, a few who ask her to call them by male names but aren't at the stage of asking teachers to do it, one who wants referring to as 'they' rather than she etc). I'm not speaking from a completely uninformed position here but I find a lot of issues around trans quite troubling and I feel railroaded into changes that could have a detrimental effect on women and girls over how they affect men, and I feel worried by how easily things that women have won for our safety can be taken away from us under the guise of equality. I hope that makes sense and thanks for trying to understand my position x


----------



## smokedout (Nov 14, 2017)

They didn't change the policy because of this person, it was already the policy (according to The Telegraph at least)


----------



## smokedout (Nov 14, 2017)

How would people feel about this bloke using the women's changing rooms or toilets?  And if toilets are based on biological sex than surely it would be easier for a cisman man to masquerade as a transman to enter the space?


----------



## trashpony (Nov 14, 2017)

Travis isn't trans though.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Nov 14, 2017)

weepiper said:


> Sorry Clair, I saw this at the time but I've been really busy with work and family illness and didn't want to snap off a quick reply just for the sake of it.
> 
> Re the letter, and re the TopShop rule change specifically, I find it worrying that they have changed their policy so easily for a couple of guys complaining at them on social media. And before anyone jumps on me, these two aren't trans women, they are non-conforming males, they don't describe themselves as trans women, just 'feminine presenting'. Not women by anyone's definition. Why should they be in the women's changing area? If the men's changing area feels unsafe for them, why are they not demanding better safer men's changing provision, or an extra gender neutral area, rather than demanding women give up our own safe changing area? Why do we have to move over and have them in our space? By allowing them in the women's changing area we have to allow any man in there. Not all men just want to try on clothes. Some of them just want to be close to young women in a state of undress. I don't care how unpalatable that may be, it's the truth. And I'm not smearing trans women as perverts by saying that. Of course trans women should have somewhere safe to try on clothes, but not at the expense of teenage girls' privacy. Changing rooms are often quite difficult vulnerable-making areas for everyone, not just trans women. I think a redesign of shop changing areas completely would be far better than just lazily (and cheaply) making the women's area gender neutral and saying yay everyone can use it now, how inclusive we are! Along the lines of a staffed room of larger individual doored cubicles that you can get a couple of people inside at once to change together and lock the door. I'm thinking like Bravissimo have, if you've been in one of those. I'd have no problems with that being the norm and whoever wants can use them regardless of sex. I have a big problem with the usual small cubicles that just have a curtain and you can't swing a cat inside, so you have to go out into the main area if you want to show your pal. I was a teenage girl once (  ) and I found that sort of thing quite anxiety-making enough without the possibility of running into a grown-up man in there. I find it quite frightening how little consultation with actual women TopShop appear to have bothered with before deciding to do this.
> 
> I actually do know a few trans people, I'm not afraid of them because they're unfamiliar or distant to me (I'm not afraid of them at all, but ykwim). I can think of two trans women customers at my work that I see/speak to quite regularly and several of my 14 year old daughter's friends are at various levels of coming out as trans boys (one who's totally out, a few who ask her to call them by male names but aren't at the stage of asking teachers to do it, one who wants referring to as 'they' rather than she etc). I'm not speaking from a completely uninformed position here but I find a lot of issues around trans quite troubling and I feel railroaded into changes that could have a detrimental effect on women and girls over how they affect men, and I feel worried by how easily things that women have won for our safety can be taken away from us under the guise of equality. I hope that makes sense and thanks for trying to understand my position x


Really glad to hear your point of view. Was worried when you hadn't replied that you felt called out which wasn't my intent..wanted to invite conversation x


----------



## weepiper (Nov 14, 2017)

Clair De Lune said:


> Really glad to hear your point of view. Was worried when you hadn't replied that you felt called out which wasn't my intent..wanted to invite conversation x


No, I know you weren't intending that at all! My opportunities for engaging in a complex thread like this are often limited to reading over my lunch break these days, is all


----------



## smokedout (Nov 14, 2017)

trashpony said:


> Travis isn't trans though.



That's not what they appear to say, that's what the piece wrongly claiming they were responsible for Topshop changing their policy said.


> Travis, who identifies as transfeminine,



Artist smeared by media after Topshop transphobia


----------



## bimble (Nov 14, 2017)

.


----------



## weepiper (Nov 14, 2017)

smokedout said:


> That's not what they appear to say, that's what the piece wrongly claiming they were responsible for Topshop changing their policy said.
> 
> 
> Artist smeared by media after Topshop transphobia


They explain it more in this article

Travis Alabanza: The critically-acclaimed artist and performer talks harassment, visibility and perceptions of gender.

I think it's clear they are not a woman or even claiming to be transitioning towards becoming a woman. They use the word 'genderfucking' quite a lot which, you know, fine, but don't tell me they're a woman and I have to accommodate them as such just on their say-so.

The fucking frustrating thing about it is that what they're saying there is really feminism 101. We don't think there should be a problem with anyone expressing themselves through wearing whatever the fuck they like.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 14, 2017)

weepiper said:


> They explain it more in this article
> 
> Travis Alabanza: The critically-acclaimed artist and performer talks harassment, visibility and perceptions of gender.
> View attachment 120481
> ...



As long as they don't go to the toilet?


----------



## trashpony (Nov 14, 2017)

This has nothing to do with transpeople and everything to do with men. 

Yesterday I got a train on a really quiet route in the middle of the day. I was waiting on a platform for my next train to arrive and some bloke walked past and leered at me. Then the train pulled in and he got on. I was about to walk down to a door further down the train so that I wouldn't be in the same carriage as him and then realised he was walking down the train too but on the inside. So I sprinted back down the platform in the other direction so that I could get in a carriage where he wasn't. As I got on, I clocked all the other people in the carriage and made sure there were no other men in there that looked like they might be a risk to me. 

That is an absolutely normal everyday experience for women - that checking that you are reasonably safe in every single public space you enter. And it's borne out by our lived experiences - like most women, I've been assaulted and harassed more times than I can count - in public and in private. By men. I was only really conscious of this whole checking/that bloke seems dodgy so I'll sit elsewhere thing that I do ALL THE TIME because of the Me Too campaign. 

Women are at risk from men. If you didn't realise it before, then the Me Too campaign should have made it really clear. I am absolutely happy to share intimate public spaces like toilets and changing rooms with transwomen. I am not happy to share them with men. Because men want to spy on women in states of undress, to assault us and to hurt us. I know this because it is my lived experience. I know this because the rate of voyeurism in swimming pools with shared cubicle areas is epidemic. 

To tell us that we have nothing to fear from men in shared changing rooms and toilets is gaslighting. And the fact that it's men telling us this, and that we're bigots and terfs for thinking it has more than a whiff of misogyny about it.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 14, 2017)

When the other half reported this story to me at the weekend my response was the GN changing solves this problem. Is that me copping out or sitting on the fence? 

Will people like Travis feel okay in GN changing given that the very people they are trying to avoid could also choose to use the GN changing too?


----------



## smokedout (Nov 14, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> When the other half reported this story to me at the weekend my response was the GN changing solves this problem. Is that me copping out or sitting on the fence?
> 
> Will people like Travis feel okay in GN changing given that the very people they are trying to avoid could also choose to use the GN changing too?



As the story has been reported Travis clearly felt okay in a gender neutral changing because they knew the Topshop policy was for gender neutral changing rooms, unlike the store manager.  This is not a case of a man demanding access to a women's space but a non-binary person demanding access to a gender neutral space.  And is now on the end of a torrent of abuse because they dared to complain about it.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 14, 2017)

trashpony said:


> This has nothing to do with transpeople and everything to do with men.
> 
> Yesterday I got a train on a really quiet route in the middle of the day. I was waiting on a platform for my next train to arrive and some bloke walked past and leered at me. Then the train pulled in and he got on. I was about to walk down to a door further down the train so that I wouldn't be in the same carriage as him and then realised he was walking down the train too but on the inside. So I sprinted back down the platform in the other direction so that I could get in a carriage where he wasn't. As I got on, I clocked all the other people in the carriage and made sure there were no other men in there that looked like they might be a risk to me.
> 
> ...



And you implying it's only 'men' who are calling for gender neutral spaces has more than a whiff of transphobia to  it.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 14, 2017)

smokedout said:


> As the story has been reported Travis clearly felt okay in a gender neutral changing because they knew the Topshop policy was for gender neutral changing rooms, unlike the store manager.  This is not a case of a man demanding access to a women's space but a non-binary person demanding access to a gender neutral space.  And is now on the end of a torrent of abuse because they dared to complain about it.



Well yes, the story here is that TS has a policy of GN changing but the Manchester store didn't offer that nor did the staff know about the policy.

I was suggesting GN changing rooms be offered in addition to male/female ones btw. In much the same way that toilets increasingly are. I was asking if that is me copping out.

The abuse is batshit disgusting  of course.


----------



## weepiper (Nov 14, 2017)

smokedout said:


> And you implying it's only 'men' who are calling for gender neutral spaces has more than a whiff of transphobia to  it.


I believe that was aimed at you and Nigel irritable, not trans women.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 14, 2017)

weepiper said:


> I believe that was aimed at you and Nigel irritable, not trans women.



And not Travis?  Despite insisting earlier that Travis isn't trans regardless of what Travis thinks about their own gender identity.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 14, 2017)

trashpony said:


> This has nothing to do with transpeople and everything to do with men.



So we're excluding trans men?
(not that I disagree with any element of the rest of your post; just a question since you used 'transpeople' and 'men' as separate categories)


----------



## bimble (Nov 14, 2017)

Travis seems a twat quite frankly. I looked at their website and its says they enjoy 'dancing with other black people'. Oh, ok. Not very inclusive is it.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 14, 2017)

bimble said:


> Travis seems a twat quite frankly. I looked at their website and its says they enjoy 'dancing with other black people'. Oh, ok. Not very inclusive is it.



Whitey got no rhythm.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2017)

bimble said:


> Travis seems a twat quite frankly. I looked at their website and its says they enjoy 'dancing with other black people'. Oh, ok. Not very inclusive is it.


yeh how dare they not say dancing with people of other hues






			
				bimble might have said:
			
		

> If Travis won't dance with me it's not my revolution


----------



## smokedout (Nov 14, 2017)

bimble said:


> Travis seems a twat quite frankly. I looked at their website and its says they enjoy 'dancing with other black people'. Oh, ok. Not very inclusive is it.



Travis seems a bit of a twat to be honest.  But isn't that the point.  They are a bit weird and non-conformist.  They' make art lots of people find strange and say weird things and look a bit unusual.  And they are black, queer and working class.  They are the perfect scapegoat for the right wing press and some radical feminists to launch an attack on all transpeople's right to safely go to the toilet despite Travis having nothing to do with Topshop changing their policy.


----------



## bimble (Nov 14, 2017)

Ok, I get that, am sure the right wing press loved this non-story, after all Caitlin Jenner's much harder to deal with for them, conforming as they do to all the niceties of wealth whiteness and traditional prettiness.


----------



## trashpony (Nov 14, 2017)

8ball said:


> So we're excluding trans men?
> (not that I disagree with any element of the rest of your post; just a question since you used 'transpeople' and 'men' as separate categories)


I was just making the general point that it isn't about transphobia. Would I be alarmed if the transman that smoked out posted a photo of entering a woman's changing room or toilet? Yes.


----------



## Athos (Nov 14, 2017)

So, Travis' objection to using the TopMan changing rooms was that, because they could be accessed by men, to do so would compromise their safety.  Without seeing any irony in the fact that women may feel exactly the same about the gender neutral changing rooms Travis would prefer!  Talk about self-absorbed.


----------



## Athos (Nov 14, 2017)

bimble said:


> .... Caitlin Jenner's much harder to deal with for them, conforming as they do to... traditional prettiness.



Seriously?!


----------



## weepiper (Nov 14, 2017)

If all TopShop/TopMan changing rooms were already gender neutral and Travis knew that, what was the problem with going to the other gender neutral changing room in TopMan? Men. Men was the problem. Not women.


----------



## bimble (Nov 14, 2017)

Athos said:


> Seriously?!


latest headline on Jenner in the DM a few days ago is about 'showing off her new lighter tresses at a dinner date', so yeah I guess so. Not bad for 68 anyway.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 14, 2017)

Athos said:


> So, Travis objection to using the Topman changing rooms was that, because they could be accessed by men, to do so would compromise their safety.  Without seeing any irony in the fact that women may feel exactly the same about the gender neutral changing rooms Travis would prefer!  Talk about self-absorbed.



How safe do you think a young feminine non-binary person wearing a dress would be going to a men's toilet?

As a very androgynous skinny punk in my teenage years I can tell you not safe at all, and I was six foot tall and wearing a t shirt that said fuck off.


----------



## Athos (Nov 14, 2017)

smokedout said:


> How safe do you think a young feminine non-binary person wearing a dress would be going to a men's toilet?
> 
> As a very androgynous skinny punk in my teenage years I can tell you not safe at all, and I was six foot tall and wearing a t shirt that said fuck off.



Are you talking about this case, or generally?


----------



## Athos (Nov 14, 2017)

I think it's a bad thing. I think there should be provision of toilets in which they feel safe.   But, I don't think the answer to feminine males feeling unsafe in male spaces if for them to make females feel unsafe in female spaces.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 14, 2017)

weepiper said:


> If all TopShop/TopMan changing rooms were already gender neutral and Travis knew that, what was the problem with going to the other gender neutral changing room in TopMan? Men. Men was the problem. Not women.




I don't think I misread this but they were told to go to the men's changing room in Topman. The worker seemed to have no clue about the TS policy on GN changing rooms.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 14, 2017)

Athos said:


> Are you talking about this case, or generally?



Generally.  I think in this case someone would be safe in either Topshop or Topman changing rooms because outside of the actual cubicle I suspect Topshop changing rooms are some of the most heavily surveillanced places on earth.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 14, 2017)

trashpony said:


> I was just making the general point that it isn't about transphobia. Would I be alarmed if the transman that smoked out posted a photo of entering a woman's changing room or toilet? Yes.



Fair enough - was just that the way you sliced the categories caught my notice.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 14, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> I don't think I misread this but they were told to go to the men's changing room in Topman. The worker seemed to have no clue about the TS policy on GN changing rooms.


This is why I always carry a print-out of all the terms and conditions.


----------



## bimble (Nov 14, 2017)

Maybe over the coming years we'll just see more and more lockable cubicles and less shared space in places like changing rooms (at gyms swimming pools schools shops etc), that's probably how it'll go.
 The gym I go to (aprox once a year) has only 1 cubicle the rest is open changing space where women wander about starkers, given its impractical to create a third changing room cubicle-manufacturers are probably going to do well. A bit sad in a way, imo.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 14, 2017)

Athos said:


> I think it's a bad thing. I think there should be provision of toilets in which they feel safe.   But, I don't think the answer to feminine males feeling unsafe in male spaces if for them to make females feel unsafe in female spaces.



It wasn't a female only space it was a gender neutral changing room.

What is the demand here?  That clothes shops have female or cis-female changing rooms by law?  That being trans-inclusive should be illegal?  That is actually the demand made in the blogpost linked to earlier.

I'm all for state intervention to regulate capital as a transitional compromise whilst the revolutionary masses gather, but honestly, I think it's up to Topshop what type of changing rooms they have.  If this causes young women to be so frightened they stop trying on clothes then they will probably change it very quickly.  I suspect Topshop know their own customer base better than some of the rad fems and conservatives complaining about this policy and are confident this won't happen.


----------



## Geri (Nov 14, 2017)

bimble said:


> Maybe over the coming years we'll just see more and more lockable cubicles and less shared space in places like changing rooms (at gyms swimming pools schools shops etc), that's probably how it'll go.
> The gym I go to (aprox once a year) has only 1 cubicle the rest is open changing space where women wander about starkers, given its impractical to create a third changing room cubicle-manufacturers are probably going to do well. A bit sad in a way, imo.


 
All the shops I go into have lockable individual changing rooms. I wouldn't use a communal one.

I'm shortly to start swimming lessons but if the changing rooms are communal I doubt that I will go back after the first lesson.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 14, 2017)

Athos said:


> I meant that we don't have to pick a side on the basis of being on the side of the right wing press or not.



If you are in the media pushing "just concerned" scaremongering as there's a socially conservative onslaught against trans rights, you have picked a side. If you are sharing that kind of scaremongering around social media as social conservatives try to undermine the most basic advances trans people have made, you have picked a side. If you are holding joint meetings with right wing Tory MPs, you have picked a side. If you are thanking David Davies for his important work, you have picked a side. If you are leafleting activist events calling for the retention of medical gatekeeping, you have picked a side.

TERFs are the junior allies of right wing social conservatism by their own choice. It's not that it is theoretically impossible for TERFs to maintain their views while refusing to act as junior allies to reactionaries, but in so far as they exist as a movement they have opted to play that role for pragmatic reasons. They know what the balance of forces is, they know that they don't have the social weight to accomplish anything by themselves, they know that the real force in play on their side of the battle against "the trans agenda" is social conservatism. So that's what they work with.


----------



## Athos (Nov 14, 2017)

smokedout said:


> It wasn't a female only space it was a gender neutral changing room.
> 
> What is the demand here?  That clothes shops have female or cis-female changing rooms by law?  That being trans-inclusive should be illegal?  That is actually the demand made in the blogpost linked to earlier.
> 
> I'm all for state intervention to regulate capital as a transitional compromise whilst the revolutionary masses gather, but honestly, I think it's up to Topshop what type of changing rooms they have.  If this causes young women to be so frightened they stop trying on clothes then they will probably change it very quickly.  I suspect Topshop know their own customer base better than some of the rad fems and conservatives complaining about this policy and are confident this won't happen.



Your started about toilets, rather than changing rooms.  I specifically asked if you were talking generally, or about this case.  You said 'generally' but now bring it back to this case! 

I'm not demanding anything.   Not did I post that blog entry.

The idea of 'cis-female' anything doesn't make sense. To the extent it's logically coherent at all, 'cis' can only refer to the interplay between sex and gender, not sex alone (to which 'female' refers).

I note your confidence in the ability of the market to protect women's rights.


----------



## Athos (Nov 14, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> If you are in the media pushing "just concerned" scaremongering as there's a socially conservative onslaught against trans rights, you have picked a side. If you are sharing that kind of scaremongering around social media as social conservatives try to undermine the most basic advances trans people have made, you have picked a side. If you are holding joint meetings with right wing Tory MPs, you have picked a side. If you are thanking David Davies for his important work, you have picked a side. If you are leafleting activist events calling for the retention of medical gatekeeping, you have picked a side.
> 
> TERFs are the junior allies of right wing social conservatism by their own choice. It's not that it is theoretically impossible for TERFs to maintain their views while refusing to act as junior allies to reactionaries, but in so far as they exist as a movement they have opted to play that role for pragmatic reasons. They know what the balance of forces is, they know that they don't have the social weight to accomplish anything by themselves, they know that the real force in play on their side of the battle against "the trans agenda" is social conservatism. So that's what they work with.



Hitler was a vegetarian.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 14, 2017)

Athos said:


> Hitler was a vegetarian.



And if vegetarians as a movement allied with Hitler so as to pursue their concern with dietary habits, it would be noted, their role would be discussed and they would be blamed for it.


----------



## Athos (Nov 14, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> And if vegetarians as a movement allied with Hitler so as to pursue their concern with dietary habits, it would be noted, their role would be discussed and they would be blamed for it.



The vast majority of gender critical women aren't allied with the right wing press, and I can't help but question the motives behind the attempt to conflate them with the minority who are.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 14, 2017)

Athos said:


> The vast majority of gender critical women aren't allied with the right wing press, and I can't help but question the motives behind the attempt to conflate them with the minority who are.



The point is that the ones who are are the ones informing this debate.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> And if vegetarians as a movement allied with Hitler so as to pursue their concern with dietary habits, it would be noted, their role would be discussed and they would be blamed for it.


i've seen just that done in the telegraph


----------



## Athos (Nov 14, 2017)

smokedout said:


> The point is that the ones who are are the ones informing this debate.



I wonder why the others don't want to?  Might it be something to do with being threatened, maybe punched, doxxed, having their jobs threatened with rape or death, told to "suck my girl-dick", and labelled bigots, do you think?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 14, 2017)

Athos said:


> The vast majority of gender critical women aren't allied with the right wing press, and I can't help but question the motives behind the attempt to conflate them with the minority who are.



In so far as TERFs exist as an actual movement they are junior partners in an alliance with social conservatism. If there are people who hold TERF views but who are not scaremongering about trans people in the media, on social media, at activist events, in joint meetings with Tory MPs etc, during a concerted social conservative backlash against trans rights, then they are not personally involved in such an alliance. But in so far as that set of political views plays any significant role in wider public discourse in current circumstances, it does so as a minor adjunct to the conservative right and its proponents are well aware of that fact.

The vast majority of "gender critical women" is another question of course, because almost all feminists consider themselves "gender critical" but the vast majority are not transphobes. TERFs, as you and they are well aware, are unpopular in the wider feminist movement. It's that very isolation from broader feminist, LGBT and left milieus that makes them so prone to making pragmatic alliances with social conservatives


----------



## bimble (Nov 14, 2017)

Athos said:


> The vast majority of gender critical women aren't allied with the right wing press, and I can't help but question the motives behind the attempt to conflate them with the minority who are.


Choose a side or shut up.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> In so far as TERFs exist as an actual movement they are junior partners in an alliance with social conservatism. If there are people who hold TERF views but who are not scaremongering about trans people in the media, on social media, at activist events, in joint meetings with Tory MPs etc, during a concerted social conservative backlash against trans rights, then they are not personally involved in such an alliance. But in so far as that set of political views plays any significant role in wider public discourse in current circumstances, it does so as a minor adjunct to the conservative right and its proponents are well aware of that fact.


so they're not in fact partners


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 14, 2017)

bimble said:


> Choose a side or shut up.



They have chosen their side.


----------



## bimble (Nov 14, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> They have chosen their side.


I think, according to you, I'm 'a minor adjunct to the conservative right'.


----------



## killer b (Nov 14, 2017)

Do we all have to choose a side, or just the radical feminists?


----------



## Athos (Nov 14, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> They have chosen their side.



I have chosen to consider trans women to be women. I have also chosen to recognise the right of women to discuss what it means to be a woman. That there's some tension between those positions can't be wished away.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2017)

bimble said:


> I think, according to you, I'm 'a minor adjunct to the conservative right'.


it's your new tagline


----------



## Athos (Nov 14, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> In so far as TERFs exist as an actual movement they are junior partners in an alliance with social conservatism. If there are people who hold TERF views but who are not scaremongering about trans people in the media, on social media, at activist events, in joint meetings with Tory MPs etc, during a concerted social conservative backlash against trans rights, then they are not personally involved in such an alliance. But in so far as that set of political views plays any significant role in wider public discourse in current circumstances, it does so as a minor adjunct to the conservative right and its proponents are well aware of that fact.
> 
> The vast majority of "gender critical women" is another question of course, because almost all feminists consider themselves "gender critical" but the vast majority are not transphobes. TERFs, as you and they are well aware, are unpopular in the wider feminist movement. It's that very isolation from broader feminist, LGBT and left milieus that makes them so prone to making pragmatic alliances with social conservatives



Your point then becomes those who are in an alliance are in an alliance, and those who aren't, aren't. With which proposition I agree.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 14, 2017)

bimble said:


> I think, according to you, I'm 'a minor adjunct to the conservative right'.



If you recognised your behaviour in that description, I suppose it's a step forward.


----------



## bimble (Nov 14, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> If you recognised your behaviour in that description, I suppose it's a step forward.


Thanks. Can you just clarify, whilst you're here pontificating: Everyone who cheered when vacuous millionaire Caitlyn Jenner was awarded Woman Of The Year at that glossy magazine that flogs stuff to women, those people are solidly 'on the left'? is that correct?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 14, 2017)

Athos said:


> Your point then becomes those who are in an alliance are in an alliance, and those who aren't, aren't. With which proposition I agree.



I'm glad to hear that you now agree that those who are scaremongering about trans people in the media, on social media, at activist events, in joint meetings with Tory MPs etc, during a concerted social conservative backlash against trans rights, are acting as junior allies to the conservative right. And further that in so far as TERFs exist as an actual movement, rather than as atomised individuals, they are acting in that role. Perhaps we are getting somewhere.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Nov 14, 2017)

Pompous windbag, aren't you?


----------



## Athos (Nov 14, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I'm glad to hear that you now agree that those who are scaremongering about trans people in the media, on social media, at activist events, in joint meetings with Tory MPs etc, during a concerted social conservative backlash against trans rights, are acting as junior allies to the conservative right. And further that in so far as TERFs exist as an actual movement, rather than as atomised individuals, they are acting in that role. Perhaps we are getting somewhere.



I dont agree that. I agree that those who are in an alliance are in an alliance.


----------



## Cloo (Nov 14, 2017)

Love the way the papers are now trying to make out that talking about letting kids do things that don't conform to gender stereotypes is like OMG IT'S A PLOT TO MAKE THE KIDDIES TRANS OR GAY OR GAYTRANS!!!


----------



## Clair De Lune (Nov 14, 2017)

Athos said:


> to recognise the right of women to discuss what it means to be a woman.



If you had to rephrase this or expand upon it what might you say? Cos I keep seeing this phrase written and I haven't got a clue what it means.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 14, 2017)

Clair De Lune said:


> If you had to rephrase this or expand upon it what might you say? Cos I keep seeing this phrase written and I haven't got a clue what it means.



I think it means... 'to recognise the right of cis-women to discuss what it means to be _women_ without being called terfs or abused for wanting to.'


----------



## Clair De Lune (Nov 14, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> I think it means... 'to recognise the right of cis-women to discuss what it means to be _women_ without being called terfs or abused for wanting to.'


Can't we already do that? Who's stopping us?


----------



## Athos (Nov 14, 2017)

Clair De Lune said:


> If you had to rephrase this or expand upon it what might you say? Cos I keep seeing this phrase written and I haven't got a clue what it means.



It means that it's legitimate for women to discuss how they define themselves, which, necessarily touches upon how womanhood is defined, part of which is the question of whether or not trans women are women.


----------



## Athos (Nov 14, 2017)

Clair De Lune said:


> Can't we already do that? Who's stopping us?



E.g. people who punch women who dare to organise to have that debate.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 14, 2017)

Clair De Lune said:


> Can't we already do that? Who's stopping us?




I have been saying that for a while actually. I have to add though that I very rarely frequent women only, political spaces at present. So whilst I don't feel I am being stopped having that conversation at all, I am not currently organising to have it either ITMS? I am having the conversation when and where I can or come across it.


----------



## snadge (Nov 14, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> I have been saying that for a while actually. I have to add though that I very rarely frequent women only, political spaces at present. So whilst I don't feel I am being stopped having that conversation at all, I am not currently organising to have it either ITMS? I am having the conversation when and where I can or come across it.




Ohmygodmularquay, you are really some piece if work, I apologise for my outburst the other evening but I do have the strangest feeling that you are a wrongun'.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 14, 2017)

snadge said:


> Ohmygodmularquay, you are really some piece if work, I apologise for my outburst the other evening but I do have the strangest feeling that you are a wrogun'.



Quite frankly fuck off snadge. You have the strangest feeling and I am somehow supposed to care? Your spidey senses mean shit diddly fuck to me. Shit or get off the pot. Take your non-apology and study it. You no longer think I am scum with no integrity but simply a wrong'un? You are embarrassing yourself.


----------



## killer b (Nov 14, 2017)

I just searched this thread for the word 'bigot', and there's 4 pages of results. Women with worthwhile and thoughtful - if challenging - views on the topic have been abused as terfs and bigots _on this thread_. The same is true every other time it's been discussed here recently, and from reports I've had from friends the same is common in the wider world. Many feminists I know simply don't bother even engaging anymore.


----------



## snadge (Nov 14, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Quite frankly fuck off snadge. You have the strangest feeling and I am somehow supposed to care? Your spidey senses mean shit diddly fuck to me. Shit or get off the pot. Take your non-apology and study it. You no longer think I am scum with no integrity but simply a wrong'un? You are embarrassing yourself.




I will never fuck off, I'll simmer down now and I apologise for that comment but I'll be reading.


----------



## LDC (Nov 14, 2017)

Clair De Lune said:


> Can't we already do that? Who's stopping us?



In the city where I live a young women's DJ/music collective (vaguely lefty/alternative) was absolutely slated and quite frankly bullied for being 'transphobic' for using a symbolic image of a vagina on one of their advert flyers as 'not all women have vaginas'.

So no, some people will not allow that debate.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 14, 2017)

snadge said:


> I will never fuck off, I'll simmer down now and I apologise for that comment but I'll be reading.


Yes you will fuck off with this random, unjustifiable,  popping up to attack me. You will because every time you do I will fuck you off. You will give in before I do because I absolutely will not be treated like that from by you or anyone else around here. I do not accept your non-apology. You are not sorry in the slightest, Your repeated, overblown, unjustifiable attack on me tonight tells me that.

You haven't even had the decency to say what you disagreed with in my non contraversial post above.  You just saw my username and thought you'd have a go.


----------



## snadge (Nov 14, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Yes you will fuck off with this random, unjustifiable,  popping up to attack me. You will because every time you do I will fuck you off. You will give in before I do because I absolutely will not be treated like that from by you or anyone else around here. I do not accept your non-apology. You are not sorry in the slightest, Your repeated, overblown, unjustifiable attack on me tonight tells me that.
> 
> You haven't even had the decency to say what you disagreed with in my non contravertial post above.  You just saw my username and thought you'd have a go.



lol.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 14, 2017)

snadge said:


> Ohmygodmularquay, you are really some piece if work, I apologise for my outburst the other evening but I do have the strangest feeling that you are a wrongun'.



What the matter with you?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 14, 2017)

snadge said:


> lol.



Yep. Off you fuck.


----------



## Humirax (Nov 14, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> Dysphoria isn't really a matter of _hating_, it's more a matter of _this is wrong_, it's not _me_. Discomfort. It can become hate, definitely, but that's as much because of other peoples' reactions and attitudes, as anything internal.
> 
> On the point about psychological disorder, more and more we're understanding that people are just different and as long as someone isn't a danger to themselves or other people, and as long as that person doesn't want treatment (many people don't) there's no reason necessarily to ''treat'' psychological disorders. It's often (usually?) more compassionate and more effective (in the long term) to offer _support _rather than treatment.


I only use the word hate because it's been used in counter argument at me, they didn't say discomfort, they said they look at themselves in the mirror and hate themselves and asked me how I felt if I hated myself. Personally, I think the fact that trans women call themselves TRANS-women is all the proof you need that they are not really women. Ofcourse, it is to be more accurate to say that they are women but not female as female is biology and woman is the social construct of gender- How do people feel about that, if it hasn't already been discussed on here? All else I have to say right now is that I get the whole non-binary thing and don't have a problem with it at all. Unfortunately, as someone already pointed out on here, the trans thing can be very binary.


----------



## belboid (Nov 14, 2017)

Humirax said:


> I only use the word hate because it's been used in counter argument at me, they didn't say discomfort, they said they look at themselves in the mirroe and hate themselves and asked me how I felt if I hated myself. Personally, I think the fact that trans women call themselves TRANS-women is all the proof you need that they are not really women. Ofcourse, it is to be more accurate to say that they are women but not female as female is biology and women is the social construct of gender- How do people feel about that, if it hasn't already been discussed on here? All else I have to say right now is that I get the whole non-binary thing and don't have a problem with it at all. Unfortunately, as someone already pointed out on here, the trans thing can be very binary.


About 99% of trans women do describe themselves as women - no prefix necessary.


----------



## spanglechick (Nov 14, 2017)

killer b said:


> I just searched this thread for the word 'bigot', and there's 4 pages of results. Women with worthwhile and thoughtful - if challenging - views on the topic have been abused as terfs and bigots _on this thread_. The same is true every other time it's been discussed here recently, and from reports I've had from friends the same is common in the wider world. Many feminists I know simply don't bother even engaging anymore.


But there are also feminists who don't engage any more because those who do not wish to allow trans women into female spaces, don't seem interested in the views of other women wishing to include them.


----------



## killer b (Nov 14, 2017)

I think we can all agree the debate is pretty poisonous. What's to be done?


----------



## killer b (Nov 14, 2017)

fwiw I was just responding to suggestions on the thread that it's perfectly possible for women to have this debate without being abused for it - the evidence suggests this simply isn't the case. Which isn't to say people aren't behaving badly on all sides.


----------



## Athos (Nov 14, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> But there are also feminists who don't engage any more because those who do not wish to allow trans women into female spaces, don't seem interested in the views of other women wishing to include them.



Can you give any examples of trans-exclusionary posters refusing to engage with the opinions of trans-inclusionary feminists, please? In  particular, any in which they've been abused in the way that those on the other side have been labelled bigots?


----------



## Humirax (Nov 14, 2017)

And for the record, I'd just like to add that I believe feminism should be inclusive, so if there are trans-women that are feminist minded then surely they should be included in feminism? I understand that men are included in feminism and that there are limits to this though, so I guess it could be similar for trans-women? Ultimately though, if feminism is going to be only for women then it is pointless and won't go anywhere. Patriarchy effects everyone, primarily women, but everyone nevertheless.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 14, 2017)

kabbes said:


> This is why I always carry a print-out of all the terms and conditions.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 14, 2017)

Geri said:


> All the shops I go into have lockable individual changing rooms. I wouldn't use a communal one.
> 
> I'm shortly to start swimming lessons but if the changing rooms are communal I doubt that I will go back after the first lesson.



Why?

bimble and me are in same area. I use Brixton Rec. Which some of us helped to get listed recently as fine piece of post war socialist architecture.

Many like the way it's designed to be communal. To encourage interchange between people. Many people feel it's one of the few places left in Brixton where people of all backgrounds and colours mix. The design reflects the socialist principles of those who built it. And it works up to the present day.

Yes it was designed with male and female changing rooms. These include communal showers and also private ones and separate changing rooms. With family changing rooms.

I've had really good chats in the changing rooms.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 14, 2017)

Athos said:


> I wonder why the others don't want to?  Might it be something to do with being threatened, maybe punched, doxxed, having their jobs threatened with rape or death, told to "suck my girl-dick", and labelled bigots, do you think?



Can you give an example of any trans-inclusive posters doing this?



Athos said:


> Can you give any examples of trans-exclusionary posters refusing to engage with the opinions of trans-inclusionary feminists, please? In  particular, any in which they've been abused in the way that those on the other side have been labelled bigots?



Meanwhile outside of urban



And there's lots, lots more where that came from.


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 14, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> Why?
> 
> bimble and me are in same area. I use Brixton Rec. Which some of us helped to get listed recently as fine piece of post war socialist architecture.
> 
> ...



Why is there always some old bloke in communal changing areas who wants to lament about something entirely inconsequential to you whilst you’re getting dressed?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 14, 2017)

Cloo said:


> Love the way the papers are now trying to make out that talking about letting kids do things that don't conform to gender stereotypes is like OMG IT'S A PLOT TO MAKE THE KIDDIES TRANS OR GAY OR GAYTRANS!!!



They’re making them all into gaytrains!!!  Have you seen Thomas The Tank Engine recently?!?


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 14, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Why is there always some old bloke in communal changing areas who wants to lament about something entirely inconsequential to you whilst you’re getting dressed?



Don't know where your from but I've made friends in Brixton Rec. My point is that communal spaces work. The Brixton Rec was designed to be communal.

It's also important to the local working class Afro Carribbean community. Who were big in supporting the listing.

Its a safe space.


----------



## bimble (Nov 14, 2017)

I like the communal changing rooms too. Very rare in our lives that sort of space now. Not so much the women who shave in the showers though but yeah.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 15, 2017)

Humirax said:


> And for the record, I'd just like to add that I believe feminism should be inclusive, so if there are trans-women that are feminist minded then surely they should be included in feminism? I understand that men are included in feminism and that there are limits to this though, so I guess it could be similar for trans-women? Ultimately though, if feminism is going to be only for women then it is pointless and won't go anywhere. Patriarchy effects everyone, primarily women, but everyone nevertheless.



 This doesn’t connect with anything anyone’s argued.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 15, 2017)

Cloo said:


> Love the way the papers are now trying to make out that talking about letting kids do things that don't conform to gender stereotypes is like OMG IT'S A PLOT TO MAKE THE KIDDIES TRANS OR GAY OR GAYTRANS!!!



That takes me back to when the tabloids were up in arms against any opposition to section 28. Some things never change


----------



## Athos (Nov 15, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Can you give an example of any trans-inclusive posters doing this?



It's obvious that I wasn't claiming that posters are doing that here (it's not possible to punch someone online); that comment was about the wider debate, in which context the incident at Speakers' Corner is an example.

Whereas, given it was in response to killer b's post about what has happened on this thread, Spanglechick' s post seemed to me to be a claim about what has happened here (which I would dispute).  I accept that, since killer b went on to talk about the wider world, Spanglechick might have been referring to that; in which case she can confirm.  But, even if that's the case, and even if what she claims is true, there's a big difference between choosing to leave the discussion because you don't feel listened to, and trying to stop others having the discussion. 

Also, whilst I don't like the stuff you linked to,  its far less extreme than the examples I gave of what's coming the other way; calling someone a handmaiden isn't the same as punching them, or threatening rape. You're trying to set up a false equivalence.


----------



## purenarcotic (Nov 15, 2017)

There’s horrible slinging on both sides, I’ve seen some really vile stuff, primarily on twitter which seems to be where a lot of this stuff is played out because as we all know 240 characters is a great way to hold a nuanced debate. I’m not sure it gets us anywhere to play I am more insulted than thou.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 15, 2017)

There is more debate here than elsewhere.


----------



## purenarcotic (Nov 15, 2017)

TopCat said:


> There is more debate here than elsewhere.



Aye for sure, been some really good posts.


----------



## co-op (Nov 15, 2017)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Pompous windbag, aren't you?



It's what most trots sound like when they're parroting the central committee's new line. It often means they either don't understand it or don't even agree with it.


----------



## co-op (Nov 15, 2017)

bimble said:


> I think, according to you, I'm 'a minor adjunct to the conservative right'.



Yep and on the other side are bold progressive forces like the British Army and the Iranian mullahs both of whom are totally cool with transgender people, so long as they subscribe to the same deeply reactionary concept of gender as the British Army and Iranian mullahs.

This is the same bullshit that has a Guardian article describing a women who - in past historical eras - passed as men, presumably for a multitude of reasons (I'd guess mostly to do with reasons of economics and autonomy) as "transmen". Because y'know women are icckle passive girly things and don't do stuff unless they're "really" a man.


----------



## Athos (Nov 15, 2017)

purenarcotic said:


> There’s horrible slinging on both sides, I’ve seen some really vile stuff, primarily on twitter which seems to be where a lot of this stuff is played out because as we all know 240 characters is a great way to hold a nuanced debate. I’m not sure it gets us anywhere to play I am more insulted than thou.



I don't really buy the 'six of one, half a dozen of the other' narrative. As far as I can tell, but for a relatively tiny number of notable exceptions, its largely one way traffic in terms of the the volume and heinousness of the abuse coming from (an admittedly small part of the) trans lobby towards women who refuse to toe the line (despite some people's attempts to recast women's disagreement as abuse).  I don't see a lot of gender critical feminists punching trans women for their political opinions, or threatening them with death or rape (albeit I accept that trans people do receive lots is genuine and appalling abuse from other quarters).


----------



## Athos (Nov 15, 2017)

TopCat said:


> There is more debate here than elsewhere.



That's true, but a relatively recent phenomenon. Not long ago, much of what's been engaged with on this thread would have been shouted down.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Nov 15, 2017)

70 pages in and I'm still totally perplexed.


----------



## co-op (Nov 15, 2017)

Athos said:


> (albeit I accept that trans people do receive lots is genuine and appalling abuse from other quarters).



As far as I am aware nearly all the violence that transpeople (especially transwomen) receive is from men - presumably enforcing/defending their own conception of their own masculinity, the same masculinity that radical feminists have always sought to destroy as deeply toxic.

Anyone who thinks radical feminists are to blame for transphobia has lost the plot.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 15, 2017)

co-op said:


> As far as I am aware nearly all the violence that transpeople (especially transwomen) receive is from men - presumably enforcing/defending their own conception of their own masculinity, the same masculinity that radical feminists have always sought to destroy as deeply toxic.
> 
> Anyone who thinks radical feminists are to blame for transphobia has lost the plot.


Many rad fems have said some appalingly bigoted hateful shit towards trans people though. You get a brief lull, then both sides recommence throwing shit.


----------



## 19force8 (Nov 15, 2017)

co-op said:


> As far as I am aware nearly all the violence that transpeople (especially transwomen) receive is from men - presumably enforcing/defending their own conception of their own masculinity, the same masculinity that radical feminists have always sought to destroy as deeply toxic.
> 
> Anyone who thinks radical feminists are to blame for transphobia has lost the plot.


Anyone who thinks I'm to blame for racism has lost the plot. It doesn't mean I'm not responsible for the consequences if I spout racist ideas.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Nov 15, 2017)

19force8 said:


> Anyone who thinks I'm to blame for racism has lost the plot. It doesn't mean I'm not responsible for the consequences if I spout racist ideas.



Not sure I understand what you're getting at.  Are you blaming radfems for male violence against transpeople?


----------



## bimble (Nov 15, 2017)

.


----------



## co-op (Nov 15, 2017)

TopCat said:


> Many rad fems have said some appalingly bigoted hateful shit towards trans people though. You get a brief lull, then both sides recommence throwing shit.



Ok fair enough some have although there's some pretty weird shit on the other side too at the lunatic end of the spectrum. I'm talking about a major body of theory that comes out of feminism that is concentrating on toxic patriarchal-based obsessive genderising of everything/everyone.

If you've "been born in the wrong body" then there are two fundamental ways to analyse that personal reality, (1) change your body to conform with "reality" (2) challenge the social ideology that says you and your body don't belong together.

The first comes from a neoliberal consumerist model of 'personal growth' that is deeply individualistic and apolitical. The second is basically political - it demands a radical challenge to a hierarchical social ideology that basically fucks up everyone to some extent or other.

Liberals love option (1).


----------



## co-op (Nov 15, 2017)

19force8 said:


> Anyone who thinks I'm to blame for racism has lost the plot. It doesn't mean I'm not responsible for the consequences if I spout racist ideas.



You're not making any sense here.


----------



## Cloo (Nov 15, 2017)

Yeah, on Twitter there's some feminists I'm following who seemed pretty cool and then it's like 'Hang on, did she just call that trans woman a man?... Bloody hell, she did'


----------



## TopCat (Nov 15, 2017)

The rad fems have had some dubious politics (in my opinion) for decades. A lot of it driven by terrible personal experience. 

Still, continued attacks on men per se, attacks on sex workers, attacks on trans women, its hardly progressive. 

The rad fems are tiny in numbers though and can't be taken as representing women.


----------



## co-op (Nov 15, 2017)

Cloo said:


> Yeah, on Twitter there's some feminists I'm following who seemed pretty cool and then it's like 'Hang on, did she just call that trans woman a man?... Bloody hell, she did'



Totally agree but then there are their counterparts who would damn you for saying 'transwoman' - i.e. that by qualifying her gender you are taking away her claim to absolute womanhood, whatever that means.


----------



## bimble (Nov 15, 2017)

killer b said:


> I think we can all agree the debate is pretty poisonous. What's to be done?


The fact that this thread has managed to stay civil gives me some hope that conversation is possible if people are willing to engage and try to understand where each other are coming from instead of just flinging insults. I get the feeling this is quite rare though, both in real life and (maybe especially) on the internet.


----------



## killer b (Nov 15, 2017)

I think some posters may disagree that it's stayed civil.


----------



## bimble (Nov 15, 2017)

true.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 15, 2017)

killer b said:


> I think some posters may disagree that it's stayed civil.


In the context of online discussions of trans politics its pretty civil.


----------



## bimble (Nov 15, 2017)

yep. Don't think there's anything else going on at the moment that's as hard to talk about or as quick to descend into shouting and acrimony as this, its worse than brexit.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 15, 2017)

A lot of people in the twittersphere find Urban a far too difficult space to perform their polarising antics in (thankfully).


----------



## Cloo (Nov 15, 2017)

co-op said:


> Totally agree but then there are their counterparts who would damn you for saying 'transwoman' - i.e. that by qualifying her gender you are taking away her claim to absolute womanhood, whatever that means.


 Some people of course, will not want to identify as a trans man or woman. I am sure my mum's cousin, who lives in Slovakia, identifies as a man and not a trans man, whereas perhaps for someone in a more liberal society where there may be a supportive trans community can feel more confident to identify themselves as trans.


----------



## 19force8 (Nov 15, 2017)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Not sure I understand what you're getting at.  Are you blaming radfems for male violence against transpeople?


You really don't understand? 

It's not a difficult concept. Let me put it simply, non-violent bigots contribute to an atmosphere which enables violent bigots. Female transphobes don't get a pass just because they haven't beaten anyone up.


----------



## bimble (Nov 15, 2017)

19force8 said:


> You really don't understand?
> 
> It's not a difficult concept. Let me put it simply, non-violent bigots contribute to an atmosphere which enables violent bigots. Female transphobes don't get a pass just because they haven't beaten anyone up.


Can you put into words please what makes someone a bigot in your view when it comes to this topic?


----------



## 19force8 (Nov 15, 2017)

bimble said:


> Can you put into words please what makes someone a bigot in your view when it comes to this topic?


Transphobia - Wikipedia


----------



## bimble (Nov 15, 2017)

Lazy.


----------



## 19force8 (Nov 15, 2017)

Back at you


----------



## bimble (Nov 15, 2017)

I was asking you what _you _meant by bigot when you were you were calling people bigots in your last post. I think that for you it might include everybody who wants to think about and discuss the subject in a questioning way at all. But never mind.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Nov 15, 2017)

19force8 said:


> You really don't understand?
> 
> It's not a difficult concept. Let me put it simply, non-violent bigots contribute to an atmosphere which enables violent bigots. Female transphobes don't get a pass just because they haven't beaten anyone up.



It seems I did understand.  You're holding women responsible for male violence against transpeople.


----------



## belboid (Nov 15, 2017)

ElizabethofYork said:


> It seems I did understand.  You're holding women responsible for male violence against transpeople.


A tiny minority of women. A proportion of the blame. And, women can actually be violent too.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 15, 2017)

bimble said:


> Can you put into words please what makes someone a bigot in your view when it comes to this topic?



Posting up stories or lists of transgender people who've been convicted of serious crimes in an effort to smear all transpeople.

Posting up the most extreme and fringe views of somebody trans and claiming this represents 'trans ideology'.

Suggesting that there is a 'trans ideology' which all transpeople and in particular trans activists adhere to.

Misrepresenting studies to claim transwomen are as violent as cismen despite the study actually finding the opposite.

Insisting that allowing transwomen into women's spaces represents a potentially violent threat despite there being no evidence for this at all.

Misrepresenting events to target an individual and by extention wider transpeople such as in the Topshop story.

A dogged insistence that transsexuality is a recent purely materialist phenonmena created by social conditions despite thousands of testimonies of lived experience and considerable scientific evidence suggesting there might something else going on - I'm not saying this is the case by the way, but absolutely no-one on this thread can say with certainty that there isn't a biological basis for transsexuality.


None of this shit would fly with any other group.  If someone came on here using such dodgy analysis to claim all muslims were terrorists or all gay men paedophiles it would be rightly condemned.  And yet all this stuff often comes from people who say they actually support transpeople.  And so transpeople have it suck it up, or if they get angry be accused of being violent men.


----------



## bimble (Nov 15, 2017)

smokedout fair enough, appreciate your being specific. Helen Steel would be guilty of being a bigot on count 3, the ideology / belief system one.


----------



## innit (Nov 15, 2017)

smokedout said:


> absolutely no-one on this thread can say with certainty that there isn't a biological basis for transsexuality.


I strongly agree, and equally no-one can say there definitely is. We honestly don't know (yet) what's going on and whether it's the same for all trans people. One of the things I find a bit worrying is the elevation, on both sides, of lived experience in order to justify / conceal statements of politics.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 15, 2017)

innit said:


> I strongly agree, and equally no-one can say there definitely is. We honestly don't know (yet) what's going on and whether it's the same for all trans people. One of the things I find a bit worrying is the elevation, on both sides, of lived experience in order to justify / conceal statements of politics.


When a family turns up at a march with their ten-year-old daughter and ten-year-old son and a placard saying that trans rights are human rights, and a story to tell about how one of their twins has insisted that she is a girl since just about round when she started speaking, and that she and they are living happy lives accepting her as a girl, I don't really see that as a statement of politics.

imo the idea that some seem to be suggesting that this is some kind of a politically charged choice breaks down when you start looking at small children and taking seriously the testimony of older trans people that the feeling has always been there.


----------



## Geri (Nov 15, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> Why?
> 
> bimble and me are in same area. I use Brixton Rec. Which some of us helped to get listed recently as fine piece of post war socialist architecture.
> 
> ...


 
I just hate getting changed in front of other people. When I was at school, we were forced to use the communal showers and we all hated it.


----------



## bimble (Nov 15, 2017)

Geri said:


> I just hate getting changed in front of other people. When I was at school, we were forced to use the communal showers and we all hated it.


I hear you. I hated it at school too. I think almost everywhere now there's a cubicle if you want, even if the main changing area is open plan.


----------



## co-op (Nov 15, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Posting up stories or lists of transgender people who've been convicted of serious crimes in an effort to smear all transpeople.
> 
> Posting up the most extreme and fringe views of somebody trans and claiming this represents 'trans ideology'.
> 
> ...



Has anything I've posted in the last 2 pages made me a bigot in your opinion? Genuine question. Because there's not much up there that'd I disagree with you on.


----------



## innit (Nov 15, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> When a family turns up at a march with their ten-year-old daughter and ten-year-old son and a placard saying that trans rights are human rights, and a story to tell about how one of their twins has insisted that she is a girl since just about round when she started speaking, and that she and they are living happy lives accepting her as a girl, I don't really see that as a statement of politics.
> 
> imo the idea that some seem to be suggesting that this is some kind of a politically charged choice breaks down when you start looking at small children and taking seriously the testimony of older trans people that the feeling has always been there.


I didn't say that was a political statement (or anything about children at all) and I absolutely did not say being trans is a choice, but thanks for the weird strawman.

Saying gender identity *is* innate, as an unquestionable fact, is political at present, quite clearly


----------



## 8ball (Nov 15, 2017)

bimble said:


> I hear you. I hated it at school too. I think almost everywhere now there's a cubicle if you want, even if the main changing area is open plan.



I avoided it at school via the "spazz get-out clause", but I would also have hated it.  And still do.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 15, 2017)

towel dance


----------



## iona (Nov 15, 2017)

Just to clarify, since my post was quoted a bit earlier on and the subject has come up a few times since, that I wasn't saying I think your (one's) gender identity is innate - more that the capacity to feel some kind of gender identity may be. Similar to the human predisposition to seek & learn language, if I've understood others' posts about that correctly. Although obvs there's still other factors that contribute to this stuff too, even if it is.


----------



## bimble (Nov 15, 2017)

8ball said:


> I avoided it at school via the "spazz get-out clause", but I would also have hated it.  And still do.


I used to on purpose forget my PE kit constantly to avoid the whole nightmare business until they made it so you had to find stuff in the lost property box, socks crispy with the sweat of the long departed.


----------



## Raheem (Nov 15, 2017)

innit said:


> Saying gender identity *is* innate, as an unquestionable fact, is political at present, quite clearly



Seems to me that, for the most part, the insistence that it actually matters politically wrt trans people only comes from one side in the debate. The other side mainly offers a contrary view as a rejoinder rather than a statement of political principle.


----------



## krink (Nov 15, 2017)

8ball said:


> I avoided it at school via the "spazz get-out clause", but I would also have hated it.  And still do.





bimble said:


> I used to on purpose forget my PE kit constantly to avoid the whole nightmare



i just stopped going to school! maybe a bit extreme in hindsight


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Nov 15, 2017)

bimble said:


> I used to on purpose forget my PE kit constantly to avoid the whole nightmare business until they made it so you had to find stuff in the lost property box, socks crispy with the sweat of the long departed.



We didn't have showers at my school.  We had to spend the rest of the day sweaty and smelly.


----------



## 19force8 (Nov 15, 2017)

bimble said:


> I was asking you what _you _meant by bigot when you were you were calling people bigots in your last post. I think that for you it might include everybody who wants to think about and discuss the subject in a questioning way at all. But never mind.


I didn't call anyone a bigot. How on earth you get from my post to what you think I might think is beyond me. But never mind, eh?


----------



## smokedout (Nov 15, 2017)

co-op said:


> Has anything I've posted in the last 2 pages made me a bigot in your opinion? Genuine question. Because there's not much up there that'd I disagree with you on.



Not really, although this post strikes me as a little unfair.  Firstly those women (or men) may well have been trans or may have been doing it for the reasons you suggest - but there's no reason why they wouldn't be trans.  Transgenderism/transsexuality is not a neoliberal phenomena, it has emerged in almost every culture and can be traced back to antiquity.



> If you've "been born in the wrong body" then there are two fundamental ways to analyse that personal reality, (1) change your body to conform with "reality" (2) challenge the social ideology that says you and your body don't belong together.



Secondly even if your first proposition is true, then this strikes me as an unfair burden to place on transpeople with its implication that transpeople just need to stop complaining and overthrow patriarchy and capital and then everything will be okay.  It's only transpeople who are attacked for doing gender,  despite there role as subverters of gender that goes way beyond anything most cispeople ever do.


----------



## bimble (Nov 15, 2017)

19force8 said:


> I didn't call anyone a bigot. How on earth you get from my post to what you think I might think is beyond me. But never mind, eh?


I didn't mean to suggest you were calling people here on this thread bigots, just you were using the word a lot so wanted to know what in your opinion qualifies someone for that label.


----------



## Athos (Nov 15, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Posting up stories or lists of transgender people who've been convicted of serious crimes in an effort to smear all transpeople.
> 
> Posting up the most extreme and fringe views of somebody trans and claiming this represents 'trans ideology'.
> 
> ...



Interesting list. 

A lot of them begin to list behaviours, but actually turn on intent, which makes them ambiguous.  For instance, would posting a list of crimes for a reason other than to smear all trans people count? 

I'd be interested to know whether, by your measures, I'm a bigot?  With reference to the particular criteria, and links to evidence.


----------



## co-op (Nov 15, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Not really, although this post strikes me as a little unfair.  Firstly those women (or men) may well have been trans or may have been doing it for the reasons you suggest - but there's no reason why they wouldn't be trans.  Transgenderism/transsexuality is not a neoliberal phenomena, it has emerged in almost every culture and can be traced back to antiquity.



I agree there's every chance that if the whole group were alive again today then it's almost certain some would identify as transmen. But I'm equally sure that many would not, they were women who determined not to be reduced to the role of A Woman - especially what that role meant for working class women in the 18th C for example - basically to be a slave. To argue otherwise is to endorse the crassest kind of conservative gender stereotyping.

The reality is that human bodies and those who live in them/'are them' do not conform to neat socially-defined collectivities, especially not the particularly crass binary genders that are now imposed by the dominant global economy/culture.

It's one proposed solution that I'm objecting to that's neoliberal not the phenomenon of our highly plural drives and identities.

FWIW I also recognise that for many trans people agreeing with that 'solution' is just a way through the medicalised bureaucracy of gender identity now, ie a way of getting the treatment they want.




smokedout said:


> Secondly even if your first proposition is true, then this strikes me as an unfair burden to place on transpeople with its implication that transpeople just need to stop complaining and overthrow patriarchy and capital and then everything will be okay.  It's only transpeople who are attacked for doing gender,  despite there role as subverters of gender that goes way beyond anything most cispeople ever do.



No totally and utterly wrong - radical feminists have spent 30 years attacking gender and doing their best to put it on the agenda. Some trans people are completely on side with that, many are clearly deeply opposed to it and want nothing more than to leave the patriarchy completely untouched but merely to realign their own gender identity within its comforting embrace. The latter have been by far the more vocal and have managed to rope in a large number of would-be radicals to what seems to me a deeply reactionary agenda.

As to whether I am heaping responsibility on transpeople - I don't see how. Every single person born into modern society is forced to negotiate endless inconsistencies between their own lived experience and social identity norms; like I said it shits on everyone's lives even "cis" men - by which I can only understand "men who have successfully duped themselves into total identification with their correct role within a socially-imposed gender binary" - usually in the process turning themselves into utter wankers (probably literally).

All of these same issues apply to multiple facets of everyone's identity, including non-gender-related ones. I wasn't born in the right society. What should I do? Change myself to conform? Or fight for social change? Ideal answer, of course the second. Real answer - I faff about somewhere in the middle. Do what I can sometimes and other times duck and join in.


----------



## killer b (Nov 15, 2017)

smokedout said:


> None of this shit would fly with any other group.  If someone came on here using such dodgy analysis to claim all muslims were terrorists or all gay men paedophiles it would be rightly condemned.  And yet all this stuff often comes from people who say they actually support transpeople.  And so transpeople have it suck it up, or if they get angry be accused of being violent men.


I don't think similar tensions that exist between feminism and trans-activism are really comparable to tensions that exist between any other groups tbh. 

You can point to the most extreme actions and words of gender critical feminists and use them to dismiss the questions of all of them if you like (it's ok when you do that), but it won't make them stop being concerned. It might make them shut up I guess. You might see that as a result.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 15, 2017)

killer b said:


> I don't think similar tensions that exist between feminism and trans-activism are really comparable to tensions that exist between any other groups tbh.



Tensions like this always exist. there is tension between the rights of LGB people and the rights of followers of all the major religions for example.  But no-one, at least on here, would suggest those rights be curtailed to appease radical islamists of fundie christians.



> You can point to the most extreme actions and words of gender critical feminists and use them to dismiss the questions of all of them if you like (it's ok when you do that), but it won't make them stop being concerned. It might make them shut up I guess. You might see that as a result.



The point I've made consistently is that the more moderate rad fems, who have concerns, criticisms and questions, are often informed by the most extreme views.  it just happened on this thread with the Topshop story, a highly inaccurate and misleading blog was posted with no analysis of what the agenda might have been behind it, and no attempt to find out the truth of the situation. 

The more extreme rad fems,  who might be called terfs, are embedded within this debate.  Sheila Jeffries is going round giving talks against the GRA amendments alongside Linda Bello as we speak.  Skepticat is busy retweeting a parody account of trans-children's charity Mermaids (with no thought at all how that might affect trans kids who might need their help).  These people are not condemned, and neither is their behaviour.  To stretch the religion analogy further, it's a bit like Maryam Namazie or someone calling for a reasonable debate on misogyny within Islam whilst retweeting Tommy Robinson and Breibart scare stories about Muslims and then feigning shock when she was met with hostility.


----------



## 19force8 (Nov 15, 2017)

co-op said:


> FWIW I also recognise that for many trans people agreeing with that 'solution' is just a way through the medicalised bureaucracy of gender identity now, ie a way of getting the treatment they want.


So not necessarily a patriarchal fifth column?


co-op said:


> No totally and utterly wrong - radical feminists have spent 30 years attacking gender and doing their best to put it on the agenda. Some trans people are completely on side with that, many are clearly deeply opposed to it and want nothing more than to leave the patriarchy completely untouched but merely to realign their own gender identity within its comforting embrace. The latter have been by far the more vocal and have managed to rope in a large number of would-be radicals to what seems to me a deeply reactionary agenda.


I think you've got your proportions inverted. The majority of trans-people want to (and do) get on with their lives just like everyone else. Striking down patriarchy/capitalism/white supremacy/gender is the obsession of a minuscule minority. You seem to be taking the inappropriate/unpleasant response of part of that minority, attributing it to the majority and writing them off. I don't think that's a good look.

No matter how much I'd like all oppressed people to resist in ways I approve of it isn't going to happen. That doesn't mean their oppression isn't real and it doesn't override the need for solidarity.


co-op said:


> As to whether I am heaping responsibility on transpeople - I don't see how. Every single person born into modern society is forced to negotiate endless inconsistencies between their own lived experience and social identity norms; like I said it shits on everyone's lives even "cis" men - by which I can only understand "men who have successfully duped themselves into total identification with their correct role within a socially-imposed gender binary" - usually in the process turning themselves into utter wankers (probably literally).
> 
> All of these same issues apply to multiple facets of everyone's identity, including non-gender-related ones. I wasn't born in the right society. What should I do? Change myself to conform? Or fight for social change? Ideal answer, of course the second. Real answer - I faff about somewhere in the middle. Do what I can sometimes and other times duck and join in.


Sounds a bit like "life is shit for everyone so trans-people should stop their deluded nonsense."

Oh, and don't you know there are two kinds of people in the world - wankers and liars.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Nov 15, 2017)

How many terfs are being punched Athos  As you seem to be the expert on this subject. 

It's naive to think that radfems are trans people's main opponents/enemies whatever. 
On social media any article related to trans- the vast majority of the comments will be 1. Telling trans people they are special snowflakes. In other words just be normal, suck it up and conform, you're confusing me, you attention seeker. A favourite line to go with that is 'stop the world I want to get off!! !' 2. Explaining that there are only two genders therefore trans people are crazy. 3. If you are born a man you'll always be a man. 4. Denial of trans people for religious reasons. 5. Feeling trans people are corrupting society/confusing children. 6. Trans people are a threat to women. 7. I wouldn't let my kid share a changing room/toilet with a trans woman!!! 8. Outright insults of trans people's looks including posting pictures of trans women and pre transition pictures outing them on social media. 9. Complete lack of empathy for trans people and use of dehumanizing language -transborg man, man in dress, filthy pervert, designer vagina?? Inverted cock scum. I could go on but tbh its depressing, sometimes I can't bare to read the comments.

So not only are all of the shitrags posting inflammatory articles/anti trans propaganda (transmediawatch) but the comments are full of hatred and foaming at the mouth anti trans rhetoric. It's pretty hard not to feel outnumbered and attacked when faced with that. And what happens when people feel outnumbered abused and backed into a corner? Fight or flight. Cry, freeze or attack back in some cases. I get fucking scared reading 95% of people's comments online about trans people. 

Its a fact that trans and non binary people feel very under fire right now. I see a lot of people having to take a break from social media and attempt better self care to protect their mental health and wellbeing. They don't have a choice to stop being trans and the victims/targets of abuse. Cis women and men do have a choice to stop abusing trans people online(and spreading misinformation) . They have a choice to value them as human beings who have different experiences and Feelings from them. They have the choice to empathise and support them to live life, access healthcare, employment, housing, have a voice politically, have equal rights and respect and protect them from harm.

So you can keep raising the 'suck my dick' trope if you like Athos, but you are misrepresenting trans women as a whole when you do so. Cos that depiction is like me calling you Weinstein every time you talk, claiming he represents you and you two are just the same. I'd imagine you wouldn't want to be associated with Weinstein any more than I'd like to be associated with Germaine Greer. So knock it off eh?  Enough powerful people with platforms (like Greer but there are lots more) are voicing anti trans rhetoric as it is. And yes, just as terfs get called names on twitter so do Trans folk to a much higher degree - Check out #peaktrans on Twitter as just one example. I can't bring myself to search for more. 

It's not hard to understand that isis does not represent Islam..its not hard to understand that the westborough Baptist church doesn't represent Christianity, its not hard to understand that you might not be just like Weinstein or Spacey or Lewis C.K so why the fuck is it so hard to think that not all trans people want to punch terfs or talk about sucking dicks? 


You asked if you were a bigot- I dunno tbh you seem to change your views like the weather. What I do know is while you keep sharing lies, you are a shit ally. 

It's hard being a cis woman in our society, really hard. Being a trans woman you get the same shit treatment as cis women do but a whole other level of shit on top of that too. And if you try to seek support you have to hope that support group, colleague, counsellor, police officer, boss etc doesn't hold transphobic views. 

So No, I don't need a meeting to help me decide if trans women are women and I thinks it's a bullshit red herring that anyone does. Women will be entering knowing their opinions and it's hardly going to feel safe for trans women to join in cos who wants to walk into a conference where you are the subject matter ffs. The film the witches springs to mind.


----------



## belboid (Nov 15, 2017)

Good piece on what it's like for trans children in schools - It’s still not easy being a trans child. This is what schools can do to help | Terry Reed

More than 4 in 5 trans young people have self-harmed, more than 2 in 5 young trans people have attempted suicide and that 2 out of 5 trans people had experienced a hate crime in the last 12 months.


----------



## Athos (Nov 15, 2017)

Clair De Lune said:


> How many terfs are being punched Athos  As you seem to be the expert on this subject.
> 
> It's naive to think that radfems are trans people's main opponents/enemies whatever.
> On social media any article related to trans- the vast majority of the comments will be 1. Telling trans people they are special snowflakes. In other words just be normal, suck it up and conform, you're confusing me, you attention seeker. A favourite line to go with that is 'stop the world I want to get off!! !' 2. Explaining that there are only two genders therefore trans people are crazy. 3. If you are born a man you'll always be a man. 4. Denial of trans people for religious reasons. 5. Feeling trans people are corrupting society/confusing children. 6. Trans people are a threat to women. 7. I wouldn't let my kid share a changing room/toilet with a trans woman!!! 8. Outright insults of trans people's looks including posting pictures of trans women and pre transition pictures outing them on social media. 9. Complete lack of empathy for trans people and use of dehumanizing language -transborg man, man in dress, filthy pervert, designer vagina?? Inverted cock scum. I could go on but tbh its depressing, sometimes I can't bare to read the comments.
> ...



Hang on. I've been at pains to make it absolutely clear that I realise that punching women and telling them to such a trans dick  is a minority activity amongst trans people. To suggest otherwise is to blatantly misrepresent what I've said.

Similarly, I've always vocally condemned the sort of abuse you describe.

I don't think I've changed my views; not sure what aspect you're on about there?

To my knowledge, I've not shared any lies; quite the opposite - I have, for instance, challanged untruths like the claims that evidence shows trans women offend at the same rates as men.  If I'm wrong about that, I'd be grateful for specific examples and evidence.

You might not want a meeting on the subject; some women do. Do you think they shouldn't be allowed to?


----------



## co-op (Nov 15, 2017)

19force8 said:


> I think you've got your proportions inverted. The majority of trans-people want to (and do) get on with their lives just like everyone else. Striking down patriarchy/capitalism/white supremacy/gender is the obsession of a minuscule minority. You seem to be taking the inappropriate/unpleasant response of part of that minority, attributing it to the majority and writing them off. I don't think that's a good look.



Yes of course most trans people like most of everyone else are mainly concerned with getting on with their lives. But you've completely misunderstood my point about the various strands of politicised trans representatives; which was that the dominant strand within that group has _not_ been about 'striking down patriarchy' but about completely re-establishing patriarchy just allowing a little more freedom for individuals to move between groups - the whole 'I identify as binary' group. 

FWIW I see much more interesting voices starting to appear in recent years but the 'woman/man born in a man/woman's body' narrative was completely dominant for many years, and I think still is and that is one that almost always tends to hero-worship of a patriarchal gender binary which radical feminists have explicitly rejected, rightly in my opinion.

There's also real denial of the hugely powerful influence of socialisation - another reason that I am so surprised by the willingness of so many self-styled radicals of one stripe or another to buy into this view. That we are deeply social animals, socially created seems so fundamental to a radical pov that to ignore the fact that transpeople experience a completely different social creation is ignoring something utterly fundamental. Literally something as 'individual' and 'personal' as our erotic responses to each other and to the world are socially created.

The childhood/infant experiences of transpeople also constitute a social reality unique to that group - but it's certainly different from the one that people born "cis" will undergo. Since so much of feminist crititque is based on how exactly it is that women are socialised to occupy an inferior position in human society it's not surprising that some of them are going to be critical of the idea that a person raised as a man has not undergone that deep level of programming. 

And this is before we get on to the question of why did it happen that men happened to end up enslaving women? Are men just assholes? Or are there structural causes deriving from the need to control female reproductivity and especially to exercise control over their own reproduction by controlling women's bodies. This is about birth biology not identity and women are entitled to ask and analyse these questions without being accused of bigotry. It's extraordinary to me that the debate even needs to be had.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Nov 15, 2017)

Athos said:


> I wonder why the others don't want to?  Might it be something to do with being threatened, maybe punched, doxxed, having their jobs threatened with rape or death, told to "suck my girl-dick", and labelled bigots, do you think?




There you go Weinstein. I'm out. Argue with yourself.


----------



## spanglechick (Nov 15, 2017)

Athos said:


> Can you give any examples of trans-exclusionary posters refusing to engage with the opinions of trans-inclusionary feminists, please? In  particular, any in which they've been abused in the way that those on the other side have been labelled bigots?


No.  Please stop demanding things in this way.  It's rude.  

Anyway, it's very hard to find you evidence of people not responding.


----------



## 19force8 (Nov 15, 2017)

co-op said:


> Yes of course ...


Are you really saying "trans-people reinforce patriarchy so they deserve it?"

Do you really know that much about the social reality of the childhood/infant experiences of trans-people? I'd be interested in the studies. Or are you surmising? 

Whether there will still be trans-people after patriarchy is smashed I don't know, but your arguments are beginning sound eerily similar those 1960's socialists who argued against raising women's issues because they were a distraction from the struggle.

Whether you like it or not, there are trans-people. Whether that's a biological or socially engendered phenomenon doesn't really make a difference to how they should be treated does it?

To go back to your earlier post: on one side of this debate you have virtually the entire progressive movement in the UK (plus the Army as you say, minus a few dozen feminists) and on the other you have the mostly reactionary print media, millions of social conservatives and misogynists, and some feminists.


----------



## co-op (Nov 15, 2017)

19force8 said:


> Are you really saying "trans-people reinforce patriarchy so they deserve it?"





I think you're desperate for a bit of a ruck if you're posting pointless crap like this. I'm going to pass on you until you lift your game.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 15, 2017)

Clair De Lune said:


> There you go Weinstein. I'm out. Argue with yourself.


Read that as Wittgenstein and was really confused for a few seconds


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 15, 2017)

co-op said:


> No totally and utterly wrong - radical feminists have spent 30 years attacking gender and doing their best to put it on the agenda. Some trans people are completely on side with that, many are clearly deeply opposed to it and want nothing more than to leave the patriarchy completely untouched but merely to realign their own gender identity within its comforting embrace. The latter have been by far the more vocal and have managed to rope in a large number of would-be radicals to what seems to me a deeply reactionary agenda.
> 
> As to whether I am heaping responsibility on transpeople - I don't see how. Every single person born into modern society is forced to negotiate endless inconsistencies between their own lived experience and social identity norms; like I said it shits on everyone's lives even "cis" men - by which I can only understand "men who have successfully duped themselves into total identification with their correct role within a socially-imposed gender binary" - usually in the process turning themselves into utter wankers (probably literally).
> 
> All of these same issues apply to multiple facets of everyone's identity, including non-gender-related ones. I wasn't born in the right society. What should I do? Change myself to conform? Or fight for social change? Ideal answer, of course the second. Real answer - I faff about somewhere in the middle. Do what I can sometimes and other times duck and join in.



As for Feminism. Second wave feminism from 70s was not one thing. Radical feminist, socialist feminist etc critiqued patriarchy but not all in same way.

On the trans issue. I think there is more than one side to it. As you say there are those who are Trans who accept patriarchy. Defined make and female roles. I used to work with someone who was male to female trans. As far as she was concerned there were two genders. Male and female. You needed to choose. Her dream was to get married to a hunky masculine man in a white wedding. I don't have problem with that. So for her she was "female" trapped in a "male" body. So yes she kept patriarchy untouched. 

There are other Trans who reject binary gender. Want to define themselves as non binary. Fair enough imo.

My background is that I see myself as male whose is heterosexual. However I don't feel fully "masculine". My mother once said to me I was possibly gay. As I didn't live up to what she saw as proper masculine man. This didn't affect my future sexual definition of myself. As I realised my Mother was pretty fucked up. An idiot really. I've been told , as compliment not critique, that I have quite a strong "female" side to my character. ie I can be caring.

The point I'm making is that I think navigating what it means to be a man or women in society is pretty tortuous. If there weren't such rigid gender roles would some people feel they needed to alter their bodies to fit gender roles be needed? That's the question I ask.


----------



## Raheem (Nov 15, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> If there weren't such rigid gender roles would some people feel they needed to alter their bodies to fit gender roles be needed? That's the question I ask.



I'm not saying this isn't an interesting question. But, all said and done, it is unanswerable, so it doesn't really lead us anywhere.


----------



## Humirax (Nov 15, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> This doesn’t connect with anything anyone’s argued.


And?


----------



## Athos (Nov 15, 2017)

Clair De Lune said:


> There you go Weinstein. I'm out. Argue with yourself.



Fair enough.  Though the post you quoted doesn't prove the things you originally claimed. Undoubtedly, those abuses i mentioned happen, and undoubtedly they put some women off voicing an opinion. Noting that fact isn't saying all trans people do those things.

And I had to laugh at the irony of your rebuttal of my remark about some in the trans lobby resorting to personal abuse being to liken me to a rapist.


----------



## Athos (Nov 15, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> No.  Please stop demanding things in this way.  It's rude.
> 
> Anyway, it's very hard to find you evidence of people not responding.



I'm not demanding anything. You're making assertions,  and I'm asking (politely) for evidence. You can't or won't provide it. That's cool, you're under no obligation. But it's silly to pretend that there's something wrong with me asking


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 15, 2017)

Raheem said:


> I'm not saying this isn't an interesting question. But, all said and done, it is unanswerable, so it doesn't really lead us anywhere.



Why not?

It's one of the things second wave feminism made an issue. Rightly imo. So to just dismiss it as unanswerable is dismissing a lot of  what second wave feminism tried to get taken seriously.


----------



## Raheem (Nov 15, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> Why not?
> 
> It's one of the things second wave feminism made an issue. Rightly imo. So to just dismiss it as unanswerable is dismissing a lot of  what second wave feminism tried to get taken seriously.



I didn't say it wasn't a serious question, just one that cannot be answered. It's a question requiring an empirical yes/no answer, but it's about something conceptually outside of anyone's experience. So, all we can do is formulate hypotheses. This is not a pointless exercise per se, but it doesn't provide us with anything as firm as a given that we can take as a basis for a subsequent question. We have to make do with not knowing.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 15, 2017)

Humirax said:


> And?



You want the statement to be longer?


----------



## 19force8 (Nov 16, 2017)

co-op said:


> I think you're desperate for a bit of a ruck if you're posting pointless crap like this. I'm going to pass on you until you lift your game.


No, just grateful for relief from your pseudo-intellectual bullshit.


----------



## co-op (Nov 16, 2017)

19force8 said:


> No, just grateful for relief from your pseudo-intellectual bullshit.



I don't think you're going to get the pile on you so obviously want. Maybe this debate is changing? Maybe you need to rethink your position? It may be that it's more complex than you have realised?


----------



## 19force8 (Nov 16, 2017)

co-op said:


> I don't think you're going to get the pile on you so obviously want. Maybe this debate is changing? Maybe you need to rethink your position? It may be that it's more complex than you have realised?


Yawn


----------



## TopCat (Nov 16, 2017)

Clair De Lune said:


> There you go Weinstein. I'm out. Argue with yourself.


Pretty shitty


----------



## Clair De Lune (Nov 16, 2017)

TopCat said:


> Pretty shitty


Me? There's context.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 16, 2017)

Clair De Lune said:


> Me? There's context.


Well spell it out then.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Nov 16, 2017)

Athos said:


> Fair enough.  Though the post you quoted doesn't prove the things you originally claimed. Undoubtedly, those abuses i mentioned happen, and undoubtedly they put some women off voicing an opinion. Noting that fact isn't saying all trans people do those things.
> 
> And I had to laugh at the irony of your rebuttal of my remark about some in the trans lobby resorting to personal abuse being to liken me to a rapist.


It proves you are a shit ally and misrepresenting trans women which was my point. I'll stop assuming you are like Weinstein when you stop doing that. 

I don't imagine you are going to look at your behaviour in this thread athos but we can live in hope.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Nov 16, 2017)

TopCat said:


> Well spell it out then.


I wrote a hefty post doing just that on the last page.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 16, 2017)

Clair De Lune said:


> It proves you are a shit ally and misrepresenting trans women which was my point. I'll stop assuming you are like Weinstein when you stop doing that.


The accusations against Weinstein are that he sexually assaulted and raped numerous women comparing that that "being a shit ally" (whatever that even means) is both stupid and out of order.


----------



## Athos (Nov 16, 2017)

Clair De Lune said:


> It proves you are a shit ally and misrepresenting trans women which was my point.



No. I am accurately representing *some* trans women. I've explicitly said they're a minority, more than once. But to deny their disproportionate impact on the debate - silencing dissenting women - is dishonest.  My perspective doesn't even purport to focus on 'what all trans women do', but on the rights of women to analyse gender.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Nov 16, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> The accusations against Weinstein are that he sexually assaulted and raped numerous women comparing that that "being a shit ally" (whatever that even means) is both stupid and out of order.


So you haven't read my previous post either?


----------



## co-op (Nov 16, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> My background is that I see myself as male whose is heterosexual. However I don't feel fully "masculine". My mother once said to me I was possibly gay. As I didn't live up to what she saw as proper masculine man. This didn't affect my future sexual definition of myself. As I realised my Mother was pretty fucked up. An idiot really. I've been told , as compliment not critique, that I have quite a strong "female" side to my character. ie I can be caring.
> 
> The point I'm making is that I think navigating what it means to be a man or women in society is pretty tortuous. If there weren't such rigid gender roles would some people feel they needed to alter their bodies to fit gender roles be needed? That's the question I ask.




The discontinuity that you describe between your social assignation (male) and your inner sense that you aren't actually "properly" masculine in some way is in my opinion utterly normal - because the gender role 'male' is a stylised social creation that also maps on to economic hierarchies (a key masculine role is to be rich and powerful meaning that all men who aren't are de-masculinised and are forced to re-masculinise via symbolic machismo of one sort or another). So are you "cis"? Is anyone? 

If cis means that your inner and social gender identities match up then the only "really" cis people are those who have successfully warped their gender identity into what they believe is the socially acceptable format. I was a football coach for many years, the amount of ridiculous performative masculinity I used to see was ridiculous. Those young men weren't cis, they were actors.

So what's this word "cis" for?


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 16, 2017)

Clair De Lune said:


> So you haven't read my previous post either?


Sorry I missed that part. I still think your out of order though.


----------



## bimble (Nov 16, 2017)

Raheem said:


> I didn't say it wasn't a serious question, just one that cannot be answered. It's a question requiring an empirical yes/no answer, but it's about something conceptually outside of anyone's experience. So, all we can do is formulate hypotheses. This is not a pointless exercise per se, but it doesn't provide us with anything as firm as a given that we can take as a basis for a subsequent question. We have to make do with not knowing.


I agree we can't know that. But I think the question is slightly different, less theoretical more about impacts on the real world, something like: What is the effect of this new reification of gender identities on the hard won loosening of gender stereotypes that feminists have been fighting against for generations. Is it helping or is it retrenching rigid ideas of what women / men are like. The ideas of femininity that for instance Caitlin Jenner talks about, all about empathy and nail polish, are exactly the things we have been fighting to get free of being defined by but when Caitlin talks about them defining her womanhood she's a lauded as a progressive hero.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Nov 16, 2017)

bimble said:


> I agree we can't know that. But I think the question is slightly different, less theoretical more about impacts on the real world, something like: What is the effect of this new reification of gender identities on the hard won loosening of gender stereotypes that feminists have been fighting against for generations. Is it helping or is it retrenching rigid ideas of what women / men are like. The ideas of femininity that for instance Caitlin Jenner talks about, all about empathy and nail polish, are exactly the things we have been fighting to get free of being defined by but when Caitlin talks about them defining her womanhood she's a lauded as a progressive hero.



Opinion | What Makes a Woman?

Very interesting article here covering these very points.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 16, 2017)

Does the Gender Recognition Act deserve its own thread? I think it probably does.

Story in yesterday Morning Star
Entire CLP leadership quits amid claims of transphobia
NOV
2017
Wednesday 15TH
posted by Morning Star in Britain

THE entire leadership of a constituency Labour Party (CLP) in Sussex has resigned in a bitter row over allegations of transphobia.

The resignation of all six members of the Bexhill & Battle Labour Party executive committee was confirmed in a letter seen by the Star.

It was also sent to local party members and the party’s south-eastern regional office.

It says that the committee took the “unanimous decision to resign” over allegations of “serious abuse and harassment” by a local party member who has attempted to “shut down all discussion of gender issues” by making allegations of “transphobia.”

The executive committee members wrote that they had no choice but to step down as they were unable to protect themselves and other members from abuse.

They said the regional office’s failure to deal with the allegations has damaged the party’s ability to function effectively with officers’ time being tied up with internal disciplinary matters “instead of fighting the Tories.”

A member of Bexhill Labour Party, who did not want to be named for fear of reprisals, told the Star that there were “Machiavellian plots” to smear members and silence debate in the local party.

The member said that local branches and CLPs have faced emergency motions branding those who wish to debate the controversial Gender Reassignment Bill as “transphobes,” which has created a climate of fear in the party.

“We are living with the constant threat of accusations of transphobia. This is a silencing tactic being used to shut down debate,” the member added. “But we need to be able to talk about it: that’s democracy.”

*The committee confirmed that it had written to the party for clarification of its definition of transphobia* as its members are worried that it is being misused to close down debate.

According to the source similar allegations are being raised “across the board,” including in neighbouring Hastings & Rye CLP, where party officials are said to be “on the edge.”

Under the government’s proposals, people would be able to self-declare their gender. However, some women have raised concerns over being excluded from debates about women-only spaces that include prisons, rape crisis centres, hospital wards and domestic-violence refuges.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Nov 16, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Sorry I missed that part. I still think your out of order though.


And thats Fair enough. I think I made It clear that I don't believe Athos is like Weinstein, that it would be a misrepresentation. He denied the fact he's brought up the suck my dick trope about trans people, I quoted his post proving he had. He continues to bring up terfs being punched when it's clearly an extremely rare thing. He says it's not 50/50 of terfs abusing trans people and vice versa and implies trans people do it more often....this is a gross misrepresentation. That is the context. I am not implying Athos is a rapist, I am saying how do you like being compared to a horrible man? Don't like it? Nah didn't think so. So stop misrepresenting trans people in the same way. They are going through enough.

But if you continue to think Athos is the real victim here then ....wow.


----------



## bimble (Nov 16, 2017)

Bit more on the story ska invita just posted here
Labour officials quit in transgender dispute

edit: I'm curious whether or not the 'pick a side' people find this at all troubling.


----------



## Athos (Nov 16, 2017)

Clair De Lune said:


> He denied the fact he's brought up the suck my dick trope...



No I didn't. I denied that I implied it's representative of trans people. I quite clearly said it's not. I bought it up to make the point that it deters some women from debating gender. I stand by that.



Clair De Lune said:


> He says it's not 50/50 of terfs abusing trans people and vice versa and implies trans people do it more often...



From all the evidence I've seen, there's not the same level (in terms of volume and seriousness) of abuse coming the other way; I don't see loads of threats of rape and death by gender critical women towards trans women.  If you have evidence to the contrary, I'll happily concede I'm wrong.



Clair De Lune said:


> But if you continue to think Athos is the real victim here then ....wow.



For the record, I'm not claiming victimhood; it was clear to me the analogy you were making was about misrepresentation rather than implying I'm a rapist.  Even then, though, it was a shit analogy.

Overall, I'm at a loss, here. I'm genuinely baffled as to whether you really think I'm saying that abuse by some trans people is representative of them as a whole, or if you've misunderstood, or are being deliberately obtuse.

You seem to be arguing against some imagined version of me, rather than what I actually think and post. Which I don't think is that controversial: that women have a right to discus gender, and to disagree with a trans-inclusionary conception of it.  And that, whilst it's legitimate to disagree with them (as, in fact, I do on many aspects), it's not legitimate or progressive to seek to silence them.

That's the whole of my position. If there's anything in there you want to take issue with, that's fine, but let's be honest about it.  Let's not conflate my position with that of someone who abuses trans women (something I've condemned), or even someone who thinks trans women are men - I've said many times that I don't.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 16, 2017)

co-op said:


> The discontinuity that you describe between your social assignation (male) and your inner sense that you aren't actually "properly" masculine in some way is in my opinion utterly normal - because the gender role 'male' is a stylised social creation that also maps on to economic hierarchies (a key masculine role is to be rich and powerful meaning that all men who aren't are de-masculinised and are forced to re-masculinise via symbolic machismo of one sort or another). So are you "cis"? Is anyone?
> 
> If cis means that your inner and social gender identities match up then the only "really" cis people are those who have successfully warped their gender identity into what they believe is the socially acceptable format. I was a football coach for many years, the amount of ridiculous performative masculinity I used to see was ridiculous. Those young men weren't cis, they were actors.
> 
> So what's this word "cis" for?



If cis doesn't exist then trans doesn't exist does it?  That's your argument deconstructed.  That the way trans people decsribe their relationship with their bodies and wider society is inauthentic.  That they are either liars, deluded, idiots or active patriarchs.  That all they need to do is develop a radical analsysis of gender like you have and then they'll be fine - and in fact, by not doing this they are active collaborators not just in their own oppression, but the oppression of all woman.  Do you understand why this type of argument might piss some trans people off?

Whether there is a biological basis for gender dysphoria is not proved beyond doubt but a recent review of the literature concluded "Although the mechanisms remain to be determined, there is strong support in the literature for a biologic basis of gender identity."  That's what the science says. It seems strange to me that someone claiming a materialist position would completely ignore this.


----------



## Athos (Nov 16, 2017)

smokedout said:


> If cis doesn't exist then trans doesn't exist does it?



I'm not sure that's right.  It's possible for some people to believe they have a gender identity that's at odds with their biological sex (and, so, consider themselves trans), at the same time as others who do not believe they a gender identity at all i.e. do not consider that their gender can be conceptualised as something innate, because its socially constructed (and, so, do not consider themselves cis).  Insisting that everyone who's not trans is cis (often by claiming that not accepting the label is denying trans people's rights) is to force an unwanted gender identity on people.


----------



## bimble (Nov 16, 2017)

smokedout Do you think that arguing for a biological basis to gender dysphoria and gender identity is the way forward? I really don't know.
This is an interesting bit of research on that subject:
Transgender Prejudice And The Belief In A Biological Basis For Gender
The Effects of Gender Neuroessentialism on Transprejudice: An Experimental Study
So there's reason to think that pushing the biological basis won't help trans people at all in their fight against prejudice.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 16, 2017)

Athos said:


> I'm not sure that's right.  It's possible for some people to believe they have a gender identity that's at odds with their biological sex (and, so, consider themselves trans), at the same time as others who do not believe they a gender identity at all i.e. do not consider that their gender can be conceptualised as something innate, because its socially constructed (and, so, do not consider themselves cis).  Insisting that everyone who's not trans is cis (often by claiming that not accepting the label is denying trans people's rights) is to force an unwanted gender identity on people.



If someone rejects their assigned gender identity, or rejects  gender altogether, or is non-binary or agender, then they aren't cis are they.  The fact is that the vast majority of human being do do gender.  Just look outside, even in fashionable London it is incredibly rare to see someone who genuinely transcends gender in dress, manner and speech - and when they do they are often trans.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 16, 2017)

bimble said:


> smokedout Do you think that arguing for a biological basis to gender dysphoria and gender identity is the way forward? I really don't know.
> This is an interesting bit of research on that subject:
> Transgender Prejudice And The Belief In A Biological Basis For Gender
> The Effects of Gender Neuroessentialism on Transprejudice: An Experimental Study
> So there's reason to think that pushing the biological basis won't help trans people at all in their fight against prejudice.



I can see there's risks in it, just like there are with the search for a gay gene which people like Peter Tatchell warned against in the 80s.  But I don't believe that means empirical data should be ignored, particularly when people are arguing against the existence of authentic gender dysphoria on a materialist basis.


----------



## bimble (Nov 16, 2017)

smokedout said:


> If someone rejects their assigned gender identity, or rejects  gender altogether, or is non-binary or agender, then they aren't cis are they.  The fact is that the vast majority of human being do do gender.  Just look outside, even in fashionable London it is incredibly rare to see someone who genuinely transcends gender in dress, manner and speech - and when they do they are often trans.


So I could just define myself as agender or would that involve dressing a certain way?

eta: Seems quite a good fit actually.
According to this you can qualify by

1) Not knowing or not caring about gender, as an internal identity and/or as an external label.
2)Deciding not to label their gender or
3) Identifying more as a person than any gender at all."


----------



## co-op (Nov 16, 2017)

smokedout said:


> If cis doesn't exist then trans doesn't exist does it?  That's your argument deconstructed.  That the way trans people decsribe their relationship with their bodies and wider society is inauthentic.  That they are either liars, deluded, idiots or active patriarchs.  That all they need to do is develop a radical analsysis of gender like you have and then they'll be fine - and in fact, by not doing this they are active collaborators not just in their own oppression, but the oppression of all woman.  Do you understand why this type of argument might piss some trans people off?



I literally don't follow this argument at all. "Because cis doesn't exist (as a meaningful category) therefore trans doesn't exist either" - how does that even follow? It's perfectly possible for there to be a multitude of gender identities without the need for a cis one. So I think your logic is completely non-existent here.

Just for the record I don't think that trans people are "liars, deluded, idiots or active patriarchs" and I'm totally baffled by how you can read this into my words. I quite explicitly stated (in another post) that many trans people do have exactly the kind of radical critique of gender that radical feminists have, and it seems to me that is a growing voice however it is still easily drowned out by the dominant narrative about "TERFs" etc.






smokedout said:


> Whether there is a biological basis for gender dysphoria is not proved beyond doubt but a recent review of the literature concluded "Although the mechanisms remain to be determined, there is strong support in the literature for a biologic basis of gender identity."  That's what the science says. It seems strange to me that someone claiming a materialist position would completely ignore this.



Again, I'm really baffled about how you can derive the idea that I am completely "ignoring" this kind of evidence - can you link it to what I've actually said? It's possible that I have contradicted that possibility - I write these posts on the run as most of us do - but again for the record I think a biological basis is perfectly possible for gender dysphoria, although since gender is obviously socially constructed my first point of call would always be to look at the social causes of the dysphoria. Remove the obsessive social genderising and just maybe the same biological basis is going to be socially expressed completely differently?

Got to add; it feels as though - like the 19force8 - you are determined to misread my words to establish a nice clearcut argument of 'bigotry vs non-bigotry'. If you go down that path you'll just waste everyone's time.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 16, 2017)

bimble said:


> So I could just define myself as agender or would that involve dressing a certain way?



You can define yourself however you want clearly.  But if someone defines themselves as agender, or anti-gender, or non binary, or trans, whilst continuing and intending to continue adopting the gendered norms of their biological sex then they might find they raise a few eyebrows.


----------



## Athos (Nov 16, 2017)

smokedout said:


> If someone rejects their assigned gender identity, or rejects  gender altogether, or is non-binary or agender, then they aren't cis are they.  The fact is that the vast majority of human being do do gender.  Just look outside, even in fashionable London it is incredibly rare to see someone who genuinely transcends gender in dress, manner and speech - and when they do they are often trans.



Someone who does not consider themselves to have a gender identity isn't cis or trans (by definition, since they require a congruence/incongruence between sex and gender identity). Which seems to undermine the point I thought you were making that reject cis is to attack the interests of trans people.

In terms of 'doing' gender, I don't think you can infer an innate sense of gender identity from the social performance of gender.  Plenty of women wear dresses without considering themselves the bearer of some innate essence of womanliness that exists independently of sex.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 16, 2017)

I'll just throw a bit of caution into the use of "a biological basis" as evidence for... well... for anything much, really.  If you get a smoking-related cancer then that cancer is most definitely biological in nature.  Doesn't make it innate or any less as a result of environmental factors, though.

The point I am trying to make (no doubt with an analogy that some will read negatively) is that evidence of the biological existence of a trait is not evidence that the trait did not derive from environmental factors.  (And that's even without noting that the whole concept of dividing environment from genetics is an inherent misunderstanding of the process that has been spread by the useful but wholly inappropriate fiction that genetics is like some kind of computer programming rather than a chemical system that is part of the very environment it is trying to deal with.)

I'm in favour of steering clear of the whole argument of what came first out of the biological chicken and egg, to be honest.  I don't see that it makes a whit of difference one way or other.  Much better to argue for the right to be who you are regardless of where that "youness" came from.  Why does it matter where it came from; you still want the right to exist even if the "you" was entirely of social origin.


----------



## Athos (Nov 16, 2017)

kabbes said:


> I'll just throw a bit of caution into the use of "a biological basis" as evidence for... well... for anything much, really.  If you get a smoking-related cancer then that cancer is most definitely biological in nature.  Doesn't make it innate or any less as a result of environmental factors, though.
> 
> The point I am trying to make (no doubt with an analogy that some will read negatively) is that evidence of the biological existence of a trait is not evidence that the trait did not derive from environmental factors.  (And that's even without noting that the whole concept of dividing environment from genetics is an inherent misunderstanding of the process that has been spread by the useful but wholly inappropriate fiction that genetics is like some kind of computer programming rather than a chemical system that is part of the very environment it is trying to deal with.)
> 
> I'm in favour of steering clear of the whole argument of what came first out of the biological chicken and egg, to be honest.  I don't see that it makes a whit of difference one way or other.  Much better to argue for the right to be who you are regardless of where that "youness" came from.  Why does it matter where it came from; you still want the right to exist even if the "you" was entirely of social origin.



Also, even if e.g. trans women's brains could be shown to different from men's brains and the same as women's, there's no reason why feminists should consider that biological difference trumps others e.g. a uterus, given that the latter forms an important part of the basis of the subjugation of women, through men's desire to control reproduction. Arguments about biology cause as many problems as they solve!


----------



## Athos (Nov 16, 2017)

smokedout said:


> You can define yourself however you want clearly.  But if someone defines themselves as agender, or anti-gender, or non binary, or trans, whilst continuing and intending to continue adopting the gendered norms of their biological sex then they might find they raise a few eyebrows.



Are you suggesting you can't be a masculine trans woman without 'raising eyebrows'?


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 16, 2017)

smokedout said:


> You can define yourself however you want clearly.  But if someone defines themselves as agender, or anti-gender, or non binary, or trans, whilst continuing and intending to continue adopting the gendered norms of their biological sex then they might find they raise a few eyebrows.



Oh might they?


----------



## spanglechick (Nov 16, 2017)

Athos said:


> I'm not demanding anything. You're making assertions,  and I'm asking (politely) for evidence. You can't or won't provide it. That's cool, you're under no obligation. But it's silly to pretend that there's something wrong with me asking


It's the way you phrase things.  It's not like this is the first time anyone has pointed this out to you.  


Anyway, as I said, how am I supposed to provide evidence of something NOT happening?


----------



## Athos (Nov 16, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> It's the way you phrase things.  It's not like this is the first time anyone has pointed this out to you.
> 
> 
> Anyway, as I said, how am I supposed to provide evidence of something NOT happening?



How could/should I have phrased it?

I appreciate it's not easy to prove the negative, but presumably there's some factual basis for your belief?  Maybe that'd be a starting point?


----------



## spanglechick (Nov 16, 2017)

My belief is based on the sum of my experience over time.  

If someone asserts their experience of something, you either believe them or you don't.  If you don't, and you want more to go on, I'd say it's normal and polite to say something like "really? I'm surprised you say that.  Has that happened on this thread?"   Or "I've never noticed anything like that.  How does it tend to happen?"


What you tend to do is cut straight to a request for proof.  It's quite abrupt, and TBH, in this case made it seem as if my experience as a woman and a feminist was being doubted because it wasn't the female of feminist perspective that you, a man, wanted to hear.


----------



## Athos (Nov 16, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> My belief is based on the sum of my experience over time.
> 
> If someone asserts their experience of something, you either believe them or you don't.  If you don't, and you want more to go on, I'd say it's normal and polite to say something like "really? I'm surprised you say that.  Has that happened on this thread?"   Or "I've never noticed anything like that.  How does it tend to happen?"
> 
> ...



To me, your status as a woman isn't determinative of whether  or not your claims are true; facts don't turn on the identity of those who assert them.

And,  so, I ask for evidence, before deciding whether or not I believe or disbelieve something.  That's not to say you're lying, or even mistaken. But people draw the wrong conclusions from experience all the time.  From people who experience the world as flat, to people who experience themselves being the next incarnation of Jesus.

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree about whether or not that's rude.  I accept that, sometimes, I may be a little abrupt, but we're all different, and I have a suspicion that if someone you agreed with politely asked someone else for evidence, you wouldn't view that conduct the same.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 16, 2017)

co-op said:


> I literally don't follow this argument at all. "Because cis doesn't exist (as a meaningful category) therefore trans doesn't exist either" - how does that even follow? It's perfectly possible for there to be a multitude of gender identities without the need for a cis one. So I think your logic is completely non-existent here.



Gender is not just an identity but a collection of behaviours, and almost no-one has a full set, but most people live in their assigned gender relatively easily  Transgender people find this difficult, whether that's because they feel they hardly have any of the set of expected gender behaviours, or more often because they feel a sense of unease or dysporia with their physical sex.  Transgender people experience gender dysphoria, cis people don't.  Transgender people are often living in a gender which is different to the one they were assigned.  Cis people aren't.

I can't see any consistency in insisting that cis doesn't exist because everyone is a bit trans without dismissing that there is a thing, experienced by transpeople, called gender dysphoria.

You might have thought that some of the rad fems would love cis, given that it is used as a way of distinguishing between biological women and trans women.  The reason they don't is that as far as they are concerned there are those born biologically female and men. By dismissing Cis you are expecting transpeople to buy into this, as well as making it very difficult to even discuss gender and trans-issues without resorting to terms such as women born women, or normal women.


----------



## Raheem (Nov 16, 2017)

bimble said:


> I agree we can't know that. But I think the question is slightly different, less theoretical more about impacts on the real world, something like: What is the effect of this new reification of gender identities on the hard won loosening of gender stereotypes that feminists have been fighting against for generations. Is it helping or is it retrenching rigid ideas of what women / men are like. The ideas of femininity that for instance Caitlin Jenner talks about, all about empathy and nail polish, are exactly the things we have been fighting to get free of being defined by but when Caitlin talks about them defining her womanhood she's a lauded as a progressive hero.



I think this risks confusing two distinct questions: "What is it that makes Caitlin Jenner wish to present as a woman?" and "How ought Caitlin Jenner to dress?"

It seems obvious to me that answering the second question doesn't help in any way with the first one. I would say that it's certainly true that trans people as a phenomenon pose a difficult challenge for some feminist worldviews. But it is unreasonable to blame trans people for that.


----------



## innit (Nov 16, 2017)

smokedout said:


> most people live in their assigned gender relatively easily


I am not taking issue with the term cis, but that statement shows an astonishing lack of awareness of what it's like to be a woman.


----------



## weepiper (Nov 16, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Gender is not just an identity but a collection of behaviours, and almost no-one has a full set, but most people live in their assigned gender relatively easily  Transgender people find this difficult, whether that's because they feel they hardly have any of the set of expected gender behaviours, or more often because they feel a sense of unease or dysporia with their physical sex.  Transgender people experience gender dysphoria, cis people don't.


This is so black and white as to be actually ridiculous. I think you're very wrong that most people live in their assigned gender easily. I think lots of people really struggle with it.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 16, 2017)

innit said:


> I am not taking issue with the term cis, but that statement shows an astonishing lack of awareness of what it's like to be a woman.



Are you saying most women want to be men or have male bodies?  Because that's what gender dysphoria means.


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 16, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Are you saying most women want to be men or have male bodies?  .



Is the not the same as ‘(not) living in their assigned gender relatively easily’


----------



## smokedout (Nov 16, 2017)

weepiper said:


> This is so black and white as to be actually ridiculous. I think you're very wrong that most people live in their assigned gender easily. I think lots of people really struggle with it.



But not to the extent that they feel compelled to live in the other gender.  Because they aren't trans.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 16, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Is the not the same as ‘(not) living in their assigned gender relatively easily’



I think in the context then it could be assumed what the qualifier 'relatively' meant, apologies if it wasn't clear.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 16, 2017)

weepiper said:


> This is so black and white as to be actually ridiculous. I think you're very wrong that most people live in their assigned gender easily. I think lots of people really struggle with it.


Yeh. I'm sure lots of people do struggle. But I think most people do live in their assigned gender easily. Well over 50.1%.


----------



## trashpony (Nov 16, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Are you saying most women want to be men or have male bodies?  Because that's what gender dysphoria means.


I can't speak for innit but 





> Gender is not just an identity but a collection of behaviours,


 is not about having a male body. This is where is all gets muddy. I reject most of the gender roles I've been assigned because I have a vagina. I don't want to stay home, bake cakes, look after children and tilt my head coquettishly. I want to (and do) run my own business, fix cars, play video games and sit with my legs apart. I'm still a woman. I just don't like being shoved into a gendered behaviours box


----------



## 8ball (Nov 16, 2017)

I’m pretty sure it’s only the “legs apart” bit of that that would raise any eyebrows these days, and if more women did it that wouldn’t be an issue either.

Should be a “sit like a bloke on public transport Wednesday” or something to get people used to it.

Tbf, the video games bit might be affected by the type of game.  Certain multiplayer  games tending to be a shower of pricks.  I avoid them and I’m a bloke.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 16, 2017)

trashpony said:


> I can't speak for innit but  is not about having a male body. This is where is all gets muddy. I reject most of the gender roles I've been assigned because I have a vagina. I don't want to stay home, bake cakes, look after children and tilt my head coquettishly. I want to (and do) run my own business, fix cars, play video games and sit with my legs apart. I'm still a woman. I just don't like being shoved into a gendered behaviours box



I think it's muddy because it's difficult to talk about where people who are transgender are on the gender spectrum.  I would suggest that most transgender people who adopt the different gender to that assigned at birth either some or all of the time probably have some degree of bodily dysmorphia - and certainly almost everyone who seeks treatment does.  But there are also people who would identify as transgender who do not experience bodily dysphoria, who are just more comfortable with the gendered behaviour and expectations of their acquired gender, and who feel in some way internally that they are the gender they are living in.  I'm prepared to accept both of these experiences, and the many others between them or outside them, are authentic.


----------



## weepiper (Nov 16, 2017)

Why do men often find it so hard to hear it when women say 'we are not happy with how society treats us'? Edit, not specifically aimed at any one poster here, just a general tone running through this and other threads.


----------



## Sue (Nov 16, 2017)

8ball said:


> *I’m pretty sure it’s only the “legs apart” bit of that that would raise any eyebrows these days*, and if more women did it that wouldn’t be an issue either.
> 
> Should be a “sit like a bloke on public transport Wednesday” or something to get people used to it.
> 
> Tbf, the video games bit might be affected by the type of game.  Certain multiplayer  games tending to be a shower of pricks.  I avoid them and I’m a bloke.



Nope.


----------



## Sue (Nov 16, 2017)

smokedout said:


> I think it's muddy because it's difficult to talk about where people who are transgender are on the gender spectrum.  I would suggest that most transgender people who adopt the different gender to that assigned at birth either some or all of the time probably have some degree of bodily dysmorphia - and certainly almost everyone who seeks treatment does.  *But there are also people who would identify as transgender who do not experience bodily dysphoria, who are just more comfortable with the gendered behaviour and expectations of their acquired gender, *and who feel in some way internally that they are the gender they are living in.  I'm prepared to accept both of these experiences, and the many others between them or outside them, are authentic.



Hang on. That means probably half the women I know could identify as transgender,  me included. 

How does rejecting/not colluding with gender stereotypes (while not experiencing body dysmorphia) equate to transgender? I'm genuinely confused.


----------



## innit (Nov 16, 2017)

smokedout said:


> I think it's muddy because it's difficult to talk about where people who are transgender are on the gender spectrum.  I would suggest that most transgender people who adopt the different gender to that assigned at birth either some or all of the time probably have some degree of bodily dysmorphia - and certainly almost everyone who seeks treatment does.  But there are also people who would identify as transgender who do not experience bodily dysphoria, who are just more comfortable with the gendered behaviour and expectations of their acquired gender, and who feel in some way internally that they are the gender they are living in.  I'm prepared to accept both of these experiences, and the many others between them or outside them, are authentic.


Many, if not most, women and girls have some degree of body dysphoria because the beauty standards expected of us are enough to send you bonkers.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 16, 2017)

innit said:


> Many, if not most, women and girls have some degree of body dysphoria because the beauty standards expected of us are enough to send you bonkers.



But not gender dyphoria.


----------



## weepiper (Nov 16, 2017)

innit said:


> Many, if not most, women and girls have some degree of body dysphoria because the beauty standards expected of us are enough to send you bonkers.


Oh yeah. I mean women are actually so expected to hate our bodies because they don't reach the impossible standards fed to us by  magazines and film that apparently it's unremarkable


----------



## smokedout (Nov 16, 2017)

Sue said:


> Hang on. That means probably half the women I know could identify as transgender,  me included.
> 
> How does rejecting/not colluding with gender stereotypes (while not experiencing body dysmorphia) equate to transgender? I'm genuinely confused.



You missed the second part of the sentence "and who feel in some way internally that they are the gender they are living in."

Rejecting/not colluding with gender stereotypes is not the same as living in the opposite gender role, or feeling an internal compulsion to live in the opposite gender role.


----------



## innit (Nov 16, 2017)

smokedout said:


> But not gender dyphoria.


The point I'm trying to make is that gender dysphoria isn't the only thing that can make it hard to live in the gender role assigned to your sex.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 16, 2017)

innit said:


> The point I'm trying to make is that gender dysphoria isn't the only thing that can make it hard to live in the gender role assigned to your sex.



I agree.  But it only seems to be gender dysphoria which compels people to live in a different gender to their biological sex.


----------



## weepiper (Nov 16, 2017)

smokedout said:


> You missed the second part of the sentence "and who feel in some way internally that they are the gender they are living in."
> 
> Rejecting/not colluding with gender stereotypes is not the same as living in the opposite gender role, or feeling an internal compulsion to live in the opposite gender role.


Isn't it? As I've said before, I fervently wished I was a boy as a child. I hated what I was told being a girl was. I still utterly reject much of what I'm told being a woman is.


----------



## Sue (Nov 16, 2017)

smokedout said:


> You missed the second part of the sentence "and who feel in some way internally that they are the gender they are living in."
> 
> Rejecting/not colluding with gender stereotypes is not the same as living in the opposite gender role, or *feeling an internal compulsion to live in the opposite gender role.*



I'm still confused about the bit in bold. Would this not include some element of not feeling comfortable/happy with the body you were born in?


----------



## Athos (Nov 16, 2017)

smokedout said:


> I agree.  But it only seems to be gender dysphoria which compels people to live in a different gender to their biological sex.



Is gender dysphoria necessary to be trans?


----------



## Thora (Nov 16, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Are you saying most women want to be men or have male bodies?  Because that's what gender dysphoria means.


That's a very binary view isn't it? If you reject the gender expectations of being a woman you must want to be a man.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 16, 2017)

Sue said:


> Nope.



Running your own business and fixing cars is a problem?  Maybe I just know the wrong women.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 16, 2017)

Thora said:


> That's a very binary view isn't it? If you reject the gender expectations of being a woman you must want to be a man.



Likewise, if you reject the gender expectations of being a man you must want to be a woman. Binary rubbish.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 16, 2017)

Sue said:


> I'm still confused about the bit in bold. Would this not include some element of not feeling comfortable/happy with the body you were born in?



For most, but not everyone.  Transgender represents a broad spectrum.


----------



## elbows (Nov 16, 2017)

weepiper said:


> Why do men often find it so hard to hear it when women say 'we are not happy with how society treats us'? Edit, not specifically aimed at any one poster here, just a general tone running through this and other threads.



Possibly because it doesn't even require a high percentage of men to feel that way in order for that tone to be set. eg even if it is only a relatively small minority, you can bet you will hear plenty from them. And even if you don't hear from many, it won't take much of that tone to bring similar prior experiences rushing back to mind.


----------



## Sue (Nov 16, 2017)

8ball said:


> Running your own business and fixing cars is a problem?  Maybe I just know the wrong women.



It's not a problem for me (I'm a female engineer) but such things are for a surprising number of people...


----------



## weepiper (Nov 16, 2017)

8ball said:


> Running your own business and fixing cars is a problem?  Maybe I just know the wrong women.


Read this.
girls put off a career in engineering by inaccurate and negative perceptions
Sure, there's some of us fighting the norms, but the pressure to be 'normal' for young girls is colossal.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 16, 2017)

Thora said:


> That's a very binary view isn't it? If you reject the gender expectations of being a woman you must want to be a man.



No, it's saying that most people - relative to transgender people - find it easier (or if that was the wrong word less hard) living in their assigned gender than people who feel so unhappy or uncomfortable they feel compelled to live in the opposite gender identity.


----------



## Athos (Nov 16, 2017)

smokedout said:


> No, it's saying that most people - relative to transgender people - find it easier (or if that was the wrong word less hard) living in their assigned gender than people who feel so unhappy or uncomfortable they feel compelled to live in the opposite gender identity.



Does it? Or might it mean they resolve the discomfort in a different way?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 16, 2017)

Sue said:


> It's not a problem for me (I'm a female engineer) but such things are for a surprising number of people...



More than half the business owners I know are women (I’m sure this isn’t entirely representative across the whole population to be fair). And running a business would be a problem for a lot of men, possibly for a different array if reasons on average.  I don’t see any taboo in terms of female business owners, though. 

Sexism exists of course, but I don’t  think people think of running a businsss as breaking gender expectations generally these days.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 16, 2017)

weepiper said:


> Isn't it? As I've said before, I fervently wished I was a boy as a child. I hated what I was told being a girl was. I still utterly reject much of what I'm told being a woman is.



But doesn't your experience of gender dysphoria show that it is an authentic phenomena, whatever the reasons?  And that there might be some people who experience a greater level of dysphoria, or it endures, or gets worse, who feel compelled to change their gender?  And those people are transgender.


----------



## Athos (Nov 16, 2017)

smokedout said:


> But doesn't your experience of gender dysphoria show that it is an authentic phenomena, whatever the reasons?  And that there might be some people who experience a greater level of dysphoria, or it endures, or gets worse, who feel compelled to change their gender?  And those people are transgender.



What about trans people that don't have dysphoria?


----------



## weepiper (Nov 16, 2017)

8ball said:


> More than half the business owners I know are women (I’m sure this isn’t entirely representative across the whole population to be fair). And running a business would be a problem for a lot of men, possibly for a different array if reasons on average.  I don’t see any taboo in terms of female business owners, though.
> 
> Sexism exists of course, but I don’t  think people think of running a businsss as breaking gender expectations generally these days.


Er. Are you actually telling women 'this thing that affects you in fact does NOT affect you because I, a man, have not noticed it'? Because that's how you're coming across.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 16, 2017)

weepiper said:


> Read this.
> girls put off a career in engineering by inaccurate and negative perceptions
> Sure, there's some of us fighting the norms, but the pressure to be 'normal' for young girls is colossal.



I was thinking from the post I replied to of fixing your own car rather than being a mechanic or engineer.  I’m aware of issues with that - I work in software and while we often get some really good female software engineers in, there are very few of them.

It always strikes me that software engineering, even if we go by general stereotypes about aptitudes, shouldn’t end up heavily gender skewed but it seems to be the case.  Cultural reasons, but it’s a big waste of talent.


----------



## Sue (Nov 16, 2017)

8ball said:


> More than half the business owners I know are women (I’m sure this isn’t entirely representative across the whole population to be fair). And running a business would be a problem for a lot of men, possibly for a different array if reasons on average.  I don’t see any taboo in terms of female business owners, though.
> 
> Sexism exists of course, but I don’t  think people think of running a businsss as breaking gender expectations generally these days.



That could depend on the business. A female friend runs an IT company and she still gets the 'no, I want to speak to the *boss*' thing quite regularly. 

Might also be interesting to see what your female business-running friends think.


----------



## innit (Nov 16, 2017)

smokedout said:


> I agree.  But it only seems to be gender dysphoria which compels people to live in a different gender to their biological sex.


Well, we got here from your original statement on the lines of most people live relatively easily in their assigned gender. This is probably going to go off topic but as far as I can see, to be a woman is to be oppressed from the inside out.  Our relationships with our bodies, our sex organs, our reflections. The bullshit selection of roles - coquette, tomboy, mumsy mother, yummy mummy, old bat etc.

Someone gave my son a Cinderella book the other day. One of the ugly sisters has fat, hairy feet and is plainly meant to be grossly disgusting for her failure to be beautiful. I don't remove my leg hair very often because I don't have time to do half the things I actually want to do, and this pink piece of shit book is telling my son I'm disgusting for that and my daughter she will be too if she doesn't shape up?

I quite like making cakes and looking after small children and I don't want to be a man but I also have (quite typically I think) a very difficult relationship with my female body and loathe the female gender prison.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 16, 2017)

weepiper said:


> Er. Are you actually telling women 'this thing that affects you in fact does NOT affect you because I, a man, have not noticed it'? Because that's how you're coming across.



I wouldn’t assume you’re claiming I can’t say what my experience is because of my gender - seems a biy hostile.

I already said it likely wasn’t a representative sample, but my sister, two exes, a Nan and an aunt have run quite different businesses.  I don’t see it as a ‘gendered’ thing specifically.  Lots of kinds of work are tougher if you’re a woman because of sexism but I’ve never thought of running a business (as opposed to say, being an engineer in someone else’s business) as being a gendered thing.

I might be wrong - if is an issue in general then me not seeing it is just down to my experiences.


----------



## elbows (Nov 16, 2017)

8ball said:


> More than half the business owners I know are women (I’m sure this isn’t entirely representative across the whole population to be fair).



You are correct, its not representative at all.

eg:



> *Women and Entrepreneurship*
> 
> 4% of women are engaged in entrepreneurial activity compare to 9% of men.
> If women set up businesses at the same rate as men, there would be an extra 150,000 start-ups in the UK each year.



Women and Work: The Facts


----------



## smokedout (Nov 16, 2017)

innit said:


> Well, we got here from your original statement on the lines of most people live relatively easily in their assigned gender. This is probably going to go off topic but as far as I can see, to be a woman is to be oppressed from the inside out.  Our relationships with our bodies, our sex organs, our reflections. The bullshit selection of roles - coquette, tomboy, mumsy mother, yummy mummy, old bat etc.
> 
> Someone gave my son a Cinderella book the other day. One of the ugly sisters has fat, hairy feet and is plainly meant to be grossly disgusting for her failure to be beautiful. I don't remove my leg hair very often because I don't have time to do half the things I actually want to do, and this pink piece of shit book is telling my son I'm disgusting for that and my daughter she will be too if she doesn't shape up?
> 
> I quite like making cakes and looking after small children and I don't want to be a man but I also have (quite typically I think) a very difficult relationship with my female body and loathe the female gender prison.



I don't disagree with any of that, but I think there is a qualititive difference between experiencing gender based oppression and experiencing gender dysphoria.  That's not even to say that one is greater (or worse) than the other, but that most transpeople also experience gender dysphoria in addition to gender based oppression.  If the way I phrased it was clumsy I apologise, but there is clearly a phenomena which pushes people to live in the opposite gender to which they were assigned, and I don't think it's incorrect to say that these people experience difficulties living in their assigned gender in a diferent/distinct and possibly more extreme way.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 16, 2017)

Sue said:


> That could depend on the business. A female friend runs an IT company and she still gets the 'no, I want to speak to the *boss*' thing quite regularly.
> 
> Might also be interesting to see what your female business-running friends think.



Oh sure - an old boss of mine was often assumed to be my subordinate due to being a bit younger and female, but the point I’m trying to make is that these are all things that affect you as a worker in general as opposed to specifically when running your own business.  Both things are affected.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 16, 2017)

elbows said:


> You are correct, its not representative at all.
> 
> eg:
> 
> ...



I’m not surprised by that degree of skew, but with a little under a third of people running businesses being women, that seems to suggest it’s perfectly “normal” to me.  If about 1 in 3 business owners are women it would be odd to be surprised when you run into one.

It’s a very marginal point in terms of the thread and I don’t want to derail it too much.


----------



## elbows (Nov 16, 2017)

8ball said:


> I’m not surprised by that degree of skew, but with a little under a third of people running businesses being women, that seems to suggest it’s perfectly “normal” to me.  If about 1 in 3 business owners are women it would be odd to be surprised when you run into one.



I doubt that how 'surprised' people are covers enough of the picture to even begin to do the subject justice.

And even if we do restrict ourselves to levels of surprise, I'm sure there is a hideously lopsided picture as to how 'normal' it is considered based on the type of business/sector. These things quickly add up and destroy complacency about how far we've come and what is considered normal.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 16, 2017)

elbows said:


> I doubt that how 'surprised' people are covers enough of the picture to even begin to do the subject justice.
> 
> And even if we do restrict ourselves to levels of surprise, I'm sure there is a hideously lopsided picture as to how 'normal' it is considered based on the type of business/sector. These things quickly add up and destroy complacency about how far we've come and what is considered normal.



I know it varies by sector but I was making one very specific (and tangential)point.


----------



## iona (Nov 17, 2017)

smokedout said:


> I think it's muddy because it's difficult to talk about where people who are transgender are on the gender spectrum.  I would suggest that most transgender people who adopt the different gender to that assigned at birth either some or all of the time probably have some degree of bodily dysmorphia - and certainly almost everyone who seeks treatment does.  But there are also people who would identify as transgender who do not experience bodily dysphoria, who are just more comfortable with the gendered behaviour and expectations of their acquired gender, and who feel in some way internally that they are the gender they are living in.  I'm prepared to accept both of these experiences, and the many others between them or outside them, are authentic.



Are you confusing dysphoria and dysmorphia here? They aren't the same thing.


----------



## emanymton (Nov 17, 2017)

Clair De Lune said:


> Me? There's context.


Post removed


----------



## kabbes (Nov 17, 2017)

8ball said:


> I’m not surprised by that degree of skew, but with a little under a third of people running businesses being women, that seems to suggest it’s perfectly “normal” to me.  If about 1 in 3 business owners are women it would be odd to be surprised when you run into one.
> 
> It’s a very marginal point in terms of the thread and I don’t want to derail it too much.


It’s not a derail.

Ask 1000 people for a list of the characteristics that define good leadership.

Now ask 1000 people for a list of characteristics that define femininity.  Difficult to establish much overlap?
Now ask them for the list of characteristics that define masculinity.  Does it look similar to the leader list?

It’s hard to run a business when the preconceptions for your gender role turn out to be opposed to the preconceptions for good leadership.  Women are told they need to “lean in” in and take on masculine traits to succeed.  It’s also what leads the same behaviour so often needed for leadership to be called, for example, “assertive” in men and “bitchy” in women. 

Of course, these stereotyped lists are horribly inaccurate.  Good leadership is rarely of the style it is presupposed to follow, and men and women very frequently reject their stereotypes of femininity and masculinity.  The stereotypes are also gradually changing.  But the old stereotypes do still linger in our heads regardless and affect our reactions and assumptions.  They lead to differing views as to what it means to be a male leader versus a female leader, for example:

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/...leadership-and-culture-perception-vs-reality/

And which version of leadership garners respect, whilst which version is viewed as low status?  I’ll leave that as an exercise for the reader.

So is it a “surprise” to see a woman running a business?  No.  Does that mean she gets treated the same as a man running a business?  Emphatically not.


----------



## Athos (Nov 17, 2017)

emanymton said:


> .



I thank you for your support (though I realise part of your objection was the perceived insult to rape victims, rather than to me).

But, for my part, it's unnecessary (and certainly not worth risking your mental wellbeing to pursue): I don't think she was trying to call me rapist; she was making the point that nobody likes to be misrepresented as the worst member of their group.

I think it was an ill-thought-through point (perhaps understandable given her emotional interest in the topic), but not the same as a malicious accusation.  And I'm hoping that's why no action was taken in respect of your report.

I think it'd be a shame if you left over this. Though I share your concerns about the level of debate we're increasingly seeing on these boards.  Albeit, to my mind the worst offenders are the snide and creepy liars and hypocrites, rather than those who make an ill-considered point in good faith.  Even then, not because of personal insult - it's water off a ducks back to me - but because of the detrimental effect it has on discussion.

Take care.


----------



## emanymton (Nov 17, 2017)

Athos said:


> I thank you for your support (though I realise part of your objection was the perceived insult to rape victims, rather than to me).
> 
> But, for my part, it's unnecessary (and certainly not worth risking your mental wellbeing to pursue): I don't think she was trying to call me rapist; she was making the point that nobody likes to be misrepresented as the worst member of their group.
> 
> ...


Thank you. I'm probably overreacting, because of how I feel at the moment. I think I will delete the previous post.


----------



## Athos (Nov 17, 2017)

emanymton said:


> Thank you. I'm probably overreacting, because of how I feel at the moment. I think I will delete the previous post.



No problem. I hope you feel better soon.

ETA: I'll remove the quote from my reply, too. Let me know if you want me to edit the reply itself.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 17, 2017)

Won't quote you emanymton as you want to delete that post but basically what Athos said. Hope you don't leave permanently. But if you think some time away from U75 will help you - all the best and make sure you look after yourself.


----------



## emanymton (Nov 17, 2017)

Athos said:


> No problem. I hope you feel better soon.
> 
> ETA: I'll remove the quote from my reply, too. Let me know if you want me to edit the reply itself.





redsquirrel said:


> Won't quote you emanymton as you want to delete that post but basically what Athos said. Hope you don't leave permanently. But if you think some time away from U75 will help you - all the best and make sure you look after yourself.



Thank you both. 
I really don't know what is up with me at the moment. I'm actually on a aemi-brake from here, as I have been spending a lot less time here than normal. I'll be fine.


----------



## Athos (Nov 17, 2017)

emanymton said:


> I'll be fine.


----------



## trashpony (Nov 17, 2017)

On kabbes point - this article about two women who invented a third male partner says a lot about the way men interact with women in business: These Women Entrepreneurs Created A Fake Male Cofounder To Dodge Startup Sexism


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 17, 2017)

Athos said:


> I thank you for your support (though I realise part of your objection was the perceived insult to rape victims, rather than to me).
> 
> But, for my part, it's unnecessary (and certainly not worth risking your mental wellbeing to pursue): I don't think she was trying to call me rapist; she was making the point that nobody likes to be misrepresented as the worst member of their group.
> 
> ...



But Athos you don't help with these comments about snide liars. Aswell as blaming other people so that the bad feeling carries on, it's the same as calling people bigots, reifying an aspect of someone's thought or behaviour within a relationship into a permanent character trait. We're all part of a process, not standing outside it. Given the use of words like bigot in these debates, and how that shuts thinking down, I think it'd be good if we could avoid labelling descriptions here, especially when stated as though it's objective fact.


----------



## co-op (Nov 17, 2017)

iona said:


> Are you confusing dysphoria and dysmorphia here? They aren't the same thing.



It's a pretty key distinction since gender dysphoria (ie what transpeople have) is not described as a mental illness now (although it was until quite recently) but bodily dysmorphia is still rated as mental illness. I'm not really that interested in what the psychological bureaucracy decides in some ways but it's interesting that people (mostly women by about 7-1) who suffer from BDD are medicalised as having a psychological disorder and those with GD medicalised as having a physical one.


----------



## innit (Nov 17, 2017)

trashpony said:


> On kabbes point - this article about two women who invented a third male partner says a lot about the way men interact with women in business: These Women Entrepreneurs Created A Fake Male Cofounder To Dodge Startup Sexism


And similarly What Happened When A Man Signed Work Emails Using A Female Name For 2 Weeks


----------



## co-op (Nov 17, 2017)

smokedout said:


> but there is clearly a phenomena which pushes people to live in the opposite gender to which they were assigned, and I don't think it's incorrect to say that these people experience difficulties living in their assigned gender in a diferent/distinct and possibly more extreme way.



I don't think there's going to be a lot of disagreement with most of this? Given the extreme social taboo that still exists over transgenderism and the medically dangerous and difficult path it involves it's possible to infer the power of the internal drive that must be needed to push people down that path. I haven't seen anyone attempt to minimise the dangers of the path or the courage needed to take it (on this thread).

But agreeing with that doesn't mean I have to buy into a theory which tells me that most other people who aren't impelled down that particular resolution of living now in this society are somehow fundamentally happy or content or have no inner conflict about their gender identity and the gender expectations put upon them. It's absolutely clear to me personally that many ?most? people aren't. Several women have made the point about how women are actively targeted for physical contempt and abuse in our society, on an absolutely totalitarian basis (ie encouraged to hate their bodies). Not surprisingly many do. But men are warped by it too of course, especially in the way they are encouraged relentlessly to disparage their own emotional responses to the world, leaving many of them little better than zombies frankly. But there's also clearly a new cult of male physical bulking up going on - muscles are both perfection of form (in the same way as women are pushed to have "ideal" bodies) but also weapons - they literally embody a threat of violence (the classic masculine act).

How does a term like "cis" meaningfully capture this troubled relationship between most people's inner reality and the social demand? From what you are saying "cis" means little more than "non-trans", or "non-GD", it tells us nothing else. In itself that might be ok but it clearly implies - and you've had trouble on this point - that everyone non-trans is fundamentally gender euphoric in some way. It's clear we're not.


----------



## Athos (Nov 17, 2017)

Red Cat said:


> But Athos you don't help with these comments about snide liars. Aswell as blaming other people so that the bad feeling carries on, it's the same as calling people bigots, reifying an aspect of someone's thought or behaviour within a relationship into a permanent character trait. We're all part of a process, not standing outside it. Given the use of words like bigot in these debates, and how that shuts thinking down, I think it'd be good if we could avoid labelling descriptions here, especially when stated as though it's objective fact.



I thought stating our 'lived experience' as fact (without any evidence), and 'calling out' offenders, had become _de rigeur_ round these parts.


----------



## Athos (Nov 17, 2017)

But, more seriously, fair point; don't want to derail an interesting thread - will reign it in.


----------



## co-op (Nov 17, 2017)

emanymton said:


> Thank you both.
> I really don't know what is up with me at the moment. I'm actually on a aemi-brake from here, as I have been spending a lot less time here than normal*. I'll be fine*.



I didn't see your original post so I've no idea what's up with you, but the bit of your post that I've bolded keeps ringing in my ears so I just wanted to address it directly. If you're in a bad way or if you are just having a bad day, ask someone you love and trust for help. Men don't because they think they shouldn't and therefore they think they can't. It's tragic.

Apologies if I've completely misunderstood.


----------



## bimble (Nov 17, 2017)

Personal and not really relevant but: Had a massive bust up with the boyfriend about this subject last night, we were talking past each other and i thought (wrongly it turns out) that he called me a nazi. We're fine again, having talked our way back to being able to understand what the other one was actually trying to say but this stuff is really hard, even between people who know and like eachother a lot.


----------



## 19force8 (Nov 17, 2017)

kabbes said:


> It’s not a derail.
> 
> Ask 1000 people for a list of the characteristics that define good leadership.
> 
> ...


Okay, I've got a bit of free time this weekend.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 17, 2017)

19force8 said:


> Okay, I've got a bit of free time this weekend.


Better make the selection of 1000 representative, though.  Screen 10,000 and whittle it down to 1000 from that.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 17, 2017)

kabbes said:


> It’s not a derail.



It's a derail if people keep posting about it.  Especially if they can't be arsed to read back a bit.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 17, 2017)

8ball said:


> It's a derail if people keep posting about it.  Especially if they can't be arsed to read back a bit.


It’s a discussion about the essence of gender expectations, which is very much on the rail.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 17, 2017)

kabbes said:


> It’s a discussion about the essence of gender expectations, which is very much on the rail.



I have no probs with threads meandering but there seem to be at least two parallel discussions now since I came into it, so didn't want to annoy by popping in, making a side point and diverting things too much. My point, put as simply as I can, is just that as far as I can see the effect of sexism in the workplace is not selective in terms of whether you are running a business, or working for one, so I wondered why Trashy chose that form of words in the post I originally referred to, when saying, for example "I want to (and do) have a job" would sound equally odd to me. 

I agreed with everything else she said about not wanting to be forced into a box, and that was the more interesting thrust of the thread to me, especially in terms of how restrictive gender roles intersect with the transgender experience, which my ideas aren't very formed on.

I ruin everything.


----------



## bimble (Nov 17, 2017)

8ball you might have a point if the word bossy got used to describe everyone and not just women.


----------



## trashpony (Nov 17, 2017)

8ball said:


> I have no probs with threads meandering but there seem to be at least two parallel discussions now since I came into it, so didn't want to annoy by popping in, making a side point and diverting things too much. My point, put as simply as I can, is just that as far as I can see the effect of sexism in the workplace is not selective in terms of whether you are running a business, or working for one, so I wondered why Trashy chose that form of words in the post I originally referred to, when saying, for example "I want to (and do) have a job" would sound equally odd to me.
> 
> I agreed with everything else she said about not wanting to be forced into a box, and that was the more interesting thrust of the thread to me, especially in terms of how restrictive gender roles intersect with the transgender experience, which my ideas aren't very formed on.
> 
> I ruin everything.


I chose those words because I was talking about myself. Less than 1/4 of UK plc Board members are women. Under 6% of Fortune 500 companies have female CEOs. That's the point I was making but I'm really not very clear what point you're trying to make.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 17, 2017)

bimble said:


> 8ball you might have a point if the word bossy got used to describe everyone and not just women.



I've been called bossy.  I've called male friends bossy when they were being such.  I don't know if it is a regional thing - back when I grew up in Wales there was a lad in the year above whose nickname was 'Bossy'.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 17, 2017)

Men don't always get called _bossy_; they often called _pushy_, _aggressive_, and _arrogant prick_.

Both men and women can be _driven_, _single-minded_, _highly-motivated._

It's not really about what people get called, it's about why they get called that. Is a bossy woman as bossy as an arrogant prick, less bossy, more bossy? What does a man or a woman have to actually say / do in order to get such a label? I think this is more important.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 17, 2017)

trashpony said:


> I chose those words because I was talking about myself. Less than 1/4 of UK plc Board members are women. Under 6% of Fortune 500 companies have female CEOs. That's the point I was making but I'm really not very clear what point you're trying to make.



If that's not clear from my posts so far I won't be replying on those points any further.  

On an unrelated note, I'm a bit suspicious of the idea being put about that we'll have some kind of justice when 50% or more of senior board members are women employing nannies, cleaners and plenty of other women on increasing 'flexible terms'.  Not that that is necessarily the point you're trying to make.


----------



## bimble (Nov 17, 2017)

Maybe it is regional (the bossy word). Basic point though is that the traditional ideas of feminity clearly include gentleness submissiveness helpfulness etc and the ideas of masculinity the opposite (assertiveness, dominance).


----------



## trashpony (Nov 17, 2017)

8ball said:


> If that's not clear from my posts so far I won't be replying on those points any further.
> 
> On an unrelated note, I'm a bit suspicious of the idea being put about that we'll have some kind of justice when 50% or more of senior board members are women employing nannies, cleaners and plenty of other women on increasing 'flexible terms'.  Not that that is necessarily the point you're trying to make.



I was hoping that men would stay home and do all the shitty jobs like the male CEOs' wives do.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 17, 2017)

bimble said:


> Maybe it is regional (the bossy word). Basic point though is that the traditional ideas of feminity clearly include gentleness submissiveness helpfulness etc and the ideas of masculinity the opposite (assertiveness, dominance).



That's what I mean, or at least meant to mean; it's more about what someone has to say or do in order to get the label _bossy_, _pushy _or whatever. The label itself isn't the actual point, it's the broken preconceptions that lead to the label being used. I think it's important to clarify this, otherwise we get hung up on _calling a woman bossy is bad_. It's not, it all depends on what she was doing to get called _bossy_. Was she being an arrogant prick, or just reasonably assertive? IME the bar for this is lower for women, and that's the issue. Not the label itself.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 17, 2017)

bimble said:


> Maybe it is regional (the bossy word). Basic point though is that the traditional ideas of feminity clearly include gentleness submissiveness helpfulness etc and the ideas of masculinity the opposite (assertiveness, dominance).



Yep, agreed.  But I don't know how that relates to #2253 necessarily.  There are some businesses that are very stereotypically male and but not all are so, and some are quite the opposite, the same as with jobs, where people still use clunky terms like 'male nurse' and 'lady Doctor'.  And capitalism in general is set up to reward "masculine" behaviour at higher levels for reasons we'd likely agree on too, which then affects both workers and smaller business owners as a consequence.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 17, 2017)

trashpony said:


> I was hoping that men would stay home and do all the shitty jobs like the male CEOs wives do.



Well, someone has to keep the nanny, cleaners and other assorted domestic staff in line.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 17, 2017)

When the nanny and cleaners are men, might we be making progress?
Or are there broader issues around unskilled labour and the idle rich exploiting it?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 17, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> When the nanny and cleaners are men, might we be making progress?
> Or are there broader issues around unskilled labour and the idle rich exploiting it?



Hmm, yes.  Sometimes I wonder whether whether there might be...

(though re: the first point, I'm unsure about whether being a nanny is necessarily "unskilled")


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 17, 2017)

8ball said:


> Well, someone has to keep the nanny, cleaners and other assorted domestic staff in line.




Because men are incapable of doing parental and domestic duties themselves?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 17, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Because men are incapable of doing parental and domestic duties themselves?



In your race to attach a spurious unstated assumption to my post, you seem to have somehow made_ all _of the domestic staff female.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 17, 2017)

8ball said:


> In your race to attach a spurious unstated assumption to my post, you seem to have somehow made_ all _of the domestic staff female.



I didn't race to do anything nor have I presumed all domestic help is female. My point is a simple one...a stay at home father can do all of those things so wouldn't necessarily have to hire anyone, man or woman to do those things.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 17, 2017)

co-op said:


> How does a term like "cis" meaningfully capture this troubled relationship between most people's inner reality and the social demand? From what you are saying "cis" means little more than "non-trans", or "non-GD", it tells us nothing else.



Yes, cis means non-trans, because it is useful to have a word which describes that when talking about trans-issues.  Like straight means not gay, despite the range of sexualities.  I know it's sometimes used perjoratively, so is trans, but to refuse to accept a word that's basically a simple and fairly loose categorisation strikes me as either a bit daft, or comes with another agenda - as in I'm not callng myself cis, I'm just normal.  Which funnily enough is what I remember people saying about the word straight to mean heterosexual at one point.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 17, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> I didn't race to do anything nor have I presumed all domestic help is female. My point is a simple one...a stay at home father can do all of those things so wouldn't necessarily have to hire anyone, man or woman to do those things.



They could.  I was responding to a post implying the wives of CEOs don't have their own careers and spend their days skivvying barefoot chained to the sink, so was keeping it equally flippant.

Though you did assume as much in your post.  Otherwise it wouldn't make any sense.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 17, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Yes, cis means non-trans, because it is useful to have a word which describes that when talking about trans-issues.



Also, it was a pre-existing term rather than something just invented to create a label for the non-trans (some people seem to think it was just invented).


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 17, 2017)

8ball said:


> Though you did assume as much in your post.  Otherwise it wouldn't make any sense.



No I didn't. Your post read as you  assuming that men would have domestic help.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 17, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> No I didn't. Your post read as you  assuming that men would have domestic help.



My post flippantly assumed CEOs would employ domestic help, yes.
I don't know many CEOs to be fair, but I'm guessing that works on a non-flippant level too.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2017)

8ball said:


> My post flippantly assumed CEOs would employ domestic help, yes.
> I don't know many CEOs to be fair, but I'm guessing that works on a non-flippant level too.


i would be frankly astonished if i encountered a ceo who didn't employ domestick help

altho to be fair i would be astonished to encounter a ceo


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Nov 17, 2017)

How about this from an interview with Dawn Foster, who wrote a book called "Lean Out" as a riposte to Sheyl Sandberg's "corporate feminism book" "Lean In":



> *MF:* One of the things I thought was interesting about her book was that she did talk about sharing household duties with her husband, and how you really need an equal partner if you’re ever going to do anything ambitious in life as a woman. And of course that’s absolutely true. But you made quite a nice point in your book about how, yes, you need a partner, but you also rely on cheap domestic labour of other women.
> 
> Sheryl Sandberg definitely has a nanny or nannies, and cleaner or housekeeper and whatever else. While it's a step forward in a sense that you can have a relationship where these responsibilities are shared, there’s a whole layer of domestic work that’s being done mainly by low-paid women, that’s not talked about in these stories of individual success.
> 
> ...



domestic help is mentioned in the quote - sorry if that's not clear from the preview bit

Is capitalism destroying feminism? An interview with Dawn Foster


----------



## 8ball (Nov 17, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> i would be frankly astonished if i encountered a ceo who didn't employ domestick help
> 
> altho to be fair i would be astonished to encounter a ceo



I know one CFO and am casually acquainted with a CEO.  Both employ domestic(k) help and I know a good few manager and director level types (of both sexes) who do too.  This doesn't mean men are incapable of doing the tasks (or even that some of these staff aren't men).  It means that rich people can use money to buy time back and see it as entirely abstract and nothing exploitative ("because they're worth it").

Some friends were trying to persuade me to get a cleaner in a while back but I won't due to my stubborn politics.  I believe the subject has cropped up on Urban before...


----------



## krink (Nov 17, 2017)

Can someone help me find the official government info about that bill that a lot of the current discussion was sparked by? All I can find is this.

Is that it? there's not much there at all.

BTW if anyone needs a cleaner, i'm available. cash in hand only and i live up north so transport exes too.


----------



## co-op (Nov 17, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Yes, cis means non-trans, because it is useful to have a word which describes that when talking about trans-issues.  Like straight means not gay, despite the range of sexualities.  I know it's sometimes used perjoratively, so is trans, but to refuse to accept a word that's basically a simple and fairly loose categorisation strikes me as either a bit daft, or comes with another agenda - as in I'm not callng myself cis, I'm just normal.  Which funnily enough is what I remember people saying about the word straight to mean heterosexual at one point.



It's not that it's used perjoratively - in fact I haven't seen this use - my problem is that it is routinely used to express something which isn't true, namely the idea that non-trans people experience no discontinuity between their assigned gender and their bodily sex, I think there's abundant evidence that many do - lots of it on this thread - my reading is that most do. In fact the ones I've met who don't often seem pretty weird but that's just my experience.

It matters because if you are saying that all, nearly all "cis" people are happy with their assigned gender you're getting right back to saying the dominant gender binary is the norm and we all should just accept that. My point all the way has been we shouldn't, we should challenge that norm. Not least because it is men who are 'living up' to it who are the biggest physical danger to transwomen.

I don't remember people making a big deal about saying 'straight' instead of 'heterosexual' - it just mapped directly onto 'normal' for those who already thought that - or wanted you to believe that they did.


----------



## krink (Nov 17, 2017)

I don't recall any straight people making a fuss (apart from the usual 'you mean normal' crowd) but I can remember a few gay people i knew in my punk days who did not like it at all when 'straight' became the norm to describe your sexual preference; what is the opposite of straight - bent. before straight was used to describe your sex orientation, 'bent' meant you were dodgy, a crook or a dirty poofter. so, quite rightly, they were not impressed with what 'straight' implied for themselves.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 17, 2017)

co-op said:


> It's not that it's used perjoratively - in fact I haven't seen this use - my problem is that it is routinely used to express something which isn't true, namely the idea that non-trans people experience no discontinuity between their assigned gender and their bodily sex, I think there's abundant evidence that many do - lots of it on this thread - my reading is that most do. In fact the ones I've met who don't often seem pretty weird but that's just my experience.
> 
> It matters because if you are saying that all, nearly all "cis" people are happy with their assigned gender you're getting right back to saying the dominant gender binary is the norm and we all should just accept that. My point all the way has been we shouldn't, we should challenge that norm. Not least because it is men who are 'living up' to it who are the biggest physical danger to transwomen.



So trans people aren't allowed to have a term that means non-trans?  Is non-trans even okay?  Is trans okay? 

Do you see what I mean?  This nit-picking over a simple taxonomical term would not fly with any other group.  



> I don't remember people making a big deal about saying 'straight' instead of 'heterosexual' - it just mapped directly onto 'normal' for those who already thought that - or wanted you to believe that they did.



I do, regularly, half my family included.


----------



## co-op (Nov 17, 2017)

smokedout said:


> So trans people aren't allowed to have a term that means non-trans?  Is non-trans even okay?  Is trans okay?
> 
> Do you see what I mean?  This nit-picking over a simple taxonomical term would not fly with any other group.  .



If it just means non-trans I've no problem with it. But it has been routinely used to mean 'the opposite of gender dysphoric' and that isn't just 'trans', it's 'gender-happy' - and as I've pointed out repeatedly, many/most aren't and the whole idea that they _are_ is a sign-up to a toxic gender binary as a norm. That matters if you care about deconstructing the whole nonsense of it. If you don't care, fine, live your life as best you can, we all have to do that, but don't turn that gender binary norm into a political cause and co-opt the language of liberation to it, that's nonsense, it's deeply reactionary.



smokedout said:


> I do, regularly, half my family included.



I've been prompted by krink to remember that some gay people didn't like it because of the obvious suggestion that gay people were 'bent' - 'bender' was the go-to term of abuse for someone gay when I was growing up. Don't remember heteros caring. Personal experiences may differ.


----------



## Athos (Nov 17, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Yes, cis means non-trans, because it is useful to have a word which describes that when talking about trans-issues.  Like straight means not gay, despite the range of sexualities.  I know it's sometimes used perjoratively, so is trans, but to refuse to accept a word that's basically a simple and fairly loose categorisation strikes me as either a bit daft, or comes with another agenda - as in I'm not callng myself cis, I'm just normal.  Which funnily enough is what I remember people saying about the word straight to mean heterosexual at one point.



Cis does not just mean not trans. It means that there is no incongruence between someone's internal gender identity and their sex.  Some people have very clearly explained they don't have an internal gender identity.  Such that, whilst they're not trans, they're not cis either.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 17, 2017)

Athos said:


> Cis does not just mean not trans. It means that there is no incongruence between someone's internal gender identity and their sex.  Some people have very clearly explained they don't have an internal gender identity.  Such that, whilst they're not trans, they're not cis either.



How do I tell whether I have an internal gender identity?


----------



## bimble (Nov 17, 2017)

I'm going to do that thing of posting a video from youtube. 
Just because its easier in short video of her actually speaking than the overly academic formats her ideas are usually presented in. Judith Butler's ideas about gender as performative make, to me, a lot of sense, they feel true.


----------



## Athos (Nov 17, 2017)

8ball said:


> How do I tell whether I have an internal gender identity?



You feel it, apparently.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 17, 2017)

Athos said:


> Cis does not just mean not trans. It means that there is no incongruence between someone's internal gender identity and their sex.  Some people have very clearly explained they don't have an internal gender identity.  Such that, whilst they're not trans, they're not cis either.



i honestly can't be fucked debating this with you any longer.  You obsessively post on every thread about this, claiming you think transwomen are women like you deserve a fucking medal and then consistently taking every anti-trans position going in the name of defending women's right to talk about gender.  I don't think for one minute you are sincere, or that you want to learn or move the debate forward, I think you just want to score points, and it's boring me.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 17, 2017)

Athos said:


> You feel it, apparently.



After obtaining clear consent, I hope.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2017)

bimble said:


> I'm going to do that thing of posting a video from youtube.
> Just because its easier in short video of her actually speaking than the overly academic formats her ideas are usually presented in. Judith Butler's ideas about gender as performative make, to me, a lot of sense, they feel true.



you mean her books


----------



## Athos (Nov 17, 2017)

smokedout said:


> i honestly can't be fucked debating this with you any longer.  You obsessively post on every thread about this, claiming you think transwomen are women like you deserve a fucking medal and then consistently taking every anti-trans position going in the name of defending women's right to talk about gender.  I don't think for one minute you are sincere, or that you want to learn or move the debate forward, I think you just want to score points, and it's boring me.



There's nothing anti-trans about saying that people who don't identity as trans don't necessarily identify as cis.

It seems a bit convenient that the point at which you don't want debate is that at which your position unravels.

And the only reason I keep having to say i consider trans women too be women is because people like you insist in suggesting I don't - as you have here!


----------



## bimble (Nov 17, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> you mean her books


Yes, they are hard. I gave up.


----------



## belboid (Nov 17, 2017)

Athos said:


> Cis does not just mean not trans. It means that there is no incongruence between someone's internal gender identity and their sex.


No it doesn't. There is no need for 'no incongruence' at all, it's simply about if you almost automatically tick the box on a form that corresponds to the sex you were assigned with at all. That is  how I have _always _heard and read it used.


----------



## Athos (Nov 17, 2017)

belboid said:


> No it doesn't. There is no need for 'no incongruence' at all, it's simply about if you almost automatically tick the box on a form that corresponds to the sex you were assigned with at all. That is  how I have _always _heard and read it used.



That's not really a definition, is it?

Every serious attempt I've seen to define the term other that by reference to trans turns on the existence of a gender identity.


----------



## belboid (Nov 17, 2017)

Athos said:


> That's not really a definition, is it?
> 
> Every serious attempt I've seen to define the term other that by reference to trans turns on the existence of a gender identity.


Of course it does. But it absolutely does not require the 'no incongruence' bit that you chucked in


----------



## Athos (Nov 17, 2017)

belboid said:


> Of course it does. But it absolutely does not require the 'no incongruence' bit that you chucked in



Ok. Well ignore the incongrurnce point then.

So where does that leave people who aren't trans but don't consider they have a gender identity. They can't be cis, can they?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2017)

Athos said:


> Ok. Well ignore the incongrurnce point then.
> 
> So where does that leave people who aren't trans but don't consider they have a gender identity. They can't be cis, can they?


what, people who are not in any way sexual?


----------



## belboid (Nov 17, 2017)

Athos said:


> Ok. Well ignore the incongrurnce point then.
> 
> So where does that leave people who aren't trans but don't consider they have a gender identity. They can't be cis, can they?


they're agender or asexual


----------



## 8ball (Nov 17, 2017)

Athos said:


> Ok. Well ignore the incongrurnce point then.
> 
> So where does that leave people who aren't trans but don't consider they have a gender identity. They can't be cis, can they?



Does "not having a gender identity" mean "nonconforming to either set of consistent behavioural norms, but not bodily dysmorphic"?
Or what?


----------



## Athos (Nov 17, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> what, people who are not in any way sexual?



No, gender identity and sexual desire aren't the same thing.


----------



## bimble (Nov 17, 2017)

belboid said:


> they're agender or asexual


asexual is a completely separate thing.


----------



## Athos (Nov 17, 2017)

belboid said:


> they're agender or asexual



Are agender people cis, then? Or what?


----------



## belboid (Nov 17, 2017)

bimble said:


> asexual is a completely separate thing.


fine, they're simply agender


----------



## belboid (Nov 17, 2017)

Athos said:


> Are agender people cis, then? Or what?


no, they're agender.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Nov 17, 2017)

Fuck, this is so confusing.  I feel so lucky that I've never had any confusion or distress about my gender or sexuality.


----------



## Athos (Nov 17, 2017)

8ball said:


> Does "not having a gender identity" mean "nonconforming to either set of consistent behavioural norms, but not bodily dysmorphic"?
> Or what?



No it's someone who believes that gender is a socially constructed thing, imposed upon sex from outside, such that they do not consider that they have a innate sense of gender which could exist independently of sex.


----------



## Athos (Nov 17, 2017)

belboid said:


> no, they're agender.



Right. So you agree with me, then, that 'cis' doesn't just mean 'not trans', because there are people who are not trans but who are not cis either.


----------



## bimble (Nov 17, 2017)

If you've got nothing better to do (like me yesterday) have a look at the comments under the genderwiki for agender.
Agender
Lots of folks clearly feel its not a real thing. Also the flag is a bit rubbish.


----------



## belboid (Nov 17, 2017)

Athos said:


> Right. So you agree with me, then, that 'cis' doesn't just mean 'not trans', because there are people who are not trans but who are not cis either.


I agree with that part of your argument. But you still seem to be trying to define cis far too narrowly


----------



## belboid (Nov 17, 2017)

bimble said:


> If you've got nothing better to do (like me yesterday) have a look at the comments under the genderwiki for agender.
> Agender
> Lots of folks clearly feel its not a real thing. Also the flag is a bit rubbish.


Lots of folks think lots of things aren't real things. There are still some genuine flat earthers about. So what?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 17, 2017)

Athos said:


> No it's someone who believes that gender is a socially constructed thing, imposed upon sex from outside, such that they do not consider that they have a innate sense of gender which could exist independently of sex.



I thought gender was socially constructed *by definition*.


----------



## Athos (Nov 17, 2017)

belboid said:


> I agree with that part of your argument. But you still seem to be trying to define cis far too narrowly



Fine.  I'll drop the point about incongruence, as it seems it was a poor way of expressing it my central point i.e. that 'cis doesn't mean 'not trans'.  To many who have an interest in applying the label 'cis to those who don't define themselves that way - effectively meta-misgendering - that's a controversial point, it seems.


----------



## bimble (Nov 17, 2017)

belboid said:


> Lots of folks think lots of things aren't real things. There are still some genuine flat earthers about. So what?


Don't get me wrong, I like it, am glad the term exists and if I get a bit more confident or anyone asks, which is unlikely, think I might be defining myself that way.
My feelings have changed a bit recently, am seeing that all this conversation about gender might actually be helping me feel less boxed in by the rules of behaviour and performance / presentation of femininity.


----------



## Athos (Nov 17, 2017)

8ball said:


> I thought gender was socially constructed *by definition*.



Of course it is. Which is why the concept of 'gender identity' becomes necessary to explain transness.


----------



## belboid (Nov 17, 2017)

Athos said:


> Fine.  I'll drop the point about incongruence, as it seems it was a poor way of expressing it my central point i.e. that 'cis doesn't mean 'not trans'.  To many who have an interest in applying the label 'cis to those who don't define themselves that way - effectively meta-misgendering - that's a controversial point, it seems.


but the people who define themselves as agender are very few. You can completely reject gender stereotypes and be cis.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 17, 2017)

Athos said:


> Of course it is. Which is why the concept of 'gender identity' becomes necessary to explain transness.



'Gender identity' could have different definitions, it seems to me.

Could be just the gender you are assigned.
Could be an internal identification or discomfort with the roles and expectaton of the assignment.
Could be something you claim as a response to the above.

etc.


----------



## Athos (Nov 17, 2017)

8ball said:


> 'Gender identity' could have different definitions, it seems to me.
> 
> Could be just the gender you are assigned.
> Could be an internal identification or discomfort with the roles and expectaton of the assignment.
> ...



It seems to be used in a flexible (instrumental?) way, without any consensus about a coherent definition, despite its centrality to this issue.  In fact, there seems to be an active resistance to women's efforts to unpack the term.


----------



## Athos (Nov 17, 2017)

belboid said:


> but the people who define themselves as agender are very few. You can completely reject gender stereotypes and be cis.



I agree with both of those points (neither of which undermine mine).


----------



## iona (Nov 17, 2017)

I feel like people are confusing gender with gender roles again. It's perfectly possible to reject the latter but not the former.

I can only speak for myself here but my choosing to transition had fuck-all to do with gender roles or stereotypes or societal pressures and expectations. I think it's all a load of crap, but that's a separate issue and has nothing to do with my gender and whether I'm trans or cis.

I've always understood cis/trans as just describing the relationship between your gender and what you were assigned at birth, not how you feel about the shit that comes with it.


----------



## co-op (Nov 17, 2017)

.


----------



## co-op (Nov 17, 2017)

iona said:


> I've always understood cis/trans as just describing the relationship between your gender and what you were assigned at birth, .



Isn't the gender what is assigned?


----------



## Athos (Nov 17, 2017)

iona What is gender other than "the shit that goes with it", though?  What is 'gender' other than an externally imposed, socially constructed set of expectations?  When you talk of your gender, what do you mean?  Is it something innate to you, that exists independently of your biological sex? And independently of the way society creates gender categories, and would, ordinarily, place you in one of them according to sex?  Where does 'gender identity' fit in?  And what is it?

Sorry, that's a lot of questions. Don't want to sound demanding, and it's cool if you don't want to answer them, of course (particularly if to do so would upset you/exacerbate dysphoria).   But I'm interested in, and struggle to coherently conceptualise, this illusive quality of 'gender identity' - what it is that people identify with, if not sex or socially constructed norms.


----------



## iona (Nov 17, 2017)

co-op said:


> Isn't the gender what is assigned?



Assigned at birth, generally based on observable primary sex characteristics and the assumption that that person's sex and gender will match (ie they'll be cisgender), yes. Sometimes they don't though, so people have a gender that doesn't match what they were assigned (ie are transgender).

At least that's how I understand it. I'm not the most academic person mind and some of this still confuses the shit out of me tbh.


----------



## iona (Nov 17, 2017)

Athos I'm happy to answer as best I can, but A) it's going to take a while coz I only have a phone to type on; B) I can only answer for myself and everyone experiences things differently and C) I can't promise to explain my own experiences in a way that make sense to anyone else. E2a and D) I wouldn't know a marxist materialist dialectic if you smacked me round the face with one, so I can't frame anything in those terms.


----------



## Athos (Nov 17, 2017)

iona said:


> Athos I'm happy to answer as best I can, but A) it's going to take a while coz I only have a phone to type on; B) I can only answer for myself and everyone experiences things differently and C) I can't promise to explain my own experiences in a way that make sense to anyone else. E2a and D) I wouldn't know a marxist materialist dialectic if you smacked me round the face with one, so I can't frame anything in those terms.



Understood. I'm grateful. Look forward to reading it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2017)

belboid said:


> but the people who define themselves as agender are very few.


and they're often very private people, hidden agenders you might say


----------



## co-op (Nov 17, 2017)

iona said:


> Assigned at birth, generally based on observable primary sex characteristics and the assumption that that person's sex and gender will match .



It's usually a reasonable assumption if you make the social taboos for failing to match it violent and unpleasant enough.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 17, 2017)

iona said:


> I feel like people are confusing gender with gender roles again.



Very probably.  I just figured gender roles were the behavioural expectations which get put in each gender's "container", which then gets matched to a person's biological sex at birth.  Ie. gender, on one level, is a category type that the roles go into, pretty much.  So the 'male' gender gets a bunch of traits that then get called 'masculine' and vice versa.  Then we get to enforce it by rewarding people who best match the roles.  Especially in the case of the favoured gender.

The other levels, and how an 'internal gender identity' works is something I don't have a good handle on, so would also be interested in your thoughts on Athos' questions too.


----------



## spanglechick (Nov 17, 2017)

Something I have noticed here recently, though may just be anecdata, is that among the cis women who have most concerns about the access trans women have to womanhood (in its varied situations), there is a high prevalence of dissatisfaction with what being gender-female* means.  

As I've said before, I couldn't be more passionately happy with my gender, even though I'm unhappy about the myriad social and cultural oppressions women face.  I'm angry about the gender roles, but it doesn't make me one micron closer to wishing I was a man.	I feel enormously lucky to have this strong gender ID, by the way.  I suspect it makes my perception of self less complicated.  

But I wonder if people whose unhappiness with gender roles leads to more ambivalence about their gender identity, find it harder to see why anyone would identify as female if they didn't have to.  And perhaps make them more mistrustful of the motives of some trans women.

*edit.  The gender word may be "feminine", but that word clearly has a stronger, more culturally defined meaning.  In fact, "feminine" is , is say, about gender roles rather than gender identity. I'm not feminine, but my gender is 10% on the distaff side.


----------



## Athos (Nov 17, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> But I wonder if people whose unhappiness with gender roles leads to more ambivalence about their gender identity, find it harder to see why anyone would identify as female if they didn't have to.  And perhaps make them more mistrustful of the motives of some trans women.



I think that's right, if only because many of them don't conceive of the distinction between gender roles and gender identity.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 17, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> Something I have noticed here recently, though may just be anecdata, is that among the cis women who have most concerns about the access trans women have to womanhood (in its varied situations), there is a high prevalence of dissatisfaction with what being gender-female* means.
> 
> As I've said before, I couldn't be more passionately happy with my gender, even though I'm unhappy about the myriad social and cultural oppressions women face.  I'm angry about the gender roles, but it doesn't make me one micron closer to wishing I was a man.	I feel enormously lucky to have this strong gender ID, by the way.  I suspect it makes my perception of self less complicated.
> 
> But I wonder if people whose unhappiness with gender roles leads to more ambivalence about their gender identity, find it harder to see why anyone would identify as female if they didn't have to.  And perhaps make them more mistrustful of the motives of some trans women.



That’s quite interesting.  I suspect my gender ID is more towards the middle than yours, even though I’ve been told having autistic traits is linked to my having an ‘extreme male brain’ (which I’m personally a little sceptical about - I’ve never been much good at ‘being a bloke’).

<edited out second part of response due to misreading a word in your post, soz>


----------



## 8ball (Nov 17, 2017)

Athos said:


> I think that's right, if only because many of them don't conceive of the distinction between gender roles and gender identity.



I’m a bit foggy on the ‘sense of gender identity’ and what it means myself tbf.  Not sure whethet it relates to a sense of belonging based on formative experiences - might be something deeper going on too.


----------



## bimble (Nov 17, 2017)

I think your post’s interesting spanglechick , will be pondering.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 17, 2017)

Jess Phillips come out in favour of the North Carolina GOP position of ensuring the territorial integrity of the two genders.


----------



## Thora (Nov 17, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> Something I have noticed here recently, though may just be anecdata, is that among the cis women who have most concerns about the access trans women have to womanhood (in its varied situations), there is a high prevalence of dissatisfaction with what being gender-female* means.
> 
> As I've said before, I couldn't be more passionately happy with my gender, even though I'm unhappy about the myriad social and cultural oppressions women face.  I'm angry about the gender roles, but it doesn't make me one micron closer to wishing I was a man.	I feel enormously lucky to have this strong gender ID, by the way.  I suspect it makes my perception of self less complicated.
> 
> But I wonder if people whose unhappiness with gender roles leads to more ambivalence about their gender identity, find it harder to see why anyone would identify as female if they didn't have to.  And perhaps make them more mistrustful of the motives of some trans women.


I don't experience a gender identity that is separate from gender roles or being female.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 17, 2017)

Still endlessly fascinated by the prevalence of the connection between anti-Corbyn sentiment and transphobia, I can't identify why it is so common.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 17, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Still endlessly fascinated by the prevalence of the connection between anti-Corbyn sentiment and transphobia, I can't identify why it is so common.



That’s not something I’ve noticed.  I’ll have to check with the anti-Corbyns I know..


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 17, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Still endlessly fascinated by the prevalence of the connection between anti-Corbyn sentiment and transphobia, I can't identify why it is so common.



For real?  Where are you observing that?


----------



## bimble (Nov 17, 2017)

simpler times.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 17, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> For real?  Where are you observing that?



The New Statesman in general, Helen Lewis, the WEP in general, Criado Perez. Would be happy to come up with some more examples. It just seems to go together as a package.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 17, 2017)

bimble said:


> simpler times.




Yeah because no feminist should/can enjoy being a girl/woman because to do so is this surrendered/hollywood/male centred/internalised/objectified/nonsense. This or nothing? Simpler? No inbewtween? Insightful.


----------



## bimble (Nov 17, 2017)

Calm down. I didn’t say any of that. I just like the song.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 17, 2017)

bimble said:


> Calm down. I didn’t say any of that. I just like the song.



I think the ‘calm down’ won’t go well, but I was also surprised by how much Rutita read into that.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 17, 2017)

8ball said:


> I think the ‘calm down’ won’t go well, but I was also surprised by how much Rutita read into that.




We can all post bullshit, catchy tunes that prove...ummm what exactly?  



Just like that tune...oh yaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. sure you do.


----------



## bimble (Nov 17, 2017)

Ok.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 17, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> We can all post bullshit, catchy tunes that prove...ummm what exactly?




Well yeah.  But you seemed to attribute a pretty complex motive.  Maybe I’ve just not been following agendas, I’m very, very tired...


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 17, 2017)

8ball said:


> Well yeah.  But you seemed to attribute a pretty complex motive.  Maybe I’ve just not been following agendas, I’m very, very tired...




I clearly just like the song. Calm down, apparently?


----------



## bimble (Nov 17, 2017)

I’m tired too . Night all.


----------



## elbows (Nov 17, 2017)

8ball said:


> I suspect my gender ID is more towards the middle than yours, even though I’ve been told having autistic traits is linked to my having an ‘extreme male brain’ (which I’m personally a little sceptical about - I’ve never been much good at ‘being a bloke’).



My understanding of this is that such ideas originally stemmed from the much greater rates of autism, and even greater rates of Aspergers, in boys compared to girls. From that sort of thinking then came the idea that it might relate to extreme forms of strengths and weaknesses that were already associated with perceived male traits. eg find it easier to see things as systems and get into detail systematically, find it harder to empathise and read social cues. More recently still comes the idea that it could be something to do with levels of testosterone exposure in the womb.

I don't think its too hard to see why such explanations offered attractively simplistic explanations, or why all manner of assumptions and claims on this front will be problematic for all manner of people for many reasons, especially the stereotyped 'male traits' and the opposite ones that are alleged to be the female counterpart traits. In part because even where there is some demonstrable truth to some detail on this front, its dealing with averages and overall statistics. Which is easy to conflate with 'whats considered normal', and plays into all sorts of gender expectations and the sort of crude generalisations that people have to struggle against. And thats before we even get into issues such as the extent to which these various traits are learned by kids rather than being innate, or tell us more about the preconceived ideas of those doing the observing/creating the study methodologies that give us the average gender trait statistics in the first place, than reality.

Personally I suspect that autism isn't even a single spectrum of related conditions, and that there are probably a whole bunch of different underlying factors that may lead to similar traits and symptoms but aren't really indicative of a single condition or cause.


----------



## elbows (Nov 17, 2017)

bimble said:


> simpler times.



One persons simpler times may be anothers suffocating prison.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 17, 2017)

elbows said:


> .. Personally I suspect that autism isn't even a single spectrum of related conditions, and that there are probably a whole bunch of different underlying factors that may lead to similar traits and symptoms but aren't really indicative of a single condition or cause.



I suspect there are interrelations in many cases due to the way certain neurodiverse traits correlate (that doesn’t mean there is a single cause, obv).

But in terms of what you say about lumping system-building traits with maleness and running away with it, I also suspect there has been some oversimplifying.

The more I read into this stuff, the more it seems there is no overall consensus.


----------



## bimble (Nov 17, 2017)

elbows said:


> One persons simpler times may be anothers suffocating prison.


Well yeah. Am I now being accused of suggesting it’d be great if we could all go back to the era of that movie?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 17, 2017)

This is  great clip...No songs ...dynamics a plenty though. Simpler times indeed.


----------



## spanglechick (Nov 17, 2017)

Thora said:


> I don't experience a gender identity that is separate from gender roles or being female.


Yeah, I meant to include that.   I REALLY do.  I reject a lot of gender roles, have never felt much need to conform, and biologically my infertility stops me fulfilling the female sex imperative.  But I am so strongly "team female", and I'm so enormously happy to be that, that my experience of gender has to be something beyond societal roles.   

I'm left with the answer that gender identity itself must be on some kind of spectrum.


----------



## elbows (Nov 17, 2017)

bimble said:


> Well yeah. Am I now being accused of suggesting it’d be great if we could all go back to the era of that movie?



I don't know but frankly posting that sort of thing in this thread was a really stupid thing to do in so many ways. 

One of the problems is that regardless of the intention behind you posting it, doing so with the phrase 'simpler times' is liable to remind people of the sort of push back that small c conservatives, Peter-hitchens like throwback timelord wannabes, reactionary arseholes and the enemies of progress call for. 

I'm not accusing you of that, I am saying the parallels won't be lost on people and you made a mistake.


----------



## spanglechick (Nov 17, 2017)

bimble said:


> simpler times.



I love this song (I have the Peggy Lee version), though it's not what I mean by gender id.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 17, 2017)

elbows said:


> My understanding of this is that such ideas originally stemmed from the much greater rates of autism, and even greater rates of Aspergers, in boys compared to girls. From that sort of thinking then came the idea that it might relate to extreme forms of strengths and weaknesses that were already associated with perceived male traits. eg find it easier to see things as systems and get into detail systematically, find it harder to empathise and read social cues. More recently still comes the idea that it could be something to do with levels of testosterone exposure in the womb.
> 
> I don't think its too hard to see why such explanations offered attractively simplistic explanations, or why all manner of assumptions and claims on this front will be problematic for all manner of people for many reasons, especially the stereotyped 'male traits' and the opposite ones that are alleged to be the female counterpart traits. In part because even where there is some demonstrable truth to some detail on this front, its dealing with averages and overall statistics. Which is easy to conflate with 'whats considered normal', and plays into all sorts of gender expectations and the sort of crude generalisations that people have to struggle against. And thats before we even get into issues such as the extent to which these various traits are learned by kids rather than being innate, or tell us more about the preconceived ideas of those doing the observing/creating the study methodologies that give us the average gender trait statistics in the first place, than reality.
> 
> Personally I suspect that autism isn't even a single spectrum of related conditions, and that there are probably a whole bunch of different underlying factors that may lead to similar traits and symptoms but aren't really indicative of a single condition or cause.



I agree. This is another area where we don't really know much but there's an illusion of knowing. 

ASD is now thought to present differently in girls, they are thought to be missed by diagnostic criteria skewed to male presentation. Which is maybe interesting in the context of this thread. What is it that is expressed differently? Is it the same 'thing'? How and why is it different? etc.


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 17, 2017)

elbows said:


> you made a mistake.



Lol


----------



## elbows (Nov 17, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Lol



Whats funny? Maybe I made a mistake saying they made a mistake. I dunno, mistakes happen all the time, and its just my opinion that one was made with that post in this thread of all threads.


----------



## elbows (Nov 17, 2017)

Red Cat said:


> ASD is now thought to present differently in girls, they are thought to be missed by diagnostic criteria skewed to male presentation. Which is maybe interesting in the context of this thread. What is it that is expressed differently? Is it the same 'thing'? How and why is it different? etc.



Ah yes now you mention it I heard something about that, but know almost nothing about it. I will see if I can learn something over the weekend, cheers for the very interesting avenue for further exploration.


----------



## innit (Nov 18, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> Yeah, I meant to include that.   I REALLY do.  I reject a lot of gender roles, have never felt much need to conform, and biologically my infertility stops me fulfilling the female sex imperative.  But I am so strongly "team female", and I'm so enormously happy to be that, that my experience of gender has to be something beyond societal roles.
> 
> I'm left with the answer that gender identity itself must be on some kind of spectrum.


I don't think i could be more team woman. I've worked in two different women-only settings, most of my social hobbies are women only (dance, women's choir, craft) - these are my interests but also places i can be myself and be heard away from the male gaze- and I've pretty few male friends who are all very gentle and non-macho and not very team man.

But I don't think that's to do with any kind of gender id - i think it's because my personality and socialisation, and the way men are socialised, means I don't get on with lots of them, from the sexist teachers to the cat callers to the many many laddish men (including lots of my boyfriend's friends) who treated me as if I was mute when I was young and pretty. 

You watched the BBC doc, right? Those boys already knew they were on the winning team and the girls knew they were on the losing team. I'm for women as marginalised voices, as having to fight harder. I imagine this is how minority groups can feel too.

I also wouldn't count myself among among "the cis women who have most concerns about the access trans women have to womanhood (in its varied situations)" - I couldn't give a shit about who uses toilets and changing rooms on my own account, but I feel obliged to listen to women who have concerns because of e.g. having been sexually assaulted. I do have a concern about any kind of pink/blue brain narrative, in the absence of very clear evidence, for lots of personal and political reasons.


----------



## bimble (Nov 18, 2017)

elbows I was being flippant in that post and i get why you said what you did. There's not many of us here so I kind of get to assume that people know each other a little bit and that I'd not be misunderstood as saying either that 'feminists should not enjoy being women' or of being a 'Peter-hitchens like throwback timelord wannabe'.
Without context or explanation I get that it was a potentially offensive post but there's something about that song and video which I was too lazy to try express.
I genuinely do like the song, ironically and kitschly of course but its on a playlist of mine that I used to listen to before going out.
It joins up, for me, with the (Judith Butler's) idea that gender is an interactive performance, its a bunch of actions messages symbolic practices that happen in relation to the world, other people.
When I'm alone in my flat I don't think I feel any gender identity at all but if I were to put on heels and walk down the street I would, do you see what I'm getting at?


----------



## spanglechick (Nov 18, 2017)

innit said:


> I don't think i could be more team woman. I've worked in two different women-only settings, most of my social hobbies are women only (dance, women's choir, craft) - these are my interests but also places i can be myself and be heard away from the male gaze- and I've pretty few male friends who are all very gentle and non-macho and not very team man.
> 
> But I don't think that's to do with any kind of gender id - i think it's because my personality and socialisation, and the way men are socialised, means I don't get on with lots of them, from the sexist teachers to the cat callers to the many many laddish men (including lots of my boyfriend's friends) who treated me as if I was mute when I was young and pretty.
> 
> ...


I agree that my idea of gender ID could well be personality and socialisation, but wanted to separate it from gender roles, which have never felt like a "gender prison".  I've more or less always been too fat to conform to beauty standards and I've never really felt that much gendered pressure to change that.  

And yes, it's very important to heed the concerns of survivors of assault, but since not all of their suggestions or wishes are the same, each person must also use their own judgement.  In the case of sex offenders entering the prison system and having access to the type of people they prey upon, we already have protocols for this. Cisgender sex offenders who offend against their own gender are segregated from the main prison population - in part for their own safety, and also to protect other prisoners.   Why wouldn't this happen with transgender sex offenders?

Where the problems are yet to be solved, such as boutique changing rooms with flimsy curtains, this is already a problem for victims of voyeurs who like to spy on their own gender.  That alone is a problem worth solving, although not one I've heard many people complain about.   The solution is unisex cubicles with doors, of course, as already exist in many shops.  

It just seems to me that we can protect people without entering into a discussion where trans and non binary people are forced to fight for what they know to be true about their own identity to be accepted, or to be endowed with anything approaching equal rights.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 18, 2017)

bimble said:


> It joins up, for me, with the (Judith Butler's) idea that gender is an interactive performance, its a bunch of actions messages symbolic practices that happen in relation to the world, other people.
> When I'm alone in my flat I don't think I feel any gender identity at all but if I were to put on heels and walk down the street I would, do you see what I'm getting at?


That idea sounds right to me. I think I feel the weight of that performance more in front of other men than in front of women. I wonder if that is a common feeling - that the weight of gendered expectations can be felt more among 'your' gender than the opposite one.


----------



## iona (Nov 18, 2017)

Red Cat said:


> I agree. This is another area where we don't really know much but there's an illusion of knowing.
> 
> ASD is now thought to present differently in girls, they are thought to be missed by diagnostic criteria skewed to male presentation. Which is maybe interesting in the context of this thread. What is it that is expressed differently? Is it the same 'thing'? How and why is it different? etc.



This is something I find really interesting, (what's seen as) gendered behaviour and how much it's down to socialisation and how all that comes into play with how autism presents in transgender people. I'd love to know more about it but there's still so much we don't understand. 

I actually seem to present in a more typically "male" way now, although that's not something I can prove or measure and there's so many variables it would be impossible to pinpoint the change responsible.

(I haven't forgotten btw Athos, will try and answer later today)


----------



## Athos (Nov 18, 2017)

iona said:


> This is something I find really interesting, (what's seen as) gendered behaviour and how much it's down to socialisation and how all that comes into play with how autism presents in transgender people. I'd love to know more about it but there's still so much we don't understand.
> 
> I actually seem to present in a more typically "male" way now, although that's not something I can prove or measure and there's so many variables it would be impossible to pinpoint the change responsible.
> 
> (I haven't forgotten btw Athos, will try and answer later today)



No rush. I'm not expecting it to be an issue that'll be resolved today!


----------



## iona (Nov 18, 2017)

Was actually discussing the "extreme male brain" (autism) / "extreme female brain" (borderline personality disorder) theory the other day with a cis man at my autism group who, like me, has been given both dxs. I don't buy it myself, but from what I remember of the convo he saw some connection between his bpd dx and some "feminine" aspects of his behaviour/personality (think he mentioned his sexuality here too)


----------



## belboid (Nov 18, 2017)

iona said:


> Was actually discussing the "extreme male brain" (autism) / "extreme female brain" (borderline personality disorder) theory the other day with a cis man at my autism group who, like me, has been given both dxs. I don't buy it myself, but from what I remember of the convo he saw some connection between his bpd dx and some "feminine" aspects of his behaviour/personality (think he mentioned his sexuality here too)


the science behind it (extreme male brain at least, haven't read on extreme female) is incredibly sparse and highly dubious. I suspect it is only popular because it's nice and easy to understand, and has a superficial correlation.


----------



## iona (Nov 18, 2017)

belboid said:


> the science behind it (extreme male brain at least, haven't read on extreme female) is incredibly sparse and highly dubious. I suspect it is only popular because it's nice and easy to understand, and has a superficial correlation.



Yeah no, I think that's bollocks. The conversation was interesting though, as is the wider subject.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 18, 2017)

iona said:


> Was actually discussing the "extreme male brain" (autism) / "extreme female brain" (borderline personality disorder) theory



It's antisocial personality disorder and borderline personality disorder you mean. Autism is something completely different. It's not a personality disorder, it's a neurological condition.


----------



## bimble (Nov 18, 2017)

I think iona's talking about this (Simon Baron-Cohen's theory on autism)
https://spectrumnews.org/news/study-on-extreme-male-brain-theory-of-autism-draws-critics/


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 18, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> It's antisocial personality disorder and borderline personality disorder you mean. Autism is something completely different. It's not a personality disorder, it's a neurological condition.



No, the extreme male brain theory is a theory of autism. A very well known one.

And no one really knows what any of these 'conditions' are. Many women who end up getting diagnoses of asd have previously been diagnosed with bpd. Many women with a diagnosis of bpd may be better described as having complex trauma or PTSD. There's nothing clear about any of it IMO.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 18, 2017)

You guys.

Autism is nothing like BPD. It's a condition of brain structure. You can have both autism and a personality disorder (in fact it's quite common) but personality disorders are generally treated as psychological conditions. Autism is neurological.

I'll have to bow out now because I'm getting quite cross that autism is being compared with antisocial personality / borderline personality disorders.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 18, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> You guys.
> 
> Autism is nothing like BPD. It's a condition of brain structure. You can have both autism and a personality disorder (in fact it's quite common) but personality disorders are generally treated as psychological conditions. Autism is neurological.
> 
> I'll have to bow out now because I'm getting quite cross that autism is being compared with antisocial personality / borderline personality disorders.



Autism isn't being compared to anti-social personality disorder.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 18, 2017)

To clarify:

Currently there is a greater recognition of ASD in girls and women. It is reported that many women prior to receiving their late ASD diagnosis received diagnoses of bpd. It is though that this was often a mis-diagnosis, that their ASD was missed due to screening tools and diagnostic criteria being skewed towards male presentation.

There is a lot of controversy about the usefulness of the category of personality disorder. Some people would argue it could be better thought of as complex ptsd. Trauma effects neurology and brain development.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 18, 2017)

Red Cat said:


> Autism isn't being compared to anti-social personality disorder.



Not compared then, conflated. It shouldn't even be mentioned in the same context tbh.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 18, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> Not compared then, conflated. It shouldn't even be mentioned in the same context tbh.



It was only you that mentioned anti-social personality disorder.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 18, 2017)

I did, because if anything is the counterpart to BPD then it's APD.

ASD / Autism has nothing to do with either of those, and it's really harmful to autistic people to suggest that it does.


----------



## smmudge (Nov 18, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> I did, because if anything is the counterpart to BPD then it's APD.
> 
> ASD / Autism has nothing to do with either of those, and it's really harmful to autistic people to suggest that it does.



I don't think anyone is suggesting that. I also received treatment for BPD (which was to be honest completely inappropriate and quite stressful for me) before getting my ASD diagnosis (and then no longer requiring any further MH treatment as I finally understood what was going on). I think the point was how the psychiatric/psychological profession interpret different behaviours through the prisms of gender expectations - and it's them who seem to see one where they should be considering the other, imo. In that regard they do have something in common.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Nov 18, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Yes, cis means non-trans, because it is useful to have a word which describes that when talking about trans-issues.  Like straight means not gay, despite the range of sexualities.  I know it's sometimes used perjoratively, so is trans, but to refuse to accept a word that's basically a simple and fairly loose categorisation strikes me as either a bit daft, or comes with another agenda - as in I'm not callng myself cis, *I'm just normal*.  Which funnily enough is what I remember people saying about the word straight to mean heterosexual at one point.


it's not normal it's just common.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Nov 18, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> This is  great clip...No songs ...dynamics a plenty though. Simpler times indeed.



the best showing of that film I've ever seen was at a lesbian S&M all nighter at the Scala. Takes on a whole new meaning. There was a lot of boooing when Calam puts a frock on.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 18, 2017)

smmudge said:


> I don't think anyone is suggesting that. I also received treatment for BPD (which was to be honest completely inappropriate and quite stressful for me) before getting my ASD diagnosis (and then no longer requiring any further MH treatment as I finally understood what was going on). I think the point was how the psychiatric/psychological profession interpret different behaviours through the prisms of gender expectations - and it's them who seem to see one where they should be considering the other, imo. In that regard they do have something in common.



They have nothing in common. Just because doctors make mistakes doesn't mean mistaken conditions have anything in common. You can mistake having a cold with having flu, that doesn't mean they're the same or even similar.

This is all off-topic, mind. None of this has anything to do with transgender, except that _people have conditions_.


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 18, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> They have nothing in common. Just because doctors make mistakes doesn't mean mistaken conditions have anything in common. You can mistake having a cold with having flu, that doesn't mean they're the same or even similar.
> 
> This is all off-topic, mind. None of this has anything to do with transgender, except that _people have conditions_.



Their symptomology is similar. Hence the mistakes. The point being that diagnosis isn’t just based on detached observation, but socially driven attentiveness to this or that symptoms amongst people based on class, gender etc; and socially assumptions about what this or that ‘symptom’ means for an individual, based on their gender, class etc


----------



## elbows (Nov 18, 2017)

smmudge said:


> I don't think anyone is suggesting that. I also received treatment for BPD (which was to be honest completely inappropriate and quite stressful for me) before getting my ASD diagnosis (and then no longer requiring any further MH treatment as I finally understood what was going on). I think the point was how the psychiatric/psychological profession interpret different behaviours through the prisms of gender expectations - and it's them who seem to see one where they should be considering the other, imo. In that regard they do have something in common.



Exactly. I suspect an additional complication in terms of classification errors and bias stems from classic autism being seen as a developmental disorder. But when the full spectrum is considered, these neat edges become a lot less clear.

I often get depressed at how unevenly the progress in terms of fighting stigma, taboo and negative connotations is unfolding. eg quite a lot of progress with bipolar disorder and autism spectrum. Not much with borderline personality disorder. And there are such a range of schizophrenia-type conditions that a spectrum clearly exists in that regard too, but unlike the autism spectrum we don't tend to hear from people on the mild end of that spectrum (eg mild schizotypal personality disorder) finding positivity in being placed there. Now obviously there are a good many reasons for this, ranging from the affects of symptoms on self and on other people to entirely artificial negative stuff caused by the labels and classification systems used.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 18, 2017)

_When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail_. Welcome to psychiatry.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 19, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Their symptomology is similar. Hence the mistakes. The point being that diagnosis isn’t just based on detached observation, but socially driven attentiveness to this or that symptoms amongst people based on class, gender etc; and socially assumptions about what this or that ‘symptom’ means for an individual, based on their gender, class etc



And diagnosis is based on classifications of observable behaviours also created in particular social and political contexts.

A bit like gender.


----------



## iona (Nov 19, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> It's antisocial personality disorder and borderline personality disorder you mean. Autism is something completely different. It's not a personality disorder, it's a neurological condition.



No, it's autism I mean.

I'm well aware of what autism is (I'm autistic myself - e2a also previously diagnosed as borderline) and I didn't say it was a type of personality disorder.


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 19, 2017)

Red Cat said:


> And diagnosis is based on classifications of observable behaviours also created in particular social and political contexts.
> 
> A bit like gender.



The classifications or the behaviours are created in particular contexts?


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 19, 2017)

iona said:


> No, it's autism I mean.
> 
> I'm well aware of what autism is (I'm autistic myself - e2a also previously diagnosed as borderline) and I didn't say it was a type of personality disorder.



So you mean that "extreme female brain" is a psychological disorder, but "extreme male brain" is a neurological disorder?


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 19, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> The classifications or the behaviours are created in particular contexts?



Good point.

I was talking about classification, it has a history, there was a time and place in which they were created, and classifications change, are added to, or are simplified.

But yeh, people do behave differently in different contexts because of different states of mind, because of the meaning one makes of an experience, because of power, overt and more subtle relational dynamics, the context of their own histories etc.

I'm wary of descriptions that have a static feel to them. 

And when descriptions get conflated with explanation.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 19, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> So you mean that "extreme female brain" is a psychological disorder, but "extreme male brain" is a neurological disorder?



What was reported was a conversation. Nobody said anything about agreeing with either the extreme male or extreme female brain theory.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 19, 2017)

Also, and I'm sorry but it needs to be said, having a condition doesn't always confer special insight into the condition itself. I know dozens of autistic people and most of them have little or no idea what autism is, some don't even acknowledge it's a thing. For at least one, even thinking about it brings on extreme anxiety.


----------



## iona (Nov 19, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> So you mean that "extreme female brain" is a psychological disorder, but "extreme male brain" is a neurological disorder?



It's not my theory. As I've already said, I think it's bollocks.


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 19, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> Also, and I'm sorry but it needs to be said, having a condition doesn't always confer special insight into the condition itself. I know dozens of autistic people and most of them have little or no idea what autism is, some don't even acknowledge it's a thing. For at least one, even thinking about it brings on extreme anxiety.



Not sure how that’s relevant to this conversation.

But, why would ‘not acknowledging Autism is a thing’ denote a lack of insight.

Psychiatric diagnoses aren’t (except perhaps in rare instances) objective ‘things’. They are concepts.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 19, 2017)

Red Cat said:


> What was reported was a conversation. Nobody said anything about agreeing with either the extreme male or extreme female brain theory.



So how did this conversation make it onto a public message board? Because it was wrong?


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 19, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> So how did this conversation make it onto a public message board? Because it was wrong?



Work it out for yourself. Read the posts that led to the post in question. Think before reacting.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 19, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Not sure how that’s relevant to this conversation.
> 
> But, why would ‘not acknowledging Autism is a thing’ denote a lack of insight.
> 
> Psychiatric diagnoses aren’t (except perhaps in rare instances) objective ‘things’. They are concepts.



1. Autism is not a psychiatric issue.
2. Not acknowledging something exists when it clearly does is definitely a lack of insight.

This is all quite stressful for me so again I'm going to have to leave it. I'm sorry if my posts are bothering anyone. I advocate for severely autistic people as part of my job and I encounter misconceptions on a regular basis. Dealing with it here is uncomfortable and I'm going to have to leave it. It's off topic anyway, apologies.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 19, 2017)

Red Cat said:


> Work it out for yourself. Read the posts that led to the post in question. Think before reacting.



I read them. I responded to them.


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 19, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> 1. Autism is not a psychiatric issue.
> 2. Not acknowledging something exists when it clearly does is definitely a lack of insight.
> 
> This is all quite stressful for me so again I'm going to have to leave it. I'm sorry if my posts are bothering anyone. I advocate for severely autistic people as part of my job and I encounter misconceptions on a regular basis. Dealing with it here is uncomfortable and I'm going to have to leave it. It's off topic anyway, apologies.



You advocate for people whose differences of opinion you regard as ‘lacking insight’?

I don’t think your posts are bothering anyone, merely being challenged.  

Fair enough if it’s getting you stressed though.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 19, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> You advocate for people whose differences of opinion you regard as ‘lacking insight’?



Not difference of opinion, flat denial. That's not a problem anyway, if someone who's autistic wants to deny they are it's not up to me to force the issue. Helping them negotiate everyday stuff is my role, helping people understand why they're speaking and acting as they are. It's outward facing. I'm just saying that with a condition like autism, insight is not a given.


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 19, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> Not difference of opinion, flat denial. That's not a problem anyway, if someone who's autistic wants to deny they are it's not up to me to force the issue. Helping them negotiate everyday stuff is my role, helping people understand why they're speaking and acting as they are. It's outward facing. I'm just saying that with a condition like autism, insight is not a given.



Insight being agreement; denial the temerity to disagree. 

‘The only tool is a hammer’ indeed.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 19, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Insight being agreement; denial the temerity to disagree.
> 
> ‘The only tool is a hammer’ indeed.



Temerity, what?


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 19, 2017)

So are you saying someone autistic isn't, if they say so?


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 19, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> Temerity, what?



Your charges are obliged to agree with their diagnosis. Else they are in denial/lack insight.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 19, 2017)

Forget it. It seems like a row is being looked for and I'm really not up for it.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 19, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> 1. Autism is not a psychiatric issue.
> 2. Not acknowledging something exists when it clearly does is definitely a lack of insight.
> 
> This is all quite stressful for me so again I'm going to have to leave it. I'm sorry if my posts are bothering anyone. I advocate for severely autistic people as part of my job and I encounter misconceptions on a regular basis. Dealing with it here is uncomfortable and I'm going to have to leave it. It's off topic anyway, apologies.



Nobody here is saying what you're suggesting though. Nobody has said that autism is a personality disorder. That being said, historically it _was_ considered a psychiatric issue, in which mothers were blamed, for quite some time. So what's being suggested, by me, is that these concepts change, are contested. The criteria for ASD changes and are contested, currently by those who don't agree that Aspergers should've been dropped from the DSM, those that think the current criteria don't pick up girls, those that think PDA should be officially included in psychiatric classification systems forcing recognition by CAMHS etc.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 19, 2017)

'Charges'

What century are you in. Clients. Service users. I'm not in charge of anyone.


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 19, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> So are you saying someone autistic isn't, if they say so?



I’m saying that an ASD diagnosis isn’t a fact. A person’s diagnosis may change several times. 

And a ASD diagnosis isn’t a fact because ‘autism’ is a concept, a way of making sense of patterns of experience, it’s not a ‘thing’


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 19, 2017)

Believe me, the people I work with are undeniably autistic. Or don't, but if you want to assume I'm lying there's no point in any further exchange here or anywhere


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 19, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> Believe me, the people I work with are undeniably autistic. Or don't, but if you want to assume I'm lying there's no point in any further exchange here or anywhere



Calm down.

How can one be ‘undeniably Autistic’?

You’re refusing to take on board what a number of posters have said about the subjectivity and impermanence of diagnoses and diagnostic categories, and getting yourself upset because of it.

Oh and also making some oppressive/damaging insinuations. 

Yet somehow others are staying calm and you’re not.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 19, 2017)

mojo pixy, nobody has accused you of anything 

There's an attempt to make sense of the kinds of concepts we use to describe the different ways we have of being human. I do think its relevant to the thread. What is gender? is it about biology? Is it only about biology? Is it only a social construction?  Is dysmorphia a mental illness or a difference in a brain-body relationship etc. Where are the boundaries? Where are the limits of these categories? Are they useful, who are they useful to? etc


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 19, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Calm down.
> 
> How can one be ‘undeniably Autistic’?
> 
> ...



I'm not talking about borderline cases. I'm talking about people who don't talk, who have little to no ability to regulate their emotions, particularly anxiety. People who sit shaking their heads for hours on end or who ask and tell the same things again and again and again, who self-harm when their routines are broken or when something unexpected happens, even if it's raining or the bus is a minute late. That kind of autism.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 19, 2017)

Again, I apologise for my many off-topic posts and I'd appeal for this little digression to come to an end. I believe understanding has been reached, sorry to iona for misreading your posts


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2017)

Red Cat said:


> Nobody here is saying what you're suggesting though. Nobody has said that autism is a personality disorder. That being said, historically it _was_ considered a psychiatric issue, in which mothers were blamed, for quite some time.



The ridiculous "cold mother" thesis, among others.


----------



## elbows (Nov 19, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> The ridiculous "cold mother" thesis, among others.



I am under the impression that this appalling shit remained entrenched in France and greatly contributed to the criminal level of care many are still subject to in that country. I'm not sure its explicitly referenced in the following article but the dreaded psychoanalysts get a mention.

Autistic kids losing out in France as ‘retrograde vision’ leaves country lagging behind rest of Europe


----------



## weepiper (Nov 20, 2017)

How do we all feel about this turn of events?

Trans teenager Lily Madigan voted in as a Labour women’s officer


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 20, 2017)

weepiper said:


> How do we all feel about this turn of events?
> 
> Trans teenager Lily Madigan voted in as a Labour women’s officer


Pay wall? Can't read more than the first paragraphs.


----------



## LDC (Nov 20, 2017)

weepiper said:


> How do we all feel about this turn of events?
> 
> Trans teenager Lily Madigan voted in as a Labour women’s officer



From the same paper (_The Times_)...

Up to half of trans inmates may be sex offenders


----------



## Manter (Nov 20, 2017)

weepiper said:


> How do we all feel about this turn of events?
> 
> Trans teenager Lily Madigan voted in as a Labour women’s officer


Depends very much what the detail of the role is, IMO


----------



## Manter (Nov 20, 2017)

Actual report on trans identifying males (their term) and prison here; Half of all transgender prisoners are sex offenders or dangerous category A inmates | Fair Play for Women


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2017)

at what point does a "trans-identifying male prisoner" become a trans-woman or cease being a man?

not to mention, Manter, i would have appreciated some reference for a crucial claim in the report, namely "If self-declaration of gender becomes law, any trans-identifying male prisoner will be able to obtain a GRC and will automatically become eligible for transfer to a women’s prison". i know you didn't write the report: but it seems to me that if it's going to be relied upon then a mite more rigour would have been better.


----------



## crossthebreeze (Nov 20, 2017)

Manter said:


> Actual report on trans identifying males (their term) and prison here; Half of all transgender prisoners are sex offenders or dangerous category A inmates | Fair Play for Women


Having had a quick look my first thoughts are that - as they are analysing data which appears in other reports rather than having been given firm statistics - that more problematic prisoners (ie those that posed a risk to or were at risk from other inmates, or those that were demanding being moved to a different prison) would maybe be more likely to be reported on, and that also that trans prisoners who either started their transition in prison or who had not legally transitioned and/or had GRS before conviction would also be more likely to be reported on.  Trans women who had already legally transitioned and/or were already fairly well along the conventional journey of social medical and surgical transition at conviction and who were not regarded as dangerous or at risk would presumably just be in the women's prison system anyway, maybe unremarkably so - and they might not even be "out " as trans within the system.
That said, I do think there's some disquieting stuff in there, and I'm not against the issue being looked at, I just think it needs to be done carefully and with rigour.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2017)

crossthebreeze said:


> Having had a quick look my first thoughts are that - as they are analysing data which appears in other reports rather than having been given firm statistics - that more problematic prisoners (ie those that posed a risk to or were at risk from other inmates, or those that were demanding being moved to a different prison) would maybe be more likely to be reported on, and that also that trans prisoners who either started their transition in prison or who had not legally transitioned and/or had GRS before conviction would also be more likely to be reported on.  Trans women who had already legally transitioned and/or were already fairly well along the conventional journey of social medical and surgical transition at conviction and who were not regarded as dangerous or at risk would presumably just be in the women's prison system anyway, maybe unremarkably so - and they might not even be "out " as trans within the system.
> That said, I do think there's some disquieting stuff in there, and I'm not against the issue being looked at, I just think it needs to be done carefully and with rigour.


given the movement of prisoners in the prison system i would not be surprised if some people in the reported total of trans prisoners had been counted twice. in addition, and further to my previous post, *even if* someone becomes eligible for transfer to a women's prison that does not mean that they will necessarily be transferred. i can foresee instances where someone who declares themselves to be a woman would be refused transfer, and i expect anyone who gives it a moment's thought will foresee such instances too.


----------



## bimble (Nov 20, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> From the same paper (_The Times_)...
> 
> Up to half of trans inmates may be sex offenders



Did you post that because you think the article about Lily was transphobic ?


----------



## LDC (Nov 20, 2017)

bimble said:


> Did you post that because you think the article about Lily was transphobic ?



No. I posted it as I came across it looking at that original article. I posted it without commenting as tbh the more I read and more I talk to people about this the more confused and unsure about my position I am. I've got friends falling out about this topic (the wider topic, not this specific article) all over the place.

I have some positions that I think would be called transphobic by some tbh.


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 20, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> From the same paper (_The Times_)...
> 
> Up to half of trans inmates may be sex offenders


I think there's a lot of people on here putting their arguments about certain trans discourses who aren't being outright transphobic, and there's been some great discussion. Posting articles from right wing newspapers that _are_ outright transphobic isn't a particularly helpful contribution to the discussion. A lot of people are disputing the figures behind the claims in that article, e.g here


----------



## smokedout (Nov 20, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> at what point does a "trans-identifying male prisoner" become a trans-woman or cease being a man?
> 
> not to mention, Manter, i would have appreciated some reference for a crucial claim in the report, namely "If self-declaration of gender becomes law, any trans-identifying male prisoner will be able to obtain a GRC and will automatically become eligible for transfer to a women’s prison". i know you didn't write the report: but it seems to me that if it's going to be relied upon then a mite more rigour would have been better.



It's not true, here's the new policy guidelines published in 2016 after a review of tramsgender people in prisons, the proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act are not likely to affect them



> Decisions to transfer serving prisoners between male or female prisons (or vice versa) should be based on clear criteria, with reasons given for the outcome and appeal processes clearly explained.  As part of this process, it will be necessary to factor in the impact on and risks to those in current or potential establishments especially, for instance,in the women’s estate where many prisoners will have been the victims of domestic violence or sexual abuse and may continue to be exceptionally vulnerable.
> 
> In any new policy, the operational tests or criteria applied to decision making, including location decisions, need to enable staff to balance the
> views and wellbeing of thetransgender person with the need to ensure the safety and security of other prisoners, prison staff and the prison environment as a whole, including the maintenance of appropriate levels of decency and privacy. Where an assessment made against these
> tests overrides the person’s view on how they should be treated, relevant evidence must be identified and relate to something that could not be reasonably managed if the person was located in a place consistent with the gender in which they identify.



https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...le/566828/transgender-review-findings-web.PDF


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2017)

smokedout said:


> It's not true, here's the new policy guidelines published in 2016 after a review of tramsgender people in prisons, the proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act are not likely to affect them
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...le/566828/transgender-review-findings-web.PDF


cheers!

that would explain the lack of reference.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2017)

Brainaddict said:


> I think there's a lot of people on here putting their arguments about certain trans discourses who aren't being outright transphobic, and there's been some great discussion. Posting articles from right wing newspapers that _are_ outright transphobic isn't a particularly helpful contribution to the discussion. A lot of people are disputing the figures behind the claims in that article, e.g here



you didn't need to look any further than my post 2420


----------



## elbows (Nov 20, 2017)

smokedout said:


> It's not true, here's the new policy guidelines published in 2016 after a review of tramsgender people in prisons, the proposed changes to the Dender Recognition Act are not likely to affect them



Which will make it much easier to establish who raises these concerns for genuine reasons, and who clings to them to serve a different agenda.


----------



## weepiper (Nov 20, 2017)

Manter said:


> Depends very much what the detail of the role is, IMO



Here's the job description.



> "Every year the local constituency Labour Party elects ‘officers’ to carry out the organisational and campaigning priorities of the party. There are eight key posts that must be filled - chair, deputy chair, secretary, treasurer, vice-chair (membership) and vice-chair (policy), women’s officer and youth officer - and at least four of these must be women. The women’s officer must be a woman. "
> 
> "The aims of the women’s officer are to:
> 
> ...



d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/labourclp96/pages/1278/attachments/original/1445544799/Job_Description_-_CLP_Womens_Officer.pdf?1445544799

How is a 19 year old who only began transitioning to live as a woman a year ago going to even begin to be the best person for this role? Would a 19 year old born woman have even been considered?


----------



## bimble (Nov 20, 2017)

The irony of saying they'd be using the role to 'give women a voice' after what happened last week is what strikes me most.


----------



## weepiper (Nov 20, 2017)

bimble said:


> The irony of saying they'd be using the role to 'give women a voice' after what happened last week is what strikes me most.


Yep. Give women a voice, only not 52 year old lesbian women who disagree with us, we'll get them sacked to shut them up instead.


----------



## Silas Loom (Nov 20, 2017)

I've stayed out of this debate so far, because of not having a dog in the fight. But as far as I can see, structures and roles and positions and spaces which exist purely to support women, and do a vital job, are being captured by people whose main advantage appears to be the conviction that their issues are more important than anyone else's. This is a useful lesson for men like me who think of themselves as feminists but are still not very good at spotting male privilege, and how it manifests, and might be tempted to deny that it exists.


----------



## elbows (Nov 20, 2017)

weepiper said:


> Yep. Give women a voice, only not 52 year old lesbian women who disagree with us, we'll get them sacked to shut them up instead.



I can't find enough stories about Anne Ruzylo to give me every detail I need - eg I can't find something that says she was actually sacked, although clearly some people were trying to get her sacked. Another important detail is that the entire local labour executive committee quit due to labours failure to deal with disciplinary complaints relating to the bullying/smear campaign.

All Labour officials on local committee resign | Daily Mail Online


----------



## smokedout (Nov 20, 2017)

Brainaddict said:


> I think there's a lot of people on here putting their arguments about certain trans discourses who aren't being outright transphobic, and there's been some great discussion. Posting articles from right wing newspapers that _are_ outright transphobic isn't a particularly helpful contribution to the discussion. A lot of people are disputing the figures behind the claims in that article, e.g here




These figures come from analysing individal prison reports and guessing the number of trasngender prisoners based on what it said in these reports.  The report ignored all the prisons which didn't record any transgender inmates, around a third of prisoners, but included all the prisons which exclusively house sex offenders.  So the data is already heavily skewed.

The report does not state what they mean by transgender, and there's no way to check the original reports from which the data was gleaned because they all come from different years - further skewing the data.  And as that tweet shows, people could be being housed in sex offenders jails not because they are sex offenders, but because they are especially vulnerable, and so could be transgender.

As well as misrepresenting both current and proposed policy, the report also references the study on criminality that came up on this thread saying it found transwomen: "exhibited male-pattern criminality for violent crimes."  As has been shown, this is a bare faced lie and given we can't see their data then it brings into question whether that can also be trusted.  And even if it can these figures are little more than guesswork.

I'd suggest the question is not whether this studies lies, it does, but why it lies.  Is this sincere concern or is this bigotry?  If this was a study trying to prove gay men or lesbians were more likely to be sex offenders on the basis of such shoddy research then I suspect few on here would dispute that prejudice, rather than sinecerely held concern, was the motivating factor behind the research.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 20, 2017)

weepiper said:


> Here's the job description.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



She was elected, that's how they decide who is the best person for the role.


----------



## killer b (Nov 20, 2017)

weepiper said:


> Would a 19 year old born woman have even been considered?


not sure about the rest of it, but the answer to this is 'yes' IME.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2017)

smokedout said:


> These figures come from analysing individal prison reports and guessing the number of trasngender prisoners based on what it said in these reports.  The report ignored all the prisons which didn't record any transgender inmates, around a third of prisoners, but included all the prisons which exclusively house sex offenders.  So the data is already heavily skewed.
> 
> The report does not state what they mean by transgender, and there's no way to check the original reports from which the data was gleaned because they all come from different years - further skewing the data.  And as that tweet shows, people could be being housed in sex offenders jails not because they are sex offenders, but because they are especially vulnerable, and so could be transgender.
> 
> ...


yeh it's a scurvy piece of work


----------



## elbows (Nov 20, 2017)

I have to say that its no wonder things are ending up in ugly battles, with few winners, entrenched positions and the right-wing press loving it when language like this is used:



> A veteran Labour politician and feminist firebrand could face expulsion from the party over a speech in which she joked about ‘thumping’ pro-transgender activists.
> 
> Linda Bellos, a friend of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, is being investigated after complaints over the remarks she made at a meeting this month.





> Addressing a group of feminists in York on transgenderism and the GRA, the 66-year-old said: ‘I play football and I box, and if any one of those b******s comes near me I will take off my glasses and thump them.’
> 
> The former leader of Lambeth Council added: ‘I am quite prepared to threaten violence because it seems to me politically what they are seeking to do is p*** on women.’
> 
> Ms Bellos, 66 – long renowned as an outspoken black and lesbian activist – said later that she was referring to pro-transgender campaigners who had beaten up a woman at a rally in Hyde Park, London, in September, as reported by The Mail on Sunday, and insisted she would only ever use violence in self-defence.





> Speaking to The Mail on Sunday, Ms Bellos said: ‘If transgender activists inadvertently propose things which are in their interests and against the interests of those of us who remain women, such as women-only safe spaces in lavatories, hospital wards and prisons, I am going to say so.
> 
> ‘I will say it without fear because a lot of feminists are being silenced. That is contrary to freedom of speech. There is a particular fetish among heterosexual men who don women’s clothes and get a buzz out of visiting women’s loos. We know there are a lot of pervs out there. The genuine trans don’t get off on this, but the proposed new laws might be a cover for it.’



I find this very hard to cope with properly, when sentiments I can understand and agree with sit right next to inflammatory shit that leaves me seething.

Labour feminist hero faces axe in transgender row | Daily Mail Online


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2017)

(from elbows' link above)

is this really a thing?  never heard of it before. but perhaps i move in the right circles.


----------



## 19force8 (Nov 20, 2017)

weepiper said:


> Here's the job description.
> 
> How is a 19 year old who only began transitioning to live as a woman a year ago going to even begin to be the best person for this role? Would a 19 year old born woman have even been considered?


We could give her a year to do the job and see if she gets re-elected.

Or just pick on her from the start.


----------



## killer b (Nov 20, 2017)

I think people may be overestimating how desirable officer positions are within CLPs. They often struggle to fill them at all.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 20, 2017)

killer b said:


> I think people may be overestimating how desirable officer positions are within CLPs. They often struggle to fill them at all.


Yeah. It's quite possible she was the only candidate.

And if there was an election I presume the electorate would be the women of that CLP. This person may be a tit but if they want her, well, should the NEC overrule them?


----------



## 19force8 (Nov 20, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> is this really a thing?  never heard of it before. but perhaps i move in the right circles.


Only tried it once, was surprised to find they didn't have luxury furnishings and a free bar - turned out my girlfriend was lying about why she spent so long in there.


----------



## elbows (Nov 20, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> is this really a thing?  never heard of it before. but perhaps i move in the right circles.



It's long been clear to me that cross-dressing etc fetishes of the sexual variety are one of the big fuels of feminist fires when it comes to trans issues. Some issues of concern in this regard are understandable, but the stuff instantly gets conflated with genuine trans stuff, inflammatory language is ingrained and historically well-practiced on this front, and there is a lack of real data that would help determine actual risk.


----------



## Athos (Nov 20, 2017)

smokedout said:


> It's not true, here's the new policy guidelines published in 2016 after a review of tramsgender people in prisons, the proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act are not likely to affect them
> 
> https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...le/566828/transgender-review-findings-web.PDF



What you linked to are not "new policy guidelines";  it's a review.  You can find the relevant Prison Service Instruction 17/2016 here.  You will notice the significance therein of Gender Recognition Certificates.

Should any amendments to the Gender Recognition Act change the process for obtaining certificates (e.g. by 'demedicalising i.e. requiring nothing more that a  individual's say-so), that will impact on trans prisoners (and those detained with them).

The extent of possible changes to the GRA remains unclear, but, given what's being lobbied for, this seems like a legitimate area for women to discuss.

Though, I agree with you that the Times report was an appalling piece of journalism, to the extent that even I (someone who has not been quick to dismiss legitimate concerns) have to question the motivation for it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 20, 2017)

I don't quite see the problem here. A sex offender who has transitioned, is transitioning, or is planning to transition is still a sex offender, and should be treated accordingly. I don't quite see why the notion of transgender would affect a prison's ability to take proportionate measures to protect prisoners based on a sensible assessment of risk - a trans woman who raped a woman as a man is still a rapist, and can and should still be treated as such.


----------



## killer b (Nov 20, 2017)

Do prisons _take proportionate measures to protect prisoners_? It's not a topic I'm particularly up on, but from what I've heard it's not a given.


----------



## Athos (Nov 20, 2017)

elbows said:


> It's long been clear to me that cross-dressing etc fetishes of the sexual variety are one of the big fuels of feminist fires when it comes to trans issues. Some issues of concern in this regard are understandable, but the stuff instantly gets conflated with genuine trans stuff, inflammatory language is ingrained and historically well-practiced on this front, and there is a lack of real data that would help determine actual risk.



It doesn't help is that the trans lobby is pushing for things that erode that distinction. Not for any sinister reason, but as a practical consequence. For instance, demedicalising the process seems compassionate to trans people, but it does increase the possibility for abuse i.e. men who aren't trans claiming to be so for nefarious purposes.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 20, 2017)

killer b said:


> Do prisons _take proportionate measures to protect prisoners_? It's not a topic I'm particularly up on, but from what I've heard it's not a given.


I'm sure they often don't. But that doesn't change my question, unless the point is that prisons are too incompetent to be trusted with such a thing, which may well be true.


----------



## killer b (Nov 20, 2017)

Underfunded rather than incompetent, I expect.


----------



## Athos (Nov 20, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't quite see the problem here. A sex offender who has transitioned, is transitioning, or is planning to transition is still a sex offender, and should be treated accordingly. I don't quite see why the notion of transgender would affect a prison's ability to take proportionate measures to protect prisoners based on a sensible assessment of risk - a trans woman who raped a woman as a man is still a rapist, and can and should still be treated as such.



By that logic, why not have all non-nonces in mixed-sex prisons.


----------



## elbows (Nov 20, 2017)

Athos said:


> It doesn't help is that the trans lobby is pushing for things that erode that distinction. Not for any sinister reason, but as a practical consequence. For instance, demedicalising the process seems compassionate to trans people, but it does increase the possibility for abuse i.e. men who aren't trans claiming to be so for nefarious purposes.



Yeah thats why I mention it now, it's always been lingering beneath the surface but the proposed legislation has brought it to a head. And I don't think we are in a great position to debate it sanely because of the nature of historical use of 'fears about pervy men in dresses' and various conflations by some associated with certain strands of feminism.


----------



## Athos (Nov 20, 2017)

elbows said:


> Yeah thats why I mention it now, it's always been lingering beneath the surface but the proposed legislation has brought it to a head. And I don't think we are in a great position to debate it sanely because of the nature of historical use of 'fears about pervy men in dresses' and various conflations by some associated with certain strands of feminism.



Yeah, the state of the debate is shocking. It's pretty shit, here, but out there it's really poisonous.


----------



## Silas Loom (Nov 20, 2017)

killer b said:


> I think people may be overestimating how desirable officer positions are within CLPs. They often struggle to fill them at all.



That's quite an important point, given that it's now a cause celebre. There must be some record somewhere of whether this particular position was contested.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 20, 2017)

Athos said:


> What you linked to are not "new policy guidelines";  it's a review.  You can find the relevant Prison Service Instruction 17/2016 here.  You will notice the significance therein of Gender Recognition Certificates.
> 
> Should any amendments to the Gender Recognition Act change the process for obtaining certificates (e.g. by 'demedicalising i.e. requiring nothing more that a  individual's say-so), that will impact on trans prisoners (and those detained with them).
> 
> ...



It was the government's response to the review, which was used to formulate the policy you linked to, as you'd know if you bothered to read the first page.  And yes, I note the significance of the GRC, the significant facts being that a GRC or lack of one is neither a bar to or guarantee of a prisoner being moved to a prison that matches their acquired gender.  So what the report said isn't true.  So what's your point again?


----------



## elbows (Nov 20, 2017)

Athos said:


> Yeah, the state of the debate is shocking. It's pretty shit, here, but out there it's really poisonous.



One of the problems, which I am far from immune from myself, is that most of the press are only interested in reporting on this stuff when it results in ugly scenes. Perhaps there is all manner of sensible discussion and disagreement going on that is not so visible?

For example I would hope that somewhere there are trans, pro-trans etc people and groups who are willing to take womens concerns seriously. But if they exist its not exactly easy to find their words online.


----------



## elbows (Nov 20, 2017)

Having said that, it wasn't hard to find sensible stuff being said in regards to the Scottish governments own plans to modify the Gender Recognition Act.

*



			Close the Gap, Engender, Equate Scotland, Rape Crisis Scotland, Scottish Women’s Aid, Women 50:50 and Zero Tolerance, jointly said:
		
Click to expand...

*


> “For over a decade, we have engaged in constructive dialogue with our colleagues in the Scottish Trans Alliance, Equality Network, LGBT Youth Scotland and Stonewall Scotland. We do not regard trans equality and women’s equality to be in competition or contradiction with each other. We support the Equal Recognition campaign and welcome the reform of the Gender Recognition Act. Rape Crisis and Women’s Aid in Scotland provide trans inclusive services on the basis of self identification. We will continue to work collaboratively with Scottish Trans Alliance and other equality organisations with the aim of ensuring that new processes are appropriately designed and without unintended consequences.”



Equality organisations welcome Scottish Government consultation to improve the Gender Recognition Act


----------



## Athos (Nov 20, 2017)

smokedout said:


> It was the government's response to the review, which was used to formulate the policy you linked to, as you'd know if you bothered to read the first page.  And yes, I note the significance of the GRC, the significant facts being that a GRC or lack of one is neither a bar to or guarantee of a prisoner being moved to a prison that matches their acquired gender.  So what the report said isn't true.  So what's your point again?



I read it all. The fact remains it's not what you claimed it is.

I've explicitly criticised the article; it has mistakes of fact and of methodology, and, as I said, I suspect it's ideologically motivated.

But you're being disingenous. The Prison Service Instruction is quite explicit that to deny a move to someone with a certificate would be exceptional. So, any change to the process for issuing certificates will directly impact on this area (whereas you claimed "the proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act are not likely to affect them").   It's legitimate area of concern for women.

That was my point.  Is it one with which you disagree? What is your point?


----------



## smokedout (Nov 20, 2017)

elbows said:


> Having said that, it wasn't hard to find sensible stuff being said in regards to the Scottish governments own plans to modify the Gender Recognition Act.
> 
> 
> 
> Equality organisations welcome Scottish Government consultation to improve the Gender Recognition Act



As in the states, actual providers of women only treatment and services are generally supportive of trans-inclusivity.  In the recent transgender enquiry it was a women's refuge organisation who gave some of the most supportive evidence in favour of ending the exemption to equalities law that allows transgender people to be discriminated against if it meets a proportionate aim (the government rejected this proposal by the way).  Women's Aid said they sometimes use this exclusion when recruiting staff but that policy is currently under review.  Rape Crisis in Scotland has been particularly supportive of trans-inclusivity.  This approach seems to be borne out of practice, these organisations are already delivering services and possibly providing employment to transwomen and it does not seem to be causing problems.  

This is not a fight between providers of services for women and transwomen, it is a fight coming from a very small subset of radical feminists electing themselves to speak on behalf of service providers, regardless of what those organisation s might think themselves.  The excuse I've seen given for the lack of women's service providers taking the trans-exclusionary line is that they are too scared to speak up.  I suspect some would rather they didn't speak up because then things like evidence, current and best practice and the actual experiences of those already providing services to transpeople would demolish some of the more lurid concerns that have been raised.


----------



## elbows (Nov 20, 2017)

Athos said:


> It doesn't help is that the trans lobby is pushing for things that erode that distinction. Not for any sinister reason, but as a practical consequence. For instance, demedicalising the process seems compassionate to trans people, but it does increase the possibility for abuse i.e. men who aren't trans claiming to be so for nefarious purposes.



I already replied to this post in a somewhat affirmative manner, because I was agreeing that this is a reason why the debate has become more heated this year.

However I feel the need to say that I don't really see the proposed changes to Gender Recognition acts as simply being something the 'trans lobby' is pushing for. Support for such changes appears to me to be broader than that, in great part as a consequence of wider progress achieved before now, which has left the Gender Recognition act behind the times.

Since I broadly support the changes, I am far more interested in having mechanisms that allow any risks and unintended consequences to be properly dealt with if they arise. And one way that I may attempt to separate legitimate concerns from other agendas is whether opponents simply seek to ensure such safeguards are in place, or whether they are just trying to scupper the entire concept of self-identification.


----------



## Athos (Nov 20, 2017)

elbows said:


> I already replied to this post in a somewhat affirmative manner, because I was agreeing that this is a reason why the debate has become more heated this year.
> 
> However I feel the need to say that I don't really see the proposed changes to Gender Recognition acts as simply being something the 'trans lobby' is pushing for. Support for such changes appears to me to be broader than that, in great part as a consequence of wider progress achieved before now, which has left the Gender Recognition act behind the times.
> 
> Since I broadly support the changes, I am far more interested in having mechanisms that allow any risks and unintended consequences to be properly dealt with if they arise. And one way that I may attempt to separate legitimate concerns from other agendas is whether opponents simply seek to ensure such safeguards are in place, or whether they are just trying to scupper the entire concept of self-identification.



I think I'd agree with all of that.

ETA: as I've said before, I didn't think this good versus evil; it's a balancing act of goods versus harms (to both trans and other women).


----------



## Manter (Nov 20, 2017)

weepiper said:


> Here's the job description.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My immediate reaction was that she'd have none of the life experiences necessary to make her able to advocate for women as she'd be coming from a place of basically not understanding. But the same could be said for any 19 year old, or anyone who hasn't had kids, or tried to have kids, or faced judgement for not having kids or any of the many female experiences that some women have had and some haven't.

Can any of us speak for all of us? 

Reading a few articles I am actually mucch more struck by her staggering arrogance.... and it's that that makes me want her to fuck off, rather than how long she's been living as a woman. I have the same reaction to most* SPADs and others who go into party politics young- they don't have any life experience and they don't have the humility to listen to others with the life experience.


*not all- but the exceptions are few and far between


----------



## Manter (Nov 20, 2017)

Manter said:


> My immediate reaction was that she'd have none of the life experiences necessary to make her able to advocate for women as she'd be coming from a place of basically not understanding. But the same could be said for any 19 year old, or anyone who hasn't had kids, or tried to have kids, or faced judgement for not having kids or any of the many female experiences that some women have had and some haven't.
> 
> Can any of us speak for all of us?
> 
> ...


Tldr; it does bother me but when I examine why I think it's other stuff that bothers me and also I may be prejudiced


----------



## Athos (Nov 20, 2017)

Manter said:


> Tldr; it does bother me but when I examine why I think it's other stuff that bothers me and also I may be prejudiced



It's good to be honestly self-critical, and to examine your own prejudices.  But, in my opinion, there's a bit of gaslighting going on, when women are made to think they're bigots for questioning some of what's being forced upon them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 20, 2017)

Manter said:


> Tldr


It's a bit shit when you find one of your own posts too long to read


----------



## Manter (Nov 20, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> It's a bit shit when you find one of your own posts too long to read


It's tough in my head


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 21, 2017)

Manter said:


> Actual report on trans identifying males (their term) and prison here; Half of all transgender prisoners are sex offenders or dangerous category A inmates | Fair Play for Women



Prisoners in 'criminals' shocker.


----------



## elbows (Nov 21, 2017)

Trans women need access to rape and domestic violence services. Here’s why | Shon Faye



> Trans people in Britain have recently been subjected to a media onslaught from all sides. The attack has largely been centred on proposed reform to the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA), which would enable trans people to change their legal gender without a pathologising medical process. Disturbingly, this has been repackaged as a threat to women-only spaces – which could be “invaded” by any person born male who now identifies as a woman.
> 
> The idea seems to be that this is a question of the “competing rights” of trans and cis (non-trans) women. But this rhetoric of competition is a dead end – ultimately it isn’t a discussion or a debate, but an impasse. Its logical conclusion is a crushing ultimatum: trans rights _or_ women’s rights. Only one can win.


----------



## elbows (Nov 21, 2017)




----------



## elbows (Nov 23, 2017)

weepiper said:


> Read this.
> girls put off a career in engineering by inaccurate and negative perceptions
> Sure, there's some of us fighting the norms, but the pressure to be 'normal' for young girls is colossal.



I know it was a bit of an aside to the main subject of this thread but since this is the last place I remember this subject coming up on u75, I hope nobody minds me mentioning the new Little Miss Inventor here.

Little Miss Inventor joins Mr Men range



> The book blurb says "her brain is full of ideas, which she turns into extraordinary inventions in a shed at the bottom of her garden".
> 
> Those inventions include a backpack-snack-attack fridge for Mr Greedy and a chatter-natter hat for Little Miss Chatterbox - but she's stumped when asked to invent something for Mr Rude.
> 
> ...





> Fans on Twitter were quick to applaud the new character - with coder Annie Parker writing: "Never have I wanted a book more!"
> 
> And the Geek Girl Riot radio show tweeted: "Little Miss Inventor is not the heroine we deserved, but the heroine we needed."


----------



## elbows (Nov 23, 2017)

Another example that makes me depressed about sections of the media and extreme reactions/threats 

Campaigner: I received rape and death threats after gender-neutral speech



> The leading mental health campaigner Natasha Devon says she has been sent rape and death threats after a speech to headteachers in which she advocated the use of gender-neutral language in schools.





> Writing in a column for the TES on Thursday, Devon disputed some of the media interpretations of her speech. She said she had never suggested that “if you’re speaking to an individual who you know is a girl and likes being a girl you shouldn’t be allowed to call that girl a ‘girl’.
> 
> “The main thrust of my argument was this … In making sweeping assumptions about gender, sexuality and identity we can create a culture in which anyone who deviates from the established archetypes feel excluded from the community and therefore doesn’t have this need fulfilled.





> “One way we as educators could help to avoid this is by using gender-neutral language when addressing groups of pupils.” Several schools already do this, she said. City of London girls’ school, for example, asks speakers to refer to year groups as “students” rather than “girls” to be as inclusive as possible.





> “Meanwhile, I received death and rape threats, messages questioning my sanity, calling me a ‘f**king idiot’, trying to insult me through the prism of questioning my own gender, calling me fat and ugly, suggesting I should be burned as a witch and, perhaps most offensively, claiming that I am single-handedly responsible for the current poor mental health of British children,” she wrote in her column.





> “That is how the media, for all the magnificent work it does to raise awareness of mental health, shuts down some of the complex conversations we need to have in order to better understand it.”


----------



## JimW (Nov 23, 2017)

Was reading today about the the first national survey of transgender in China, video too which does a bit of basic explaining for Chinese audiences where it's not been a big public talking point although there have been some prominent trans people some of who are mentioned:


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 27, 2017)

> “One way we as educators could help to avoid this is by using gender-neutral language when addressing groups of pupils.” Several schools already do this, she said. City of London girls’ school, for example, asks speakers to refer to year groups as “students” rather than “girls” to be as inclusive as possible.



A gender-segregated school wants to be as inclusive as possible?


----------



## spanglechick (Nov 27, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> A gender-segregated school wants to be as inclusive as possible?


To include non binary students.


----------



## Sue (Nov 27, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> A gender-segregated school wants to be as inclusive as possible?


A 17 grand a year school that wants to be as inclusive as possible?


----------



## hot air baboon (Dec 7, 2017)

Women’s concerns should not be minimised

NOV 2017 Saturday 25TH posted by Morning Star in Features

Many feminists and political activists feel they are being shut down for attempting to discuss gender issues, writes JO BARTOSCH

ONCE I was proud of my Labour Party card. I am member number L1608004 and, yes, I was one of the thousands who joined because Jeremy Corbyn seemed to signify a return to the principled values of social justice and fairness. Two years on and my membership card weighs heavily in my pocket.
I have been horrified to witness good women, lifelong activists, being attacked for trying to discuss the proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act.
At the time of writing, Linda Bellos has been reported to the Labour Party for comments she made at a public meeting, Jess Phillips is suffering a barrage of online abuse demanding she be re-educated because of a tweet she sent in support of feminist group A Woman’s Place, and after receiving a slew of accusations of “transphobia,” Anne Ruzylo has resigned her role as women’s officer in Bexhill and Battle amid accusations of bullying by a teenager who identifies as a woman.
The same teenager has taken up a post of women’s officer in the neighbouring constituency of Rochester and Strood. Incidentally, it should be noted that two of those allegedly targeted for harassment are lesbian. Many women now feel they are facing a purge for committing thought crime.
Sadly, this phenomenon is not just limited to the Labour Party — it now affects most of the “progressive” left. Women’s Equality Party (WEP) spokesperson for the policy on violence against women and girls Heather Brunskell-Evans is at present being investigated by the party’s executive committee for comments she made on BBC Radio 4’s The Moral Maze, where she urged caution and an evidence-based approach to treat children who consider themselves to be born in the wrong body.
The investigation of Brunskell-Evans arose from allegations made by trans women within the party itself that her comments “promoted prejudice against the transgender community.” 
In response, the WEP wrote a public statement placed on its website to distance itself from her words.
What is so shocking about all of these instances is that the insights and experiences of passionate, intelligent and experienced women appear to have been dismissed as irrelevant.
As a feminist campaigner of many years, I know women who work in organisations from across the domestic and sexual violence sector; many are scared to openly raise questions about gender identity theory.
Doing so could lose them their jobs, or worse, jeopardise the minimal funding that charities they work for depend upon.
One such friend, who asked not to be named, said: “There are no safeguards in place to identify trans women who suffer from gender dysphoria from men who might wish to abuse access to women-only space.
“We have to make our service trans inclusive, but I know this will put the very vulnerable women we should be centring at risk.”
Ruzylo was the subject of numerous complaints by a small group because of her stance on and offline as an outspoken feminist.
Like myself and many others, Ruzylo considers the sex-stereotypes that inform gender to be harmful to women. 
I don’t know Ruzylo in person, but I have a fair idea of the barriers she would have faced as a lesbian in the Labour Party. 
To have had the strength to remain in the party demonstrates in itself that she was an asset, but apparently one without the kudos of a teenager who has identified as a woman for less time that I’ve had the shoes I’m wearing.
One in five women aged 16-59 has experienced some form of sexual violence since the age of 16. It is still the case that 85 per cent of rape remains unreported. 
When women created the hashtag #metoo it was to demonstrate how widely our experience is minimised and dismissed by a patriarchal world. #metoo shone a spotlight on the misogyny within Parliament, with the bravery of women such as Bex Bailey forcing some serious questions to be asked about institutional sexism and cover-ups. 
Women like Anna, Heather, Linda and Jess care deeply. They are not embarrassing bigots to be swept away; they are clever women, experienced women, women with integrity.
When I stop to think about it, I am shocked at how easily I went along with the idea that’s commonly expressed on the internet, that “trans women are women.”
I hadn’t really thought about the circular logic or the implications of the statement; I said it in response to a friend who was questioning the authenticity of Caitlyn Jenner’s womanhood. 
Once I began to investigate how trans activists tend to behave online, and after the first few threats and smears for crossing outside the acceptable “lefty” rhetoric, I recognised the mainstream pro-trans movement for what it is; a clique of well-meaning liberals led by misogynists who delight in telling women their concerns are irrelevant, hysterical and bigoted. 
It is tragic that those with the power to change this on the left have chosen to believe young men with large social media followings rather than older women with considerably more experience of both politics and sexist silencing.
At the moment I have no pride in my party membership. A party that silences uppity women at the behest of angry misogynist keyboard warriors is not progressive. It seems when the trans activist dogs bark the progressive left jumps.
Rather than focusing on the men who actually hurt trans people, it is outspoken feminists who are offered up for sacrifice.


----------



## spanglechick (Dec 7, 2017)

hot air baboon said:


> Women’s concerns should not be minimised
> 
> NOV 2017 Saturday 25TH posted by Morning Star in Features
> 
> ...


While there’s interesting stuff here, it’s also pretty dismissive of those feminists who actively and strongly do take a trans inclusive line.  We are “a clique of well-meaning liberals led by misogynists”, apparently.  

I’m not being led by anyone, and i dont see that saying “trans women are women” is misogyny.  The term “clique” implies a minority, too, which isn’t my experience.  

Are some trans activists arseholes?  Totally.  Is all trans-inclusivity activism problematic?  I don’t see why.

But am i prepared to discuss something complex maturely with a person who has diminished and dismissed my views before we begin?  Like fuck am i.


----------



## trashpony (Dec 8, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> While there’s interesting stuff here, it’s also pretty dismissive of those feminists who actively and strongly do take a trans inclusive line.  We are “a clique of well-meaning liberals led by misogynists”, apparently.
> 
> I’m not being led by anyone, and i dont see that saying “trans women are women” is misogyny.  The term “clique” implies a minority, too, which isn’t my experience.
> 
> ...


That goes both ways with shouts of TERF at anyone who challenges trans-inclusive ideology


----------



## cantsin (Dec 8, 2017)

hot air baboon said:


> To have had the strength to remain in the party demonstrates in itself that she was an asset, but apparently one without the kudos of a teenager who has identified as a woman for less time that I’ve had the shoes I’m wearing.





hot air baboon said:


> When I stop to think about it, I am shocked at how easily I went along with the idea that’s commonly expressed on the internet, that “trans women are women.”





hot air baboon said:


> a clique of well-meaning liberals led by misogynists who delight in telling women their concerns are irrelevant, hysterical and bigoted..





hot air baboon said:


> It seems when the trans activist dogs bark the progressive left jumps.
> .



never takes long for the vicious, snidey bullsh*t to come out


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 8, 2017)

hot air baboon said:


> Women’s concerns should not be minimised
> 
> NOV 2017 Saturday 25TH posted by Morning Star in Features
> 
> ...




LGBT+ TRADE UNIONISTS AND ALLIES STATEMENT ON THE GENDER RECOGNITION ACT


----------



## spanglechick (Dec 8, 2017)

trashpony said:


> That goes both ways with shouts of TERF at anyone who challenges trans-inclusive ideology


Totally.  Arseholes on both sides.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 8, 2017)

hot air baboon said:


> Women’s concerns should not be minimised
> 
> NOV 2017 Saturday 25TH posted by Morning Star in Features
> 
> ...



Am I reading this right? She appears to be calling the trans women she disagrees with misogynist men. It's pretty much the same crap Maria Mac came out with, complete with the deliberate misgendering for effect. 

Not helpful.


----------



## elbows (Dec 11, 2017)

Clair De Lune said:


> She is a professional fuckwit then. She proper made my blood boil ...then I cringed at how sociopathic she seemed ...so fake, so arghhh. Not had such a visceral reaction to a stranger in a long time.



No surprise that the teacher she appeared with is taking his school to an employment tribunal. It was clear at the time that this case was going to be used to make an ideological argument and thats even clearer now we have this stuff from the complete arsehole wing of evangelical christian bigotry.



> Mr Sutcliffe claims the school has "systematically and maliciously" breached his rights and he had left his job as it had made it impossible for him to continue working there.
> 
> In a letter to the head teacher he wrote: "As a Christian, I do not share your belief in the ideology of transgenderism.
> 
> ...



'Misgendering' teacher to sue school


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 11, 2017)

hot air baboon said:


> One in five women aged 16-59 has experienced some form of sexual violence since the age of 16. It is still the case that 85 per cent of rape remains unreported.
> When women created the hashtag #metoo it was to demonstrate how widely our experience is minimised and dismissed by a patriarchal world. #metoo shone a spotlight on the misogyny within Parliament, with the bravery of women such as Bex Bailey forcing some serious questions to be asked about institutional sexism and cover-ups.



Yes this is all true, but what does it have to do with the subject of the rest of the piece? This whole paragraph seems to have been dropped in just to insinuate a link between acceptance of transgender people and sexual assault against women.

Elsewhere the author quotes someone saying that trans-inclusivity puts other women at risk, but again there's no evidential link between the two things.

This idea of abusive men pretending to be trans women in order to abuse others seems to be at the heart of so much anti-trans sentiment. I wonder then why people dance around it, keep it at arms length. That's the sort of thing I can see myself doing if I was defending a position based on a premise I couldn't back up.

Society is patriarchal yes, and systematically abusive to women. Why then would any man bother to pretend to be a trans woman in order to abuse others? The sad fact is that he's already got more than enough resources at his disposal if that's what he wants to do.


----------



## Athos (Dec 11, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Elsewhere the author quotes someone saying that trans-inclusivity puts other women at risk, but again there's no evidential link between the two things.
> 
> This idea of abusive men pretending to be trans women in order to abuse others seems to be at the heart of so much anti-trans sentiment. I wonder then why people dance around it, keep it at arms length. That's the sort of thing I can see myself doing if I was defending a position based on a premise I couldn't back up.
> 
> Society is patriarchal yes, and systematically abusive to women. Why then would any man bother to pretend to be a trans woman in order to abuse others? The sad fact is that he's already got more than enough resources at his disposal if that's what he wants to do.



The case of Christopher Hambrook in Canada is one in which an abusive man posed as a trans woman, to gain access to women's shelters, wherein he sexually abused women.  It's silly (and damaging to credibility) to pretend it hasn't happened, or that we can be sure it won't happen again. It'd be better to be honest about it.  To say, yes, it's a risk, but one so incredibly small that it's outweighed by the greater harm caused by trans exclusion.  Albeit you ought not to be surprised that some feminists will disagree with you deprioritising women's safety in favour of the safety of those born male and socialised as boys then men.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 11, 2017)

Athos said:


> The case of Christopher Hambrook in Canada is one in which an abusive man posed as a trans woman, to gain access to women's shelters, wherein he sexually abused women.  It's silly (and damaging to credibility) to pretend it hasn't happened, or that we can be sure it won't happen again. It'd be better to be honest about it.  To say, yes, it's a risk, but one so incredibly small that it's outweighed by the greater harm caused by trans exclusion.  Albeit you ought not to be surprised that some feminists will disagree with you deprioritising women's safety in favour of the safety of those born male and socialised as boys then men.



I'm not at all surprised that people feel differently to me. And I'm a bloke, there's no reason anyone should give shit what I think about women's only spaces anyway. But if we're going to get anywhere with this people need to be honest about what they think and coherent about why they think it.

There's a fundamental impasse at the heart of all this, in that some people don't include certain others in the category of those entitled to an opinion. If that's their view, they'll have to do better at defending it. They'll have to make the case that there is a real risk from including trans women in certain spaces, and that it outweighs the harm done if they are excluded. If they consider harm done to trans women less important than harm done to cis women, they will need to be honest about that.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 11, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> I'm not at all surprised that people feel differently to me. And I'm a bloke, there's no reason anyone should give shit what I think about women's only spaces anyway. But if we're going to get anywhere with this people need to be honest about what they think and coherent about why they think it.
> 
> There's a fundamental impasse at the heart of all this, in that some people don't include certain others in the category of those entitled to an opinion. If that's their view, they'll have to do better at defending it. They'll have to make the case that there is a real risk from including trans women in certain spaces, and that it outweighs the harm done if they are excluded. If they consider harm done to trans women less important than harm done to cis women, they will need to be honest about that.



All other possibilities aside, there’s the threat of harm for women for the reasons that generated this thread. That merely not agreeing with Trans politics can lead to them being physically assaulted.


----------



## Athos (Dec 11, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> I'm not at all surprised that people feel differently to me. And I'm a bloke, there's no reason anyone should give shit what I think about women's only spaces anyway. But if we're going to get anywhere with this people need to be honest about what they think and coherent about why they think it.
> 
> There's a fundamental impasse at the heart of all this, in that some people don't include certain others in the category of those entitled to an opinion. If that's their view, they'll have to do better at defending it. They'll have to make the case that there is a real risk from including trans women in certain spaces, and that it outweighs the harm done if they are excluded. If they consider harm done to trans women less important than harm done to cis women, they will need to be honest about that.



Aren't you conflating two things there, though? Whether, philosophically, trans women are women; and, whether, on a compassionate basis, they ought to be considered/treated as such.  For many, the second question doesn't come into play; for a lot of those who consider 'woman' to mean adult human born into the female sex, that ends the discussion about whether or not trans women should have access to women's spaces (without ever needing to address the balance of harms).  It strikes me that absent any compelling philosophical reason to consider trans women to be women, simply repeating the mantra that they are is unhelpful. A better approach would be to focus on the other aspect i.e. that the net harm (to people regardless of gender) is increased by exclusion, and to focus on building solidarity on the basis of what cis and trans women do have in common e.g. being disadvantaged by patriarchy.  And why tactics that undermine compassion and solidarity (which seem to increasing) are likely to be counter-productive.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 11, 2017)

Athos said:


> A better approach would be to focus on the other aspect i.e. that the net harm (to people regardless of gender) is increased by exclusion, and to focus on building solidarity on the basis of what cis and trans women do have in common e.g. being disadvantaged by patriarchy.  And why tactics that undermine compassion and solidarity (which seem to increasing) are likely to be counter-productive.



You're not going to reach that sort of common ground with people who think trans identity is in and of itself an act of violence against women. If you genuinely think someone is attacking you just by existing, you're not going to care much about whether or not they come to harm.

And if people with less extreme anti-trans ideas are willing to grudgingly make compromises for harm reductiin reasons, that will create tensions that are always going to be expressed in some form or other.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 11, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> All other possibilities aside, there’s the threat of harm for women for the reasons that generated this thread. That merely not agreeing with Trans politics can lead to them being physically assaulted.



What about the harm from hearing people publically deny your right to exist? We've done all this already, read the thread.


----------



## Athos (Dec 11, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> You're not going to reach that sort of common ground with people who think trans identity is in and of itself an act of violence against women. If you genuinely think someone is attacking you just by existing, you're not going to care much about whether or not they come to harm.
> 
> And if people with less extreme anti-trans ideas are willing to grudgingly make compromises for harm reductiin reasons, that will create tensions that are always going to be expressed in some form or other.



The first group are a tiny (albeit vocal) minority.  Probably not worth too much attention.

I'm not sure I accept your characterisation of the second group.  I reckon that, if they had cause to give it any thought, most people would be happy to treat trans people as they'd prefer to be treated, on the basis of harm minimisation, even if, philosophically, they don't necessarily believe that trans women are women.  I don't think that would necessarily be 'grudgingly'.  But, to reach them, you'd have to engage positively with their initial scepticism.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 11, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> deny your right to exist.



What does this mean? Serious question, as I’m puzzled about the language here.


----------



## Athos (Dec 11, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> What about the harm from hearing people publically deny your right to exist? We've done all this already, read the thread.



Are a significant number of people really denying trans people's right to exist?  Because, that seems like a disingenuous (if oft repeated) characterisation.  Saying that your definition of a woman doesn't encompass people born male isn't the same as saying those people have no right to exist.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Dec 11, 2017)

Athos said:


> The case of Christopher Hambrook in Canada is one in which an abusive man posed as a trans woman, to gain access to women's shelters, wherein he sexually abused women.  It's silly (and damaging to credibility) to pretend it hasn't happened, or that we can be sure it won't happen again. It'd be better to be honest about it.  To say, yes, it's a risk, but one so incredibly small that it's outweighed by the greater harm caused by trans exclusion.  Albeit you ought not to be surprised that some feminists will disagree with you deprioritising women's safety in favour of the safety of those born male and socialised as boys then men.


So Christopher H wasn't a trans woman, he was just pretending to be one?  haven't heard of this, any links?


----------



## Athos (Dec 11, 2017)

friendofdorothy said:


> So Christopher H wasn't a trans woman, he was just pretending to be one?  haven't heard of this, any links?


A sex predator’s sick deception


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 11, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> What about the harm from hearing people publically deny your right to exist? We've done all this already, read the thread.



Nobody is denying anyone’s right to exist. Stop equating women’s concerns to fascism. It’s getting people’s backs up.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 11, 2017)

> In childhood, Hambrook was diagnosed with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and never made it through high school.
> 
> Wilkie diagnosed him with an anti-social personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, determined he was dependent on alcohol and drugs and had multiple sexual deviancies. He was rated as a high risk to re-offend sexually.
> 
> Hambrook was earlier assessed as suffering from bisexual pedophilia and exhibitionism.





> In his psychiatric assessment, Hambrook provided conflicting information on his gender identity issue. He lied that he had been receiving hormone treatment for many years and lied that he wanted to pursue a sex change. He admitted he only dressed intermittently in women’s clothing and wanted to remain a man and have a relationship with a woman.
> 
> *Psychiatric reports concluded Hambrook is not transgender.*



Let's use the deviant, abhorrent and damaging behaviours of non-transgender women to characterise transgender women? FFs.


----------



## Athos (Dec 11, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Let's use the deviant, abhorrent and damaging behaviours of non-transgender women to characterise transgender women? FFs.



 Who's doing that?  *The whole point* is that he's *not* a trans woman. But that there's a risk (albeit, as I said above, very small) that men like him will abuse laws intended to make trans people's lives easier.  And that to pretend that it hasn't/doesn't/wouldn't happen is a very poor argument.  There needs to be an honest discussion about what risks are weighted against what benefits.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 11, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Let's use the deviant, abhorrent and damaging behaviours of non-transgender women to characterise transgender women? FFs.



Perhaps worth mentioning that this seems to be the only reported case of anything like this ever happening, and given his offending history he shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near a womens hostel whatever gender they were.  This case represents a failure to identify and monitor prolific sex offenders, or risk assessment failures at that hostel, rather than a failure of trans-inclusive policies.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 11, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Perhaps worth mentioning that this seems to be the only reported case of anything like this ever happening, and given his offending history he shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near a womens hostel whatever gender they were.  This case represents a failure to identify and monitor prolific sex offenders, or risk assessment failures at that hostel, rather than a failure of trans-inclusive policies.



Well quite. But that is clearly us not taking women's concerns seriously enough, apparently.


----------



## Athos (Dec 11, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Perhaps worth mentioning that this seems to be the only reported case of anything like this ever happening, and given his offending history he shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near a womens hostel whatever gender they were.  This case represents a failure to identify and monitor prolific sex offenders, or risk assessment failures at that hostel, rather than a failure of trans-inclusive policies.



 Unfortunately, there's a number of documented cases of men dressing as women to obtain access to women's spaces, with the intention of committing sexual offences.

And what if Hambrook had no previous convictions?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 11, 2017)

Athos said:


> Unfortunately, there's a number of documented cases of men dressing as women to obtain access to women's spaces, with the intention of committing sexual offences.
> 
> And what if Hambrook had no previous convictions?



Show me another.  There are a tiny handful globally of convictions of men dressing as women to gain access to womens toilets etc. It is an incredibly rare phenomena, and none of these cases was linked to trans-inclusive legislation.  In other words tran-exclusive policies will not prevent men from doing this.  The women's sector in the states has been quite clear that trans-inclusion is not a problem, I'm sure you read the open letter I linked to earlier in the thread.  Meanwhile the network of providers of women's services in Scotland say this (pdf)



> Are men likely to put on women’s clothing to gain admittance to women’s refuges?
> 
> Sometimes women’s refuges are concerned that abusive men will put on women’s clothing
> to gain access to women’s refuges. This concern doesn’t match the experience of refuges
> ...


----------



## smokedout (Dec 11, 2017)

So once again you are supporting an argument which has no credibility amongst those people actually working in this field, is not backed up by any credible statistics or media reports, and is simply just a regurgitation of scare-mongering propaganda put out by the kind of terfs you say you oppose


----------



## Athos (Dec 11, 2017)

smokedout said:


> So once again you are supporting an argument which has no credibility amongst those people actually working in this field, is not backed up by any credible statistics or media reports, and is simply just a regurgitation of scare-mongering propaganda put out by the kind of terfs you say you oppose



Did you actually read the point I made? I explained that it's counter-productive to simply dismiss women's fears that these things could happen, because there are documented cases of them having happened (albeit cases I explicitly said were very rare, and which you've acknowledged above).  The point I made was that there are better, and more honest trans-inclusionary arguments e.g. one based on compassion for trans women, that doesn't necessarily require women to redefine womanhood in a way that makes no sense to them.

There's no point just telling women that men don't pretend to be women to gain access to women's spaces for nefarious purposes. Some do. And it follows that the easier you make it for trans women to enter women's spaces, the easier it will be for such men to do so by claiming to be trans women.

Personally, as I've said before, I think that small risk is outweighed by the harm of trans exclusion.  But at least be honest that it is a risk, and something women have a legitimate interest in discussing.

In any event, the network's claim that they'd be able to immediately recognise fakes with bad intentions is a bit dubious. After all, their Canadian counterparts didn't spot Hambrook.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 11, 2017)

Athos said:


> Unfortunately, there's a number of documented cases of men dressing as women to obtain access to women's spaces, with the intention of committing sexual offences.



A man can put on women's clothes without going to the trouble of officially changing their gender identity. I don't doubt there are cases like those you describe, but I question the idea that making life more complicated for ordinary trans folk would prevent them from happening.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 11, 2017)

Athos said:


> Did you actually read the point I made? I explained that it's silly to simply dismiss women's fears that these things could happen, because there are documented cases of them having happened (cases I explicitly said were very rare, and which you've acknowledged above).  The point I made was that there are better, and more honest trans-inclusionary arguments.  There's no point just telling women that men don't pretend to be women to gain access to women's spaces for nefarious purposes. Some do.



You'll be posting some evidence of the other cases for us to see then?

There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of transwomen accessing women's spaces all over the world every day.  There are millions of publc toilets cis predatory men could already dress up and enter regardless of the law.  There are also appallingly millions of rapes, and none of them carried out by men dressed as women in women only spaces.  As such the tiny handful of incidents that have occurred, over several years, would be regarded as statistically insignifiant in any less heated (and prejudiced) debate.  You might as well argue not to go outside in case it starts raining frogs.

There is nothing in life where freak occurences might not occur.  There are sometimes violent cis-women in refuges who have assaulted people.  It is not undermining people's fears about a relatively new social phenomena to point out that statistically the chance of a man dressing as a woman to enter women only spaces to sexually abuse people is virtually non-existent - and that trans-inclusion or exclusion does nothing to change this anyway.

There's one analysis here: PolitiFact NC: Virtually no cases of sexual predators benefiting from transgender anti-discrimination laws



> The liberal group Media Matters For America has studied the bathroom issue for several years, largely under the guidance of Carlos Maza.
> 
> 
> Maza, a Wake Forest University graduate, tweeted after North Carolina’s new law passed that “A man has never used an LGBT non-discrimination law to sneak into a bathroom.”
> ...


----------



## Athos (Dec 11, 2017)

smokedout said:


> You'll be posting some evidence of the other cases for us to see then?
> 
> There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of transwomen accessing women's spaces all over the world every day.  There are millions of publc toilets cis predatory men could already dress up and enter regardless of the law.  There are also appallingly millions of rapes, and none of them carried out by men dressed as women in women only spaces.  As such the tiny handful of incidents that have occurred, over several years, would be regarded as statistically insignifiant in any less heated (and prejudiced) debate.  You might as well argue not to go outside in case it starts raining frogs.
> 
> ...



What have I said with which you are arguing?  I agree with what you've posted, here: I've said such attacks are very rare; I've said that, in my opinion, the very small risk arising from trans inclusion is outweighed by that of exclusion; you're right that we should point that evidence out to allay women's fears.

All of that is consistent with what I said at the outset of my exchange with SpookyFrank:

"It's silly (and damaging to credibility) to pretend it hasn't happened, or that we can be sure it won't happen again. It'd be better to be honest about it. To say, yes, it's a risk, but one so incredibly small that it's outweighed by the greater harm caused by trans exclusion. Albeit you ought not to be surprised that some feminists will disagree with you deprioritising women's safety in favour of the safety of those born male and socialised as boys then men."

Again, it's about the difference between engaging with women and dismissing them.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 11, 2017)

'women'

By which you mean some women.  The experts in this sector, those who actually do this work, largely seem to disagree and strongly support trans-inclusion.  Why would you dismiss these women?

“These initiatives utilize and perpetuate the myth that protecting transgender people’s access to restrooms and locker rooms endangers the safety or privacy of others,” the letter states. “As rape crisis centers, shelters, and other service providers who work each and every day to meet the needs of all survivors and reduce sexual assault and domestic violence throughout society, we speak from experience and expertise when we state that these claims are false.”


----------



## Athos (Dec 11, 2017)

smokedout said:


> 'women'
> 
> By which you mean some women.  The experts in this sector, those who actually do this work, largely seem to disagree and strongly support trans-inclusion.  Why would you dismiss these women?
> 
> “These initiatives utilize and perpetuate the myth that protecting transgender people’s access to restrooms and locker rooms endangers the safety or privacy of others,” the letter states. “As rape crisis centers, shelters, and other service providers who work each and every day to meet the needs of all survivors and reduce sexual assault and domestic violence throughout society, we speak from experience and expertise when we state that these claims are false.”



No, as I've said before (on this thread), all women should be allowed to engage in that debate without abuse or intimidation.

I don't dismiss the views of women who work in this field, at all.  They don't disagree with me; we both believe the risk is minimal. 

Seriously, what are you arguing against?  I agree with all you've said. The only things I've said that you haven't is that women should be allowed to have this discussion, and that the discussion should be honest. Is that what you disagree with?  Either of those positions? Both?  I'm sure I've asked you about the first of these before, but you ducked it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 11, 2017)

Athos said:


> It's silly (and damaging to credibility) to pretend it hasn't happened, or that we can be sure it won't happen again. It'd be better to be honest about it. To say, yes, it's a risk, but one so incredibly small that it's outweighed by the greater harm caused by trans exclusion.


Measures can and should be in place already that would have prevented this attack. The system didn't work as it should have - be angry about that if you must. But _one case_, in the whole world? This kind of stuff rightly gets shot down as reactionary shite when we discuss other sectors of society, such as mental health users.


----------



## Athos (Dec 11, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Measures can and should be in place already that would have prevented this attack. The system didn't work as it should have - be angry about that if you must. But _one case_, in the whole world? This kind of stuff rightly gets shot down as reactionary shite when we discuss other sectors of society, such as mental health users.



Yes, as I've said at length, it's not a position I find persuasive!  It may well be reactionary.  It should be argued against, honestly.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 12, 2017)

Athos said:


> Yes, as I've said at length, it's not a position I find persuasive!  It may well be reactionary.  It should be argued against, honestly.



And the way to argue against it honestly is not to overstate the case, or say things like this:


> Unfortunately, there's a number of documented cases of men dressing as women to obtain access to women's spaces, with the intention of committing sexual offences.



But to point out that the experience of trans-inclusive women only spaces has been that these fears, understandable as they are in a world which is only just getting used to transpeople, but is more than familiar with endemic male violence, have not proved to be grounded.  That is the argument those supporting trans-inclusion absolutely must make.  It is the argument you should be making if what you say is sincere.  Because there are some people, from both the left and the right of the political spectrum - and with a huge amount more power than the so-called trans-lobby - who are deliberately attempting to portray transwomen as violent men because it serves a wider political agenda.

And by the way, the social harm from this to trans-people outweighs any fucking stupid shit some cunt says on twitter about terfs, or a scuffle over a camera in Hyde Park.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 12, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Because there are some people, from both the left and the right of the political spectrum - and with a huge amount more power than the so-called trans-lobby - who are deliberately attempting to portray transwomen as violent men because it serves a wider political agenda.
> 
> And by the way, the social harm from this to trans-people outweighs any fucking stupid shit some cunt says on twitter about terfs, or a scuffle over a camera in Hyde Park.



And that is my position, since you asked on the other thread.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Dec 12, 2017)

Athos said:


> No, as I've said before (on this thread), all women should be allowed to engage in that debate without abuse or intimidation.



How very generous of you.


----------



## Athos (Dec 12, 2017)

smokedout said:


> And the way to argue against it honestly is not to overstate the case, or say things like this:
> 
> 
> But to point out that the experience of trans-inclusive women only spaces has been that these fears, understandable as they are in a world which is only just getting used to transpeople, but is more than familiar with endemic male violence, have not proved to be grounded.  That is the argument those supporting trans-inclusion absolutely must make.  It is the argument you should be making if what you say is sincere.  Because there are some people, from both the left and the right of the political spectrum - and with a huge amount more power than the so-called trans-lobby - who are deliberately attempting to portray transwomen as violent men because it serves a wider political agenda.
> ...



The post of mine you quoted is true. You acknowledged yourself that there's a very small number of documented cases.  That doesn't overstate anything.

I've already agreed with you that pro inclusion arguments which put the figures into context should be made.  I've simply said that it's a poor tactic to dismiss women's fears by dishonesty claiming that such incidents have never occurred. It's better to acknowledge those facts, fears, and a very small risk, but to argue that it is outweighed by other factors, in my opinion.

You ducked my question, again. It's getting a bit embarrassing, now.

Do you believe women should be free to discuss what a woman is, without fear of intimidation and abuse?


----------



## Athos (Dec 12, 2017)

ElizabethofYork said:


> How very generous of you.



Seemingly, it's more than some in this thread think.


----------



## smmudge (Dec 12, 2017)

Athos you bring up the Hambrook case, saying we need to address the risk, however small, of men pretending to be trans to maliciously gain access to women's spaces. Then when faced with evidence that this has been addressed, you argue that it is simply dismissing those concerns. When it's untenable for you to take this line - as it becomes obvious it's not been dismissed, but actually seriously considered by people who are best placed to consider and tackle the issue, that is, people who organise and run women's spaces - you state that you agreed all along...and in any case that's not your point, your point is that women should feel free to discuss what it means to be a woman without fear - something that's completely irrelevant to your original argument, and not something I have seen anyone in this thread questioning in the first place!! I would say it is you who is being disingenuous and ducking where it suits you!


----------



## Athos (Dec 12, 2017)

smmudge said:


> Athos you bring up the Hambrook case, saying we need to address the risk, however small, of men pretending to be trans to maliciously gain access to women's spaces. Then when faced with evidence that this has been addressed, you argue that it is simply dismissing those concerns. When it's untenable for you to take this line - as it becomes obvious it's not been dismissed, but actually seriously considered by people who are best placed to consider and tackle the issue, that is, people who organise and run women's spaces - you state that you agreed all along...and in any case that's not your point, your point is that women should feel free to discuss what it means to be a woman without fear - something that's completely irrelevant to your original argument, and not something I have seen anyone in this thread questioning in the first place!! I would say it is you who is being disingenuous and ducking where it suits you!



I disagree with your interpretation of what's gone on in this thread generally, and my posts in particular.

Many people dismiss women's concerns that changes to the law will enable men to pose to trans women to gain access to women's spaces for the purposes of offending, on the basis that such things have never happened (and so won't in the future).  The inconvenient Hambrook case (however rare) undermines that position.

Because of such cases, women have every right to discus these fears. Of course, part of that discussion should be considering the evidence and expert opinion.  And I hope that, a result of that discussion, the trans inclusionary position is more widely adopted.

But, increasingly, it's being suggested that  the act of engaging in that debate is transphobic. And women are being intimidated from engaging in it.


----------



## bimble (Dec 12, 2017)

Hambrook case as written up in that article you posted is interesting for how everyone relied on the final opinion of the psychiatrists who determined that despite what he said (and what gained him entry presumably to the shelter) he was not a real trans person.  But we want to remove the psychiatrists from the process don't we?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 12, 2017)

Athos said:


> Are a significant number of people really denying trans people's right to exist?  Because, that seems like a disingenuous (if oft repeated) characterisation.  Saying that your definition of a woman doesn't encompass people born male isn't the same as saying those people have no right to exist.



Assigned male at birth is not the same thing as born male. 

'It's nothing personal, but my definition of the thing you are doesn't include you.'

- It sounds a lot worse when you think of it from an individual's perspective don't you think? Of course people should be free to express opinions, but they don't have the right to say things and be immune from consequences, or from those opinions being challenged. The right to express yourself does not come with carte blanche to cause harm to others by doing so.


----------



## Athos (Dec 12, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Assigned male at birth is not the same thing as born male.
> 
> 'It's nothing personal, but my definition of the thing you are doesn't include you.'
> 
> - It sounds a lot worse when you think of it from an individual's perspective don't you think? Of course people should be free to express opinions, but they don't have the right to say things and be immune from consequences, or from those opinions being challenged. The right to express yourself does not come with carte blanche to cause harm to others by doing so.



'Assigned male at birth' is a bit of sophistry.  In all but a tiny minority of cases (i.e. intersex people) sexual diamorphism is a biological fact; people aren't 'assigned' male, they 'are' male - dicks, chromosomes, etc..  That's not to say they must necessarily perform the gender role society assigns to their sex, though.  But it's disingenous to suggest that sex isn't real, even if you believe that it ought not to underpin gender.

I accept that some of those opinions are hurtful (similarly some women feel hurt by being required to define what they are differently i.e. to widen the definition), and I have no issue with opinions on either side being challenged in debate.  I only have an issue with women (including trans women) being bullied and intimidated out of discussions.  Two very different things.

Is it your opinion that a belief that a conception of women as adult human females is harmful to trans women, such that it ought not to be expressed?


----------



## bimble (Dec 12, 2017)

'biological male' / female is maybe a simpler less ideological thing to say.
I still haven't heard an inclusive definition of woman that has any more substance to it than 'people who identify as women', which is so circular it'd never make an entry into the dictionary.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 12, 2017)

Athos said:


> 'Assigned male at birth' is a bit of sophistry.



Only because we use the same adjectives to describe sex and gender. Yes, most people are born as either one sex or the other, but it's not disingenuous to say that they are assigned a gender. Their name will be different because of it, their upbringing and education and the expectations places on them will be different, and all for reasons that have no basis in biology. 

People are assigned all sorts of other things too. Many of them also related to gender. You might be the gobby one or the grumpy one or the quiet one or the slutty one or whatever. If you don't like that category you're placed into against your will, if you don't believe it fits who you actually are, why should you not be able to challenge people who call you those things? Why should you not have the opportunity to define yourself as something else? Why should gender be any different from any other made-up category of person?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 12, 2017)

Athos said:


> Is it your opinion that a belief that a conception of women as adult human females is harmful to trans women, such that it ought not to be expressed?



I'm saying if you express that view and someone is hurt by it, you should take responsibility for that. I have opinions I keep to myself because expressing them is less important than letting those who might be offended by them go about their lives in peace. Everybody does this in sme form or other, if they didn't society would be a smouldering ruin by now.

If I did feel the need to say something that was likely to upset people though, I would do my best to say it in a context of understanding and respect, and to listen to what others said in response. What I wouldn't do is bleat on endlessly about not being allowed to say something which I then go on to say repeatedly and at length with no actual consequences for doing so.


----------



## Coconutjob (Dec 12, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Why should you not have the opportunity to define yourself as something else? Why should gender be any different from any other made-up category or person?


Why do you think that what one "defines oneself as" has any significance at all -- to the extent that others should cater for or recognise this definition -- especially when the identity one adopts is inconsistent with reality?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 12, 2017)

Coconutjob said:


> Why do you think that what one "defines oneself as" has any significance at all -- to the extent that others should cater for or recognise this definition -- especially when the identity one adopts is inconsistent with reality?



Why should others have the right to define who you are while you have no say in the matter?

I don't think 'reality' enters into it when we're talking about gender roles and idenities. Reality in these terms is nothing more or less than what we decide it is; just because one definition of something is the most commonly understood doesn't necessarily mean it represents objective fact. How many times has something that was once universally accepted ended up being totally discredited, forgotten or ridiculed? God was once reality, the flat earth was once reality, beige kitchen appliances with little ears of wheat on them were once reality; all those things are now dead or dying.


----------



## bimble (Dec 12, 2017)

Bit early to celebrate the end of gender I think SpookyFrank seeing as its arguably worse now than it was in the age of the beige kitchen appliances. 
Toys Are More Divided by Gender Now Than They Were 50 Years Ago


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 12, 2017)

bimble said:


> Bit early to celebrate the end of gender I think SpookyFrank seeing as its arguably worse now than it was in the age of the beige kitchen appliances.
> Toys Are More Divided by Gender Now Than They Were 50 Years Ago



I'm not celebrating yet don't worry. But I can see how silly this will all seem to future people who were born and raised as 'people' and not as pink people or blue people.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 12, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> beige kitchen appliances with little ears of wheat on them were once reality; all those things are now dead or dying.


^^^Liked for this bit


----------



## TopCat (Dec 12, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Only because we use the same adjectives to describe sex and gender. Yes, most people are born as either one sex or the other, but it's not disingenuous to say that they are assigned a gender. Their name will be different because of it, their upbringing and education and the expectations places on them will be different, and all for reasons that have no basis in biology.
> 
> People are assigned all sorts of other things too. Many of them also related to gender. You might be the gobby one or the grumpy one or the quiet one or the slutty one or whatever. If you don't like that category you're placed into against your will, if you don't believe it fits who you actually are, why should you not be able to challenge people who call you those things? Why should you not have the opportunity to define yourself as something else? Why should gender be any different from any other made-up category of person?


What, like being labelled cis?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 12, 2017)

TopCat said:


> What, like being labelled cis?



With 'cis' it seems to be the word itself rather than the actual meaning of that word which people object to, or possibly the very fact of their being a word that means what 'cis' means.

Considering 'cis' is the antonym of 'trans' even in contexts unrelated to gender, it would seem to be as neutral and non-loaded as any word can be. Cis wasn't invented by liberal snowflakes last week as a stick with which to beat the downtrodden majority, it actually predates the English language by millennia.


----------



## Athos (Dec 12, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Only because we use the same adjectives to describe sex and gender. Yes, most people are born as either one sex or the other, but it's not disingenuous to say that they are assigned a gender. Their name will be different because of it, their upbringing and education and the expectations places on them will be different, and all for reasons that have no basis in biology.
> 
> People are assigned all sorts of other things too. Many of them also related to gender. You might be the gobby one or the grumpy one or the quiet one or the slutty one or whatever. If you don't like that category you're placed into against your will, if you don't believe it fits who you actually are, why should you not be able to challenge people who call you those things? Why should you not have the opportunity to define yourself as something else? Why should gender be any different from any other made-up category of person?



Perhaps it would have been cleared of I'd said 'born into the male sex', rather than 'born male'.

Yes, people are assigned a gender at birth. 

Are you seriously suggesting that that assignment isn't based entirely on sex? In that sense, gender differences, whilst not essential or immutable, do have a very clear basis in biology.

I agree people should have the right to believe anything they like about themselves.  But, as with any right, the difficulty comes when it clashes with other people's rights. In this case, some women feel that have a right to exclude people born in to the male sex from their spaces. I'm guessing you'd not ordinarily debt women's right to organise on that basis. So it becomes a question of how best to accommodate competing rights.


----------



## Athos (Dec 12, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> With 'cis' it seems to be the word itself rather than the actual meaning of that word which people object to, or possibly the very fact of their being a word that means what 'cis' means.
> 
> Considering 'cis' is the antonym of 'trans' even in contexts unrelated to gender, it would seem to be as neutral and non-loaded as any word can be. Cis wasn't invented by liberal snowflakes last week as a stick with which to beat the downtrodden majority, it actually predates the English language by millennia.



If someone asks not to be labelled cis (e.g. because they have a 'gender identity' _per se, _such that there's nothing to be aligned/misaligned with their sex), would you respect that?


----------



## 19force8 (Dec 12, 2017)

Athos said:


> If someone asks not to be labelled cis (e.g. because they have a 'gender identity' _per se, _such that there's nothing to be aligned/misaligned with their sex), would you respect that?


If someone asks not to be labelled trans (eg because they have medically changed their sex to align with their gender) would you respect that?


----------



## bimble (Dec 12, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Why should others have the right to define who you are while you have no say in the matter?
> 
> I don't think 'reality' enters into it when we're talking about gender roles and idenities.* Reality in these terms is nothing more or less than what we decide it is*; just because one definition of something is the most commonly understood doesn't necessarily mean it represents objective fact.



What are my options then. I look like a woman and am treated as such, every day, even though I don't wear particularly feminine clothing though its more so when I do. If no longer want to live with that 'reality' of how the world at large perceives me (as that category called 'a woman') what to do -   just declare that I personally reject gender / am 'a-gender'?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 12, 2017)

bimble said:


> What are my options then. I look like a woman and am treated as such, every day, even though I don't wear particularly feminine clothing though its more so when I do. If no longer want to live with that 'reality' of how the world at large perceives me (as that category called 'a woman') what to do -   just declare that I personally reject gender / am 'a-gender'?



You could have done, legally at least, if the transgender enquiry's recommendations had become law.  Sadly introducing the legal option to reject the gender binary is strongly opposed by people who call themselves gender critical feminists.


----------



## Athos (Dec 12, 2017)

smokedout said:


> You could have done, legally at least, if the transgender enquiry's recommendations had become law.  Sadly introducing the legal option to reject the gender binary is strongly opposed by people who call themselves gender critical feminists.


Lol. As if you can legislate people's fundamental understanding of the world.


----------



## Athos (Dec 12, 2017)

19force8 said:


> If someone asks not to be labelled trans (eg because they have medically changed their sex to align with their gender) would you respect that?



What, they've changed chromosomes and reproductive structures? If they can do that, I'll call them what they like!


----------



## andysays (Dec 12, 2017)

smokedout said:


> You could have done, legally at least, if the transgender enquiry's recommendations had become law.  Sadly introducing the legal option to reject the gender binary is strongly opposed by people who call themselves gender critical feminists.



Given that gender is essentially a social process, I don't think the idea that one can simply declare oneself a particular gender makes sense, but even if we assume for the moment and for the sake od argument that an individual assertion might make sense or have some validity, there is surely an enormous difference between me stating that I no longer want to be regarded as the gender assigned to me at birth based on my biological sex and which I was subsequently socialised in, and me stating that I now want to be regarded as a gender different to the one assigned to me at birth based on my biological sex and which I was subsequently socialised in.

It's possible, I suppose, for me to give up my man-ness, but not for me to simply adopt a new different gender, eg woman-ness, however much I might "feel" that gender fits me better, and to automatically assume or insist that everyone else must accept my new adopted gender in any and all situations. 

And to suggest otherwise is frankly nonsensical, whether we're talking in legal terms or any other.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 12, 2017)

bimble said:


> What are my options then. I look like a woman and am treated as such, every day, even though I don't wear particularly feminine clothing though its more so when I do. If no longer want to live with that 'reality' of how the world at large perceives me (as that category called 'a woman') what to do -   just declare that I personally reject gender / am 'a-gender'?



Some people do exactly that. Doesn't mean people will understand where they're coming from. 

When I said the reality of gender is what we decide it is, I meant as a community or a society or a species. I didn't mean to suggest that thinking or feeling or being something as an individual makes that real for you and everyone around you.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 12, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> With 'cis' it seems to be the word itself rather than the actual meaning of that word which people object to, or possibly the very fact of their being a word that means what 'cis' means.
> 
> Considering 'cis' is the antonym of 'trans' even in contexts unrelated to gender, it would seem to be as neutral and non-loaded as any word can be. Cis wasn't invented by liberal snowflakes last week as a stick with which to beat the downtrodden majority, it actually predates the English language by millennia.


This is hypocrtical bullshit. I dont like being labelled. Fuck justifying the label with some bullshit. Heard it before with handicapped, half caste, bi sexual, mixed race ad infinitum.


----------



## Athos (Dec 12, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> I didn't mean to suggest that thinking or feeling or being something as an individual makes that real for you and everyone around you.



 I'm confused about what your position.  Do you think that an individual thinking or feeling themself to be a woman makes them a woman, or not?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 12, 2017)

andysays said:


> It's possible, I suppose, for me to give up my man-ness, but not for me to simply adopt a new different gender, eg woman-ness, however much I might "feel" that gender fits me better, and to automatically assume or insist that everyone else must accept my new adopted gender in any and all situations.
> 
> And to suggest otherwise is frankly nonsensical, whether we're talking in legal terms or any other.



And yet if you presented in the other gender, and appeared to 'pass' then that's exactly what would happen because people don't check genitalia or chromosones before gendering someone.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 12, 2017)

Athos said:


> I'm confused about what your position.  Do you think that an individual thinking or feeling themself to be a woman makes them a woman, or not?



It's not about what I think is it? I'm talking about how gender and identity are perceived by society in general.


----------



## andysays (Dec 12, 2017)

smokedout said:


> And yet if you presented in the other gender, and appeared to 'pass' then that's exactly what would happen because people don't check genitalia or chromosones before gendering someone.



Clearly many transgender people *do* present in the other gender, and *do* appear to 'pass' in many contexts, but equally some do not "pass" for whatever reason. 

But you appear to be suggesting that merely declaring oneself to be a different gender is sufficient, in your view, for one to be universally and unquestioningly accepted as the gender contrary to that assigned at birth based on biological sex and which one was subsequently socialised in.

And I note that you've omitted an important part of my previous comment, about the difference between declaring oneself no longer wishing to be viewed as something and declaring oneself now wanting to be viewed as something contrary to what one was previously.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 12, 2017)

The bit I struggle with is that a large part of identity (I was going to say "as much", but it's actually unclear if we are talking >50% or <50%) is about the identity imposed upon you by others rather than the identity you adopt for yourself.  Identity is a two-way relational thing, not a personal closed space.  At the extreme where one simply declares for a different gender without any other change, our highly gender-differentiated society will still carry on treating you as if you are the original gender, which means the relational identity will not, in reality, have changed.  If you appear to be a man, the assumptions made about you and the interpretations of your behaviour will still be those made of men.  And vice versa if you appear to be a woman.  It is literally impossible for you to assume the identity of a man, for example, if third parties engaging with you do so with the relational behaviours they would normally apply to a woman.  Indeed, this is also a nutshell view of why women continue to find it so hard to obtain equality despite legal enforcement of that equality.


----------



## Athos (Dec 12, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's not about what I think is it? I'm talking about how gender and identity are perceived by society in general.



What do you think, though, about the question I asked you?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 12, 2017)

andysays said:


> Clearly many transgender people *do* present in the other gender, and *do* appear to 'pass' in many contexts, but equally some do not "pass" for whatever reason.
> 
> But you appear to be suggesting that merely declaring oneself to be a different gender is sufficient, in your view, for one to be universally and unquestioningly accepted as the gender contrary to that assigned at birth based on biological sex and which one was subsequently socialised in.



If that declaration is sincerely held, and if the person making it feels the need to live in a gender that is different to the one assigned at birth to be a whole, happy and functional person, then I don't see any reason why the legal system cannot accommodate it - particularly as if they present in the other gender, whether they pass or not, most people will socially accommodate it.  This is a social transition that has already largely taken place.



> And I note that you've omitted an important part of my previous comment, about the difference between declaring oneself no longer wishing to be viewed as something and declaring oneself now wanting to be viewed as something contrary to what one was previously.



Some people identify as a-gender, or non-binary, and some people identify as transgender, the recent committee report supported both groups being protected from discrimination - at present only transpeople are.  I'm not really sure what you mean by what is the difference between the two other than the obvious.


----------



## Athos (Dec 12, 2017)

smokedout said:


> If that declaration is sincerely held...



What mechanism do you propose for establishing good faith?


----------



## weepiper (Dec 12, 2017)

So trans rights doesn't mean pushing women out of women's spaces, huh?

She was asked to leave because Lily Madigan was also there and apparently 'felt unsafe'


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 12, 2017)

Who is she? What is the history between them?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 12, 2017)

weepiper said:


> So trans rights doesn't mean pushing women out of women's spaces, huh?
> 
> She was asked to leave because Lily Madigan was also there and apparently 'felt unsafe'




This Dr Radfem?  Good.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 12, 2017)

Wow. Nice.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 12, 2017)

In case anyone how any doubt who is behind the campaign against amending the GRA by the way, Dr RadFem appears to have been one of the main organisers of the New Cross meeting that led to the Hyde Park incident and is also behind the current speaking tour which Helen Steel recently addressed.  But they just want a reasonable debate of course.


----------



## Athos (Dec 12, 2017)

smokedout said:


> In case anyone how any doubt who is behind the campaign against amending the GRA by the way, Dr RadFem appears to have been one of the main organisers of the New Cross meeting that led to the Hyde Park incident and is also behind the current speaking tour which Helen Steel recently addressed.  But they just want a reasonable debate of course.




What do you beleive is the proper response to women like her?

For the record, I disagree with much of what he says, and think her style is deliberately offensive and provocative.


----------



## weepiper (Dec 12, 2017)

So, women who express views you disagree with or find troublesome should just shut up, and if they don't shut up voluntarily then ejecting them from a space where they have a paid-up right to be is a suitable response? Ok, just so we know where we're at now then.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 12, 2017)

Athos said:


> What do you beleive is the proper response to women like her?
> 
> For the record, I disagree with much of what he says, and think her style is deliberately offensive and provocative.



I think people shouldn't turn up to their meetings or support their organisations if they sincerely want a reasonable debate about gender between trans questioining or sceptical feminists and transpeople.  I think people should recognise that she is a loon, who believes 'evil' big pharma are secretly controlling trans-activism, and as such the propanganda put out by her organisation should not be trusted (or handed out at anarchist bookfairs).  I also think people should recognise that her ultimate stated aim, and so presumably the aim of her organisation despite denials, is the removal of any legislation to protect transpeople at all including the 2004 gender recognition act.  And that her colleague and hero, who she recently gave a platform to, Shiela jeffries, wants to ban trans healthcare.

If people want to support such an organisation fair enough, although they can hardly expect transpeople not to be pissed off about it and probably protest their meetings.  But lets have cards on the table eh.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 12, 2017)

weepiper said:


> So, women who express views you disagree with or find troublesome should just shut up, and if they don't shut up voluntarily then ejecting them from a space where they have a paid-up right to be is a suitable response? Ok, just so we know where we're at now then.



Are any views acceptable at a Labour Party Christmas Party?  I'd have hoped an open racist would have been dealt with the same way.  Not that I really give a shit what goes on in the labour party.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 12, 2017)

smokedout said:


> I think people shouldn't turn up to their meetings or support their organisations if they sincerely want a reasonable debate about gender between trans questioining or sceptical feminists and transpeople.  I think people should recognise that she is a loon, who believes 'evil' big pharma are secretly controlling trans-activism, and as such the propanganda put out by her organisation should not be trusted (or handed out at anarchist bookfairs).  I also think people should recognise that her ultimate stated aim, and so presumably the aim of her organisation despite denials, is the removal of any legislation to protect transpeople at all including the 2004 gender recognition act.  And that her colleague and hero, who she recently gave a platform to, Shiela jeffries, wants to ban trans healthcare.
> 
> If people want to support such an organisation fair enough, although they can hardly expect transpeople not to be pissed off about it and probably protest their meetings.  But lets have cards on the table eh.



Given her alleged prominence, it’s bizare that you’d never mentioned her until weepiper did.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 12, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Given her alleged prominence, it’s bizare that you’d never mentioned her until weepiper did.



Her views are not unique amongst the people currently leading activity opposing the GRA reforms who I have consistently said hold opinions like this.  The only reason I highlighted her personally was to give some background to why she might have been kicked out of the Labour Christmas party.


----------



## trashpony (Dec 12, 2017)

I've been in plenty of rooms with people whose views I disagree with. Ejecting her is fucking insane unless she was haranguing Lily Madigan and I've seen zero evidence that she was (although if she was, fair enough). Being a gender critical feminist isn't the same as being a racist. Believing people can't change sex isn't the same as believing some humans are lesser being because of the colour of their skin.


----------



## Sea Star (Dec 12, 2017)

Athos said:


> I agree people should have the right to believe anything they like about themselves.  But, as with any right, the difficulty comes when it clashes with other people's rights. In this case, some women feel that have a right to exclude people born in to the male sex from their spaces. I'm guessing you'd not ordinarily debt women's right to organise on that basis. So it becomes a question of how best to accommodate competing rights.



Some people feel that people of colour are not fully human and feel they have a right to exclude such people from human spaces.

So, do you still feel that 'clashing rights' in this case is actually a thing - or is it just bigotry?

Do these very few women actually have a good reason to exclude trans women from women's spaces, because all the reasons I've seen so far have been lies. The only reason I can see for it is "feelings" which is not a reason to exclude anyone.


----------



## Sea Star (Dec 12, 2017)

trashpony said:


> I've been in plenty of rooms with people whose views I disagree with. Ejecting her is fucking insane unless she was haranguing Lily Madigan and I've seen zero evidence that she was (although if she was, fair enough). Being a gender critical feminist isn't the same as being a racist. Believing people can't change sex isn't the same as believing some humans are lesser being because of the colour of their skin.


it's exactly the same and the reasons I see used to exclude trans women are even the same reasons that in the past have been used to exclude black women from women's spaces.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 12, 2017)

That predatory men might try to claim to be black women in order to get into women’s spaces to attack women?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 12, 2017)

smokedout said:


>




Starting to look like she may have been excluded from this event not for being a woman, but for being a cunt.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 12, 2017)

smokedout said:


> This Dr Radfem?  Good.




Transgenderism is a men's sexual rights movement because look this other person said that transgenderism is a men's sexual right's movement. What do I mean by transgenderism? I mean a men's sexual rights movement. What do I mean by men's sexual rights movement? I mean that thing that transgenderism is. For more information, read all that again.

I take it Doctor Radfem's PhD was not in the field of critical thinking.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 12, 2017)

trashpony said:


> I've been in plenty of rooms with people whose views I disagree with. Ejecting her is fucking insane unless she was haranguing Lily Madigan and I've seen zero evidence that she was (although if she was, fair enough). Being a gender critical feminist isn't the same as being a racist. Believing people can't change sex isn't the same as believing some humans are lesser being because of the colour of their skin.



I think any alleged bullying or prior confrontation happened on sociala media and seems to have been deleted, although there is a suggestion that Dr Radfem was surreptitiously taking photos of Lily: 

And you're right, there are of course differences between racism and Dr RadFem's style of transphobia, but both are bigotry, both are ideologies driven by prejudice and not evidence, both seek to demean and damage already marginalised people and neither I hope should be tolerated in the labour  party.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 12, 2017)

I bet all those cunts in the Labour Party selling off housing stock, slashing funds for services etc weren’t suggested for expulsion by the safer spaces policy.


----------



## 19force8 (Dec 12, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I bet all those cunts in the Labour Party selling off housing stock, slashing funds for services etc weren’t suggested for expulsion by the safer spaces policy.


According to the FT, Venice Allan (DR RADFEM) is an international property developer. 

Was the irony deliberate?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 12, 2017)

weepiper said:


> So, women who express views you disagree with or find troublesome should just shut up, and if they don't shut up voluntarily then ejecting them from a space where they have a paid-up right to be is a suitable response? Ok, just so we know where we're at now then.



It wasn't me doing the disagreeing or the ejecting. And there seems to be more to it than 'expressing views'.

But let's assume there wasn't. Can you think of any views the expression of which might lead you to remove the expressing party from a gathering or event? If I was round your house for example and I said something utterly heinous like 'calling all trans people stupid, mad, evil cultists is not the behaviour of a reasonable person', would you kick me out?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 12, 2017)

19force8 said:


> According to the FT, Venice Allan (DR RADFEM) is an international property developer.
> 
> Was the irony deliberate?



The irony is that’s apparently fine at a Labour event, whilst her views aren’t.


----------



## bemused (Dec 12, 2017)

smokedout said:


> [..]led to the Hyde Park incident [..]



By incident, you surely mean assault and robbery?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 12, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> The irony is that’s apparently fine at a Labour event, whilst her views aren’t.



Swap it round and she'd still be kicked out. Now _that's _irony.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 12, 2017)

bemused said:


> By incident you surely mean assault?



I mean incident that is presumably currently sub judice so should be discussed with care.


----------



## bemused (Dec 12, 2017)

smokedout said:


> I mean incident that is presumably currently sub judice so should be discussed with care.



It's in the public domain, here's a Met police public domain statement about it - UPDATE: Arrest made following assault in Hyde Park.

 I don't think we need to use coded language mentioning an event where a 60-year-old woman was punched in the face by a man for the egregious crime of having her own views about what she felt it meant to be a women.


----------



## Athos (Dec 12, 2017)

Sea Star said:


> Some people feel that people of colour are not fully human and feel they have a right to exclude such people from human spaces.
> 
> So, do you still feel that 'clashing rights' in this case is actually a thing - or is it just bigotry?



I'm not sure the two situations are identical, for philosophical and practical reasons.

Philosophically, black people are undeniably human; that's a simple biological fact. That trans women are women isn't so straightforward. You believe it to be true because you feel it. I believe it to be true based largely on pragmatic, compassionate grounds.  But neither of us can offer any compelling evidence or logic that, philosophically, trans women are women.

Practically, black people's humanity was denied to justify the most appalling abuse. I'm not sure most of the women who are reluctant to redefine womanhood to encompass trans women are: a) motivated in the same way; or, b) committing abuse of trans people that is meaningfully comparable.  Isn't it actually men who are e.g. killing and raping trans women?



Sea Star said:


> Do these very few women actually have a good reason to exclude trans women from women's spaces, because all the reasons I've seen so far have been lies.



I've explained, personally, I don't consider the arguments in favour of excluding trans women persuasive.

That's a slightly different thing from bullying them to silence their views. Something that a minority of trans advocates appear to be doing increasingly.



Sea Star said:


> The only reason I can see for it is "feelings" which is not a reason to exclude anyone.



Some of those on the other side of debate would say that you should be excluded for the simple reason that you're not a woman (in their opinion). And that your claim to the contrary is just your "feelings".

It does feel like a bit of an impasse, sometimes.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 12, 2017)

bemused said:


> It's in the public domain, here's a Met police public domain statement about it - UPDATE: Arrest made following assault in Hyde Park.
> 
> I don't think we need to use coded language mentioning an event where a 60-year-old woman was punched in the face by a man for the egregious crime of having her own views about what she felt it meant to be a women.



By all means carry on, The Editor might have something to say about you placing both the site and yourself at risk of prosecution for contempt of court though.


----------



## bemused (Dec 12, 2017)

smokedout said:


> By all means carry on, The Editor might have something to say about you placing both the site and yourself at risk of prosecution for contempt of court though.



I'd imagine he knows how contempt of court works so wouldn't be bothered.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 12, 2017)

bemused said:


> It's in the public domain, here's a Met police public domain statement about it - UPDATE: Arrest made following assault in Hyde Park.
> 
> I don't think we need to use coded language mentioning an event where a 60-year-old woman was punched in the face by a man for the egregious crime of having her own views about what she felt it meant to be a women.



We know an assault took place, we don't know that the reasons for it were what you suggest.


----------



## 19force8 (Dec 12, 2017)

bemused said:


> It's in the public domain, here's a Met police public domain statement about it - UPDATE: Arrest made following assault in Hyde Park.
> 
> I don't think we need to use coded language mentioning an event where a 60-year-old woman was punched in the face by a man for the egregious crime of having her own views about what she felt it meant to be a women.


Clearly you've got something wrong as the Met police seem to have arrested a 26 year old woman.


----------



## bemused (Dec 12, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> We know an assault took place, we don't know that the reasons for it were what you suggest.



That is true, it is merely my conjecture that someone protesting this woman didn't like their views and felt the need to stick one on the nearest women they disagreed with.  I could, of course, be wrong - it wouldn't be the first time.


----------



## bemused (Dec 12, 2017)

19force8 said:


> Clearly you've got something wrong as the Met police seem to have arrested a 26 year old woman.



What part is wrong?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 12, 2017)

bemused said:


> What part is wrong?



You mentioned a male assailant. A female suspect was arrested.


----------



## bemused (Dec 12, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> You mentioned a male assailant. A female suspect was arrested.



http://news.met.police.uk/news/appeal-following-assault-in-hyde-park-270076



> A 60-year-old-woman was attacked by the *three *suspects at a gender recognition talk that was taking place at the location. The victim had been filming when one of the suspects approached her and attempted to snatch her camera and memory card. An altercation ensued resulting in the victim being punched in the face by a *male *suspect, before being knocked to the ground where she was kicked a number of times.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 12, 2017)

bemused said:


> UPDATE: Arrest made following assault in Hyde Park



OK fair enough.

It's almost as if none of us were actually there isn't it?


----------



## bemused (Dec 12, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> OK fair enough.
> 
> It's almost as if none of us were actually there isn't it?



Indeed.


----------



## spanglechick (Dec 12, 2017)

It seems pretty likely that a property developer going by "doctor radfem" with form for pretty unpleasant, not close to reasoned, social media output - *might* have been at the meeting for nefarious purposes.  

Or are we supposed to pretend that cis women/natal females are incapable of being arseholes? Because that feels a lot like patriarchal bollocks to me.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 12, 2017)

weepiper said:


> So, women who express views you disagree with or find troublesome should just shut up, and if they don't shut up voluntarily then ejecting them from a space where they have a paid-up right to be is a suitable response? Ok, just so we know where we're at now then.




Have you looked into DR Radfem a bit more since posting that tweet of hers? I hadn't heard of her before but am seriously put off by some of her other tweets as detailed here. How is that shit helping have the conversation at all? Doesn't it seem similarly polarised and unhelpful to you?

I also have a few concerns that all this anti-trans rhetoric is being called radical feminism all the way around... if that continues it will be impossible to be a rad fem without being labled a transphobe because we are letting actual transphobes hijack all there CAN be said in this discussion.


----------



## trashpony (Dec 12, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Have you looked into DR Radfem a bit more since posting that tweet of hers? I hadn't heard of her before but am seriously put off by some of her other tweets as detailed here. How is that shit helping have the conversation at all? Doesn't it seem similarly polarised and unhelpful to you?
> 
> I also have a few concerns that all this anti-trans rhetoric is being called radical feminism all the way around... if that continues it will be impossible to be a rad fem without being labled a transphobe because we are letting actual transphobes hijack all there CAN be said in this discussion.


Well on that basis, Lily Madigan should definitely have been excluded from the party for their SavillsApprentice@rape.com twitter 'joke'.

If there were particular eligibility criteria, then they should have been made clear.  It wasn't a meeting, it was a party. 

I find this silencing of women absolutely terrifying.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 12, 2017)

trashpony said:


> Well on that basis, Lily Madigan should definitely have been excluded from the party for their SavillsApprentice@rape.com twitter 'joke'.
> 
> If there were particular eligibility criteria, then they should have been made clear.  It wasn't a meeting, it was a party.
> 
> I find this silencing of women absolutely terrifying.




You know what if anyone acts like a twat at a party, as paid up member or not...they can be asked to leave.

Are you sure she wasn't doing the twat thing? I can't be sure at this point. 

I asked Weeps some honest questions about her (DrRadFems) attitudes and tweets. If you want to link to something LM has said in the past please do so, what that rape.com thing was you wrote didn't take me anywhere.

Silencing of women is of course worrying...silencing of arseholes however I do daily...I am not sure DrRadfem is any better than the worst of the trans activists she is seemingly in opposition to at this point.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 12, 2017)

trashpony said:


> I find this silencing of women absolutely terrifying.



Who exactly is being "silenced"? You can't mean the transphobes whose arguments are pushed endlessly by the bulk of the print media, from the New Statesman to the Sun, can you? That would be a very peculiar form of "silencing".

Even in that "DrRadfem" tweet about being asked to leave a Labour Women Christmas Party, she tags in the Times and directly asks them for more anti-trans coverage. As I said earlier in the thread, the TERFs are well aware that they are junior partners in alliance with the right wing press and they are keen to do their part, providing fodder for transphobic scare stories.


----------



## baldrick (Dec 12, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> You know what if anyone acts like a twat at a party, as paid up member or not...they can be asked to leave.
> 
> Are you sure she wasn't doing the twat thing? I can't be sure at this point.
> 
> ...


Labour’s transgender women’s officer insists rape joke Twitter account isn’t hers

I find Lily Madigan a particularly egregious example of the trans movement tbh. Two years ago she was a man and complaining to Cancer Research that their Race for Life was discriminatory against men and posting nasty shit on Twitter. Now she's a woman and we are supposed to accept this on face value and her past history as a man is apparently irrelevant.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 12, 2017)

baldrick said:


> Labour’s transgender women’s officer insists rape joke Twitter account isn’t hers
> 
> I find Lily Madigan a particularly egregious example of the trans movement tbh. Two years ago she was a man and complaining to Cancer Research that their Race for Life was discriminatory against men and posting nasty shit on Twitter. Now she's a woman and we are supposed to accept this on face value and her past history as a man is apparently irrelevant.



Lily Madigan is the perfect encapsulation of the TERF to conservative media story pipeline. She's a teenager elected to an officer post in a single local Labour branch and would usually be as prominent as thousands of other completely unknown local Labour branch officers. Instead she's nationally famous because TERFs fed her to the conservative media as an outrage of the week.

Under other circumstances, it would actually be quite amusing to see friendly coverage of people like Anne Ruzylo or Maria MacLachlann in the Mail and Spectator.


----------



## baldrick (Dec 12, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Lily Madigan is the perfect encapsulation of the TERF to conservative media story pipeline. She's a teenager elected to an officer post in a single local Labour branch and would usually be as prominent as thousands of other completely unknown local Labour branch officers. Instead she's nationally famous because TERFs fed her to the conservative media as an outrage of the week.


I do think it's an outrage that someone who posted rape jokes on Twitter is now a women's officer. Please tell me why I shouldn't be concerned, without calling me a terf, please.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 12, 2017)

baldrick said:


> I do think it's an outrage that someone who posted rape jokes on Twitter is now a women's officer. Please tell me why I shouldn't be concerned, without calling me a terf, please.



Are you a member of Rochester and Strood Labour Party? If not, you have no reason be "concerned" about who they elect to fill a trivially powerful internal branch post. She is of so little significance to your life that you are only even aware of her existence because TERFs fed a teenager to their conservative media friends as material for transphobic outrage fodder. Anyone, regardless of their views of trans rights, could manage to avoid being overly concerned about her merely by retaining a basic sense of proportion and an awareness of the right wing media's agenda.


----------



## trashpony (Dec 12, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> You know what if anyone acts like a twat at a party, as paid up member or not...they can be asked to leave.
> 
> Are you sure she wasn't doing the twat thing? I can't be sure at this point.
> 
> ...


I don’t know if she was being a twat or not but I’d imagine if would have been all over Twitter if she had been.


----------



## Rob Ray (Dec 13, 2017)

Edit: Nm


----------



## smokedout (Dec 13, 2017)

trashpony said:


> Well on that basis, Lily Madigan should definitely have been excluded from the party for their SavillsApprentice@rape.com twitter 'joke'.
> 
> If there were particular eligibility criteria, then they should have been made clear.  It wasn't a meeting, it was a party.
> 
> I find this silencing of women absolutely terrifying.



Looks like this is the type of thing that led to the decision



I think the jokes, whatever they were are concerning for a young politician but surely there should be some hesitation in excluding someone from a political party over comments they deny making that were made at the time they were 14 years old.  If she can be shown to have lied about that then that's another matter, although annoying as I find her it must be pretty fucking horrible and difficult for someone so young to face this kind of scrutiny about their childhood combined with outright abuse after being elected to a very minor political role.


----------



## Athos (Dec 13, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> ... it will be impossible to be a rad fem without being labled a transphobe...



Quite.


----------



## Athos (Dec 13, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Are you a member of Rochester and Strood Labour Party?



This is a fatuous point. Of course this issue is significant beyond one corner of Kent.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Dec 13, 2017)

The left will eat itself.


----------



## Athos (Dec 13, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Looks like this is the type of thing that led to the decision
> 
> 
> 
> I think the jokes, whatever they were are concerning for a young politician but surely there should be some hesitation in excluding someone from a political party over comments they deny making that were made at the time they were 14 years old.  If she can be shown to have lied about that then that's another matter, although annoying as I find her it must be pretty fucking horrible and difficult for someone so young to face this kind of scrutiny about their childhood combined with outright abuse after being elected to a very minor political role.




I'm no fan of Venice Allen; she's a bit of dick, in my opinion.

But, in the message you posted (which I understand was taken from a private group), isn't she suggesting that people *don't* use memes like the one in the picture, in respect of Madigan (preferring a strategy of complaining to the Labour Party)?  

I'm not sure there's any evidence of her having abused Madigan online or in the flesh. In which case her exclusion looks more like part of the ongoing strategy to exclude from the women's movement those women who refuse to conform.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 13, 2017)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Idpol will eat itself.



FTFY


----------



## weepiper (Dec 13, 2017)

Thread.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 13, 2017)

Another 100 pages.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 13, 2017)

Again it's 'transgender movement' as if trans folk are out on the streets recruiting or something.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 13, 2017)

Athos said:


> I'm no fan of Venice Allen; she's a bit of dick, in my opinion.
> 
> But, in the message you posted (which I understand was taken from a private group), isn't she suggesting that people *don't* use memes like the one in the picture, in respect of Madigan (preferring a strategy of complaining to the Labour Party)?



And then she keeps it classy by talking publically about the mental health and possible suicide of a young person. While deliberately misgendering them.


----------



## purenarcotic (Dec 13, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I bet all those cunts in the Labour Party selling off housing stock, slashing funds for services etc weren’t suggested for expulsion by the safer spaces policy.



Innit. Fucking irony here is if proposed housing benefit changes come into place all women’s refuges will be forced to shut down. So there won’t be any refuges left to argue about who should or shouldn’t be allowed in but hey what matters here is a fucking Christmas do.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Dec 13, 2017)

purenarcotic said:


> Innit. Fucking irony here is if proposed housing benefit changes come into place all women’s refuges will be forced to shut down. So there won’t be any refuges left to argue about who should or shouldn’t be allowed in but hey what matters here is a fucking Christmas do.



Yes.  This.


----------



## LDC (Dec 13, 2017)

purenarcotic said:


> Innit. Fucking irony here is if proposed housing benefit changes come into place all women’s refuges will be forced to shut down. So there won’t be any refuges left to argue about who should or shouldn’t be allowed in but hey what matters here is a fucking Christmas do.



Yup, and that's the real problem. Identity politics - of which much/most of the trans activism comes from, reinforces, and argues for.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 13, 2017)

So it's the nebulous concept of 'identity politics' that is shutting down women's refuges is it?


----------



## LDC (Dec 13, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> So it's the nebulous concept of 'identity politics' that is shutting down women's refuges is it?



FFS, no, and you know that's not what I meant. It's identity politics that (mostly) focuses on personal offense and safe spaces and lets structural power off the hook.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 13, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> FFS, no, and you know that's not what I meant. It's identity politics that (mostly) focuses on personal offense and safe spaces and lets structural power off the hook.



I've never bought into that dichotomy tbh. In my experience it's the same people who are organising against the abuses of structural power who are talking about and taking action on issues of identity. Some people need safe spaces and a background level of understanding in order to be able to engage productively with wider issues. And unequal treatment based on people's differing identities is a fundamental part of the way structural power works, we can't usefully oppose it without opposing the ways in which we all internalise that and reproduce it on an interpersonal level.

Understanding and respect really don't need to take up much of anyone's time. At least 50% of time spent on 'identity politics' is time spent arguing with those who don't think we should be wasting time arguing about identity and its role in oppression.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 13, 2017)

I didn’t realise you were that far down the rabbit hole. Be sure to send postcards.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 13, 2017)

weepiper said:


> Thread.




Can you expand on why you think that is some kind of slam-dunk comment that wins the thread please because from where i'm sitting it might as well read _WAKE UP SHEEPLE_!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 13, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I didn’t realise you were that far down the rabbit hole. Be sure to send postcards.



Are you at any point going to post anything besides one-line put downs?

And mixed metaphor putdowns at that. When was the last time you saw a postbox at the bottom of a rabbit hole?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 13, 2017)

weepiper said:


> Thread.




Perhaps because transwomen currently outnumber transmen by anywhere betwen five and ten to one depending on who's estimate you use, although that is starting to change.


----------



## weepiper (Dec 13, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Can you expand on why you think that is some kind of slam-dunk comment that wins the thread please because from where i'm sitting it might as well read _WAKE UP SHEEPLE_!


I don't  I was saying read the whole Twitter thread that follows that tweet.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 13, 2017)

weepiper said:


> I don't  I was saying read the whole Twitter thread that follows that tweet.



Oh ...that wasn't clear from you post at all. Fair enough.



weepiper said:


> Thread.


----------



## weepiper (Dec 13, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Oh ...that wasn't clear from you post at all. Fair enough.


It's a standard Twitter shorthand. Sorry if that wasn't clear.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 13, 2017)

e2a: Nah forget it.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 13, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Are you at any point going to post anything besides one-line put downs?



It was actually two lines.


----------



## 19force8 (Dec 13, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> It was actually two lines.


Only without my specs.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 13, 2017)

weepiper said:


> Thread.




Why, conversely, do certain people characterise the 'transgender movement' as being an attack on female identity specifically?

Are trans men attacking male idenity? Should I be concerned about this?


----------



## andysays (Dec 13, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Why, conversely, do certain people characterise the 'transgender movement' as being an attack on female identity specifically?
> 
> Are trans men attacking male idenity? Should I be concerned about this?


I don't personally feel transmen are a threat to my identity, but I'd be a little wary about suggesting, as you seem to be doing, that others, particularly women, shouldn't simply on that basis.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 13, 2017)

andysays said:


> I don't personally feel transmen are a threat to my identity, but I'd be a little wary about suggesting, as you seem to be doing, that others, particularly women, shouldn't simply on that basis.



Would genuinely like to know what the radical feminist position on this is tbh.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 13, 2017)

Talk of transgender people, whether trans men or trans women, having 'privilege' just seems laughable to me. 

Also I may have this wrong, but the woman who spouted hateful bile on the internet and was excluded from the Labour do as a result was excluded at the request and agreement of the women there, only one of whom was trans, no? Bit insulting to those women to imply that they are being dictated to by the one trans woman in their midst.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 13, 2017)

Handmaidens of the partiarchy who can't think for themselves.  Or as Rutita1 said, sheeple, who can't see the big pharma trans-conspiracy to destroy all women.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 13, 2017)

What a depressing thread.  Not, I might (hastily) add, depressing in terms of the contributions made - I've learnt a lot from dipping into it. But depressing in the politics/reality outside of urban that is being discussed.  I'm not doing a 'this is the logical ends of identity politics' type point. The politics of identity is massively important (as opposed to '_Identity Politics'_), just as so many points made by both trans and feminist activists are. It's just really depressing as a way of carrying on, as a way of doing life.  It doesn't look outwards, it doesn't engage or even, ahem, 'intersect' with class struggles and inequalities.  It doesn't form a basis for challenging anything. Politics as offence and little more.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 13, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Why, conversely, do certain people characterise the 'transgender movement' as being an attack on female identity specifically?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 13, 2017)

Yes but what do you think Magnus?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 13, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Yes but what do you think Magnus?



You missed all my other posts on the topic? I think we’re going round in circles.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 13, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> View attachment 122943



I find it hard to believe the character of any other political struggle would be summed up by a post on facebook from a random child.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 13, 2017)

smokedout said:


> I find it hard to believe the character of any other political struggle would be summed up by a post on facebook from a random child.



Here’s a more high brow source citing similar.

Don't call pregnant women 'expectant mothers' as it might offend transgender people, BMA says


----------



## smokedout (Dec 13, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Here’s a more high brow source citing similar.
> 
> Don't call pregnant women 'expectant mothers' as it might offend transgender people, BMA says



We've been through this on here, it was internal guidance for BMA staff only on suggested forms of sensitive language.  And nothing to do with transwomen, and neither is the quote from the 16 year old you posted - this is about the apparantly invisible transmen.

Are transmen attacking female identity specifically?


----------



## LDC (Dec 13, 2017)

"The document, which was published last year, also underlines guidance on language that has long been considered offensive, suggesting staff do not refer to people as being "spastic" or "mongol" but that they should be called a "person with cerebral palsy" or "person with Down's syndrome."

Bit concerning (to say the least) that the professional body for doctors had to issue that advice _last year_. 

The article has an A-Z list of outraged arsehole quotes.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 13, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Here’s a more high brow source citing similar.
> 
> Don't call pregnant women 'expectant mothers' as it might offend transgender people, BMA says



Yep, no, done that one already on another thread.

What do _you_ think?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 13, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Yep, no, done that one already on another thread.
> 
> What do _you_ think?



About what? I almost forget which thread I’m on nowadays as the same subject is being discussed across many; I’ve given my thoughts on all of them.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 13, 2017)

This is the same BMA who don't like doctors working at weekends. Integrity = 0


----------



## spanglechick (Dec 13, 2017)

weepiper said:


> Thread.



I don't think trans men or trans women have gender privilege.  But certainly there are trans men who have described being taken more seriously at work etc, which would suggest some male privilege being accessed.  

Perhaps trans men aren't as active/vocal in transgender politics because they experience more acceptance than trans women.


----------



## spanglechick (Dec 13, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> View attachment 122943


Interestingly, that's about asserting trans men's identity (as many still menstruate, and so feel excluded by statements like "only women have periods".

Are you saying that trans men are exhibiting male privilege, contrary to weepiper 's post?


----------



## weepiper (Dec 13, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> I don't think trans men or trans women have gender privilege.  But certainly there are trans men who have described being taken more seriously at work etc, which would suggest some male privilege being accessed.
> 
> Perhaps trans men aren't as active/vocal in transgender politics because they experience more acceptance than trans women.


Perhaps that's because 'being male', that is a woman performing male gender role behaviour, is more acceptable than 'being female'. Being a woman is default bad or lesser. Being a man is desirable and to be admired (if you are prepared to buy into the stereotypical gender roles, that is if you conform satisfactorily to expectations). These are messages we're all given constantly from birth. I don't know, I just found it an interesting set of things to think about re trans men and trans women and how they are presented in the media.


----------



## bimble (Dec 13, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Perhaps because *transwomen currently outnumber transmen by anywhere betwen five and ten to one depending on who's estimate you use,* although that is starting to change.


Have you got any ideas as to why this might be (this disparity?) Just something I'm curious about.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 13, 2017)

bimble said:


> Have you got any ideas as to why this might be (this disparity?) Just something I'm curious about.



No-one really knows, possibly a biological driver that's more common in people born biologically male, possibly because under partiarchy it has been more acceptable for someone born biologically male to move into the role of a woman than it is for a biological woman to become a man, possibly because their was more scope for FtMs to live in stealth in the butch lesbian community, or any other number of reasons.

Amongst young people referred to gender identity clinics I think for the first time recently transmen are starting to outnumber transwomen, so it looks like it was probably some kind of social phenomena.


----------



## andysays (Dec 13, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Would genuinely like to know what the radical feminist position on this is tbh.



I'm obviously not qualified to comment directly, but I'd be wary of assuming that there is, necessarily, one single and definitive radical feminist position on this (these) issue(s).

Do you have to know what the radical feminist position on this is before you can reach your own position?

To expand on my previous post now that I'm on a computer rather than a phone, it seems that one aspect of why some women might characterise the 'transgender movement' as being an attack on female identity specifically is that part of that movement is composed of people who were born and still are biologically male and were socialised as men (with all the implications behind that), insisting that they be viewed and treated as women in absolutely every respect, including being admitted to often hard-fought for women/female only spaces where they feel safe.

As a man, I don't feel the need for such spaces, so the idea of people who were born and may still be biologically female and were socialised as women being admitted to men/male only spaces (whatever they are, exactly) is frankly not one that bothers me in the slightest.


----------



## spanglechick (Dec 13, 2017)

bimble said:


> Have you got any ideas as to why this might be (this disparity?) Just something I'm curious about.


I'd imagine would-be trans men have been able to quiet their gender dysphoria by assuming many of what they consider male behaviours without having to notify the wider world.  It's much harder for trans women to do this, for the reasons weeps gives above.


----------



## spanglechick (Dec 13, 2017)

"Radical" is in the eye of the beholder.  

For me radfems might -at the more moderate end- believe in the aim to entirely dismantle gender as a construct, right the way to those who dream of a female-only utopia.   Radfems, ime, do tend to be trans exclusionary.  


Few of the trans exclusionary people I have seen would count as radfems, though some do.  Some are feminists, some are not.  Many are men - who seem more upset by trans women than trans men.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 13, 2017)

andysays said:


> I'm obviously not qualified to comment directly, but I'd be wary of assuming that there is, necessarily, one single and definitive radical feminist position on this (these) issue(s).
> 
> Do you have to know what the radical feminist position on this is before you can reach your own position?
> 
> ...



I still don't think we've established that there is a 'transgender movement' at all. There are transgender people, some of whom campaign visibly for transgender rights, and others who support those people and their aims. But the implication, and I think it's a very deliberate implication used by for specfic purposes, that all trans people and allies of same are part of a single unified organisation with unified goals and strategies and a high command presumably led by Caitlin Jenner in a hollowed out volcano somewhere is pretty clearly nonsense. 

Going back to the kerfuffle that inspired this thread, that clearly wasn't the work of any unified transgender movement because so many trans people and supporters of trans rights have publically condemned the violence that took place there. When it comes to responding to anti-trans hate speech there are lots of different ideas on what to do, from physical confrontation to communicating with the venues hosting TERFy events to creative protests to doing nothing at all and just waiting for the spittle-flecked contingent to get bored or run out of bile. There will be trans people who want nothing to do with any of it, preferring instead to just try and get on with their lives in peace and hope nobody turns up with pitchforks and torches. Being trans isn't a movement you join for the craic, it's just a thing some people are.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 13, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> Few of the trans exclusionary people I have seen would count as radfems, though some do.  Some are feminists, some are not.  *Many are men - who seem more upset by trans women than trans men.*



In my experience, this is definitely the case. I wonder if transwomen are seen as more of a threat to (ones) masculinity than transmen are. I have tried to reflect on _why_ and I feel I have some ideas, but I'm not comfortable posting those just now. I'll leave it to others better suited to the conflict that's bound to ensue.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 13, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> Interestingly, that's about asserting trans men's identity (as many still menstruate, and so feel excluded by statements like "only women have periods".
> 
> Are you saying that trans men are exhibiting male privilege, contrary to weepiper 's post?



Nope. I gave a link and didn’t say anything.


----------



## spanglechick (Dec 13, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Nope. I gave a link and didn’t say anything.


I know, hence my follow up question.  That's how discussion works.


----------



## bimble (Dec 13, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> I'd imagine would-be trans men have been able to quiet their gender dysphoria by assuming many of what they consider male behaviours without having to notify the wider world.  It's much harder for trans women to do this, for the reasons weeps gives above.


When you say 'male behaviours' in there do you mean behaviours or clothes ?


----------



## andysays (Dec 13, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> I still don't think we've established that there is a 'transgender movement' at all. There are transgender people, some of whom campaign visibly for transgender rights, and others who support those people and their aims. But the implication, and I think it's a very deliberate implication used by for specfic purposes, that all trans people and allies of same are part of a single unified organisation with unified goals and strategies and a high command presumably led by Caitlin Jenner in a hollowed out volcano somewhere is pretty clearly nonsense.
> 
> Going back to the kerfuffle that inspired this thread, that clearly wasn't the work of any unified transgender movement because so many trans people and supporters of trans rights have publically condemned the violence that took place there. When it comes to responding to anti-trans hate speech there are lots of different ideas on what to do, from physical confrontation to communicating with the venues hosting TERFy events to creative protests to doing nothing at all and just waiting for the spittle-flecked contingent to get bored or run out of bile. There will be trans people who want nothing to do with any of it, preferring instead to just try and get on with their lives in peace and hope nobody turns up with pitchforks and torches. Being trans isn't a movement you join for the craic, it's just a thing some people are.



I agree that it's unlikely there's one single unitary transgender movement, anymore than there's one single unitary TERF movement.

But there are certainly some people on both "sides" who claim to represent and speak for everyone on their "side", including attempting to define the expression of views contrary to theirs as "hate speech", and so it's perhaps understandable that some people on (both) the opposing "side(s)" speak/behave sometimes as if that's the case.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 13, 2017)

“deny your right to exist.”

What do you mean by this SpookyFrank ? Who is denying the right of transwomen to exist? How are they doing it?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 13, 2017)

smokedout said:


>




Feminist campaigner Venice Allan kicked out of Labour Christmas party
Feminist kicked out of Labour Christmas party | Daily Mail Online

A quick demonstration of how the TERF - conservative media alliance operates. TERFs are fully aware that their minority splinter from the feminist movement does not have the social weight or influence to combat the, ahem, trans menace. So they work to assist the forces that do, i.e. social conservatives.

"@TimeLucy surely there is a story here"


----------



## smokedout (Dec 13, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> “deny your right to exist.”
> 
> What do you mean by this SpookyFrank ? Who is denying the right of transwomen to exist? How are they doing it?



Here's an example from terf icon Janice Raymond



> What I actually wrote in my book is the following: “the issue of transsexualism has profound political and moral ramifications; transsexualism itself is a deeply moral question rather than a medical-technical answer. I contend that _the problem of transsexualism would best be served by morally mandating it out of existence_.” What this means is that I want to *eliminate the medical and social systems that support transsexualism* and the reasons why in a gender-defined society, persons find it necessary to change their bodies.



Sheila Jeffries wants to ban trans healthcare.  Venice Allan wants to repeal the 2004 Gender recognition act.  The aim is to remove the legal and medical structures which allow transpeople to live in their aquired gender.


----------



## spanglechick (Dec 13, 2017)

bimble said:


> When you say 'male behaviours' in there do you mean behaviours or clothes ?


Any, both, other...  

I'm not trans and I have never felt the need to conform to gender roles in order to feel female, so I wouldn't want to speak on behalf of non-cis people.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 13, 2017)

baldrick said:


> I do think it's an outrage that someone who posted rape jokes on Twitter is now a women's officer. Please tell me why I shouldn't be concerned, without calling me a terf, please.



Just came across an archive of the offfending twitter account, which only has a handful of tweets and one follower.  Lily claimed the account was set up by her brother to tease her, given the nature of the page that seems pretty plausible to me.  I think these allegations should be viewed with caution.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 13, 2017)

There’s a funny section on this site where people used to write abusive stuff and then blame their kid brother. The grovel gallery? 
It’s not beyond the bounds of possibility but it’s a well trodden excuse.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 13, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> There’s a funny section on this site where people used to write abusive stuff and then blame their kid brother. The grovel gallery?
> It’s not beyond the bounds of possibility but it’s a well trodden excuse.



True but the abuse on that account seems to be aimed at Lily, such as the suggestion she was Saville's apprentice and the embarrassing childhood pics.  Also I'm fairly sure the only follower of that account is her brother.  This looks like the kind of dicking about or conflict that teenage siblings might get up to.

What is concerning is the number of middle aged adults using those personal photos of a child to bully and sexualise Lily.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 13, 2017)

Yeah fair point. The bullying from both sides is ugly but yeah child photos is beyond the pale.


----------



## lazythursday (Dec 13, 2017)

Even if Lily did make these tweets, surely it makes absolute sense that a born male teenager struggling with gender issues might well push in the other direction, try to act really macho in an effort to deny those feelings and conform? I know that when I was struggling with my sexuality I made a right dick of myself trying to pass as straight, including being homophobic. These coming out processes are fucking traumatic and nobody should be held to account for their missteps.


----------



## Coconutjob (Dec 13, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Why should others have the right to define who you are while you have no say in the matter?
> 
> I don't think 'reality' enters into it when we're talking about gender roles and idenities. Reality in these terms is nothing more or less than what we decide it is; just because one definition of something is the most commonly understood doesn't necessarily mean it represents objective fact. How many times has something that was once universally accepted ended up being totally discredited, forgotten or ridiculed? God was once reality, the flat earth was once reality, beige kitchen appliances with little ears of wheat on them were once reality; all those things are now dead or dying.


Im not sure where you're going with that reply, SpookyFrank. People used to think some stuff (e.g. flat earth) was real ... then people found out said stuff (e.g. flat earth) wasn't real?
Others have the right to define your reality because the world isn't "your" reality. It's everyone's reality.  It's our reality too


----------



## baldrick (Dec 14, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Looks like this is the type of thing that led to the decision
> 
> 
> 
> I think the jokes, whatever





smokedout said:


> Just came across an archive of the offfending twitter account, which only has a handful of tweets and one follower.  Lily claimed the account was set up by her brother to tease her, given the nature of the page that seems pretty plausible to me.  I think these allegations should be viewed with caution.


Fair. But it needs to be investigated, properly.

A denial isn't really good enough for me tbh. It's plausible that it was her brother, it's also plausible that it was her. I'd like a definite answer, I suspect I'm not the only one.


----------



## 19force8 (Dec 14, 2017)

baldrick said:


> Fair. But it needs to be investigated, properly.


Yep, what this piece of juvenile twattery really needs is a full on internet investigation. 



baldrick said:


> A denial isn't really good enough for me tbh. It's plausible that it was her brother, it's also plausible that it was her. I'd like a definite answer, I suspect I'm not the only one.



Sadly, you probably aren't.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 14, 2017)

Telling women how to think and feel again...


----------



## bimble (Dec 14, 2017)

I couldn’t give a monkeys about Lily’s tweets or Dr rads tbh. As spanglechick said arseholes exist on both ‘sides’.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 14, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Feminist campaigner Venice Allan kicked out of Labour Christmas party
> Feminist kicked out of Labour Christmas party | Daily Mail Online
> 
> A quick demonstration of how the TERF - conservative media alliance operates. TERFs are fully aware that their minority splinter from the feminist movement does not have the social weight or influence to combat the, ahem, trans menace. So they work to assist the forces that do, i.e. social conservatives.
> ...



I'm sure Venice has a legitimate reason for deliberately taking that selfie other than being a fucking twat and wanting to irritate/intimidate.


----------



## 19force8 (Dec 14, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Telling women how to think and feel again...


Very sharp with the ID pol answers today. Twat.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 14, 2017)

baldrick said:


> Fair. But it needs to be investigated, properly.
> 
> A denial isn't really good enough for me tbh. It's plausible that it was her brother, it's also plausible that it was her. I'd like a definite answer, I suspect I'm not the only one.


An internet thing that nobody had ever seen other than her and her brother until somebody dug it up, done, even if it was her, _when she was 14_. I'd want the fucker who went digging for it and then publicised it to be investigated, personally.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 14, 2017)

Typing someone’s name into twitter and seeing what comes up is hardly investigative journalism bordering on stalking. It takes seconds.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 14, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Typing someone’s name into twitter and seeing what comes up is hardly investigative journalism bordering on stalking. It takes seconds.


And then what would be the appropriate response? Contact the person in question and let them know that this is still there (they may well have forgotten about it, after all)? Maybe try to have a word with them about it and what it contains? Or take it to the wider world and use it to try to discredit them? The latter is a cunt's trick, imo.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 14, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And then what would be the appropriate response? Contact the person in question and let them know that this is still there (they may well have forgotten about it, after all)? Maybe try to have a word with them about it and what it contains? Or take it to the wider world and use it to try to discredit them? The latter is a cunt's trick, imo.



I agree it’s unseemly. Just ‘dig up’ makes it sound like they went to great lengths.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 14, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And then what would be the appropriate response? Contact the person in question and let them know that this is still there (they may well have forgotten about it, after all)? Maybe try to have a word with them about it and what it contains? Or take it to the wider world and use it to try to discredit them? The latter is a cunt's trick, imo.


What, like Hillsborough and that UKIP wanker?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 14, 2017)

Coconutjob said:


> Im not sure where you're going with that reply, SpookyFrank. People used to think some stuff (e.g. flat earth) was real ... then people found out said stuff (e.g. flat earth) wasn't real?
> Others have the right to define your reality because the world isn't "your" reality. It's everyone's reality.  It's our reality too



Probably why I said 'reality is what we decide it is' and not 'reality is what I decide it is'.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 14, 2017)

baldrick said:


> A denial isn't really good enough for me tbh. It's plausible that it was her brother, it's also plausible that it was her. I'd like a definite answer, I suspect I'm not the only one.



Just because you read about something on the internet and it made you mad, that doesn't necessarily mean you're entitled to know everything about it. Particularly when 'everything' is likely to involve personal information about children.


----------



## baldrick (Dec 14, 2017)

19force8 said:


> Yep, what this piece of juvenile twattery really needs is a full on internet investigation.
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, you probably aren't.


I'm not talking about an internet investigation. Presumably she has evidence it was her brother and not her. It should be pretty easy to show this to someone in the Labour Party and for them to corroborate it. Job done. Or are we not holding her to the same standard we might other people?


----------



## baldrick (Dec 14, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Just because you read about something on the internet and it made you mad, that doesn't necessarily mean you're entitled to know everything about it. Particularly when 'everything' is likely to involve personal information about children.


Where did I say I wanted to know everything about it?


----------



## baldrick (Dec 14, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> An internet thing that nobody had ever seen other than her and her brother until somebody dug it up, done, even if it was her, _when she was 14_. I'd want the fucker who went digging for it and then publicised it to be investigated, personally.


Why?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 14, 2017)

baldrick said:


> Where did I say I wanted to know everything about it?



In the post I quoted.


----------



## baldrick (Dec 14, 2017)

baldrick said:


> Fair. But it needs to be investigated, properly.
> 
> A denial isn't really good enough for me tbh. It's plausible that it was her brother, it's also plausible that it was her. I'd like a definite answer, I suspect I'm not the only one.





baldrick said:


> Where did I say I wanted to know everything about it?





SpookyFrank said:


> In the post I quoted.



I cannot believe I am reduced to quoting myself. 

Where do I say I'm entitled to know everything about it?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 14, 2017)

baldrick said:


> I'm not talking about an internet investigation. Presumably she has evidence it was her brother and not her. It should be pretty easy to show this to someone in the Labour Party and for them to corroborate it. Job done. Or are we not holding her to the same standard we might other people?



How easy do you think it would be to prove her brother did it?

Can you prove things that happened when you were 14 years old?

If her brother piped up and said yeah it was me, would you/others actually believe him?

Should we be investigating the teenage interests/humour and behaviour of other Labour party representatives or just this one?

Who else is being scrutinised in this way about something they may or may not have done at aged 14? Or are we not holding other people to the same standard that we are demanding from her?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 14, 2017)

baldrick said:


> I cannot believe I am reduced to quoting myself.
> 
> Where do I say I'm entitled to know everything about it?





> But it needs to be investigated, properly.





> I'd like a definite answer,



Right there tbf.


----------



## baldrick (Dec 14, 2017)

If she doesn't have evidence how does she know it was her brother?

I don't know if I'd believe her brother coming forward or not. As far as I'm aware he hasn't, so that's a moot point really.

No, because I'm now 36 and thus 14 was a really long time ago. If you asked me this when I was 19, then maybe.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 14, 2017)

Is there a little tag team here or something?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 14, 2017)

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-12-california-adolescents-gender-nonconforming.html

As I said in my first post in this thread: "anyone who claims to be for gender abolition who responds to an explosion of younger people refusing to accept their assigned gender and announcing instead that they are trans men or trans women or non binary or one of three dozen newly invented genders by denouncing those people as a terrifying threat is stupid, dishonest or self-deceiving about their own political goals"

The TERFs are the feminist equivalent of the kind of Maoist sect who responded to the first stirrings of May 68 by denouncing the students as a danger to the worker's movement. If they were actually serious about destroying gender as an imposed system of oppression, instead of being primarily devoted to preserving some dying political subcultures in aspic, they'd be jumping up and down with excitement, not snarling at teenagers to get back in their fucking boxes.


----------



## Jezebelle (Dec 14, 2017)

baldrick said:


> If she doesn't have evidence how does she know it was her brother?
> 
> I don't know if I'd believe her brother coming forward or not. As far as I'm aware he hasn't, so that's a moot point really.
> 
> No, because I'm now 36 and thus 14 was a really long time ago. If you asked me this when I was 19, then maybe.



Brother Connor Madigan tweeted, ‘Imagine publishing lies about your own brother to maintain a public image’. Think it’s since been deleted but probably screen shot of it somewhere.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 14, 2017)

Jezebelle said:


> Brother Connor Madigan tweeted, ‘Imagine publishing lies about your own brother to maintain a public image’. Think it’s since been deleted but probably screen shot of it somewhere.



Welcome back from 2015. Pity you didn't find this evidence whilst making the claim. You are leaving us all with a dilemma now... Well done!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 14, 2017)

Jezebelle said:


> Brother Connor Madigan tweeted, ‘Imagine publishing lies about your own brother to maintain a public image’. Think it’s since been deleted but probably screen shot of it somewhere.


Had a look at his twitter feed. Mostly football. But it includes this



> Furthermore, imagine creeping on people’s family social media accounts looking for bites. It’s so creepy, maybe I can recommend sports instead. Enjoy the plastic bait



He's right. It is creepy.

That one is up there.


----------



## Jezebelle (Dec 14, 2017)

Who’s the one being creepy? Someone posted the one tweet I mentioned somewhere recently. I didn’t go searching for the brother’s twitter account like you.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 14, 2017)

Jezebelle said:


> Who’s the one being creepy? Someone posted the one tweet I mentioned somewhere recently. I didn’t go searching for the brother’s twitter account like you.



Presumably it was a reference to Lily being harangued over a picture taken of her when she was a child and a juvenile joke that someone, we don't know who, made.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 14, 2017)

Jezebelle said:


> Who’s the one being creepy? Someone posted the one tweet I mentioned somewhere recently. I didn’t go searching for the brother’s twitter account like you.


I copied and pasted his name and the quote you gave on here into google. You gave his name, remember. And you gave the quote. No trace of the quote, but top hit was his twitter account. 

Without anything to support it, why should we believe a word you're saying here? All we can know about him is that he really likes football and that he was pissed off at some point by someone interfering with his football feed with other bollocks that almost certainty was related to his sister. Without more, I call bullshit. Having seen his feed, what you say doesn't fit.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Dec 14, 2017)

Here's the original screen shot. Quick Google.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 14, 2017)

I really know very very little about twitter, but from what I've seen of feeds, they exist in context. There isn't a context here. Maybe the context would just confirm that it is as it appears, I don't know.

I'm out of this particular bit of the discussion. Someone saw fit to screenshot that in case he deleted it. That in and of itself is disturbing to me. I'm going to let these kids be.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 15, 2017)

This is all getting a bit creepy now tbf.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 15, 2017)

It's horrible, as is the abuse Lily has been subjected to.  

Despite my position I'm sceptical of identity politics and hadn't followed this closely.  I assumed the general noise which said Lily was some hardcore intersectionalist handed a job by the Labour Party out of some kind of political correctness gone mad who'd bullied a woman out of her position and made rape jokes on twitter.  And as with every other trans scare story that has been posted here and elsewhere, the truth turns out to be far more nuanced.  Search Lily's name on twitter and you will see the abuse she is receiving is relentless, and that she has begged people to stop only to have it thrown in her face.  She's 19 for fucks sake, and the things she's being attacked for happened when she was a child.  And she was elected, quite legally and within party rules to a fairly minor position.  At least attack the system that got her there if you don't like it, or attack Lily for her politics, but not just because she's trans or might have tweeted something stupid when she was a kid.  I can see why Venice Allan warned off her troops because she thought she might be a suicide risk.  And yet even then she couldnt resist referring to her as a dickhead.  

But it sadly seems to some people that anything is now legitimate when it comes to attacking transpeople, and to even criticise that is silencing the concerns of real women.


----------



## weepiper (Dec 15, 2017)

smokedout said:


> It's horrible, as is the abuse Lily has been subjected to.
> 
> Despite my position I'm sceptical of identity politics and hadn't followed this closely.  I assumed the general noise which said Lily was some hardcore intersectionalist handed a job by the Labour Party out of some kind of political correctness gone mad who'd bullied a woman out of her position and made rape jokes on twitter.  And as with every other trans scare story that has been posted here and elsewhere, the truth turns out to be far more nuanced.  Search Lily's name on twitter and you will see the abuse she is receiving is relentless, and that she has begged people to stop only to have it thrown in her face.  She's 19 for fucks sake, and the things she's being attacked for happened when she was a child.  And she was elected, quite legally and within party rules to a fairly minor position.  At least attack the system that got her there if you don't like it, or attack Lily for her politics, but not just because she's trans or might have tweeted something stupid when she was a kid.  I can see why Venice Allan warned off her troops because she thought she might be a suicide risk.  And yet even then she couldnt resist referring to her as a dickhead.
> 
> But it sadly seems to some people that anything is now legitimate when it comes to attacking transpeople, and to even criticise that is silencing the concerns of real women.



That's funny. You seem to have changed your views rather.



smokedout said:


> oh but we musn't criticise her for her politics, she's only half-formed, naive, but a child, fuck off, what patronising shit - she should be judged by her words and her actions like every other fucking labour party careerist


How is Lily Madigan different?


----------



## trashpony (Dec 15, 2017)

I look forward to seeing Madigan run in the Gillingham Race for Life next May given the grief he* gave them a couple of years ago

*Was a he at the time he tweeted his complaint


----------



## smokedout (Dec 15, 2017)

weepiper said:


> That's funny. You seem to have changed your views rather.
> 
> 
> How is Lily Madigan different?



Jack was 25, wasn't being attacked for her identity and wasn't being attacked for something she may have done as a child.  In fact she wasn't being attacked at all in the way Lily has.

Nice try though, I can see what you are trying to do.


----------



## weepiper (Dec 15, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Jack was 25, wasn't being attacked for her identity and wasn't being attacked for something she may have done as a child.  In fact she wasn't being attacked at all in the way Lily has.
> 
> Nice try though, I can see what you are trying to do.


24, and she was getting all sorts of shit. So was Laurie Penny, at the same kind of age, and I don't recall you defending her on those grounds, in fact you went to some fairly obsessive lengths to say they were both liars.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Dec 15, 2017)

weepiper said:


> How is Lily Madigan different?



I came to this forum when I was a 19 year old girl. The amount of shit I got (sometimes quite rightly) for my politics was unreal. And I was just spouting mainstream stuff.  When I complained here about bullying I was laughed at by the bigwigs (not the mod team, just the big boreish posters) on here and told to shut up. "That's just the way urban is". Very much like smokedouts original standpoint. I was 19 remember? But "So what? Why should ill informed shitty views get a pass"?

You all were right tho. I didn't deserve special passes.

Someone here (can't remember who) has a list of stupid shit people has said. I still get called up for saying how I was going to vote on here from like 8 or 9 years ago! If that's not creepy then why is gooling screenshots of a political figure holding a Labour party office from less than a month back?

Fucking hypocritical. If you ask me.


----------



## 19force8 (Dec 15, 2017)

trashpony said:


> I look forward to seeing Madigan run in the Gillingham Race for Life next May given the grief he* gave them a couple of years ago
> 
> *Was a he at the time he tweeted his complaint


Honestly, I think she must have nerves of steel just to leave the house in the morning. No doubt you can send her an application form nearer the time.


----------



## 19force8 (Dec 15, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I came to this forum when I was a 19 year old girl. The amount of shit I got (sometimes quite rightly) for my politics was unreal. And I was just spouting mainstream stuff.  When I complained here about bullying I was laughed at by the bigwigs (not the mod team, just the big boreish posters) on here and told to shut up. "That's just the way urban is". Very much like smokedouts original standpoint. I was 19 remember? But "So what? Why should ill informed shitty views get a pass"?
> 
> You all were right tho. I didn't deserve special passes.
> 
> ...


Fair enough, they're not a very nice lot on here. Although actually a sight better than some of the filth I've seen on Twitter and Facebook, not to mention serious flame wars on other forums.

There is though a bit of a difference between what you did/said as a full grown adult, if a bit naive, on a public forum and what a 14 year old might or might not have said on a short-lived Twitter account dubiously linked to her.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Dec 15, 2017)

I highly doubt that. People drag stuff up from your past for any opportunity.

For example, I do not believe for one second had I been tweeting Race for Life life at age 17 Gamergate/MRA tropes that they are sexist for not letting men in the race, AND THEN likening it to the civil rights struggles of Rosa Parks (which is very searchable on Lily's twitter) that I would get a pass two years later.

Not here or anywhere. Nor would I be voted in as any kind of women's officer.

Neither would I get a pass for e-begging for my rent whilst holding office in any party, especially after a jump in followers due to having been on national television.

Lily is a teflon coated piss taker.


----------



## 19force8 (Dec 15, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Lily is a teflon coated piss taker.


Time will tell I suppose.


----------



## trashpony (Dec 15, 2017)

19force8 said:


> Honestly, I think she must have nerves of steel just to leave the house in the morning. No doubt you can send her an application form nearer the time.


I will be sure to remind her


----------



## smokedout (Dec 15, 2017)

weepiper said:


> 24, and she was getting all sorts of shit. So was Laurie Penny, at the same kind of age, and I don't recall you defending her on those grounds, in fact you went to some fairly obsessive lengths to say they were both liars.



I'd never in a million years of attacked Jack or Laurie for something they might have said or done when they were 14 and I think you know that.  I'd also never attack Laurie for being a woman, or queer, or Jack for being trans - which rather undermines the insinuation you seem to be trying to make.

I attacked Laurie and Jack for things they said, at length, often in the national press, and their role in undermining the anti-austerity movement.  I don't really know what Lily thinks beyond wanting her gender identity to be respected.  I think the Labour Party is still a dead end despite Corbyn and I'm suspicious of anyine who wants to be aan MP, I'm happy to attack her for that, with some reservations because I don't think the young Corbynites should be so easily dismissed, Labour is a very different party to the one it was in 2012.  I also think the Race For Life thing is daft, but it's hardly career ending stuff and I'd still be inclined to say 18, as in legal adulthood, should be the point at which public figures become fair game.

I've got a kid the age Lily was when she might have made that tweet.  I find it horrifying to think that something stupid he said to his friends now might be dredged up and used to try and destroy any career he might be building in five years time.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 15, 2017)

If feminist Linda Bellos is seen as a risk, progressive politics has lost its way | Claire Heuchan



> Linda Bellos became the most recent feminist whose invitation to speak was withdrawn for raising questions about the direction in which modern-day gender politics is heading. Bellos, who is responsible for establishing Black History Month in Britain, was uninvited by the Beard Society, a “gender and feminist group” within Cambridge University.
> 
> During her address to Peterhouse College, Bellos told organisers she planned to publicly question “some of the trans politics … which seems to assert the power of those who were previously designated male to tell lesbians, and especially lesbian feminists, what to say and what to think”






> Many of the women called Terf are, like Bellos, lesbian. These lesbians are increasingly demonised by the wider LGBT+ community, or ignored in order to avoid the controversy altogether. Repressing these tensions, rather than airing them, only lets the problem grow. Conversations such as the one Bellos would have started, conversations that give breathing space to the difficulties between some lesbians and trans people, are necessary if we are ever to move beyond this painful stalemate.



I have chosen these part specifically because I am interested in reading more about the seeming tension between some lesbian feminists and transwomen having a greater profile and inclusion. What is it exactly that TA's are advocating that LF's find particularly threatening? Has anyone read anything recently that goes into this a little more deeply?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 15, 2017)

Worth posting I think, from leading light in the movement against the GRA reforms Julia Long:


----------



## Wilf (Dec 15, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Worth posting I think, from leading light in the movement against the GRA reforms Julia Long:


Why is Lily accused of being a 'perp' in that? I'm not really joining the fray on this, I just wondered about that. Has she been accused of actual violence or is it something to do with what she's said?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 15, 2017)

'Psychologically colonised'? 

wow.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 15, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Why is Lily accused of being a 'perp' in that? I'm not really joining the fray on this, I just wondered about that. Has she been accused of actual violence or is it something to do with what she's said?


Her mere presence, I think. An act of psychological colonisation by a misogynist man.

She combines what comes across to me as a deep-seated hatred for transgender people with a 'wake up sheeple' attitude towards anyone who doesn't agree with her.


----------



## trashpony (Dec 15, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> If feminist Linda Bellos is seen as a risk, progressive politics has lost its way | Claire Heuchan
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That lesbians who don’t want dick are transphobic


----------



## Thimble Queen (Dec 15, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Worth posting I think, from leading light in the movement against the GRA reforms Julia Long:



That's absolutely appalling. What is JL accusing LM of here?


----------



## spanglechick (Dec 15, 2017)

trashpony said:


> That lesbians who don’t want dick are transphobic


Very much a minority view, though.   I don't know any trans women who believe this.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 15, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Her mere presence, I think. An act of psychological colonisation by a misogynist man.
> 
> She combines what comes across to me as a deep-seated hatred for transgender people *with a 'wake up sheeple' attitude towards anyone who doesn't agree with her*.


 I have (just about  ) enough humility to keep out of this, not just because I'm neither female nor trans, more because I haven't read enough or have enough of a grasp on the key events and players. But then you see stuff like this, a mixture of vanguardism and something that tends towards CT-ism as you say. Accusing people of being 'psychologically colonised' is appalling and shit politics.  *Solidarity*. There's not only a lack of solidarity in the exchanges between trans activists and radical feminists, but that post also betrays a lack of solidarity that regards other feminists, regarded as intellectual inferiors.


----------



## weepiper (Dec 15, 2017)

smokedout said:


> I'd never in a million years of attacked Jack or Laurie for something they might have said or done when they were 14 and I think you know that.  I'd also never attack Laurie for being a woman, or queer, or Jack for being trans - which rather undermines the insinuation you seem to be trying to make.
> 
> I attacked Laurie and Jack for things they said, at length, often in the national press, and their role in undermining the anti-austerity movement.  I don't really know what Lily thinks beyond wanting her gender identity to be respected.  I think the Labour Party is still a dead end despite Corbyn and I'm suspicious of anyine who wants to be aan MP, I'm happy to attack her for that, with some reservations because I don't think the young Corbynites should be so easily dismissed, Labour is a very different party to the one it was in 2012.  I also think the Race For Life thing is daft, but it's hardly career ending stuff and I'd still be inclined to say 18, as in legal adulthood, should be the point at which public figures become fair game.
> 
> I've got a kid the age Lily was when she might have made that tweet.  I find it horrifying to think that something stupid he said to his friends now might be dredged up and used to try and destroy any career he might be building in five years time.


I don't really think it's fair to use a tweet made at the age of 14 against her either, I'm not supporting that. I also have a child that age, and it's a good reminder to drum it into her that silly stuff you write on the internet can have ramifications you wouldn't predict. I do think she's using the 'oh I'm just a child' line herself NOW though, for example she tweeted about being busy at 'school' recently when she means university. Why would a 19 year old use that word if there was not some advantage to them in appearing younger than they really are? She constantly refers to herself as a girl or a teenage girl because it makes her appear more vulnerable. I dislike a lot of how she uses stereotypes to try and change how people interact with her. She tweeted a screenshot of a conversation between her and Ed Miliband where he had sent his sympathy for the flack she's undoubtedly getting and her reply said something like 'I just need to cry and eat ice cream and I'll be back to myself'. Because that's how girls cope with things, right? She just mostly makes me do massive rolleyes. She doesn't deserve a special pass because she's young any more than Jack Monroe or Laurie Penny did in their early twenties. I think she's just coming up against what it's really like to be a woman in the public eye. She doesn't get special treatment, she gets what any of us who expresses opinions publicly gets (a constant drip of abuse) and absolutely no quarter given for being young and silly. Welcome to womanhood, kid.


----------



## trashpony (Dec 15, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> Very much a minority view, though.   I don't know any trans women who believe this.


Neither do I


----------



## spanglechick (Dec 15, 2017)

weepiper said:


> I don't really think it's fair to use a tweet made at the age of 14 against her either, I'm not supporting that. I also have a child that age, and it's a good reminder to drum it into her that silly stuff you write on the internet can have ramifications you wouldn't predict. I do think she's using the 'oh I'm just a child' line herself NOW though, for example she tweeted about being busy at 'school' recently when she means university. Why would a 19 year old use that word if there was not some advantage to them in appearing younger than they really are? She constantly refers to herself as a girl or a teenage girl because it makes her appear more vulnerable. I dislike a lot of how she uses stereotypes to try and change how people interact with her. She tweeted a screenshot of a conversation between her and Ed Miliband where he had sent his sympathy for the flack she's undoubtedly getting and her reply said something like 'I just need to cry and eat ice cream and I'll be back to myself'. Because that's how girls cope with things, right? She just mostly makes me do massive rolleyes. She doesn't deserve a special pass because she's young any more than Jack Monroe or Laurie Penny did in their early twenties. I think she's just coming up against what it's really like to be a woman in the public eye. She doesn't get special treatment, she gets what any of us who expresses opinions publicly gets (a constant drip of abuse) and absolutely no quarter given for being young and silly. Welcome to womanhood, kid.


Loads of kids call university "school" because that's what they call it in American film and tv.  

Otoh, I used to call university "school" because I thought it was funny.   For much the same reason as I have always call my various neglected gym bags "my PE kit".   

I don't doubt LM is horribly irritating in that way typified by Goldsmiths Student Union types (where she'd barely merit comment) - but I'd reserve condemnation for her Race for Life nonsense, rather than looking for reasons to interpret every irritating turn of phrase as part of a Machiavellian agenda.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 15, 2017)

weepiper said:


> I think she's just coming up against what it's really like to be a woman in the public eye. She doesn't get special treatment, she gets what any of us who expresses opinions publicly gets (a constant drip of abuse) and absolutely no quarter given for being young and silly. Welcome to womanhood, kid.



She does get special treatment. As you are well aware, the thousands of other women who hold minor branch office in a single local Labour Party do not usually get individually demonised across the mainstream media. Such a position does not involve being significantly "in the public eye". She gets monstered because so called "gender critical feminists" fed her to their right wing media allies as outrage fodder.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 15, 2017)

It's worth remembering in the context of this thread - where transphobia is repeatedly framed as "women asking questions" or alternatively as an issue of conflicts between lesbians and trans people - that transphobia as a wider social phenomenon is primarily associated with (cis) straight men.

That is obvious enough when it comes to incidents of physical assault or murders. But its also true in the broadest sense: every survey, both in the US and in the UK, reveals that cis women are notably less transphobic than cis men. They are more likely to believe that discrimination against trans people is wrong, more accepting of trans people's right to be treated as their preferred gender and less likely to feel uncomfortable with trans people using the same bathrooms. This should hardly be surprising. In the anglophone parts of the West, women are on average both more progressive on social issues and more generally left wing than men (this wasn't always the case but has been for some time now).

According to the annual British survey of social attitudes, only 13% of women feel uncomfortable sharing public bathrooms with trans women (of whom only 4% feel very uncomfortable). These numbers broadly come from the category of hardline social conservatives, e.g. women who are against gay rights, against sex before marriage etc. Transphobic "gender critical feminists" are not remotely representative of women or even of the transphobic minority of women. Neither are they remotely representative of lesbians - younger queer women in particular tend to be the most radically pro-trans people segment of the non trans population.

The gift of the TERF fringe to the discourse about trans people in Britain has been to help obscure the core issues at stake and to provide allegedly pro-woman arguments for the use of social conservatives. In countries where that fringe has no media footprint, the argument is almost always framed as social progressives versus reactionary social conservatives, a framing which much more accurately reflects actual underlying social attitudes and conflicts.


----------



## weepiper (Dec 15, 2017)

Tell us more about what women think, Nigel.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 15, 2017)

Does a poster have to be a woman to cite figures about women (and men) in a survey?


----------



## 8ball (Dec 15, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Does a poster have to be a woman to cite figures about women (and men) in a survey?



Rascist!!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 15, 2017)

weepiper said:


> Tell us more about what women think, Nigel.



What kind of misogynist monster would assume that surveys of women's social attitudes might more accurately reflect women's social attitudes than the beliefs of some random dipshit on a forum who has looked into her own heart and seen inscribed there the true beliefs of all womankind?


----------



## 8ball (Dec 15, 2017)

The kind of misogynist monster that is now... SELLING DECKCHAIRS AND POPCORN AT 70% OFF!!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 15, 2017)

8ball said:


> Rascist!!



You have to remember that TERFs speak on behalf of all women and reference to the actual reported views of much larger numbers of women in representative studies is just masculine trickery.


----------



## trashpony (Dec 15, 2017)

The pomposity of leftie bros is the gift that keeps on giving


----------



## 8ball (Dec 15, 2017)

HOUSE!!


----------



## TopCat (Dec 15, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> What kind of misogynist monster would assume that surveys of women's social attitudes might more accurately reflect women's social attitudes than the beliefs of some random dipshit on a forum who has looked into her own heart and seen inscribed there the true beliefs of all womankind?


Blimey.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 15, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Her mere presence, I think. An act of psychological colonisation by a misogynist man.
> 
> She combines what comes across to me as a deep-seated hatred for transgender people with a 'wake up sheeple' attitude towards anyone who doesn't agree with her.


Why is it a shock the attitudes of the Reclaim The Night mob? They are a honey pot for the bonkers Bruno wing of the Womens movement. Lily attending their jaunt and shout was hugely provokotive.


----------



## Sue (Dec 15, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> *It's worth remembering in the context of this thread - where transphobia is repeatedly framed as "women asking questions" *or alternatively as an issue of conflicts between lesbians and trans people - that transphobia as a wider social phenomenon is primarily associated with (cis) straight men.
> 
> That is obvious enough when it comes to incidents of physical assault or murders. But its also true in the broadest sense: every survey, both in the US and in the UK, reveals that cis women are notably less transphobic than cis men. They are more likely to believe that discrimination against trans people is wrong, more accepting of trans people's right to be treated as their preferred gender and less likely to feel uncomfortable with trans people using the same bathrooms. This should hardly be surprising. In the anglophone parts of the West, women are on average both more progressive on social issues and more generally left wing than men (this wasn't always the case but has been for some time now).
> 
> ...



Not sure I understand the bit I've put in bold. Are you saying that women asking questions is automatically transphobic? Or do you mean women use asking questions as a cover for being transphobic? And how can you tell the difference? 

And might this mean women won't ask questions due to this assumption that to do so is transphobic?  Finding this all kind of confusing.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 15, 2017)

If feminist Linda Bellos is seen as a risk, progressive politics has lost its way | Claire Heuchan

One of the things most depressing about this - the underlying debate, not the article - is that victory is mapped out as a series of de-invited student union speakers and changes in university admission policies.  Not unheard of for the left to play out its spats in universities, plus I actually work at one. But still, it's depressing.


----------



## purenarcotic (Dec 15, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> If feminist Linda Bellos is seen as a risk, progressive politics has lost its way | Claire Heuchan
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We’re being told not wanting to sleep with someone with a penis makes us transphobic. No it doesn’t - we all have the right to sleep or not sleep with whoever we want, it’s our body not someone else’s. If I wanted cock I would sleep with someone who had one. I don’t. I like women with vaginas. I couldn’t care less if someone wants to sleep with a trans woman who has a penis, I’d like the same respect back.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 15, 2017)

TopCat said:


> Why is it a shock the attitudes of the Reclaim The Night mob? They are a honey pot for the bonkers Bruno wing of the Womens movement. Lily attending their jaunt and shout was hugely provokotive.



Yeah I think there is some game playing going on with both sides - the bookfair leafleters must have known that it would kick off too.

Ditto the loons on both sides who insist on calling transwomen men at every opportunity vs baiting lesbians by going on about how they have to like trans penises or whatever it is.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 15, 2017)

trashpony said:


> That lesbians who don’t want dick are transphobic


Can you say more on this? Lesbians not wanting dick is obvious surely? Is not wanting dick transphobic? Doesn't that smack of the idea that all lesbians are man haters? Perhaps you were being sarcastic.


----------



## purenarcotic (Dec 15, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Can you say more on this? Lesbians not wanting dick is obvious surely? Is not wanting dick transphobic? Doesn't that smack of the idea that all lesbians are man haters? Perhaps you were being sarcastic.



The argument being if trans women are women then lesbians should accept that some women have penis so we should sleep with those women and to not is transphobic.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 15, 2017)

purenarcotic said:


> The argument being if trans women are women then lesbians should accept that some women have penis so we should sleep with those women and to not is transphobic.



That’s a pretty barking argument.


----------



## purenarcotic (Dec 15, 2017)

8ball said:


> That’s a pretty barking argument.



I agree.


----------



## co-op (Dec 15, 2017)

8ball said:


> That’s a pretty barking argument.


And some would say you’re a transphobe for saying that.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 15, 2017)

What about a trans woman without a penis? Would it be transphobic for a straight man or gay woman to not want sex with _that_ person? I mean assuming there's been some attraction, flirting etc. Then it becomes clear this woman is a trans woman. Would it be transphobic to say _no_, at that point, because this woman is trans (and despite the initially expressed attraction)?


----------



## Sue (Dec 15, 2017)

The more this thread goes on, the less I seem to understand.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 15, 2017)

co-op said:


> And some would say you’re a transphobe for saying that.



I’m too old to be bothered about being called things.  The logic of that argument does rather seem a bit like me saying any woman who doesn’t want to shag me is a misandrist.


----------



## Sue (Dec 15, 2017)

8ball said:


> I’m too old to be bothered about being called things.  The logic of that argument does rather seem a bit like me saying any woman who doesn’t want to shag me is a misandrist.


Or a lesbian obvs.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2017)

8ball said:


> I’m too old to be bothered about being called things.  The logic of that argument does rather seem a bit like me saying any woman who doesn’t want to shag me is a misandrist.


Let's hope the likes of Gromit don't take that up


----------



## 8ball (Dec 15, 2017)

Sue said:


> Or a lesbian obvs.



Indeed.


----------



## purenarcotic (Dec 15, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Let's hope the likes of Gromit don't take that up



Let’s hope Gromit takes none of this up or heaven help us all.


----------



## NoXion (Dec 15, 2017)

TopCat said:


> Why is it a shock the attitudes of the Reclaim The Night mob? They are a honey pot for the bonkers Bruno wing of the Womens movement. Lily attending their jaunt and shout was hugely provokotive.



What's the Bruno wing?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 15, 2017)

TopCat said:


> Why is it a shock the attitudes of the Reclaim The Night mob? They are a honey pot for the bonkers Bruno wing of the Womens movement. Lily attending their jaunt and shout was hugely provokotive.



Possibly a shock because on their website they say this:



> All women are welcome at Reclaim the Night, including: women of all colours and cultures, of all religions or none, women of any age, disabled and non-disabled women, heterosexual women, lesbians, trans women, bisexual women, refugee and asylum-seeking women and any other women you can think of! We would love to see you all there. Bring along your mothers, grandmothers, sisters, aunts, nieces, and daughters.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 15, 2017)

purenarcotic said:


> We’re being told not wanting to sleep with someone with a penis makes us transphobic.



Who is telling you that?  All transgender people, all trans activists, or a handful of obscure youtubers or people on twitter who have seen a far greater degree of prominence then they would ordinarily because some people have used their views as an attempt to smear all transwomen as sexually aggresive men?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 15, 2017)

8ball said:


> Indeed.



Which is all covered by not being fanciable to them. Which is how relationships work. Or don’t, as the case may be.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 15, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Possibly a shock because on their website they say this:


So instead of making the argument with the organisers, the likes of Long take it upon themselves to act as guardians of the march in direct contravention of the stated position of the organisers? And label others 'psychologically colonised' for not agreeing with her. It's breathtakingly arrogant. If she made the argument with the organisers, she clearly lost it. 

These twitter spats are very strange. It is hard to tell the difference between the petulant teenagers and the petulant middle-aged academics.


----------



## purenarcotic (Dec 15, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Who is telling you that?  All transgender people, all trans activists, or a handful of obscure youtubers or people on twitter who have seen a far greater degree of prominence then they would ordinarily because some people have used their views as an attempt to smear all transwomen as sexually aggresive men?



The people I’ve seen it from claim to be trans. I’m acutely aware it’s not what all trans think - nobody is a homogeneous group. 

Are you saying those people aren’t trans?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 15, 2017)

purenarcotic said:


> The people I’ve seen it from claim to be trans. I’m acutely aware it’s not what all trans think - nobody is a homogeneous group.
> 
> Are you saying those people aren’t trans?



No I'm saying your using a tiny fringe group of transpeople and presenting it as the norm - in that blustering 'now trans people are telling us to do this' daily mail kind of way.  Bit like if you watched an Isis video and then claimed Muslims were telling you to chop people's heads off.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 15, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Possibly a shock because on their website they say this:


You ain't shocked at all!
They have always been a pretty insular bunch and have been evil to sex workers and any women who have the temerity to disagree.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 15, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So instead of making the argument with the organisers, the likes of Long take it upon themselves to act as guardians of the march in direct contravention of the stated position of the organisers? And label others 'psychologically colonised' for not agreeing with her. It's breathtakingly arrogant. If she made the argument with the organisers, she clearly lost it.
> 
> These twitter spats are very strange. It is hard to tell the difference between the petulant teenagers and the petulant middle-aged academics.


Was there any disagreement with her stance on the march though?
Least no one hit each other.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 15, 2017)

TopCat said:


> You ain't shocked at all!
> They have always been a pretty insular bunch and have been evil to sex workers and any women who have the temerity to disagree.



I think they've mellowed their stance in the last few years, or perhaps different people are organising it now.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 15, 2017)

smokedout said:


> I think they've mellowed their stance in the last few years, or perhaps different people are organising it now.


Why do you think that?


----------



## TopCat (Dec 15, 2017)

TopCat said:


> Why do you think that?


That march was the beating heart of the London rad fem beast. To show there was quite a move.


----------



## 19force8 (Dec 15, 2017)

TopCat said:


> Why do you think that?





TopCat said:


> That march was the beating heart of the London rad fem beast. To show there was quite a move.


Are you answering your own question?

I'm pissed on a long distance train home on a Friday night. What's your excuse?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 15, 2017)

8ball said:


> That’s a pretty barking argument.



It is indeed. It's also a largely fictitious argument, reflecting the paranoia of the TERF movement and the view held by some of them that trans people are a male conspiracy against lesbianism rather than anything argued by trans advocacy organisations. The very focus on lesbians - as opposed to straight women or gay or straight men - is indicative of where this stuff comes from. And variants of this paranoia go right back to Raymond and the Transsexual Empire book.

I say largely because of course you can find some gobshite somewhere who has argued anything. The process is some arsehole on social media says something resentful and stupid about how unfair it is that they aren't getting laid. If it's said by a straight trans person or a gay trans man it gets immediately and correctly dismissed as an unrepresentative personal idiocy much as it would be if a cis person said something similarly obnoxious. If it's said by some trans lesbian however TERFs quote it forever as proof that all this trans stuff is an evil conspiracy to penetrate lesbians with the unholy phallus.

Of course no trans organisation or advocacy group argues that anyone should have to have sex with anyone they don't want to. Which is hardly surprising as arguing otherwise would be insane. For every time anyone hears this argument directly from some random trans idiot, they will hear it a thousand times from TERF paranoiacs.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 15, 2017)

_unholy phallus_ would make a great band name tho


----------



## smokedout (Dec 15, 2017)

TopCat said:


> Why do you think that?



Because they've been openly trans inclusive since 2012


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 15, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Because they've been openly trans inclusive since 2012



The comment below the piece clarifies that the change came in 2011.

This is all an indication of the generational aspect of this conflict btw.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 16, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Because they've been openly trans inclusive since 2012


But have they really? Five years later this happens.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 16, 2017)

TopCat said:


> But have they really? Five years later this happens.


They're divided. The minority refuses to accept the majority decision. The minority thinks the majority is suffering from some kind of mental illness (psychological colonisation). I agree with Nigel that this is, among other things, a generational thing. Madigan is pictured with a bunch of people who are all at least 20 years younger than Long. They disagree with Long. They are not trans-exclusive. Long no longer has control of the agenda, would be my reading of that. And some really fucking shit things have come out of her as a result, shit things that, whatever the provocation, are pretty fucking disgraceful.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 16, 2017)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Yeah I think there is some game playing going on with both sides - the bookfair leafleters must have known that it would kick off too.


Yep, let's not pretend that those leaflets weren't partly designed such as to provoke a reaction.


----------



## smmudge (Dec 16, 2017)

Out of interest does anyone have any links to people who express / defend the view that lesbians are transphobic if they won't sleep with transwomen who have a penis? Had a quick look but can't find anything.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 16, 2017)

https://everydayfeminism.com/2017/04/cissexist-say-never-date-trans/

The Cotton Ceiling Is Real and It’s Time for All Queer and Trans People to Fight Back


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Dec 16, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> Very much a minority view, though.   I don't know any trans women who believe this.





purenarcotic said:


> We’re being told not wanting to sleep with someone with a penis makes us transphobic. No it doesn’t - we all have the right to sleep or not sleep with whoever we want, it’s our body not someone else’s.





Rutita1 said:


> Can you say more on this? Lesbians not wanting dick is obvious surely? Is not wanting dick transphobic? Doesn't that smack of the idea that all lesbians are man haters? Perhaps you were being sarcastic.



I think it's actually a surprising common point of view (if you delve deep a little bit and ask the "queer community" pressing questions, something I'll go into I'm a minute).

Us old fogeys who are perhaps over thirty may not notice it because we grew up at a time when the Internet were all fields, message boards, and chat rooms and which were the only way to communicate.

Social Media wasn't available, there weren't really many online communities. We'd (including me) would  get shit from parents for rinsing the Internet and most of out real lives played out offline. As did gay activism at that time.

That shit is totally different now. Us old lot can confidently say that we are happy with our sexuality because it was never questioned online but for young gays and particularly lesbians it is. Youtube is rife with shit like this (as well as antifeminist shit) but tumblr IS EVEN worse and twitter can be horrendous.

As I've said on numerous other threads I tend to follow what's going on in online communities, particularly the atheist, feminist, and "rationalist (read anti-feminist)" communities and what I've noticed is this sort of rhetoric coming from NOTHING places. So please trust me when I say for young people, just coming to grips with their sexuality, this shit is everywhere and there's an AWFUL lot of bullying that goes with it.

So here's the two tribes where I see this stuff coming from.

1) A split in the "SJW" community, where "queer sex positives" individualist types (usually atheists, from the US) as a reaction to their own label unthinkingly promote irrational ideas due to what I see as "knee jerk progressivism".

2) Surprisingly,  the antifeminist and MRA community are very supportive of this notion of "female brains/emotions" and evolutionary psychology. Note these guys are not always republicans or conservative. You don't have to be to be MRA.

Now because both of these groups are generally atheists and consider themselves rational they like to be logically consistent. I'm going to outline that thinking here and then provide evidence (youtube videos, and *creepy* screenshots from tumblr, and twitter):

So for the SJW types, coming from a place of "progess for the sake of progress" and "standing up for the abused minorities" intersectionalist types, the only logical way of defining womanhood and manhood can be gender identity,  which is self proclaimed. This is because it's the ONLY way the very progressive statement "Transwomen are women" can hold true. The statement must be true regardless of sex, or disphoria or even expression because adding any of those criteria would exclude gender-non conforming transwomen or transwomen who do not suffer disphoria from, womanhood. And excluding people is NOT progressive.

Sex therefore has to be a social indefinable construct (this is why there's so much leverage of intersex people) and so lesbians can ONLY Be by logical extension women who are are attracted to other women and not females, because female in this line of thinking only exists as a socially constructed way of categorising people based on genitalia. Female is just a label that you are assigned at birth, and your gender is assigned based on that assignment. The only thing relevant is your inherent sense of self (which is self declared).

So if sex is a social construct, then homosexuality cannot exist based on same sex attraction. If you're lesbian AND NOT attracted to lesbians with penises you, by definition, must be transphobic because the only lesbians with penises are transwomen.


2) The MRA/antifeminist take is much simpler and tries to rely on science more (although the science is particularly shonky): Females and Males have different brains. Masculinity and femininity are innate genders most of the time correlating to sex. Females behave like females, not because of sexist  social conditioning, but because they were born that way.  Sometimes, due to something called womb washing*- when a fetus is bombarded with too much estrogen or testosterone in the womb you end up with a wrong kind of brain in the wrong kind of body; a transperson.

This body/brain split will show itself up as a mental illness (disphoria). Transwomen are only valid if they have disphoria, and express themselves in feminine way. If someone is innately female thier identity should be respected and therefore lesbians should work thier way through their own bigotry (transphobia and ablism- trans in this case needing a diagnosis of disphoria).

So this is where the fight lines are drawn. Most conservatives will agree with the second, where as most liberals will agree with the first. Either way, this ends up in homophobic bullying, particularly of lesbians. If anyone is particularly interested (and you all should be) watch ALL these videos, take time on YouTube to see where the rabbit hole goes:

"your dating preferences are discriminatory"



"Why I'm transphobic"


Response to Arielle (read the comments)


More responses:


Theryn Meyer on the sex gender dichotomy myth


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Dec 16, 2017)

And thousands and thousands more posts like this. Now, us older lot find if easy to tell people like this to fuck off. But if you are young, spend a lot of time online and are coming to grips with your own sexuality this sort of shit is just not on. But it *is the logical conclusion (if you're gonna be consistent) of the above type of thinking.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Dec 16, 2017)

smmudge ^^examples up there for you


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 16, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> What about a trans woman without a penis? Would it be transphobic for a straight man or gay woman to not want sex with _that_ person? I mean assuming there's been some attraction, flirting etc. Then it becomes clear this woman is a trans woman. Would it be transphobic to say _no_, at that point, because this woman is trans (and despite the initially expressed attraction)?



The whole thing is based on two completely bonkers ideas: that people are attracted to others based on their genitals (people are usually fully clothed when I meet them, don't know about any of you) and that if you're attracted to women at all then you must be attracted to all women all the time.

Everyone is entitled to say _no_ at any point for whatever reason. I think people who believe otherwise are probably a very small group, and one not worth listening to once you break down exactly what it is they're saying.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Dec 16, 2017)

No one is saying people are attracted SOLEY to genitals (that would be stupid) what they are saying is that sexual orientation is not based on sex. Genitals are a deal of braker for most people (bi people not included).

Sexual orientation is a legally protected characteristic based on SAME SEX attraction. To say gays and lesbians (homosexuals) can "get over their socially imposed biases" and be attracted to people of the opposite sex is just rank homophobia.

In response to SpookyFrank (sorry the quote systems fucking up and I can't get rid of it, so reposting without quotes)


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Dec 16, 2017)

.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 16, 2017)

You did back slash instead of forward slash (or whichever)


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 16, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Sexual orientation is a legally protected characteristic based on SAME SEX attraction. To say gays and lesbians (homosexuals) can "get over their socially imposed biases" and be attracted to people of the opposite sex is just rank homophobia.



Sounds like homophobia and transphobia are the only two options here then. Or we could accept that people are attracted to whoever they're attracted to, that this ultimately transcends arbitrary categories of sexuality, and that there may be all sorts of different innate and acquired factors involved but it's not something people can consciously change just because they feel like they should for whatever reason.

Some things will never be inclusive, rational or fair. Attraction is one of those things.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Dec 16, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> made-up categories of sexuality,


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 16, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


>



Sort out your slashes


----------



## spanglechick (Dec 16, 2017)

Ok.  I'm intrigued by the MRA nonsense.   Does that mean they would also say that men should accept sex with heterosexual trans women?



It seems to me that the whole tumblr/YouTube thing is increasingly toxic when it comes to politics.  Fortunately, lots of young people are immune - I teach a trans boy in my sixth form, and while he has a friend in the class who is mired in all that stuff, he himself is blessedly unaware.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 16, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


>



OK lets go back to basic thinking here. Saying that there are not clearly delineated boundaries between different types of sexuality is not the same as suggesting that differences in sexuality do not exist. I have edited my previous post for clarity anyway.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Dec 16, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> Ok.  I'm intrigued by the MRA nonsense.   Does that mean they would also say that men should accept sex with heterosexual trans women?
> 
> It seems to me that the whole tumblr/YouTube thing is increasingly toxic when it comes to politics.  Fortunately, lots of young people are immune - I teach a trans boy in my sixth form, and while he has a friend in the class who is mired in all that stuff, he himself is blessedly unaware.



It depends on the MRA. MRAs are mainly in the business of trying to keep women subordinate (something which innate gender segways nicely with) and also getting lesbians to sleep with them. They don't care much about policing other men.

I'd be very surprised if your trans boy hasn't been mired in this. Nearly all the kids I speak to who spend any time online looking into their sexuality get swamped in it.


----------



## LDC (Dec 16, 2017)

Some of this 'discriminatory sexual preference' stuff sounds very much like a modern day 'progressive' version of 'if you won't have sex with me you're frigid/a lesbian' that some men have shouted before...


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 16, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Some of this 'discriminatory sexual preference' stuff sounds very much like a modern day 'progressive' version of 'if you won't have sex with me you're frigid/a lesbian' that some men have shouted before...



Now we can just say they’re transphobic.


----------



## spanglechick (Dec 16, 2017)

Excuse some thought-noodling.  

As a cis, heterosexual woman, I'm privileged to feel removed from this and be able to treat it like a thought experiment.  If I met a man and fancied him but he turned out to be trans, and had female genitalia would I still want to have sex with him?

I dunno.  Maybe.  But I'd also reserve the right not to.   Would that be transphobic? I'm not sure. 

Would I have sex with a cis man I fancied if his penis didn't function or had been amputated? Again, maybe... dunno... Would it be ableist of me to say no...? Possibly.

But then I've tended to make my relationships out of one night stands, where the initial choices are less invested.  But if I was very keen on someone before the sex thing came around, then those choices carry more significance.

And is it different? Is there something fundamentally different about accepting a lover with a penis (if you don't usually like lovers to have penises) than there is if the unexpected body part is the female genitalia? Are penises "worse"?

And then, when trans men have sexual relationships with other men, are those men homophobic if they reject trans meant without penises? 

Most trans men I have known are in relationships with women, though.  


FabricLiveBaby! said:


> It depends on the MRA. MRAs are mainly in the business of trying to keep women subordinate (something which innate gender segways nicely with) and also getting lesbians to sleep with them. They don't care much about policing other men.
> 
> I'd be very surprised if your trans boy hasn't been mired in this. Nearly all the kids I speak to who spend any time online looking into their sexuality get swamped in it.


yeah, he doesn't spend much time online.   Not in that way.  Snapchat etc. 

Certainly he wasn't aware of the terms gender non-binary or gender fluid the other day.


----------



## lazythursday (Dec 16, 2017)

For me personally, the visibility of trans men has made me realise with some surprise that genitals are less important than I thought they were - I could conceive of having sex with a trans man who has a vagina. It's the secondary sexual characteristics that seem much more important to sexual attraction in my case. But I suspect I'd be in a minority amongst gay men as a whole. Unfortunately sexual attraction simply is discriminatory - we only fancy certain people and sexual characteristics (rather than gender characteristics) are the main elements of that. 

It feels like this is all the wrong way round. The emergence of more trans visibility / gender fluid people should be celebrated as a step towards allowing sexual boundaries to be more fluid, allowing people to be more experimental and less boxed into in neat sexual preference categories. But that has to happen organically in a supportive way, not by trying to shame people that their sexual instincts are phobic.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 16, 2017)

Anti-trans zealots, know this: history will judge you | Owen Jones

Decent piece by Owen Jones. As usual, his twitter mentions are a sea of frothing TERF bigots.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 16, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> https://everydayfeminism.com/2017/04/cissexist-say-never-date-trans/
> 
> The Cotton Ceiling Is Real and It’s Time for All Queer and Trans People to Fight Back


Ta for the links.

Forgot to get cotton wool while out


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 16, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Everyone is entitled to say _no_ at any point for whatever reason.



I agree; what I'm trying to ascertain is to what extent posters here feel it would or would not be transphobic to say _no_ to a person who has no penis but used to, based solely on the fact that they used to have one.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Dec 16, 2017)

Mojo, most transwomen (80% I believe is the estimate) have, or will keep male genitalia.

Nearly 100% of transmen have female genitalia due to how complex and unsuccessful surgery is..

This is why transphobia (when it comes to it) cannot be ascerted by surgical outcome alone. Current thought is measuring trans staus by surgery (or intention) to have it,  is in itself transphobic, because for adults at least (not kids),  demedicalisation is the goal. 

Hence the current discussions of the gender recognition act.  

It would be, by current orthodoxy, transphobic to not include surgically "affirmed" transwomen in your dating pool. They are women after all. Especially if they have a gender recognition certificate. Transwomen are women because they proclaim it is the current thought. 

Apologies for the clumsy language.. . It's hard to navigate. Also I'm a few vodkas down and on my phone.


----------



## LDC (Dec 16, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> I agree; what I'm trying to ascertain is to what extent posters here feel it would or would not be transphobic to say _no_ to a person who has no penis but used to, based solely on the fact that they used to have one.



Not transphobic, and not a problem imo, although more understandable for women to say no to a transwomen who turns out to have a penis. Cos patriarchy obviously.


----------



## trashpony (Dec 16, 2017)

I don't want sex with a penis unless I'm expecting it. Sex with men and women is an entirely different experience. I want that to be a choice I make consciously.

Also, we cannot ignore the fact that many women just go along with sex they don't really want because they don't want to offend the penis-bearer. Recent article about this: “Cat Person”

That's a het situation but it resonates with me enormously. I have had a lot of sex I didn't want to because I have been socialised to be nice. Natal women are.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 16, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Not transphobic, and not a problem imo, although more understandable for women to say no to a transwomen who turns out to have a penis. Cos patriarchy obviously.



So OK for a straight cis male to say no on that basis too, presumably. Or as it was expressed above, is just about everyone caught fast between homophobia and transphobia?


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 16, 2017)

I think I've got a new term. _Peniphobia_. Is that a thing? Guess it is now. Or _phallophobia_ maybe. Which is probably a thing already.


----------



## LDC (Dec 16, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> So OK for a straight cis male to say no on that basis too, presumably. Or as it was expressed above, is just about everyone caught fast between homophobia and transphobia?



Yeah I think it is, although depends a bit on the context and reasons as ever. Could be because they feel deceived so there's issues around trust and consent. We all discriminate in our sexual preferences the whole time, and mostly that's OK.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 16, 2017)

Yes, the hidden prejudices (aka "preferences") that we don't express socially but perhaps do sexually.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Dec 16, 2017)

Sexual preference is not the same as sexual orientation.

Kink is a sexual preference, homosexuality is orientation.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 16, 2017)

And I'm not talking orientation. I'm talking preference. Preferring not to have sex with a woman that used to have a penis but doesn't now. Or (if men are ones orientation) with a man who along with his great new penis also has a vagina. Or ethnic preferences, for that matter (some people have strong ones). None a question of orientation as such.


----------



## purenarcotic (Dec 16, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> I think I've got a new term. _Peniphobia_. Is that a thing? Guess it is now. Or _phallophobia_ maybe. Which is probably a thing already.



Lesbians aren’t frightened of penis, we’re not phobic of it. Fuck off.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 16, 2017)

_Phobia_ doesn't always mean fear, especially as a suffix. ___-phobia can just as easily signify disgust. It's use is closer to _averse_ than specifically _afraid_.


----------



## purenarcotic (Dec 16, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> _Phobia_ doesn't always mean fear, especially as a suffix. ___-phobia can just as easily signify disgust. It's use is closer to _averse_ than specifically _afraid_.



What’s wrong with the word lesbian? It means same sex attracted. Simple. No need for some silly term related to willies, it’s not all about cock.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 16, 2017)

I never said it was 

I'm trying to nail down transphobia. I don't care at all about lesbians, if that helps.


----------



## purenarcotic (Dec 16, 2017)

To me it would be things like not getting a job, being attacked, being made homeless, being cut off from family because of who you are, people pulling their kids away from you etc etc. Someone not wanting to sleep with you is tough titty, nobody is entitled to sex, nobody is entitled to abuse someone because they don’t want to shag you. Whilst I think there are probably valid discussions to be had about whether what we see as attractive might be influenced by social norms etc, that’s not the same as telling someone they’re wrong for not wanting to have sex with someone.


----------



## Coconutjob (Dec 16, 2017)

purenarcotic said:


> What’s wrong with the word lesbian? It means same sex attracted. Simple. No need for some silly term related to willies, it’s not all about cock.


I always thought lesbianism was more about liking minge rather than disliking cock. Figuratively.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 17, 2017)

purenarcotic said:


> To me it would be things like *not getting a job, being attacked, being made homeless, being cut off from family because of who you are, people pulling their kids away from you etc etc. Someone not wanting to sleep with you *is tough titty, nobody is entitled to sex, nobody is entitled to abuse someone because they don’t want to shag you. Whilst I think there are probably valid discussions to be had about whether what we see as attractive might be influenced by social norms etc, that’s not the same as telling someone they’re wrong for not wanting to have sex with someone.



There's a common theme of being rejected in all that bolded bit, and all of it is pretty much and on many levels _the phobia_ in operation. Nobody's entitled to sex, true, but is anyone entitled to a job either? Is anyone really _entitled_ to not be whispered about by strangers? 

Everyone is certainly entitled not to be abused but in the end I don't think this is about entitlement. I think it's about constant rejection on every level by just about everyone. Sex may be a minor issue, but it's still part of a whole world of _no thanks, fuck off _that a lot of trans people inhabit.


----------



## NoXion (Dec 17, 2017)

Shaming people for withdrawing their consent rather goes against the idea of informed consent in the first place, I think.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 17, 2017)

Nobody needs to feel ashamed for not wanting to have sex, for any reason. This isn't IMO about shaming people.


----------



## purenarcotic (Dec 17, 2017)

I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree, it feels very much to me like entitlement but I don’t have the appetite for a drawn out debate here.


----------



## iona (Dec 17, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Mojo, most transwomen (80% I believe is the estimate) have, or will keep male genitalia.
> 
> Nearly 100% of transmen have female genitalia due to how complex and unsuccessful surgery is..



Do you have a source for those figures, please?  

While there are undoubtedly still advances to be made, ftm "bottom surgery" as it's generally called (as opposed to "top surgery") being rubbish or unsuccessful is generally considered a myth or at least a great exaggeration by those who've actually had it or properly researched the surgical options themselves. Plenty of trans men have penises they're perfectly happy with.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Dec 17, 2017)

iona said:


> Do you have a source for those figures, please?



Sure. It's in the written evidence from GIRES given to the equalities committee part 1 (for those seeking surgery). 

The data is in numbers, but it's possible to work out percentages from the figures. 

https://data.parliament.uk/writtene...mittee/transgender-equality/written/19292.pdf


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 17, 2017)

I think a lot of what gets called entitlement is a defence against humiliation, hence why threats to it often result in aggression and violence.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 17, 2017)

Pointing a finger at and going, "look, entitlement!" is certainly easier than using empathy. It's also possible to do it to anyone, at any time, for any reason, but doesn't really explain anything unless the person doing it is a mind reader.


----------



## iona (Dec 17, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Sure. It's in the written evidence from GIRES given to the equalities committee part 1 (for those seeking surgery).
> 
> The data is in numbers, but it's possible to work out percentages from the figures.
> 
> https://data.parliament.uk/writtene...mittee/transgender-equality/written/19292.pdf



Cheers, will have a look later when I'm not out & about.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 17, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> Pointing a finger at and going, "look, entitlement!" is certainly easier than using empathy. It's also possible to do it to anyone, at any time, for any reason, but doesn't really explain anything unless the person doing it is a mind reader.



The context is one in which many men behave as though they are entitled to what they want in a society in which men have more power than women.

I don't feel empathy for the man who uses his superior physical strength to threaten me, but I am able to think about what kinds of anxieties may encourage certain states of mind, by using theory and experience. Thinking, not empathy.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 17, 2017)

Red Cat said:


> I think a lot of what gets called entitlement is a defence against humiliation, hence why threats to it often result in aggression and violence.



In this context or others?


----------



## andysays (Dec 17, 2017)

Red Cat said:


> I think a lot of what gets called entitlement is a defence against humiliation, hence why threats to it often result in aggression and violence.



I think this is right, but I would qualify it to say it's sometimes a defence against perceived humiliation or feelings of humiliation which may be "triggered" by one individual's actions, but are actually the result of a longer and wider process of humiliation and oppression such that the person subject to those feelings misinterprets, eg, disagreement as a transphobic attack or the promotion of "rape culture" when it's actually nothing of the sort.

We see that sort of thing frequently here, more so with the increasing popularity of identarian approaches, where some people are seemingly unable to distinguish between their feelings, and the intentions and actions of others


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 17, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> In this context or others?



I'm talking generally. I'd say that masculinity involves ideas of strength and a denial of vulnerability that are impossible to live up to and that the kind of 'sense of entitlement' that leads people to aggression and violence is not a state of confidence but its opposite.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 17, 2017)

andysays said:


> I think this is right, but I would qualify it to say it's sometimes a defence against perceived humiliation or feelings of humiliation which may be "triggered" by one individual's actions, but are actually the result of a longer and wider process of humiliation and oppression such that the person subject to those feelings misinterprets, eg, disagreement as a transphobic attack or the promotion of "rape culture" when it's actually nothing of the sort.
> 
> We see that sort of thing frequently here, more so with the increasing popularity of identarian approaches, where some people are seemingly unable to distinguish between their feelings, and the intentions and actions of others



Sorry, I should've been clearer. I meant a defence against feelings of humiliation not that the other is causing the person to feel humiliated.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 17, 2017)

Red Cat said:


> The context is one in which many men behave as though they are entitled to what they want in a society in which men have more power than women.
> 
> I don't feel empathy for the man who uses his superior physical strength to threaten me, but I am able to think about what kinds of anxieties may encourage certain states of mind, by using theory and experience. Thinking, not empathy.



That is a practical application of empathy .. considering why someone may be acting as they are and responding in a way that will de-escalate the situation rather than provoke a reaction. But provoking a reaction (like, say, deliberately misgendering someone) is way more exciting, and leaves plenty of scope for riding high horses.

I'd also say that referring to trans women as men (or comparing them to violent, thuggish men) isn't going to help anything. Maybe that's the point.


----------



## andysays (Dec 17, 2017)

Red Cat said:


> Sorry, I should've been clearer. I meant a defence against feelings of humiliation not that the other is causing the person to feel humiliated.



I think it's an important distinction to make, because when one feels humiliated, one often concludes or assumes that the other *is* deliberately seeking or causing the person to feel humiliated.

This is understandable on an individual psychological level, but when it's extended into a generalised (pseudo)political approach, it's a complete disaster, IMO, and leads to the sort of incident which originally sparked this thread, which the individuals on both sides and many who have got involved/drawn in afterwards genuinely believe that those on "the other side" are simply interested in attacking/humiliating them and can't possibly have any other motivation.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 17, 2017)

andysays said:


> I think it's an important distinction to make, because when one feels humiliated, one often concludes or assumes that the other *is* deliberately seeking or causing the person to feel humiliated.
> 
> This is understandable on an individual psychological level, but when it's extended into a generalised (pseudo)political approach, it's a complete disaster, IMO, and leads to the sort of incident which originally sparked this thread, which the individuals on both sides and many who have got involved/drawn in afterwards genuinely believe that those on "the other side" are simply interested in attacking/humiliating them and can't possibly have any other motivation.



By defence I was talking about an unconscious process whereby we prevent awareness of uncomfortable, or even unbearable, feelings. So feelings of humiliation, feeling small, are defended against, or warded off, by making oneself all powerful, or clever, or entitled, or the one who has to win etc. These are unconscious processes, not consciously made to happen. And can take place at group level as well as the individual.

I wasn't talking about having to defend oneself against people who may behave in oppressive ways.


----------



## andysays (Dec 17, 2017)

Red Cat said:


> By defence I was talking about an unconscious process whereby we prevent awareness of uncomfortable, or even unbearable, feelings. So feelings of humiliation, feeling small, are defended against, or warded off, by making oneself all powerful, or clever, or entitled, or the one who has to win etc. These are unconscious processes, not consciously made to happen. And can take place at group level as well as the individual.
> 
> I wasn't talking about having to defend oneself against people who may behave in oppressive ways.



I understand and agree with the point you're making.

I guess I'm attempting to develop the idea of the unconscious processes following from humiliation into its social or political consequences in this and other areas, including when groups of people honestly but mistakenly believe they are defending themselves against people who *aren't* actually behaving in the oppressive ways which are attributed to them.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 17, 2017)

andysays said:


> I understand and agree with the point you're making.
> 
> I guess I'm attempting to develop the idea of the unconscious processes following from humiliation into its social or political consequences in this and other areas, including when groups of people honestly but mistakenly believe they are defending themselves against people who *aren't* actually behaving in the oppressive ways which are attributed to them.



The anti-trans rad fems are behaving in an oppresive way though, at least as far as many trans people are concerned.  They are campaigning to remove legal rights for transgendered people, to 'morally mandate' transsexuality out of existence.  It's hard to see how that is not an attempt to oppess people, most of who are just trying to get on with their lives.

I think this is where smuch of the anger and confusion lies.  Behind the ongoing tit for tat is a political ideology which is anti the existence of trans people.  It is a current which is easy to trace back several decades, to when the very first trans-activists faced physical violence and death threats from some rad fems.  Many of the individuals still involved in anti-trans politics are the same people.  These same individuals campaigned against the 2004 gender recognition act with all the same threats of trans or pseudo-trans rapists invading women's spaces.  Of course this never happened.  They have campaigned against trans healthcare, with some success in the states, and have campaigned against legal protections for trans people whenever they have been proposed.

And they have easily identifiable tactics which have existed a long time - the main one being to associate trans women with male violence at any opportunity, no matter how tenuous.  But also to target individuals, mock and misgender them and provoke reactions, to present the most extreme examples of something someone trans has said or done as 'trans ideology', to hold trans people to a higher standard than the rest of society in terms of gender analysis and presentation as well as in terms of social behaviour - the transcrime website lists trans people convicted of driving offences for fuck sake.  Additionally to harness the power of the conservative and religious right in whipping up public condemnation of trans people and finally to overstate the power of trans activism, trans ideology, the trans conspiracy or trans people themselves - hence blaming a transwoman's tweet for Topshop's changing room policies.

None of these tactics are new.  They have been used against marginalised people of all kinds forever.  The difference is that this time they are being employed by people who are generally on the political left and are well ensconsed in the media, politics and academia and as such have a considerable power base.  Trans people have no such power base.  This is not a fight between equals from the trans perspective, but a self defensive battle against a group who have continually used legitimate concerns about the safety or women's spaces, just as they have used socially conservative disgust or religious intolerence, to bolster and pursue a much broader objective - an objective that would destroy the lives of most trans people.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 17, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> I think I've got a new term. _Peniphobia_. Is that a thing? Guess it is now. Or _phallophobia_ maybe. Which is probably a thing already.





purenarcotic said:


> Lesbians aren’t frightened of penis, we’re not phobic of it. Fuck off.





mojo pixy said:


> _Phobia_ doesn't always mean fear, especially as a suffix. ___-phobia can just as easily signify disgust. It's use is closer to _averse_ than specifically _afraid_.





purenarcotic said:


> What’s wrong with the word lesbian? It means same sex attracted. Simple. No need for some silly term related to willies, it’s not all about cock.





mojo pixy said:


> I never said it was
> 
> I'm trying to nail down transphobia. I don't care at all about lesbians, if that helps.





mojo pixy said:


> I think I've got a new term. _Peniphobia_. Is that a thing? Guess it is now. Or _phallophobia_ maybe. Which is probably a thing already.





purenarcotic said:


> Lesbians aren’t frightened of penis, we’re not phobic of it. Fuck off.





mojo pixy said:


> _Phobia_ doesn't always mean fear, especially as a suffix. ___-phobia can just as easily signify disgust. It's use is closer to _averse_ than specifically _afraid_.





purenarcotic said:


> What’s wrong with the word lesbian? It means same sex attracted. Simple. No need for some silly term related to willies, it’s not all about cock.





mojo pixy said:


> I never said it was
> 
> I'm trying to nail down transphobia. I don't care at all about lesbians, if that helps.



This exchange has been really thought provoking for me and has stayed we me all weekend.

Firstly, mojo pixy I was really struck that in trying to nail down transphobia you opted to centre it around being penisphobic...

Now I can see how that might make sense when dealing with situations where Cis het men use the argument of 'trap' to justify abuse or violence against transwomen specifically, and can also see why that might be an extension of their preexisting homophobia but I am interested in how you saw it as something lesbians have or do... Or have I misread you here, were you just musing and applying that 'phallusaphobia' to both men and women? 

If so...why did this not include 'vaginaphobia' and the very real possibility that transmen could be rejected by prospective lovers because they have not fully transitioned and still have female genitalia? 

If lesbians not wanting to have sex with transwomen with penises makes them transphobic does that mean I am lesbianphobic/vaginaphobic because I identify as a cis het female and so far prefer cis het men with a penis as partners?

Do I as a cis het female also become a bigot because I am not looking for or considering a partner that is a transman with a vagina?


For sure there is a section of the rad fem community that is lesbian and trans-exclusionary but it isn't fair, nor realistic to characterise all  concerns about that kind of labelling as transphobic, or just preferring lesbian women with vaginas as hard line penis/man hating.

I think applying the same test to yourself and your own sexual choices/interests/preferences is a good exercise tbh.


----------



## trashpony (Dec 17, 2017)

smokedout said:


> The anti-trans rad fems are behaving in an oppresive way though, at least as far as many trans people are concerned.  They are campaigning to remove legal rights for transgendered people, to 'morally mandate' transsexuality out of existence.  It's hard to see how that is not an attempt to oppess people, most of who are just trying to get on with their lives.



No, that's not true. Radfems don't want any change to existing legislation. It's the proposed changes to the GRA that is causing upset, nothing else.


----------



## andysays (Dec 17, 2017)

smokedout said:


> The anti-trans rad fems are behaving in an oppresive way though, at least as far as many trans people are concerned.  They are campaigning to remove legal rights for transgendered people, to 'morally mandate' transsexuality out of existence.  It's hard to see how that is not an attempt to oppess people, most of who are just trying to get on with their lives.
> 
> I think this is where smuch of the anger and confusion lies.  Behind the ongoing tit for tat is a political ideology which is anti the existence of trans people.  It is a current which is easy to trace back several decades, to when the very first trans-activists faced physical violence and death threats from some rad fems.  Many of the individuals still involved in anti-trans politics are the same people.  These same individuals campaigned against the 2004 gender recognition act with all the same threats of trans or pseudo-trans rapists invading women's spaces.  Of course this never happened.  They have campaigned against trans healthcare, with some success in the states, and have campaigned against legal protections for trans people whenever they have been proposed.
> 
> ...



You appear to be responding to my post on the basis that you think I'm defending some or all of the beliefs or actions of "anti-trans rad fems", which I'm not.

But my point is that many who are *not* "anti-trans rad fems" are being tarred with that brush, just as many transpeople who are *not* violent or tweeting rape threats etc are being tarred with that brush. There appears to be such an atmosphere of hatred and fear around this issue, fostered to some extent by extremists on both sides, that no genuine dialogue is actually possible.

And a significant part of that, IMO, is the adoption of identiarian approachs, on *both* sides, which appear to elevate (genuine) feelings of fear, humiliation, etc to the status of political principle.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 17, 2017)

trashpony said:


> No, that's not true. Radfems don't want any change to existing legislation. It's the proposed changes to the GRA that is causing upset, nothing else.











That's not the end goal of Sheila Jeffries, Venice Allan and Julie Long, who are running the current campaign.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 17, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> This exchange has been really thought provoking for me and has stayed we me all weekend.
> 
> Firstly, mojo pixy I was really struck that in trying to nail down transphobia you opted to centre it around being penisphobic...
> 
> ...



There's a lot to think about here and I thank you for it. I will try to make a response when I have a real keyboard at my disposal.

I want to say right away though that I definitely have applied all these thoughts to myself over the years, as I've come to encounter trans people in various contexts, and I'm not just arguing off the top of my head.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 17, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> There's a lot to think about here and I thank you for it. I will try to make a response when I have a real keyboard at my disposal.
> 
> I want to say right away though that I definitely have applied all these thoughts to myself over the years, as I've come to encounter trans people in various contexts, and I'm not just arguing off the top of my head.



Thank you too mojo pixy  for receiving my post and thoughts in the way I intended them. As enquiries, reflections and requests for more clarity.

Respond in your own time and as you can.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 17, 2017)

andysays said:


> You appear to be responding to my post on the basis that you think I'm defending some or all of the beliefs or actions of "anti-trans rad fems", which I'm not.



Not at all, just think it's worth pointing out that this is more than a tit for tat spat because this:


> But my point is that many who are *not* "anti-trans rad fems" are being tarred with that brush, just as many transpeople who are *not* violent or tweeting rape threats etc are being tarred with that brush. There appears to be such an atmosphere of hatred and fear around this issue, fostered to some extent by extremists on both sides, that no genuine dialogue is actually possible.



There has rightly been calls for those on the trans side to reject and condemn he violent tweets etc, and many people have.  I  do.  But I have not seen the same rejection of the ideological and political aims of some of the rad fems.  What I have seen is a defence of them by those more moderates, or people sharing a platform with them, promoting their meetings or defending people handing out their leaflets.

And there is a power differential here.  I'm not sure I'll explain this very well but bear with me.  Most of the abuse on twitter has come from the mob, from randoms, trolls, kids, and individuals angered or upset by some of the anti-trans rhetoric, it has not come from prominent trans rights activists or campaigns.  The other side however is organised, experienced and very savvy about what they can get away with saying - which will be the most hurtful provocative things they can say couched in less offensive language - men's right's activist, male sexual rights movement, rapist.  These comments are designed to both smear and wound and are precision targeted to cause the most damage to transpeople both personally and within society.  Yet they are all too often apologised for, or excused by moderates.  I think the viciousness on the trans side has to be address, and those with more extreme views isolated and condemned.  But this won't happen without movement on the other side as well, because how the fuck are transpeople supposed to have a reasonable conversation or debate with people who want them mandated out of existence.



> And a significant part of that, IMO, is the adoption of identiarian approachs, on *both* sides, which appear to elevate (genuine) feelings of fear, humiliation, etc to the status of political principle.



I don't disagree with this, however I don't agree that concerns on both sides should be completely brushed away as simple identity politics, this is real people's lives, health, safety and happiness we are talking about in the here and now.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 17, 2017)

smokedout said:


> That's not the end goal of Sheila Jeffries, Venice Allan and Julie Long, who are running the current campaign.




But aren’t you just doing what you accuse others of by finding the worst example and then applying it to a whole ‘ideology’?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 17, 2017)

smokedout said:


> That's not the end goal of Sheila Jeffries, Venice Allan and Julie Long, who are running the current campaign.






trashpony said:


> No, that's not true. Radfems don't want any change to existing legislation. It's the proposed changes to the GRA that is causing upset, nothing else.



Clearly _some_ do trashpony ... and tbh, whilst i think it's problematic that those ideas are being posited as fundamental to what it is to be a _radical feminist_,  I also see a lot of seeming capitulation in terms of not talking about how damaging those ideas are..

Can one be a radfem and be trans inclusive? of course, yet there is very little nuance or discussion here about who the trans exclusionary rad feminists are as opposed to those who are not, apart from being called haidmaidens, abused folk and liberals.


----------



## trashpony (Dec 17, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Clearly some do trashpony ...


Okay she does. That's one person. That's not my understanding of the majority view of what is called 'terf' thinking.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 17, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> But aren’t you just doing what you accuse others of by finding the worst example and then applying it to a whole ‘ideology’?



Venice Allan was one of the main organisers of the event which led to the cancelled New Cross meeting and Hyde Park incident and is one of the organisers of the current speaking tour against the GRA.  She is very much not some twitter random/troll/angry individual.  Her, Jeffries, who has spoken on the tour, and Julie Long whose comments I've already posted and who was due to speak at the New Cross, along with other less high profile people, are the ones running this campaign.  I don't think it's unreasonable to suspect they are using the proposed GRA amendments as a wedge strategy to foster a wider anti-trans politics.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 17, 2017)

trashpony said:


> Okay she does. That's one person. That's not my understanding of the majority view of what is called 'terf' thinking.



...and that's fair enough, she is one person and not the majority view...how are we characterising the majority view though and from whom are we to take these pointers?...also please read my edit as I thought it through a little more and I do wonder about the further implications for all of us as feminists.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 17, 2017)

trashpony said:


> Okay she does. That's one person. That's not my understanding of the majority view of what is called 'terf' thinking.



Then why is she running your campaign?  Get rid of her.


----------



## trashpony (Dec 17, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Then why is she running your campaign?  Get rid of her.


WTF are you talking about? I've never met her, never spoken to her online, have nothing to do with her and am certainly not involved in any 'campaign' with her


----------



## smokedout (Dec 17, 2017)

trashpony said:


> WTF are you talking about? I've never met her, never spoken to her online, have nothing to do with her and am certainly not involved in any 'campaign' with her



Sorry that was a bit abrupt, I meant metaphorically.  If people with more moderate views are sincere, if the desire for a debate is sincere, then why are Long, Allan and Jeffries leading the campaign against the GRA.  Why are they not being robustly challnged or opposed by other feminists.  What are transpeople supposed to think when it's these people on the platform time and time again?  How is debate even possible whilst these individuals and those sharing their views dominate gender critical feminism?  There isn't really anything trans-activists can do about that, other than what they are doing, protesting meetings, arguing on twitter etc, and this conflict will not be resolved whilst they remain the public voice of radical feminism.


----------



## weepiper (Dec 17, 2017)

How are we to even begin engaging with this sort of ridiculous crap though
 

I don't hate penises  plenty of radfems I know are straight. And I don't recognise the picture of them encouraging the assault and murder of trans people either.


----------



## weepiper (Dec 17, 2017)

I find the idea that women could just fix this whole problem by shutting up and tolerating any old shit showing empathy really deeply problematic. That leans really close to red pill MRA views.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 17, 2017)

weepiper said:


> How are we to even begin engaging with this sort of ridiculous crap though
> View attachment 123230
> 
> I don't hate penises  plenty of radfems I know are straight. And I don't recognise the picture of them encouraging the assault and murder of trans people either.



From a glance at his twitter feed that looks like some gamergate dickhead who is on that one occassion using transpeople to further his anti-feminist line.  So no need to engage with it at all, he doesn't represent transpeople and isn't even trying to.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 17, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> This exchange has been really thought provoking for me and has stayed we me all weekend.
> 
> Firstly, mojo pixy I was really struck that in trying to nail down transphobia you opted to centre it around being penisphobic...
> 
> ...



You're right, vaginiphobia .. or whatever it might be called .. should be said. A gay friend also happens to be fairly misogynistic and on the odd occasion when the vagina has come up (so to speak) in conversation, expresses what I wouldn't hesitate to call some fairly strong vaginiphobia. If he encountered a trans man I have no doubt he for one would be grossed out by the presence of a vagina.

Anyway, yes - it's pretty clear that there exists disgust / ''phobia'' around all kinds of genital configurations.

I think it's also worth reiterating what's already been stated, which is that a person cannot be reduced to their genitalia (though a completely different, cis-het female friend who is a massive (no pun intended) size queen and seems to bounce from one terrible relationship to another in her search for the biggest and best, may have another perspective on that...)



Rutita1 said:


> If lesbians not wanting to have sex with transwomen with penises makes them transphobic does that mean I am lesbianphobic/vaginaphobic because I identify as a cis het female and so far prefer cis het men with a penis as partners?
> 
> Do I as a cis het female also become a bigot because I am not looking for or considering a partner that is a transman with a vagina?





Spoiler: It's long btw



This is a really difficult point, and I'd like to address it anecdotally .. in part because I have no actual data to share anyway, but also to put what I'll go on to say about transphobia in some perspective.

My first sexual encounter with a trans woman was with someone called Jamie (not her real name even at the time as it turned out, but how she first introduced herself to me) who I met at Heaven in 1995 and who I spent a rather torrid couple of weeks with before losing touch completely, in the way of things back then. She did have a penis, and that didn't bother me at all (quite the opposite actually). Anyway, I never saw and have never seen Jamie as anything other than a woman - despite the penis she was every bit as feminine as any woman I've met, as contradictory as that _may _sound - and she exists in a nice part of my mind where good, positive, even vaguely loving sex-memories reside. But I feel most of the straight-cis men I know would not even consider a dalliance like that, and I'm certain most lesbians wouldn't consider it. Would this be _transphobic_ as such, or would the phobia / distaste centre more specifically on the presence of a penis? I can't answer for other people, but I suspect _the penis itself _would be an issue over and above Jamie's dirty laugh and beautiful eyes and cute breasts and other alluring aspects.

On the other hand (and still anecdotally), I should mention someone I met more recently than that, though still quite a few years ago now. Her name was P* and she was a fully-transitioned trans woman. We met in a pub in Bristol (long before I actually moved to Bristol though) and things began with her drunkenly ranting at me about all the abuse she'd suffered and was still suffering. I listened, we talked and ended up laughing, and went to a couple of different pubs where we did certainly attract some weird and unwelcome attention. It was scary.

During the course of all this she mentioned her _expensive new vagina_ (her exact words) and the thing is, at that point any fancying I felt for her just evaporated. It was _really _awkward, and to cut a long story short the night ended with me being yelled at and slapped for being transphobic. Essentially, the idea of a surgically-created vagina really freaked me out. I mean, I was drunk by that point, OK, but the idea of (to me) missing bits and a cosmetic job in their place just .. well I can't put it better, it freaked me out. I think it still does and I have to be honest, if I ever got into something with an attractive trans woman again I'd still rather she had the intact (male) bits if I were to get into a sex situation.

Maybe it has something to do with orgasms, wetness, clitoris, G-spot, I don't know. The _person _is a whole person - I get that. But for me, something is wrong. So, I believe this is a kind of transphobia, probably .. and though I am vaguely uncomfortable at having to admit that, I have to. It doesn't change how I ally myself with my trans- brothers / etc / sisters in their struggle for social acceptance. And it doesn't have anything to do with_ their image of themselves_ as being physically right, which is more important than what anyone else thinks anyway.

I would add that I've never had sex (or even a snog tbf) with a trans man, though over the years I have met a few guys who are trans. Again though, I instinctively feel that if sex happened with a trans man, I'd end up more interested in the vagina (that was natural) more than the penis (which wasn't) and I'm aware of how hurtful that would be. Hence it's not something I've ever sought out.

Again though, _this has little to do with a whole person who needs love and acceptance_, and I apologise if anything I've written here is hurtful or upsetting to any trans person who reads. It's an honest perspective, is all I can say, and I don't consider myself a transphobe.

I have to add a last point though, about this being _all about sex_. I think trying to take sex out of it completely is misguided, after all, we are talking about sex, gender, sexuality, genital preferences (on self and others) and sex behaviour. But something I remember P* talking about at some length is how men were happy to fuck her, but finding anyone to hold hands and snog openly with during a night on the town was way more difficult. I think this is _the phobia_ in action too (she certainly did) and I also think it's a far more subtle and (dare I say) harmful expression of it.

So yeah, Too much information. But the main point is this: I do think more of us are more transphobic than we would really like to admit, even to ourselves. I certainly don't think everyone with transphobic feelings feels ashamed of them or even feels they should feel ashamed of them - though I do think some people with transphobic feelings would deny all that anyway, even to themselves. _It's not transphobia, it's..._

However, I think rather than shaming ourselves and each other over it we could all just do with a bit more honest self-reflection. There's nothing shameful IMO, in finding trans-ness weird and hard to deal with. There's nothing _bad _about feeling uncomfortable with people seriously challenging something we consider basic, settled and take for granted - in a way, it's all a part of getting older in a world that never stops evolving. But what we do with those feelings matters - whether we retreat into preconceptions and put up walls and attack, or if we try and engage positively with something that _isn't _going away any time soon.



Or maybe these are really the end-times and fire will shortly cleanse the earth of all wickedness and sin 

*hits _post_*
fuck it.

/edited to add spoiler tags, when I remembered this is the politics forum not one of the restricted ones. I don't mind posting that stuff but I don't want it to come up on G**gle. And then again to edit P*'s name.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 18, 2017)

Interesting post mojo pixy .

I wonder if this un-ease with trans, finding it weird and hard to deal with is one of the reasons why there's been a tendency in these discussions to wanting to pin things down logically, clear categories, the law, as though that would make the un-ease go away.


----------



## Cloo (Dec 18, 2017)

TW: TERFness

So, a person who's turned out to be TERFy that I follow on Twitter (and I remain following as I want to have insight into their thinking), RTs a link to a story about 'Child sex abuse reported to NSPCC rises by a third' and says:



> And letting men say they're really 'girls' and getting rid of a children's right to privacy, safe spaces and boundaries is going to tackle this how?



Really? She actually thinks self-identification is going to cause more child abuse? Presumably she'd say that it's giving more access to girls, but it's always going to be mostly committed by people known to a child, and they can always get access to kids without having to pretend they're trans.


----------



## elbows (Dec 18, 2017)

smokedout said:


> None of these tactics are new.  They have been used against marginalised people of all kinds forever.  The difference is that this time they are being employed by people who are generally on the political left and are well ensconsed in the media, politics and academia and as such have a considerable power base.  Trans people have no such power base.  This is not a fight between equals from the trans perspective, but a self defensive battle against a group who have continually used legitimate concerns about the safety or women's spaces, just as they have used socially conservative disgust or religious intolerence, to bolster and pursue a much broader objective - an objective that would destroy the lives of most trans people.



I'd say there are signs of a nascent trans power base. It is still relatively early days in terms of becoming formally embedded within existing power structures but what it lacks in this regard is made up for by momentum and allies using modern methods to have their voices heard.

I don't think that detracts from the point you were making, and I applaud your posts on this thread.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 18, 2017)

Cloo said:


> TW: TERFness
> 
> So, a person who's turned out to be TERFy that I follow on Twitter (and I remain following as I want to have insight into their thinking), RTs a link to a story about 'Child sex abuse reported to NSPCC rises by a third' and says:
> 
> ...


Hard not to make the comparison between this and the link that used to be made between homosexuality and paedophilia. I've been looking for any evidence from Argentina of any problems over the five years of its new law. Maybe others have some, but I can't find anything at all. Violence against trans women - plenty still, sadly. Violence by trans women - can't find anything at all.


----------



## Cloo (Dec 18, 2017)

It just doesn't make sense. If you wanted to 'pretend' to be a trans woman just to access women or children, you'd either have to go through the whole thing and all the shit that comes with it, including possible loss of job, status etc. Or else you'd have to just be pretending to be a trans woman in certain contexts, in which case you'd probably get found out PDQ. 

Look I expect there have been cases somewhere where a trans woman has sexually abused others, but the problem is that person being an abuser, not that they were trans or enabled by being trans or by trans-friendly legislation.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 18, 2017)

If there had been cases in Argentina, various people would no doubt be shouting about them very loudly, as they do the one case in Canada that was brought up earlier. So I'm guessing there isn't anything.


----------



## lazythursday (Dec 18, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Hard not to make the comparison between this and the link that used to be made between homosexuality and paedophilia. I've been looking for any evidence from Argentina of any problems over the five years of its new law. Maybe others have some, but I can't find anything at all. Violence against trans women - plenty still, sadly. Violence by trans women - can't find anything at all.


Indeed, much of the language used does mirror what was said about homosexuality, and that came from people on the left as well as the right. Perhaps what's different though is that there wasn't a highly visible theoretical position against homosexuality that grass roots bigots could use to bolster their prejudice. Some of the worst homophobia I experienced on the left in the 90s came from a couple of green anarchist types who had a thing about it being 'unnatural' and therefore non-green and probably caused by chemical pollution or something - and generally they were told to shut the fuck up because there was no evidence for their half baked theories. The fact that bigotry like you quoted is derived from academic theory makes it more powerful.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 18, 2017)

lazythursday said:


> Indeed, much of the language used does mirror what was said about homosexuality, and that came from people on the left as well as the right. Perhaps what's different though is that there wasn't a highly visible theoretical position against homosexuality that grass roots bigots could use to bolster their prejudice. Some of the worst homophobia I experienced on the left in the 90s came from a couple of green anarchist types who had a thing about it being 'unnatural' and therefore non-green and probably caused by chemical pollution or something - and generally they were told to shut the fuck up because there was no evidence for their half baked theories. The fact that bigotry like you quoted is derived from academic theory makes it more powerful.


Luckily evidence trumps theory. So while people may still think homosexuality is wrong or unnatural or against god or whatever, they can't claim that it is a danger to society in a way that appeals to anyone other than fellow hard-core homophobes. Hopefully we'll reach that point with transgender sooner rather than later.


----------



## co-op (Dec 18, 2017)

Hard core anti-trans activists who see trans women as 'just men' (whatever that's supposed to mean) are one of the loudest voices in the debate but the idea that they are the only point of view or even the dominant one among those who question some of what passes for trans ideology is bullshit.

Many many women, feminists, are very uncomfortable about the idea that binary-preaching transpeople are setting up a new way of validating gender stereotypes that are blatantly reactionary. In a previous debate on these boards a transwoman who identified as binary was posting up amazing right-wing crap about the 'essential' differences between men and women (men are a bit rapey and like science and maths etc) and the embarrassed silence from all the earnest transfriendly liberals on here was deafening. If challenging this is 'transphobic' then the trans movement is desperately in need of some proper radical thinkers to lead it out of this trap.

The question 'what is a man/woman?' is always going to be extremely hard to answer but the idea that it has literally _nothing_ to do with biology and _also_ nothing to do with the constant barrage of gender socialisation that people are subjected to in this society seems to me literally incredible. Transpeople can claim their own experience and imo they are fully entitled to the logical expression of their own gender autonomy that follows from it - but they cannot demand that they can also claim other people's experience.

The idea - mooted on here a few times - that the trans movement, the increasing complexity of gender identification etc etc is _in itself_ a radical thing is about as credible as the idea that homosexuality was in itself radical (an idea I'm old enough to remember). Now that we know that many gay people just want to settle down, marry, raise kids and operate as successful members of the modern neo-liberal society we live in, it's pretty obvious that the gay=radical is bullshit. 

NB I'm not asking gay people or anyone else to live up to some higher standard of radicalism, of course most people just want to fit in, especially those who have been relentlessly marginalised. But I'm asking radicals why any theory of gender or sexual identity must be accepted - at pain of denunciation for transphobia - when so many voices backing that theory are either pushing deeply misogynistic gender theory or appear completely ignorant of the fact that they are.

Political radicals posting on here have gone about the 'alliance' between radical feminists and conservative or reactionary groups and parties but seem oblivious of (or have nothing to say about) the fact that institutions like the British Army, fanatical-religious ideologies like that of the Iranian mullahs or deeply patriarchal hierarchical reactionary societies like Thailand are all absolutely fine with trans people, in fact they love them - it explains everything fine in their terms. Yet uncritical liberal supporters of trans rights have no qualms at all about how they are lining up alongside these people. 

And you don't have to be a transphobe to see why some feminists are pretty quizzical when they see arguments (also on these recent pages here) that it's a generation thing, old women = TERFs, young women groovy and accepting, when the dismissal of women as having any value once they've passed child-rearing age is such a classic piece of patriarchal contempt for women.

Or why when syndromes that revolve around the probematic (increasingly so) relationship between our bodies and our social selves that affect women mostly (eg bodily dysmorphia) are almost automatically declared to be a pyschological disorder that pathologies the individual when those that affect mostly men (eg gender dysphoria) are automatically declared to be 'real' and requiring intervention in the world to line up the individuals internal reality with that world. Feminists have always criticised the way that world is always assumed to be absolutely for men.

Radical feminists have always centred a critique of these kinds of assumptions in their theory and the Owen Jones style liberal stuff which is not much more than a 'why can't we all just get along' is frankly pathetic next to it.

Change society, not individuals. Challenge and undermine patriarchal gender roles, don't just allow individuals to move from one to the other on the basis of some alleged inner drive.

I'm glad to see a bit of discussion about the erotic component of gender identity starting to appear on the thread though. But again that's something that I've yet to hear any interesting radical takes on from within the trans world. If anyone can point me to some, I'd be very interested.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 18, 2017)

co-op said:


> Change society, not individuals. Challenge and undermine patriarchal gender roles, don't just allow individuals to move from one to the other on the basis of some alleged inner drive.


It's not either/or, is it? It is possible to challenge gender roles _and_ support transgender people. You dismiss an awful lot with your phrase 'some alleged inner drive'.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 18, 2017)

co-op said:


> Many many women, feminists, are very uncomfortable about the idea that binary-preaching transpeople are setting up a new way of validating gender stereotypes that are blatantly reactionary. In a previous debate on these boards a transwoman who identified as binary was posting up amazing right-wing crap about the 'essential' differences between men and women (men are a bit rapey and like science and maths etc) and the embarrassed silence from all the earnest transfriendly liberals on here was deafening. If challenging this is 'transphobic' then the trans movement is desperately in need of some proper radical thinkers to lead it out of this trap..


As for this, if you're referring to the thread I think you are referring to, that poster was pulled up on these ideas. There was no embarrassed silence.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 18, 2017)

weepiper said:


> I find the idea that women could just fix this whole problem by shutting up and tolerating any old shit showing empathy really deeply problematic. That leans really close to red pill MRA views.



I'm not sure it's really empathy that's required, more a pragmatic experience of how the anti-trans narrative, a ot of which looks fine on paper, actually would play out in the world.

One reason I suspect the women's refuge movement has not fallen in line behind trans-exclusion is that they have direct experience of working with transwomen and knowledge of how women's supprt services actually run.  They know that the idea of a man both pretending to be a woman and pretending to be a victim of domestic violence and making it through all their safe guarding and risk assessment procedures is highly implausible.  They probably don't want to be in a position when they have to send a transwoman, who appears and presents as a woman, and who they believe presents no risk, back to a violent partner simply because they are trans, especially when they know they have housed far more dangerous cis women.

One thing that seems to come up a lot is that non trans people seems to be more supportive of trans-inclusion if they have family or close friends who are trans.  Again I'd suggest this is because they experience what it is like - they don't necessarily want their friend or family member to be forced to use the men's toilet, particularly in an environment where they may face problems, such a a particularly conservative venue or blokey pub because they don't want someone they care about to be at risk.  If they are women they might want to be able to go to female only events, or go swimming, or shopping, or to the gym with their sister or friends without it being a risk for them, or them potentially being refused entry, or having big arguments about changing rooms.  They see the abuse that transpeople get on an every day basis and want to protect them from that.  I doubt there are many people on this thread who would genuinely force a trans-feminine young person to use a men's toilet if they were confronted with the choice about putting that person at severe risk of abuse, or worse, when they can just use the correct toilet for their gender presentation.

I don't really think any of this is empathy, just a practical understanding of what life is like for trans people and a bit of common sense based on that.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 18, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's not either/or, is it? It is possible to challenge gender roles _and_ support transgender people. You dismiss an awful lot with your phrase 'some alleged inner drive'.



Quite, I was almost with it until the transpeople are probably liars bit at the end.


----------



## elbows (Dec 18, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Quite, I was almost with it until the transpeople are probably liars bit at the end.



Yeah. I would be interested to know which bits are worthy of further discussion and hope we get that discussion. I was quite confident during 'simpler' stages of discussion, and with the most obvious trans v bigot stuff. I suppose we should be glad we've made it to a stage where nuanced details can pop up at every turn and complicate things, but somewhere along the way I have become confused in some areas and am therefore in more of a listening & learning mode than confident opinion declaring right now.

I can say that I really doubt Iran gets a free pass on this from liberals at all. Being pushed towards gender reassignment surgery as an alternative to the more deadly aspects of their justice systems treatment of sexuality has not gone unnoticed, without comment or liberal hand-wringing.


----------



## nyxx (Dec 18, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> You're right, vaginiphobia .. or whatever it might be called .. should be said. A gay friend also happens to be fairly misogynistic and on the odd occasion when the vagina has come up (so to speak) in conversation, expresses what I wouldn't hesitate to call some fairly strong vaginiphobia. If he encountered a trans man I have no doubt he for one would be grossed out by the presence of a vagina.
> 
> Anyway, yes - it's pretty clear that there exists disgust / ''phobia'' around all kinds of genital configurations.
> 
> ...


 
That’s interesting to read & I appreciate your openness and thoughtfulness, thanks. 

I’m curious as to the difference between sexual orientation and (any given)-phobia. If you switch it around, would a cis guy who is heterosexual be homophobic, just on the basis of his sexual orientation? I think people who fit that description might also be good allies for lgbt+ . I’m really struggling with the idea that any kind of sexual preference around the kind of bits someone has as being phobic. To explore a personal one, I’ve encountered people whose kink is not my kink, so things didn’t go any further, but it’s not because I was judging them negatively for their preference, it just wasn’t my bag.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 18, 2017)

nyxx said:


> That’s interesting to read & I appreciate your openness and thoughtfulness, thanks.
> 
> I’m curious as to the difference between sexual orientation and (any given)-phobia. If you switch it around, would a cis guy who is heterosexual be homophobic, just on the basis of his sexual orientation? I think people who fit that description might also be good allies for lgbt+ . I’m really struggling with the idea that any kind of sexual preference around the kind of bits someone has as being phobic. To explore a personal one, I’ve encountered people whose kink is not my kink, so things didn’t go any further, but it’s not because I was judging them negatively for their preference, it just wasn’t my bag.


How far is preference acceptable? What if people (as they do) state a genital preference of a certain colour white/black/brown etc?


----------



## co-op (Dec 18, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's not either/or, is it? It is possible to challenge gender roles _and_ support transgender people. You dismiss an awful lot with your phrase 'some alleged inner drive'.



All depends what you mean by 'support'. If 'support' means going along with a theory of gender identity that demands everyone else buys into a really crass reactionary gender binary, then no, you can't. 

If it means never critiquing anything that a transwoman says about gender then no.

Both of these actions are widely described as 'transphobic' and I think that's bullshit anyway but even more so when doing so effectively dismisses a whole generation of feminist thought (apparently without actually reading it or understanding it or even acknowledging its existence) and dismissing actual feminists as deranged, bitter old women, jealous of their youthful usurpers.

"Alleged inner drive" was a stupid phrase to use because there's obviously a real drive there, I don't think anyone is just going to make this stuff up, and I don't think that in any of my mulitple posts on this subject there's any suggestion that this is what I think. My point is always that "inner drives" are far more socially constructed than we are generally ready to admit, as are our socialised gender roles.

But I'm sure that if this thread lasts ten years, someone will still be quoting it to prove something or other. Luckily I'm too old to give a shit.


----------



## co-op (Dec 18, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> As for this, if you're referring to the thread I think you are referring to, that poster was pulled up on these ideas. There was no embarrassed silence.



That's not my memory but I was on the receiving end of a pretty hefty pile-on so there was a limit to how much attention I was giving it after a certain point. There was a lot of unctuous "thank you for sharing" stuff.


----------



## co-op (Dec 18, 2017)

elbows said:


> I can say that I really doubt Iran gets a free pass on this from liberals at all. Being pushed towards gender reassignment surgery as an alternative to the more deadly aspects of their justice systems treatment of sexuality has not gone unnoticed, without comment or liberal hand-wringing.



My point about Iran was directed very specifically at the one or two posters who have decided that because the usual sexually-reactionary suspects have got stuck in about bathrooms and all this kind of shit in the States (about which I couldn't care less, make them all unisex, end of story), that therefore radical feminists are damned by association with these idiots. 

But of course there are sexually-reactionaries who love the trans binary thesis so this argument cuts down both sides.


----------



## nyxx (Dec 18, 2017)

TopCat said:


> How far is preference acceptable? What if people (as they do) state a genital preference of a certain colour white/black/brown etc?



Colour preference is not about sexual orientation, it’s about race. Different discussion altogether imo.


----------



## co-op (Dec 18, 2017)

nyxx said:


> Colour preference is not about sexual orientation, it’s about race. Different discussion altogether imo.



Aha! And you think you can separate race, gender and eroticism? I really doubt it.


----------



## NoXion (Dec 18, 2017)

TopCat said:


> How far is preference acceptable? What if people (as they do) state a genital preference of a certain colour white/black/brown etc?



So what if they do? How should right-thinking people go about this, by hectoring and lecturing people who do state a preference? I don't think that's going to achieve anything other than alienating people and/or getting them to shut up instead of actually talk about things. If the person shutting up actually is an unapologetic racist and is not just stating a preference, then result. Otherwise, since I don't think that most people are incorrigible bigots, I don't see the point.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 18, 2017)

This is all a bit weird isn’t it 

People have the right to say no to sex. What qualification to this can ever be acceptable?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 18, 2017)

Plenty of Nazis used Jewish women for their own ends so their racial prejudices were pushed to one side when they could dominate in a sexual way. There’s loads of hypocrisy when it comes to sex and sexuality for fascists. So it’s daft going along this route.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 18, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> This is all a bit weird isn’t it
> 
> People have the right to say no to sex. What qualification to this can ever be acceptable?


Its not cut and dried far from it. People particulary gay blokes advertise online dating for blacks only asian only white only and this is not something to just gloss over.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 18, 2017)

Plenty of women like tall men. Plenty of men like slim women. We could be here forever.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 18, 2017)

TopCat said:


> Its not cut and dried far from it. People particulary gay blokes advertise online dating for blacks only asian only white only and this is not something to just gloss over.



Plenty of women write ‘no Asian men’, or ‘black guys only’. What of it?


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 18, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Plenty of Nazis used Jewish women for their own ends so their racial prejudices were pushed to one side when they could dominate in a sexual way. There’s loads of hypocrisy when it comes to sex and sexuality for fascists. So it’s daft going along this route.



And the obverse: Milo touting his fondness for ‘black cock’ as proof positive of his not being a racist.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 18, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Plenty of women write ‘no Asian men’, or ‘black guys only’. What of it?


A lot of these expressed preferences are based in racism.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 18, 2017)

TopCat said:


> A lot of these expressed preferences are based in racism.



Maybe. 

If someone wants to limit their dating/hook up pool according to their prejudices, so what?


----------



## TopCat (Dec 18, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Maybe.
> 
> If someone wants to limit their dating/hook up pool according to their prejudices, so what?


We should not ignore nor pander to their predjudice. 
People should not have to feel devalued when observing said shit.


----------



## co-op (Dec 18, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> And the obverse: Milo touting his fondness for ‘black cock’ as proof positive of his not being a racist.



When of course it proves the precise opposite. 

But erotic drives are bound to reflect societal taboos especially when sexuality and gender are obsessively categorised and enforced. Many’s the Jewish man who sneaks off to play out Auschwitz with a “Nazi” dominatrix, or black men to be a slave with the massah’s bitchy but hot wife etc etc


----------



## andysays (Dec 18, 2017)

TopCat said:


> We should not ignore nor pander to their predjudice.
> People should not have to feel devalued when observing said shit.



I agree with the point you're making here, but I'm not sure how it relates to the original jumping off point, which I thought was about whether people (either het men or lesbians) choosing not to have sex with biologically-male transwomen are transphobic, as some transactivists are claiming


----------



## smokedout (Dec 18, 2017)

co-op said:


> My point about Iran was directed very specifically at the one or two posters who have decided that because the usual sexually-reactionary suspects have got stuck in about bathrooms and all this kind of shit in the States (about which I couldn't care less, make them all unisex, end of story), that therefore radical feminists are damned by association with these idiots.



Surely the point has been that some rad fems are actively working with and alongside republicans and fundies in the US, and the right of the Tory Party and right wing press here.  Since I'm not aware of any trans-activists working with the Ayatolla I don't really think it's a valid comparison.


----------



## co-op (Dec 18, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Surely the point has been that some rad fems are actively working with and alongside republicans and fundies in the US, and the right of the Tory Party and right wing press here.  Since I'm not aware of any trans-activists working with the Ayatolla I don't really think it's a valid comparison.



That's the difference between a political system that encourages such alliances and one that forbids them (at least overt formulations of them). 

The main difference between the two examples is that the alliance between rad fems and right wing repressives in the US is clearly an alliance of convenience in which two groups with fundamentally at-odds ideologies have found common political ground whereas in Iran I see little evidence of any ideological divergence between the mullahs and the 'woman-born-in-a-man's-body' kind of trans theorists.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 18, 2017)

co-op said:


> That's the difference between a political system that encourages such alliances and one that forbids them (at least overt formulations of them).
> 
> The main difference between the two examples is that the alliance between rad fems and right wing repressives in the US is clearly an alliance of convenience in which two groups with fundamentally at-odds ideologies have found common political ground whereas in Iran I see little evidence of any ideological divergence between the mullahs and the 'woman-born-in-a-man's-body' kind of trans theorists.



You seem to be reluctant to ackowledge that this is also happening here, and that some of the most virulent anti-trans rhetoric is now coming from people in the UK  - including the people running the Women's Place Is On The Platform speaking tour.

I very much doubt any trans activist would work the the Iranian regime even if such an alliance was enouraged or possible.  

I also don't really think it's fair to say trans-activists are working with the British Army or other reactionary organisations, other than in their roles as employers of people.  They are not having meetings about policy, or feeding each other juicy stories for the media.  They are also not swallowing their principles and working with men's rights activists or other groups who are opposed to feminists - mostly because the majority of trans-activists would say they were feminists, and many have a radical critique of the gender binary.  Trans-exclusion is just one shade of radical feminism, and one not shared by Dworkin, Butler and many more rad fems - this conflict is not trans vs feminists, no matter how much those who are trans-exclusionary would like to present it that way, but trans vs a very small group of radical feminists who oppose the existence of transgender people.

Now lots of people have got swept up in that and I don't support labelling anyone who questions gender identity or raises concerns about women's spaces as a terf.  But the problem arises as i've repeatedly said, that when those who are more moderate in their concerns share platforms with and attend meetings by the more virulent anti trans rad fems, when they repeat their propaganda, which has happened on this thread or when they use memes similar to those used by rad fems (which is why I bristled at your comment, 'pretend feels' is very much a terf meme).  How are those who are trans supposed to know the difference?  Particularly given that online at least these debates usually take place whilst those who are trans supportive are also facing a deluge of abuse from the reactionary right.  

If you wanted to start a radical debate about Islam, from a left and secular point of view, you wouldn't start with Tommy Robinson on the platform, his footsoldiers handing out leaflets to the crowd, and even the more moderate speakers preaching scare stories from the EDL website.  That's what the trans/gender critical movement looks like to many trans people, and it astonishes me that anyone thinks a reasonable debate can happen under those conditions.  Which is a shame, because there is a lot of common ground between both groups both in terms of criticism of the gender binary and shared social and political demands.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 18, 2017)

TopCat said:


> We should not ignore nor pander to their predjudice.
> People should not have to feel devalued when observing said shit.



But everyone proscribes when it comes to relationships. Surely better that they’re honest before the fact than waste someone’s time?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 18, 2017)

Proscribe wrong word but the right one eludes me presently.


----------



## snadge (Dec 18, 2017)

TopCat said:


> We should not ignore nor pander to their predjudice.
> People should not have to feel devalued when observing said shit.



Do you really believe that if you flirt with someone that they should be obliged to reciprocate?

That is sexual predatory action in a fucking nutshell.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 18, 2017)

snadge said:


> Do you really believe that if you flirt with someone that they should be obliged to reciprocate?
> 
> That is sexual predatory action in a fucking nutshell.



He’s talking about dating adverts, not flirting.
I suppose it’s like ‘no dogs, no blacks, no Irish’ from one POV. But everyone has preferences. Rich, thin, blonde, big dick, educated - it’s not a rabbit hole I want to descend.


----------



## snadge (Dec 18, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> He’s talking about dating adverts, not flirting.
> I suppose it’s like ‘no dogs, no blacks, no Irish’ from one POV. But everyone has preferences. Rich, thin, blonde, big dick, educated - it’s not a rabbit hole I want to descend.



It's nothing like the no blacks, no irish thing at all.

Dating is a very personal thing, you're looking for someone to spend time with and sexual connection is a massive part of that, personally I don't fancy blondes, dunno why, also not attracted to blokes, that's an easy one for me, transgenders, if they pass I may be interested but most of them seem to still have cocks, so fuck that.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 18, 2017)

snadge said:


> It's nothing like the no blacks, no irish thing at all.
> 
> Dating is a very personal thing, you're looking for someone to spend time with and sexual connection is a massive part of that, personally I don't fancy blondes, dunno why, also not attracted to blokes, that's an easy one for me, transgenders, if they pass I may be interested but most of them seem to still have cocks, so fuck that.



I said “I suppose it’s like ... from one PoV” - please don’t misrepresent me in order to virtue signal in future. Thanks in advance.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 18, 2017)

snadge said:


> Do you really believe that if you flirt with someone that they should be obliged to reciprocate?
> 
> That is sexual predatory action in a fucking nutshell.


No i dont belive this at all. Perhaps read again what I wrote.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 18, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Proscribe wrong word but the right one eludes me presently.


Prescribe?


----------



## TopCat (Dec 18, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> This is all a bit weird isn’t it
> 
> People have the right to say no to sex. What qualification to this can ever be acceptable?


But when people are openly stating their desires, how they do so is useful for instance in assessing whether they are a bigot, a racist or indeed transphobic.


----------



## snadge (Dec 18, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I said “I suppose it’s like ... from one PoV” - please don’t misrepresent me in order to virtue signal in future. Thanks in advance.




Fucking virtue signal, say what you fucking mean instead of bringing external bias into personal coupling.

Daft cunt.



TopCat said:


> No i dont belive this at all. Perhaps read again what I wrote.



I did, several times and all I get is that you should accommodate sexual partners that you are not attracted to because of 'reasons'


----------



## TopCat (Dec 18, 2017)

snadge said:


> Fucking virtue signal, say what you fucking mean instead of bringing external bias into personal coupling.
> 
> Daft cunt.
> 
> ...


Well then i catagorise you as being a turgid thick idiot. Why dont you quote the bits of what I wrote that informs your vom sorry view?


----------



## iona (Dec 18, 2017)

snadge said:


> It's nothing like the no blacks, no irish thing at all.
> 
> Dating is a very personal thing, you're looking for someone to spend time with and sexual connection is a massive part of that, personally I don't fancy blondes, dunno why, also not attracted to blokes, that's an easy one for me, transgenders, if they pass I may be interested but most of them seem to still have cocks, so fuck that.



'Transgender' is an adjective, not a noun.


----------



## iona (Dec 18, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Sure. It's in the written evidence from GIRES given to the equalities committee part 1 (for those seeking surgery).
> 
> The data is in numbers, but it's possible to work out percentages from the figures.
> 
> https://data.parliament.uk/writtene...mittee/transgender-equality/written/19292.pdf



Sorry, I have looked  but I can't find that info anywhere in the pdf you linked to. Could you quote it here or point to the exact page no & paragraph, please?


----------



## snadge (Dec 18, 2017)

iona said:


> 'Transgender' is an adjective, not a noun.



So you believe in Dysphoria then?


----------



## snadge (Dec 18, 2017)

TopCat said:


> Well then i catagorise you as being a turgid thick idiot. Why dont you quote the bits of what I wrote that informs your vom sorry view?




Being able to make things and design things on this planet instead of being a gobshite on the internet makes me a lot more above you, what have you done in the world that has changed anything?


----------



## NoXion (Dec 18, 2017)

TopCat said:


> But when people are openly stating their desires, how they do so is useful for instance in assessing whether they are a bigot, a racist or indeed transphobic.



Indeed, someone who says "no blacks" on a personal ad could well indeed be a massive fucking racist. Or they're simply not turned on by dark skin. Since racists can be attracted to dark skin, it doesn't seem unreasonable to extrapolate that the inverse can happen, people who aren't raging bigots who aren't attracted to dark skin. 

Trying to police that sounds like an ethical and moral minefield at best. I'm not sure what good it would do either.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Dec 18, 2017)

iona said:


> Sorry, I have looked  but I can't find that info anywhere in the pdf you linked to. Could you quote it here or point to the exact page no & paragraph, please?



I'm on my phone so I can't quote it. But it's on the first paragraph of the second page. It cites Dutch research.


----------



## iona (Dec 18, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I'm on my phone so I can't quote it. But it's on the first paragraph of the second page. It cites Dutch research.



First paragraph of the second page is this - 


> These figures indicate that about 1% of the UK population, some 650,000 people, are likely to be gender incongruent to some degree. So far, only about 30,000 have sought medical help for gender dysphoria. Dutch research indicates that around a fifth of the 650,000 will do so, amounting to a further 100,000 people.



Nothing about genital surgery?


----------



## iona (Dec 18, 2017)

snadge said:


> So you believe in Dysphoria then?



What does "believing in" (I'm not even sure what you mean by that) dysphoria have to do with grammar?


----------



## snadge (Dec 18, 2017)

iona said:


> What does "believing in" (I'm not even sure what you mean by that) dysphoria have to do with grammar?



So why bring it up as a grammar attack when you haven't got a fucking clue what I am leading towards, did you just want to shut down that tangent of discourse?

Do you believe gender dysphoria is real?


----------



## weepiper (Dec 18, 2017)

snadge said:


> So why bring it up as a grammar attack when you haven't got a fucking clue what I am leading towards, did you just want to shut down that tangent of discourse?
> 
> Do you believe gender dysphoria is real?


'transgenders' is offensive, just as ''gays' or 'disableds' would be. They're people, not things. The adjective describes the people.


----------



## snadge (Dec 18, 2017)

weepiper said:


> 'transgenders' is offensive, just as ''gays' or 'disableds' would be. They're people, not things. The adjective describes the people.




How is transgender offensive?

How else does the layperson who doesn't give a shit about 0.3% of the population refer to them? Especially when they are so vocal, violent and predatory?


----------



## iona (Dec 18, 2017)

snadge said:


> So why bring it up as a grammar attack when you haven't got a fucking clue what I am leading towards, did you just want to shut down that tangent of discourse?
> 
> Do you believe gender dysphoria is real?



Well I experience it myself, so yes. 

What exactly were you leading towards that couldn't be said just as well with the grammatically correct and non-dehumanising phrase "transgender people" (or "transgender women" or whatever)?


----------



## weepiper (Dec 18, 2017)

snadge said:


> How is transgender offensive?
> 
> How else does the layperson who doesn't give a shit about 0.3% of the population refer to them? Especially when they are so vocal, violent and predatory?


Are you pissed?


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 18, 2017)

snadge said:


> How is transgender offensive?
> 
> How else does the layperson who doesn't give a shit about 0.3% of the population refer to them? Especially when they are so vocal, violent and predatory?



The fuck?!


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Dec 18, 2017)

iona said:


> First paragraph of the second page is this -
> 
> 
> Nothing about genital surgery?



No, not explicitly. But... 

Medical treatment are classified as hormones, top surgery and genital surgery or a combination thereof. Not necessarily all three. So if a fifth of all transgender people seek medical treatment, and not all are going to seek all the treatment, then it is reasonable to say that less than 20% will have genital surgery, meaning that more than 80% do not.


----------



## snadge (Dec 18, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> The fuck?!



I'm trying to find a common ground here, most people that live their lives don't give a shit about this, I'm the devil's advocate.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 18, 2017)

snadge said:


> I'm the devil's advocate.



You’re a pubescent troll in a pensioners body. 

Who is ‘so violent and predatory’?


----------



## weepiper (Dec 18, 2017)

snadge said:


> I'm trying to find a common ground here, most people that live their lives don't give a shit about this, I'm the devil's advocate.


Naw, you're being a prick.


----------



## iona (Dec 18, 2017)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> No, not explicitly. But...
> 
> Medical treatment are classified as hormones, top surgery and genital surgery or a combination thereof. Not necessarily all three. So if a fifth of all transgender people seek medical treatment, and not all are going to seek all the treatment, then it is reasonable to say that less than 20% will have genital surgery, meaning that more than 80% do not.



Ah right, I get where you're coming from now, cheers.

I'm still not entirely convinced, but I cba looking up all the research and I probably don't understand statistics enough anyway


----------



## iona (Dec 18, 2017)

weepiper said:


> Naw, you're being a prick.



Isn't this nice, finally something we can all agree on


----------



## smokedout (Dec 18, 2017)

iona said:


> Ah right, I get where you're coming from now, cheers.
> 
> I'm still not entirely convinced, but I cba looking up all the research and I probably don't understand statistics enough anyway



The 700,000 figures is "people who are gender incongruent to some degree" - of these around a fifth are estimated to go on to seek medical assistance and so less than that will actually have treatment.

This figure will though include occassional crossdressers, non binary people or other variations who will probably never even socially transition and don't want to - so I'm not sure it is that useful to say 80% of people who would normally be thought of as transgender, as in people who live in a different gender to the one assigned at birth will never seek any assistance or treatment.  The pool is much larger than that.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 18, 2017)

snadge said:


> I'm trying to find a common ground here, most people that live their lives don't give a shit about this, I'm the devil's advocate.


No. You are not so important at all.


----------



## Cloo (Dec 19, 2017)

So someone on Twitter says that self-identification is 'gaslightly' and I asked how so. Reply:




> This will render a generation entirely dependent on adults telling them how to feel in every and any situation. This helplessness is advantageous to abusers of either sex. And before you say it, sex is absolutely relevant to danger.



I replied that that was quite an extrapolation.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 19, 2017)

snadge said:


> Being able to make things and design things on this planet instead of being a gobshite on the internet makes me a lot more above you, what have you done in the world that has changed anything?


Haha you and your big ego. How it must comfort you.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 19, 2017)

Cloo said:


> So someone on Twitter says that self-identification is 'gaslightly' and I asked how so. Reply:
> 
> 
> I replied that that was quite an extrapolation.



I am not sure what they wrote even makes sense.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 19, 2017)

Cloo said:


> So someone on Twitter says that self-identification is 'gaslightly' and I asked how so. Reply:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes. I’m struggling to understand the argument there. Self-identification = helplessness/dependence = gaslighting?


----------



## TopCat (Dec 19, 2017)

NoXion said:


> Indeed, someone who says "no blacks" on a personal ad could well indeed be a massive fucking racist. Or they're simply not turned on by dark skin. Since racists can be attracted to dark skin, it doesn't seem unreasonable to extrapolate that the inverse can happen, people who aren't raging bigots who aren't attracted to dark skin.
> 
> Trying to police that sounds like an ethical and moral minefield at best. I'm not sure what good it would do either.


I think language is often telling and that it's useful in the debate over whether refusing to consider having sex with trans people is transphobic.
How a person words their dating ad to exclude trans people would I think be telling as to whether they are a massive cunt or not.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 19, 2017)

Cloo said:


> So someone on Twitter says that self-identification is 'gaslightly' and I asked how so. Reply:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A gender studies student perhaps?


----------



## TopCat (Dec 19, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Yes. I’m struggling to understand the argument there. Self-identification = helplessness/dependence = gaslighting?


I think they are bemoaning the prospect of not being able to decide for themselves (by appearence and mannerisms) a persons gender.


----------



## co-op (Dec 19, 2017)

smokedout said:


> You seem to be reluctant to ackowledge that this is also happening here, and that some of the most virulent anti-trans rhetoric is now coming from people in the UK  - including the people running the Women's Place Is On The Platform speaking tour.



I genuinely don't know enough about the coalition against the GRA to be able to comment meaningfully on it. And I'm more than happy to agree (and have done on other posts) that there are radical feminists who clearly are aggressively hostile to any transwoman, any explanation of their reality that isn't just 'a man in a dress' and generally utterly dismiss debate. They seem to me no better than the self-styled trans activists who go in for the 'suck my girl-dick' stuff.




smokedout said:


> I very much doubt any trans activist would work the the Iranian regime even if such an alliance was enouraged or possible.
> 
> I also don't really think it's fair to say trans-activists are working with the British Army or other reactionary organisations, other than in their roles as employers of people.  They are not having meetings about policy, or feeding each other juicy stories for the media.



My point wasn't that they _are _working with the Iranian regime or would; clearly they wouldn't at present because there is literally only downside to any such alliance. The point is that if we are to judge rad fems by the company they keep politically, then we might also want to question some of the deeply reactionary ideological company that is marching alongside transactivists theory. People like the Iranian Mullahs who will happily force gay men to become transwomen. 

And this is before we even get on to the colonial appropriation of any gender-fluid social identity that has been constructed in non-western cultures (of which there are many, with ancient roots) but which are now demanded to be "transgender" and to conform to the latest demands of US and European activists.



smokedout said:


> They are also not swallowing their principles and working with men's rights activists or other groups who are opposed to feminists - mostly because the majority of trans-activists would say they were feminists, and *many have a radical critique of the gender binary.*



I'd really question 'many' and those transpeople who argue this stuff publicly get shouted down pretty harshly from what I've seen. No surprise there; the whole 'a woman born in a man's body' narrative cannot stand up to any "radical critique of the gender binary".


----------



## Cloo (Dec 19, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Yes. I’m struggling to understand the argument there. Self-identification = helplessness/dependence = gaslighting?


They have 'explained' it thus:



> It's real. Every child, woman, even men, scan a room of strangers and makes discrimination based on who's safe. You want to undermine that mental process from the get go? Imagine being raised to consider your own self preservation reflexes as wrong


 I think one has to understand this viewpoint as coming from an idea that trans women are men, and a man in a woman's space must be a threat.

I expressed that I find this a very cynical view of humanity and people's mental capability to adapt and understand.


----------



## LDC (Dec 19, 2017)

co-op said:


> And this is before we even get on to the colonial appropriation of any gender-fluid social identity that has been constructed in non-western cultures (of which there are many, with ancient roots) but which are now demanded to be "transgender" and to conform to the latest demands of US and European activists.



Probably too much of a massive subject (and derail) here but that is a really interesting subject, also alongside other people cross-dressing in the past who are now being claimed as 'trans' who almost certainly didn't identify as such.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 19, 2017)

co-op said:


> I genuinely don't know enough about the coalition against the GRA to be able to comment meaningfully on it. And I'm more than happy to agree (and have done on other posts) that there are radical feminists who clearly are aggressively hostile to any transwoman, any explanation of their reality that isn't just 'a man in a dress' and generally utterly dismiss debate. They seem to me no better than the self-styled trans activists who go in for the 'suck my girl-dick' stuff.
> 
> My point wasn't that they _are _working with the Iranian regime or would; clearly they wouldn't at present because there is literally only downside to any such alliance. The point is that if we are to judge rad fems by the company they keep politically, then we might also want to question some of the deeply reactionary ideological company that is marching alongside transactivists theory. People like the Iranian Mullahs who will happily force gay men to become transwomen.



Sorry this seems like a crude comparison to me, like trying to smear trans exclusionary rad fems by saying the Saudi regime or Hitler would agre with them (and pretty much every other dictatorial regime in history, except Iran).  The point about the company that some rad fems have kept, and the allegiances they have formed, is that they are prepared to work with the worst kind of misogynists as long as it harms transpeople.  I think that speaks to their integrity, and suggests their hatred of trans people overrrides any other feminist concerns.



> And this is before we even get on to the colonial appropriation of any gender-fluid social identity that has been constructed in non-western cultures (of which there are many, with ancient roots) but which are now demanded to be "transgender" and to conform to the latest demands of US and European activists.



I'm not sure this is really happening.  The Hijra in for example India and Pakistan have been self-organised for a long time.  Of course in the English language they would come under the transgender definition but I haven't seen any demands from Western trans-activists over how they should organise politically or what their demands should be.



> I'd really question 'many' and those transpeople who argue this stuff publicly get shouted down pretty harshly from what I've seen. No surprise there; the whole 'a woman born in a man's body' narrative cannot stand up to any "radical critique of the gender binary".



Again I disagree.  Self confessed autogynophiles like Miranda Yardley, who project their sexual fetish onto all transpeople, have been shouted down and rightly so given the company she keeps and the rhetoric she comes out with.  Most trans-activists and theorists have a radical critique of gender - the women in a man's body - itself a crude way to describe to the sceptical how gender dysphoria can feel - is not really a model many people use anymore.

It's perhaps worth noting that the idea of male/female brains is the dominant social narrative - Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus was on the best seller's list a long time.  It's therefore unsurprising that some trans-people have adopted this concept.  But I would argue that on the whole trans people have a far more radical analysis and understanding of gender than the general population.


----------



## Athos (Dec 19, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Probably too much of a massive subject (and derail) here but that is a really interesting subject, also alongside other people cross-dressing in the past who are now being claimed as 'trans' who almost certainly didn't identify as such.



Like Marsha Johnson and Silvia Rivera. The oft repeated myth that the early gay rights movement was led by trans women.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Again I disagree.  Self confessed autogynophiles like Miranda Yardley, who project their sexual fetish onto all transpeople, have been shouted down and rightly so given the company she keeps and the rhetoric she comes out with.  Most trans-activists and theorists have a radical critique of gender - the women in a man's body - itself a crude way to describe to the sceptical how gender dysphoria can feel - is not really a model many people use anymore.
> 
> It's perhaps worth noting that the idea of male/female brains is the dominant social narrative - Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus was on the best seller's list a long time.  It's therefore unsurprising that some trans-people have adopted this concept.  But I would argue that on the whole trans people have a far more radical analysis and understanding of gender than the general population.



Please do not lie about me. I am not a ‘self confessed autogynephile’. On the contrary, I argue for honesty and compassion for those who live with this.

I have written on this subject many times and always referenced the scientific literature which defines the typology and which lends empirical evidence. You only have to look at social media timelines to see this typology does seem to correspond with what goes on in the real world. Here’s a for example:

17 Signs I Am An Autogynephile And Didn’t Know It

Transgender culture does not have a radical analysis of gender. On the contrary, it specifies gender as being ‘an inner sense of being male or female’. This reduces the material reality of sex to nothing more than thoughts and feelings. How anyone on the left can square this with leftist political analysis is beyond me. Such a metaphysical interpretations of material oppression is something the founders of the modern left: JS Mill, Marx, Engels and Gramsci would find this anathema: have we all forgotten about dialectical materialism?

Instead of smearing people, how about engaging in honest and productive discussion? The bullying, no-platforming and refusal of transgender activists to defend core beliefs in open debate are all rather telling. How can we possibly move forward if we can’t have a feee discussion?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 19, 2017)

Athos said:


> Like Marsha Johnson and Silvia Rivera. The oft repeated myth that the early gay rights movement was led by trans women.



And yet here, in her most famous piece of writing, Rivera referes to herself and peers as transwomen, repeatedly talks about the transgender movement and refers throughout to Marsha using female pronouns.

But you know better don't you.  I've said it before, you're a nasty piece of work.


----------



## co-op (Dec 19, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Most trans-activists and theorists have a radical critique of gender - the women in a man's body - itself a crude way to describe to the sceptical how gender dysphoria can feel - is not really a model many people use anymore.



When I criticised it on these pages about 2 years ago I was widely denounced as a transphobe.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 19, 2017)

smokedout said:


> And yet here, in her most famous piece of writing, Rivera referes to herself and peers as transwomen, repeatedly talks about the transgender movement and refers throughout to Marsha using female pronouns.
> 
> But you know better don't you.  I've said it before, you're a nasty piece of work.


This thread is not your finest hour.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 19, 2017)

co-op said:


> When I criticised it on these pages about 2 years ago I was widely denounced as a transphobe.



Well I suppose that depends on the context but I don't remember that thread.  I think it was a term used by early trans-activists, like Sylvia Rivera as shorthand for how some people experienced being trans



> Transvestites are homosexual men and women who dress in clothes of the opposite sex. Male transvestites dress and live as women. Half sisters like myself are women with the minds of women trapped in male bodies. Female transvestites dress and live as men. My half brothers are men with male minds trapped in female bodies. Transvestites are the most oppressed people in the homosexual community. My half sisters and brothers are being raped and murdered by pigs, straights, and even sometimes by other uptight homosexuals who consider us the scum of the gay community. They do this because they are not liberated.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 19, 2017)

TopCat said:


> This thread is not your finest hour.



I hope to have many finer hours than this.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 19, 2017)

TopCat said:


> This thread is not your finest hour.



And I stand by  that comment.  I can't think of many things much nastier than rewriting someone's history to suit your personal prejudices and then using that to attack what that person stood for.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 19, 2017)

smokedout said:


> And I stand by  that comment.  I can't think of many things much nastier than rewriting someone's history to suit your personal prejudices and then using that to attack what that person stood for.


Well for the record you have knowingly played the cunt throughout.


----------



## Athos (Dec 19, 2017)

smokedout said:


> And yet here, in her most famous piece of writing, Rivera referes to herself and peers as transwomen, repeatedly talks about the transgender movement and refers throughout to Marsha using female pronouns.
> 
> But you know better don't you.  I've said it before, you're a nasty piece of work.



She refers to herself as a drag queen, and explicitly rejects the label transgender, in that article!  Throughout her life, she repeatedly referred to herself as a 'street queen', 'drag queen', 'transvestite', 'half sister', etc.. 

Similar for Johnson.

But don't let the truth stand in the way of your name-calling.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 19, 2017)

Sorry to labour this point, but thats Silvia Rivera who suffered a violent attack at the hands of the political current Athos has defended throughout and which led to her atgtempting suicide and withdrawing from politics.



> [2] Women in the GLF were uncomfortable referring to Rivera – who insisted in using women’s bathrooms, even in City hall – as ‘she.’ Pressure mounted. The year 1973 witnessed clash that would take Rivera out of the movement for the next two decades… As they passed out flyers outlining their opposition to the ‘female impersonators,’ Rivera wrestled for the microphone held by emcee Vitto Russo, before getting hit with it herself. Rivera explained, ‘I had to battle my way up on stage, and literally get beaten up and punched around by people I thought were my comrades, to get to that microphone. – Benjamin Shepard, That’s Revolting!, pp 126 – 127 [3] Sylvia Riviara recounted the event: “Jean O’Leary, a founder of Radicalesbians, decided that drag queens were insulting to women… I had been told I was going to speak at the rally. And that’s when things just got out of hand. I’m very militant when it comes to certain things, and I didn’t appreciate what was going down with Jean O’Leary stating that we were insulting women… She told Vito Russo to kick my ass onstage… but I still got up and spoke my piece.” – Susan Glisson (Ed), The Human Tradition in the Civil Rights Movement, p 325 [4] “[T]his incident precipitated yet another suicide attempt on her part… the events of that day in 1973 ultimately took something out of Sylvia Rivera. In the succeeding years, Sylvia Rivera’s participation in ‘the movement’ waned. Although she attended every Christopher Street Liberation Day Parade (with the exception of two) until her death, Sylvia’s formal participation in organizations like the GLF and the GAA came to a halt.” – _ibid._


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> On the contrary, it specifies gender as being ‘an inner sense of being male or female’. This reduces the material reality of sex to nothing more than thoughts and feelings.


The second sentence does not follow from the first. Someone's 'inner sense' takes place within an entire socio-economic structure that creates gender. Haven't followed this whole thread but there were claims above that being trans is an individualistic attempt to escape socially created notions of gender. But the converse argument is that those who oppose people being trans are demanding that individuals take on the burden of opposing vast social forces. It could be compared to telling people not to buy Starbucks and iphones if they are anti-capitalist. Would people on this thread guilt-trip an anti-capitalist about consuming within a capitalist framework? Then why guilt-trip a trans person about living the gender they feel themselves to be within a social framework they also don't control?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 19, 2017)

Athos said:


> She refers to herself as a drag queen, and explicitly rejects the label transgender, in that article!  Throughout her life, she repeatedly referred to herself as a 'street queen', 'drag queen', 'transvestite', 'half sister', etc..
> 
> Similar for Johnson.
> 
> But don't let the truth stand in the way of your name-calling.



She rejects labels altogether, but that didn't stop herself from describing herself as transgender throughout much of her life, or calling the later manifestation of her organisation the Street Transgender Action Revolutionaries


----------



## Athos (Dec 19, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Sorry to labour this point, but thats Silvia Rivera who suffered a violent attack at the hands of the political current Athos has defended throughout and which led to her atgtempting suicide and withdrawing from politics.



I've consistently condemned outright all physical attacks on trans people.  Such attacks are not the same as suggesting women have a right to discus what it means to be a woman.  That you repeatedly seek to conflate the two is a mark of your dishonesty.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

Brainaddict said:


> The second sentence does not follow from the first. Someone's 'inner sense' takes place within an entire socio-economic structure that creates gender. Haven't followed this whole thread but there were claims above that being trans is an individualistic attempt to escape socially created notions of gender. But the converse argument is that those who oppose people being trans are demanding that individuals take on the burden of opposing vast social forces. It could be compared to telling people not to buy Starbucks and iphones if they are anti-capitalist. Would people on this thread guilt-trip an anti-capitalist about consuming within a capitalist framework? Then why guilt-trip a trans person about living the gender they feel themselves to be within a social framework they also don't control?



Well, ‘woman’ and ‘man’ as adult human female and male respectively, this follows: female and male are biological realities with material consequemces, not identities. 

The argument is not so much the opposition to people being trans, more what it means to be trans: particularly whether a man who has lived say 60years as a man and who has benefitted rom this, can lay claim to being ‘a woman’ just because they say so (see for example Kellie Maloney or Caitlyn Jenner).

I think if the transgender community were able to accept that humans are sexually dimorphic, that ‘transgender women’ are biologically male, that women and ‘trans women’ have different lives, and that we are all subject to sex-based socialisation that begins at birth, a lot of the heat would be taken out of this debate and common ground (based on equity and material reality)could be found.


----------



## weepiper (Dec 19, 2017)

Are women not allowed to think drag queens are insulting to us?


----------



## bimble (Dec 19, 2017)

smokedout said:


> ..hence blaming a transwoman's tweet for Topshop's changing room policies.


Just whilst we’re accusing one another of mislabelling people, the person you were talking about above does not identify as a trans woman.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 19, 2017)

bimble said:


> Just whilst we’re accusing one another of mislabelling people, the person you were talking about above does not identify as a trans woman.



Fair enough, that was a mistake, they describe themselves as trans-feminine I believe.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Well, ‘woman’ and ‘man’ as adult human female and male respectively, this follows: female and male are biological realities with material consequemces, not identities.
> 
> The argument is not so much the opposition to people being trans, more what it means to be trans: particularly whether a man who has lived say 60years as a man and who has benefitted rom this, can lay claim to being ‘a woman’ just because they say so (see for example Kellie Maloney or Caitlyn Jenner).
> 
> I think if the transgender community were able to accept that humans are sexually dimorphic, that ‘transgender women’ are biologically male, that women and ‘trans women’ have different lives, and that we are all subject to sex-based socialisation that begins at birth, a lot of the heat would be taken out of this debate and common ground (based on equity and material reality)could be found.



Do you google your own name every morning?


----------



## belboid (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Well, ‘woman’ and ‘man’ as adult human female and male respectively, this follows: female and male are biological realities with material consequemces, not identities.
> 
> The argument is not so much the opposition to people being trans, more what it means to be trans: particularly whether a man who has lived say 60years as a man and who has benefitted rom this, can lay claim to being ‘a woman’ just because they say so (see for example Kellie Maloney or Caitlyn Jenner).
> 
> I think if the transgender community were able to accept that humans are sexually dimorphic, that ‘transgender women’ are biologically male, that women and ‘trans women’ have different lives, and that we are all subject to sex-based socialisation that begins at birth, a lot of the heat would be taken out of this debate and common ground (based on equity and material reality)could be found.


All women have different lives. The Queen and a working-class woman from the north will have very little in common. And, whilst Caitlyn Jenners life and socialisation will indeed have been very different to almost all other womens, that doesn't mean it is invalid. What about those trans people who transitioned very early in life, and have lived most of their lives as women? They will have experienced much of the same discrimination that other women face.

Also, it is not true that one can simply say 'this is a man, and this is a woman' - as our scientific understanding progresses, we realise that actually it is never as simple as that. It doesn't mean the categories are useless, or that statistics cannot be drawn out. Race is self-defined, but that doesn't mean we can't meaningfully talk about racism. The category of 'species' is something that scientists now say cannot be fully defined, but that doesn't mean it isn't still useful.

The oddest thing for me (as a cis male) is that most of the women's movement (to use the broadest term) always used to reject defining women simply by their biology, but now it is, apparently, the only criteria that matters. (Materialism, for Marx, is about people's daily lived experience, not a scientific abstraction)


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Do you google your own name every morning?



No, I was told by a comrade you were attempting to smear my character. So, as is my right, I came here to defend myself. 

I note you don’t have a substantive argument.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

belboid said:


> All women have different lives. The Queen and a working-class woman from the north will have very little in common. And, whilst Caitlyn Jenners life and socialisation will indeed have been very different to almost all other womens, that doesn't mean it is invalid. What about those trans people who transitioned very early in life, and have lived most of their lives as women? They will have experienced much of the same discrimination that other women face.
> 
> Also, it is not true that one can simply say 'this is a man, and this is a woman' - as our scientific understanding progresses, we realise that actually it is never as simple as that. It doesn't mean the categories are useless, or that statistics cannot be drawn out. Race is self-defined, but that doesn't mean we can't meaningfully talk about racism. The category of 'species' is something that scientists now say cannot be fully defined, but that doesn't mean it isn't still useful.
> 
> The oddest thing for me (as a cis male) is that most of the women's movement (to use the broadest term) always used to reject defining women simply by their biology, but now it is, apparently, the only criteria that matters. (Materialism, for Marx, is about people's daily lived experience, not a scientific abstraction)



I’m not saying anyone’s experience is invalid, just that ‘trans women’ are neither female nor women. I think you misunderstand how the women’s movement define themselves. Biology is a major factor, because our reproductive class has far reaching consequences on our lives, both biologically and socially: being a woman is not solely distilled into ones reproductive system, however everyone who has a female reproductive system is female.

De Beauvoir’s ‘The Second Sex’ is a seminal work on these questions. It’s a long but very informative read. I’d totally recommend it.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Dec 19, 2017)

weepiper said:


> Are women not allowed to think drag queens are insulting to us?



Whether it's "allowed" or not, I find drag queens extremely offensive.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 19, 2017)

Athos said:


> She refers to herself as a drag queen, and explicitly rejects the label transgender, in that article!  .


That's a misrepresentation of what she says. She repeatedly says 'we' and 'us' about transgender people throughout that article. At one point she says how she tires of labels. _Even transgender_. In other words, even the label that would probably be the best one for me, I tire of.


----------



## belboid (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I’m not saying anyone’s experience is invalid, just that ‘trans women’ are neither female nor women. I think you misunderstand how the women’s movement define themselves. Biology is a major factor, because our reproductive class has far reaching consequences on our lives, both biologically and socially: being a woman is not solely distilled into ones reproductive system, however everyone who has a female reproductive system is female.
> 
> De Beauvoir’s ‘The Second Sex’ is a seminal work on these questions. It’s a long but very informative read. I’d totally recommend it.


It is over twenty years since I read The Second Sex, it is indeed seminal (ironically enough). 

Of course the women's reproductive role is absolutely central to the treatment of women - although I would say the _presumed _reproductive role as there have always been women who cannot reproduce, and that biological fact does not affect how they are treated in society.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

belboid said:


> Of course the women's reproductive role is absolutely central to the treatment of women - although I would say the _presumed _reproductive role as there have always been women who cannot reproduce, and that biological fact does not affect how they are treated in society.



Hence my use of the term ‘reproductive class’.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Dec 19, 2017)

belboid said:


> a working-class woman from the north



lol. cue hovis music and a R4 voiceover.


----------



## belboid (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Hence my use of the term ‘reproductive class’.


Not one I find very useful, considering the massive discrepancies in the material conditions of different womens lives, and the fact that some women explicitly benefit from the current set up.


----------



## Mation (Dec 19, 2017)

To the people who don't think/believe that trans women are women: do you think that Teddy Quinlivan is male? Not a woman? If you'd heard of her before she came out as trans a couple of months ago (I hadn't), did you previously think that she was not a woman?


> ‘Since I transitioned when I was 16, I’ve been living as a cis female,’ Teddy told CNN. ‘I was very lucky, because I won the genetic lottery – I looked a certain way and my voice hadn’t dropped. That privilege gave me a lot of confidence to walk down the street, date, and (work) in the fashion industry, where people I would presume I was a “normal” girl.’


Model Teddy Quinlivan comes out as transgender at New York Fashion Week | Metro News


----------



## belboid (Dec 19, 2017)

A couple of pieces I think are very good on why it is important to support the 'trans activists' on this issue (apologies if we've had them before):

'Crucial' study of transgender children links mental health with family support

Debunking “Trans Women Are Not Women” Arguments – Julia Serano – Medium


----------



## belboid (Dec 19, 2017)

Oh, and here's another one - if biology is as central as the anti-GRA group assert, then the judge is absolutely right in this case 

A judge said an anonymous sperm donor is a boy’s real parent & not his lesbian mom


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

belboid said:


> A couple of pieces I think are very good on why it is important to support the 'trans activists' on this issue (apologies if we've had them before):
> 
> 'Crucial' study of transgender children links mental health with family support
> 
> Debunking “Trans Women Are Not Women” Arguments – Julia Serano – Medium



It’s possible, you know, to support transgender people without affirming any delusion that males can be female. Interestingly, many trans people who otherwise vehemently disagree with me recognise that ‘trans women’ are male, where they and I differ is the concept of a ‘male woman’. Yes, in the case of CAIS women socialised as girls from birth. No, not anyone who transitions at a later point. 

And no, I don’t think we should be transitioning children to meet a socialisation criteria: there’s nothing wrong with trying to support people in becoming comfortable in their own bodies. 

I think with children, it is cruel and abusive to support the idea their personalities don’t match their bodies. Apart from anything else, it’s based on (often transient)cultural stereotypes:

Common Threads And Narratives of Transgender Children And What This Means For Our Lesbian And Gay Populations

James Cantor’s excellent piece on ‘trans kids’ and desistance:

Sexology Today!: Statistics faulty on how many trans- kids grow up to stay trans-?

Here’s a thorough critique of Serano’s piece. It’s a very well-reasoned piece of writing. 

Is Julia Serano right that transwomen are female? – Marcus – Medium


----------



## TopCat (Dec 19, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's a misrepresentation of what she says. She repeatedly says 'we' and 'us' about transgender people throughout that article. At one point she says how she tires of labels. _Even transgender_. In other words, even the label that would probably be the best one for me, I tire of.


Do you find it irksome? Her not liking labels?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 19, 2017)

TopCat said:


> Do you find it irksome? Her not liking labels?


Given the life she led, the prejudice she faced, and her struggle for acceptance, not at all.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 19, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Given the life she led, the prejudice she faced, and her struggle for acceptance, not at all.


Ah so she earned the right (in your eyes) not to be labelled. 
You really should have taken up social work.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> And no, I don’t think we should be transitioning children to meet a socialisation criteria: there’s nothing wrong with trying to support people in becoming comfortable in their own bodies.



And if transitioning is what these people need to do in order to become comfortable in their own bodies?

You use 'transitioning' in the passive sense, ie something being done to someone. Transitioning, in its various forms, is something people decide to do for themselves.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 19, 2017)

TopCat said:


> Ah so she earned the right (in your eyes) not to be labelled.
> You really should have taken up social work.


You make a piss-weak equivalence between this and your objection to the term cis.

Go fuck yourself.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

belboid said:


> All women have different lives. The Queen and a working-class woman from the north will have very little in common.



Yet what they will have in common it the material effect of having a female reproductive system, and the consequences of this. And this is something they will share with many other women across class and culture throughout the planet. They will share that experience, which is forever beyond the reach of ‘trans women’. 



belboid said:


> And, whilst Caitlyn Jenners life and socialisation will indeed have been very different to almost all other womens, that doesn't mean it is invalid. What about those trans people who transitioned very early in life, and have lived most of their lives as women? They will have experienced much of the same discrimination that other women face.



Jenner’s life and socialisation is different to every woman’s, because Jenner is male.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 19, 2017)

TopCat said:


> You really should have taken up social work.



Let’s keep it civil yeah?


----------



## TopCat (Dec 19, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You make a piss-weak equivalence between this and your objection to the term cis.
> 
> Go fuck yourself.


I don't like being labelled and you dismissed this in a highly patronising holier than thou manner. But you graciously (after careful consideration) bestow a freedom from labels to this lass. 
I can picture you chairing child case conferences and lecturing the parents. You would fit in.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> And if transitioning is what these people need to do in order to become comfortable in their own bodies?
> 
> You use 'transitioning' in the passive sense, ie something being done to someone. Transitioning, in its various forms, is something people decide to do for themselves.



Please see the link I posted above on desistance and also how gender nonconforming behaviour in children is being interpreted as them being transgender. 

Transition is a huge decision, even for someone of 18, because the effects are deep and irreversable. Imagine having to live your full life with the consequence of every decision you made at 18...


----------



## co-op (Dec 19, 2017)

belboid said:


> Not one I find very useful, considering the massive discrepancies in the material conditions of different womens lives, and the fact that some women explicitly benefit from the current set up.



 The fact that the group "women" contains representatives of all social classes does not necessarily mean there's no point to recognising women as a distinct group who have been collectively subjected to an astonishing degree of oppression for millenia. That's the whole point of feminism isn't it? Or at least of radical feminism.

If you don't think reproduction, the need for men to control it by controlling women and legislating what they are and aren't allowed to do with their bodies and the fact that reproduction and child-rearing are expected to be provided without payment by women is anything to do with this debate then, with respect, you seriously don't know anything about it.

And if you can't see why these issues are - broadly - significantly less relevant to transwomen then ditto.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Transition is a huge decision, even for someone of 18, because the effects are deep and irreversable. Imagine having to live your full life with the consequence of every decision you made at 18...



Everyone has to live with consequences of their decisions. You can join the army and get your legs blown off at 18 if you want to.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 19, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Everyone has to live with consequences of their decisions. You can join the army and get your legs blown off at 18 if you want to.


or at 16 with your parents' permission


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Everyone has to live with consequences of their decisions. You can join the army and get your legs blown off at 18 if you want to.



That’s a different matter completely. And no, I really wouldn’t recommend anyone join the army. 

He point I’m making is young boys and girls having their reproductive systems destroyed based on a condition without an agreed etiology appears rather extreme. We have a culture that seems to want to support people to become a facsimile of the opposite sex, rather than accept themselves and their sexuality as it is. 

How can this be said to be progressive? How can we really be supporting these children, buying into the idea their bodies do not match their personalities? To me, this seems not just devoid of compassion, but incredibly cruel.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 19, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> or at 16 with your parents' permission



Rule fucking Brittania.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> That’s a different matter completely. And no, I really wouldn’t recommend anyone join the army.
> 
> He point I’m making is young boys and girls having their reproductive systems destroyed based on a condition without an agreed etiology appears rather extreme. We have a culture that seems to want to support people to become a facsimile of the opposite sex, rather than accept themselves and their sexuality as it is.
> 
> How can this be said to be progressive? How can we really be supporting these children, buying into the idea their bodies do not match their personalities? To me, this seems not just devoid of compassion, but incredibly cruel.


how can we say these people should adhere to our beliefs?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 19, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Rule fucking Brittania.


i wanted to but they said the position was taken


----------



## co-op (Dec 19, 2017)

Brainaddict said:


> The second sentence does not follow from the first. Someone's 'inner sense' takes place within an entire socio-economic structure that creates gender. Haven't followed this whole thread but there were claims above *that being trans is an individualistic attempt to escape socially created notions of gender.* But the converse argument is that those who oppose people being trans are demanding that individuals take on the burden of opposing vast social forces. It could be compared to telling people not to buy Starbucks and iphones if they are anti-capitalist. Would people on this thread guilt-trip an anti-capitalist about consuming within a capitalist framework? Then why guilt-trip a trans person about living the gender they feel themselves to be within a social framework they also don't control?



I know this thread is a beast but this has been covered quite closely and I don't think anyone has said that transpeople have any special obligation to be or do anything in relation to the patriarchy. In fact that's been specifically rejected where it's been raised.

Re the bit I've bolded; I don't see anyone having made that argument but it's possible that you've read that out of things I've posted it, it's not always easy to get clarity into posts. My view is not that '*being trans is an individualistic attempt to escape socially created notions of gender' - *it's that too often 'being trans' (whatever that means) has been a way of re-stating and reifying deeply reactionary gender roles on the basis of some mysterious essence of 'woman'. Transitioning thus becomes not a way of challenging toxic patriarchal gender roles but merely an individualistic accommodation to those roles, part of which accommodation is ritual worship at the shrines of those gender roles one of which is the hyper-feminised woman.

So there's a pov there which it should imo be legitimate to critique but generally doing so is automatically assigned to transphobia.

I get that transwomen are damned if they do, damned if they don't here; the practical demands of the medical profession mean that transwomen have to 'live like' a woman for X years etc so there's a strong practical push to act stereotypically female. Patriarchal gender compliance is actually a part of the diagnosis. And if they go hyper-feminine they can be shot at for that, if they don't they are 'just a man in a dress' and shot at for that etc etc.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> how can we say these people should adhere to our beliefs?



What beliefs?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> What beliefs?


i did not know you were a nihilist


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

This:



co-op said:


> ...it's that too often 'being trans' (whatever that means) has been a way of re-stating and reifying deeply reactionary gender roles on the basis of some mysterious essence of 'woman'. Transitioning thus becomes not a way of challenging toxic patriarchal gender roles but merely an individualistic accommodation to those roles, part of which accommodation is ritual worship at the shrines of those gender roles one of which is the hyper-feminised woman.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> i did not know you were a nihilist



LOL I’m not! I was wondering which beliefs in particular?


----------



## TopCat (Dec 19, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Everyone has to live with consequences of their decisions. You can join the army and get your legs blown off at 18 if you want to.


Kids are getting puberty blocking drugs younger than 16


----------



## spanglechick (Dec 19, 2017)

TopCat said:


> Kids are getting puberty blocking drugs younger than 16


Delaying, no?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> LOL I’m not! I was wondering which beliefs in particular?


Our belief that we know better than them at the end of the day


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 19, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Our belief that we know better than them at the end of the day



That we (adults) know better than them (children) about gender transitioning, or about life/reality per se?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 19, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> That we (adults) know better than them (children) about gender transitioning, or about life/reality per se?


Yes, precisely


----------



## Mation (Dec 19, 2017)

co-op said:


> My view is not that '*being trans is an individualistic attempt to escape socially created notions of gender' - *it's that too often 'being trans' (whatever that means) has been a way of re-stating and reifying deeply reactionary gender roles on the basis of some mysterious essence of 'woman'. Transitioning thus becomes not a way of challenging toxic patriarchal gender roles but merely an individualistic accommodation to those roles, part of which accommodation is ritual worship at the shrines of those gender roles one of which is the hyper-feminised woman.


Should we be policing cis women to make sure that they (we) aren't presenting ourselves as hyper-feminised women?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yes, precisely



How can a child, or any other human being, know what it feels like to be the opposite sex? Or be anyone/anything other than themselves?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> How can a child, or any other human being, know what it feels like to be the opposite sex? Or be anyone/anything other than themselves?


Ah right, you're saying all trans people are frauds and charlatans


----------



## co-op (Dec 19, 2017)

Mation said:


> Should we be policing cis women to make sure that they (we) aren't presenting ourselves as hyper-feminised women?



No ones talked about policing roles apart from you.

So, no. 

But we should certainly critique those roles that we are all force fed by modern patriarchal capitalism, that seems to me obvious.

Large numbers of both men and women perform their gender roles with real intensity almost inevitably at a real cost to their humanity. The desire to preserve and maintain those roles  makes people manipulable and neurotic.

Radical feminists _did_ critique women who obsessively acted out hyper-female roles and of course they were roundly mocked for doing that (hairy armpits! euuww!). Do you think they were wrong?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Ah right, you're saying all trans people are frauds and charlatans



That’s not what I said. Can you please answer the question? Thank you.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 19, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Ah right, you're saying all trans people are frauds and charlatans



‘Frauds and charlatans’ implies deliberate dishonesty. Which isn’t what I’m getting from miranda Yardley’s post, or from the critique of ‘feeling like a woman/man’ more generally.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

Mation said:


> Should we be policing cis women to make sure that they (we) aren't presenting ourselves as hyper-feminised women?



To paraphrase Joe Jackson, it’s ‘different for boys’. I think there’s a connection between the performed hyperfeminity in pornography and the motivations behind the transition of some transgender males. 

Pornography And Autogynephilia In The Narratives Of Adult Transgender Males


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> That’s not what I said. Can you please answer the question? Thank you.


My response was in answer to your question. Of course it's not what you said, repeating what you said would be stupid. But the tenor of your post suggested to me that you do not believe them when trans people say about being in the wrong body.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> ‘Frauds and charlatans’ implies deliberate dishonesty. Which isn’t what I’m getting from miranda Yardley’s post, or from the critique of ‘feeling like a woman/man’ more generally.



It’s a philosophical question that really gets to the heart of the claim being made. Compare to Wittgenstein’s ‘beetle in the box’ or Nagel’s ‘how does it feel to be a bat’.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 19, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> ‘Frauds and charlatans’ implies deliberate dishonesty. Which isn’t what I’m getting from miranda Yardley’s post, or from the critique of ‘feeling like a woman/man’ more generally.


I think you'll find miranda not Miranda Yardley


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> My response was in answer to your question. Of course it's not what you said, repeating what you said would be stupid. But the tenor of your post suggested to me that you do not believe them when trans people say about being in the wrong body.



I don’t think many do, in reality. It appears to have been a metaphor that’s evolved into a popular understanding of what it means to be trans. And the question remains, how can we possibly know we are the wrong sex? There’s no empirical evidence to suggest this either, the whole idea is so metaphysical.


----------



## belboid (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> It’s possible, you know, to support transgender people without affirming any delusion that males can be female. Interestingly, many trans people who otherwise vehemently disagree with me recognise that ‘trans women’ are male, where they and I differ is the concept of a ‘male woman’. Yes, in the case of CAIS women socialised as girls from birth. No, not anyone who transitions at a later point.
> 
> And no, I don’t think we should be transitioning children to meet a socialisation criteria: there’s nothing wrong with trying to support people in becoming comfortable in their own bodies.
> 
> ...


Not had time to read the last piece yet, but the other two seem to miss a pretty major point, imo. Attending a Gender Identity Clinic does not mean the person is transgender, it means they are having issues with how their assigned gender reflects their actual lives. Attending a clinic doesn't make you trans any more than taking a pregnancy test makes you pregnant. Also, it should be noted that attending a clinic doesn't usually mean there is any medical intervention. As your own piece notes (after the quotes from the Daily bloody Mail) '_The Tavistock Clinic follows British guidelines, which suggest not introducing hormone blockers until the latter stages of puberty.' - _nothing permanent is done to the child, except under extreme circumstances. So the myth of thousand of children undergoing treatments that they later regret is just that, a myth.

Many children at that age undergo all kinds of crises and confusions about their gender and their sexuality at that age, we all know that. Does it actually do any good to just go 'no, you are wrong, you were born a girl so you are one'? It didn't really have much (positive) effect when parents (and teachers etc) went 'no, you're wrong, you're not gay, you're just confused.' Surely as long as there is no physical harm done - as your quote referred to above agrees happens - then it is better to support the child in coming to terms with themselves _themselves. _The idea that there is a 'trans trend' forcing children to change their gender is as nonsensical as it was when the tories tried to ban "promoting homosexuality."  It's about letting children be as autonomous as possible, and I think that is a good thing. And if they change their mind later, they change their mind later - what parent would ever think it was okay for their child to present as the opposite gender, but not to let them change their mind again? How many parents have ever said 'you slept with someone of the same gender once, so you can only sleep with people of the same gender from now on'?


----------



## Mation (Dec 19, 2017)

co-op said:


> No ones talked about policing roles apart from you.
> 
> So, no.
> 
> ...


You didn't mention policing but you described it.

We don't insist that cis women challenge toxic gender roles with every moment of their very being; policing the way women dress isn't the way to go, would you not agree? Critiquing hyper-feminine roles is not synonymous with calling out individuals who adopt those roles.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> It’s a philosophical question that really gets to the heart of the claim being made. Compare to Wittgenstein’s ‘beetle in the box’ or Nagel’s ‘how does it feel to be a bat’.


Yeh. And it comes down to, do you believe people when they say this? I'm happy enough in my body so I have no idea what, why or how people who find themselves in a body which doesn't match what they feel feel what they say they feel. I don't tho dismiss it because I don't myself understand it.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 19, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> I think you'll find miranda not Miranda Yardley



You thought right


----------



## belboid (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Yet what they will have in common it the material effect of having a female reproductive system, and the consequences of this. And this is something they will share with many other women across class and culture throughout the planet. They will share that experience, which is forever beyond the reach of ‘trans women’.


I am not sure what you mean by those experiences, you've already agreed that some females' reproductive system doesn't 'work' (they can't reproduce, have periods) so what is this universal experience? Is it across time too, btw, ie in pre-capitalist or even pre-paleolithic societies?




> Jenner’s life and socialisation is different to every woman’s, because Jenner is male.


So it was similar to those small number of females who were raised and socialised as males, no?


----------



## co-op (Dec 19, 2017)

Mation said:


> You didn't mention policing but you described it.
> 
> We don't insist that cis women challenge toxic gender roles with every moment of their very being; policing the way women dress isn't the way to go, would you not agree? Critiquing hyper-feminine roles is not synonymous with calling out individuals who adopt those roles.



No you're absolutely wrong, I absolutely did not 'describe' it. On the contrary I have _repeatedly _stated that the point here is not to make any one individual or group 'responsible' or more responsible for taking on the gender bullshit in which we are mired.

I have literally never mentioned policing the way women dress, or even 'the way that women dress' fullstop. Where are you getting this stuff from?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

belboid said:


> Not had time to read the last piece yet, but the other two seem to miss a pretty major point, imo. Attending a Gender Identity Clinic does not mean the person is transgender, it means they are having issues with how their assigned gender reflects their actual lives. Attending a clinic doesn't make you trans any more than taking a pregnancy test makes you pregnant. Also, it should be noted that attending a clinic doesn't usually mean there is any medical intervention. As your own piece notes (after the quotes from the Daily bloody Mail) '_The Tavistock Clinic follows British guidelines, which suggest not introducing hormone blockers until the latter stages of puberty.' - _nothing permanent is done to the child, except under extreme circumstances. So the myth of thousand of children undergoing treatments that they later regret is just that, a myth.



I think you missed the point of Cantor’s piece, in that left tomtheir own devices desistance is a common outcome. Medicalising transition early appears premature for that reason. 

Furthermore affirmation of gender stereotypes seems weird given they’re cultural. 



belboid said:


> Many children at that age undergo all kinds of crises and confusions about their gender and their sexuality at that age, we all know that. Does it actually do any good to just go 'no, you are wrong, you were born a girl so you are one'? It didn't really have much (positive) effect when parents (and teachers etc) went 'no, you're wrong, you're not gay, you're just confused.' Surely as long as there is no physical harm done - as your quote referred to above agrees happens - then it is better to support the child in coming to terms with themselves _themselves. _The idea that there is a 'trans trend' forcing children to change their gender is as nonsensical as when the tories tried to ban the "promoting homosexuality."  It's about letting children be as autonomous as possible, and I think that is a good thing. And if they change their mind later, they change their mind later - what parent would ever think it was okay for their child to present as the opposite gender, but not to let them change their mind again? How many parents have ever said 'you slept with someone of the same gender once, so you can only sleep with people of the same gender from now on'?



Again I think you miss the point, and this is not comparable to homosexuality. I notice also you talk about sleeping with ‘people of the same gender’. Surely you mean ‘sex’? Or does homosexuality mean nothing to you?

My point is, as ever, let kids be kids.


----------



## Mation (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> To paraphrase Joe Jackson, it’s ‘different for boys’. I think there’s a connection between the performed hyperfeminity in pornography and the motivations behind the transition of some transgender males.
> 
> Pornography And Autogynephilia In The Narratives Of Adult Transgender Males


That's a narrative that seems to make sense to those four people. I have no idea how many more (perhaps lots perhaps few). What does that tell us about the people who don't feel like that or describe their situation like that?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

belboid said:


> I am not sure what you mean by those experiences, you've already agreed that some females' reproductive system doesn't 'work' (they can't reproduce, have periods) so what is this universal experience? Is it across time too, btw, ie in pre-capitalist or even pre-paleolithic societies?
> 
> So it was similar to those small number of females who were raised and socialised as males, no?



You seem to be acting obtuse on purpose. The vast majority of women will share that experience which Jenner never would.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

Mation said:


> That's a narrative that seems to make sense to those four people. I have no idea how many more (perhaps lots perhaps few). What does that tell us about the people who don't feel like that or describe their situation like that?



This isn’t a general theory, and I know for a fact that at least three of those individuals disagree with my interpretation (even though I use their own words). 

What does seem to be the case is that transgender individuals fall into two groups: homosexual and non-homosexual. And the latter have an autogynephilic history. And that’s okay as long as we are honest about it. Indeed, honestly means these trans males could have happier and more fulfilling lives, gained through self knowledge.


----------



## Mation (Dec 19, 2017)

co-op said:


> No you're absolutely wrong, I absolutely did not 'describe' it. On the contrary I have _repeatedly _stated that the point here is not to make any one individual or group 'responsible' or more responsible for taking on the gender bullshit in which we are mired.
> 
> I have literally never mentioned policing the way women dress, or even 'the way that women dress' fullstop. Where are you getting this stuff from?


You're completely correct that you haven't literally mentioned policing in the posts of yours that I have read. And I was making an assumption. 

My assumption was that when you said:

"too often 'being trans' (whatever that means) has been a way of re-stating and reifying deeply reactionary gender roles on the basis of some mysterious essence of 'woman'. Transitioning thus becomes not a way of challenging toxic patriarchal gender roles but merely an individualistic accommodation to those roles, part of which accommodation is ritual worship at the shrines of those gender roles one of which is the hyper-feminised woman."

...that you meant that you think that this is not what should be happening. "Too often" ie there should be less of this. 

This, that we don't expect of cis women.


----------



## Mation (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> This isn’t a general theory, and I know for a fact that at least three of those individuals disagree with my interpretation (even though I use their own words).
> 
> What does seem to be the case is that transgender individuals fall into two groups: homosexual and non-homosexual. And the latter have an autogynephilic history. And that’s okay as long as we are honest about it. Indeed, honestly means these trans males could have happier and more fulfilling lives, gained through self knowledge.


Who is the arbiter of autogynephilia?


----------



## belboid (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I think you missed the point of Cantor’s piece, in that left tomtheir own devices desistance is a common outcome. Medicalising transition early appears premature for that reason.
> 
> Furthermore affirmation of gender stereotypes seems weird given they’re cultural.


Quite, which is why I haven't seen anyone supporting medical intervention at any early age. What I see is people saying that schools etc should being accepting of the child's decision to dress, be named, etc according to _their _wishes. You seem to want to refuse them that option, to insist that the school treats them as whatever they were assigned at birth.



> Again I think you miss the point, and this is not comparable to homosexuality. I notice also you talk about sleeping with ‘people of the same gender’. Surely you mean ‘sex’? Or does homosexuality mean nothing to you?


I probably do mean sex, the terms are used in contradictory manner in law and in life more generally. I am no doubt guilty of doing so too from time to time. You need to flesh out the other argument here though, because so far it is just a claim.



> My point is, as ever, let kids be kids.


Absolutely, let Jeffrey become Jenny if that's what they want.


----------



## belboid (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> You seem to be acting obtuse on purpose. The vast majority of women will share that experience which Jenner never would.


What experience? You are being deliberately vague, it seems to me.  And, you accept that there are some women who will not share that experience, which isn't the absolute universal you previously claimed.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

Mation said:


> Who is the arbiter of autogynephilia?



What do you mean? Surely it is what it is.


----------



## Mation (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> What do you mean? Surely it is what it is.


Ok. What is it?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

belboid said:


> Quite, which is why I haven't seen anyone supporting medical intervention at any early age. What I see is people saying that schools etc should being accepting of the child's decision to dress, be named, etc according to _their _wishes. You seem to want to refuse them that option, to insist that the school treats them as whatever they were assigned at birth.
> 
> I probably do mean sex, the terms are used in contradictory manner in law and in life more generally. I am no doubt guilty of doing so too from time to time. You need to flesh out the other argument here though, because so far it is just a claim.
> 
> Absolutely, let Jeffrey become Jenny if that's what they want.



Sure, but let's not hold them to that decision until they've matured as adults. And instead let's concentrate on loving our children for who and what they are, and not affirming the harmful fantasy their brains and bodies don't match. And let's have an environment where this can all be discussed openly and respectfully, and have proper evidence-based scientific research that bases treatment upon the findings of that science.

And let's not lie to children about them being able to change sex, because we all know this is impossible.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

Mation said:


> Ok. What is it?



I'm surprised you're posting on this thread if you don't know what it is.

But here you go, it's something that's been observed for at least a century.

A History of Autogynephilia


----------



## belboid (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Sure, but let's not hold them to that decision until they've matured as adults. And instead let's concentrate on loving our children for who and what they are, and not affirming the harmful fantasy their brains and bodies don't match. And let's have an environment where this can all be discussed openly and respectfully, and have proper evidence-based scientific research that bases treatment upon the findings of that science.
> 
> And let's not lie to children about them being able to change sex, because we all know this is impossible.


Except the article I linked to earlier showed precisely that it was letting them live as someone of the opposite sex is better for the child. It quoted exactly the evidence-based scientific research you want. 

If they then want to change their legally determined sex/gender, whichever term is used in relevant local law, then they can do so.


----------



## Mation (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I'm surprised you're posting on this thread if you don't know what it is.
> 
> But here you go, it's something that's been observed for at least a century.
> 
> A History of Autogynephilia


I hold my hands up. I don't know what it means.

That link is to a discussion about autogynephilia that doesn't include a definition of the term. What do you think it means?


----------



## elbows (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I'm surprised you're posting on this thread if you don't know what it is.



This thread features a wide variety of opinions and levels of knowledge about the subject matter. The phrase totally perplexed is used in its title for good reason too, and the thread has evolved in various different directions over time. I wouldn't expect you to read the entire thread in order to catch up before posting, but neither would I expect you to make presumptions about who you are talking to on this thread and there is zero requirement to have understanding of various pieces of terminology before posting here.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

belboid said:


> Except the article I linked to earlier showed precisely that it was letting them live as someone of the opposite sex is better for the child. It quoted exactly the evidence-based scientific research you want.
> 
> If they then want to change their legally determined sex/gender, whichever term is used in relevant local law, then they can do so.



It's a single study, and please note this quote, which shows how limited this evidence is:

It is too soon to know the long-term implications of the study for the mental health of transgender children, the authors said, as instances of depression rise dramatically during adolescence, when normal stresses are exacerbated for transgender teens.​
Also:

The study acknowledges its limits. For instance, the forms were completed by parents, who may have been inclined to show the best portrait of their child’s mental health.​
So, it's short-term, limited in scope and subject to confirmation bias. Using this as justification for child transition would be wreckless.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

Mation said:


> I hold my hands up. I don't know what it means.
> 
> That link is to a discussion about autogynephilia that doesn't include a definition of the term. What do you think it means?



I just linked you to a piece I wrote explaining it.


----------



## weepiper (Dec 19, 2017)

belboid said:


> What experience? You are being deliberately vague, it seems to me.  And, you accept that there are some women who will not share that experience, which isn't the absolute universal you previously claimed.


The fear of getting pregnant. Sure, there are women who can't. But they usually only find that out as adults. Every female who's sexually active has had the terror of the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy. Trans women will never have that and even before they transitioned they can never really understand it. It's not the same fear for a man.


----------



## belboid (Dec 19, 2017)

Mation said:


> I hold my hands up. I don't know what it means.
> 
> That link is to a discussion about autogynephilia that doesn't include a definition of the term. What do you think it means?


google seems to tell me it refers to about 40 people worldwide.
Autogynephilia: a disputed diagnosis


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

elbows said:


> This thread features a wide variety of opinions and levels of knowledge about the subject matter. The phrase totally perplexed is used in its title for good reason too, and the thread has evolved in various different directions over time. I wouldn't expect you to read the entire thread in order to catch up before posting, but neither would I expect you to make presumptions about who you are talking to on this thread and there is zero requirement to have understanding of various pieces of terminology before posting here.



Sure, but I'm making no presumption other than we are able to discuss in good faith.


----------



## Mation (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I just linked you to a piece I wrote explaining it.


It doesn't include a definition of the term. It just explains what you think about an undefined condition.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

belboid said:


> google seems to tell me it refers to about 40 people worldwide.
> Autogynephilia: a disputed diagnosis



Here's the 'transgender pregnancy group' on Facebook, it has 162 likes for something that is a great example of physiological and/or anatomical autogynephilia. So, clearly '40 people worldwide' is a massive understatement.

The Transgender Pregnancy Group


----------



## belboid (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> It's a single study, and please note this quote, which shows how limited this evidence is:
> 
> It is too soon to know the long-term implications of the study for the mental health of transgender children, the authors said, as instances of depression rise dramatically during adolescence, when normal stresses are exacerbated for transgender teens.​
> Also:
> ...


You haven't shown any showing the opposite. And, obviously, unless children are allowed to present as they choose, we'll never know what effect being allowed to present as they choose will have. You're preferred option would mean it was impossible to get proper, evidence-based, scientific research on the question.


----------



## belboid (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Here's the 'transgender pregnancy group' on Facebook, it has 162 likes for something that is a great example of physiological and/or anatomical autogynephilia. So, clearly '40 people worldwide' is a massive understatement.
> 
> The Transgender Pregnancy Group


162 likes !!!!! Wow, that is massive. And every like must come from a distinct individual who is autogynephiliac, mustn't it.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

Mation said:


> It doesn't include a definition of the term. It just explains what you think about the undefined condition.



This explains what's behind the idea and typology, and defines the two different types of trans male ('trans woman'):

In 1985, sexologist Ray Blanchard used a larger sample size and confirmed the observation that there exists a fundamental difference between homosexual transsexuals (homosexual males romantically and sexually attracted to males) and non-homosexual transsexuals (which includes heterosexual, bisexual and asexual transsexuals):

_This study tested a prediction derived from the hypothesis that asexual and bisexual transsexualism are actually subtypes of heterosexual transsexualism… (a) cluster analysis of their scores divided the subjects into four groups: heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and asexual… there were no differences among the asexual, bisexual, and heterosexual transsexuals, and all three groups included a much higher proportion of fetishistic cases than the homosexual group… these findings support the view that male transsexuals may be divided into two basic types: heterosexual and homosexual. (Blanchard 1985)_

Together, these papers teach us that transsexuals may be grouped into homosexual and non-homosexual transsexuals, and that the latter group appears to contain a number of subtypes which could be taken to correspond to an ordinal degree of fetishistic transvestisism. These observations are supported by empirical evidence; the difference is manifest in “a much higher proportion of fetishistic cases than the homosexual group” and so Blanchard confirms the identification of two types of male transsexual, who are differentiated by sexual orientation, with one group displaying a fetishistic, or paraphilic history.

Blanchard became a key figure in the history of investigation into transsexualism a few years later where he attempted to impart some meaning and rigor into the terminology surrounding the taxonomy of transsexuals, as part of systematic study into this phenomena, he coined the term “autogynephilia” as a clearer description of something that had hitherto been described as part of automonosexualism. This is what has become known as “Blanchard’s transsexual typology” or the “two-type transsexual typography” (Blanchard 1989):

_Gender identity disturbance in males is always accompanied by one of two erotic anomalies. All gender dysphoric males who are not sexually oriented toward men are instead sexually oriented toward the thought or image of themselves as women. The latter erotic (or amatory) propensity is, of course, the phenomenon labeled by Hirschfeld as automonosexualism. Because of the inconsistent history of this term, however, and its nondescriptive derivation, the writer would prefer to replace it with the term autogynephilia (“love of oneself as a woman”)._

It should be noted that the use of the expression “erotic anomalies” is used in a morally neutral context, to describe sexual acts that are inherently non-procreative, rather than being a pejorative expression.

Key to the concept of autogynephilia is that it’s not something that is always on the mind, nor is it something that is confined solely to cross-dressing:

_It should be noted that the concept of autogynephilia does not imply that autogynephilic males are always sexually aroused by the thought of themselves as women, or by dressing in women’s clothes, or by contemplating themselves cross-dressed in the mirror – any more than a man in love always obtains an erection at the sight of his sweetheart, or pair-bonded geese copulate continuously. Autogynephilia, according to this hypothesis, may be manifested in a variety of ways, and fetishistic cross-dressing is only one of them. Those individuals labeled transvestites by contemporary clinicians would, on this view, be understood as autogynephiles whose only -or most prominent -symptom is sexual arousal in association with cross-dressing, and who have not (or not yet) become gender dysphoric. (Blanchard 1989)_​


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

belboid said:


> 162 likes !!!!! Wow, that is massive. And every like must come from a distinct individual who is autogynephiliac, mustn't it.



All I was trying to do was show your claim vastly understated the occurrence of autogynephilia. Which it did.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

belboid said:


> You haven't shown any showing the opposite. And, obviously, unless children are allowed to present as they choose, we'll never know what effect being allowed to present as they choose will have. You're preferred option would mean it was impossible to get proper, evidence-based, scientific research on the question.



Please explain what you mean as 'present as they choose' without referring to cultural stereotypes. Thank you.


----------



## belboid (Dec 19, 2017)

co-op said:


> The fact that the group "women" contains representatives of all social classes does not necessarily mean there's no point to recognising women as a distinct group who have been collectively subjected to an astonishing degree of oppression for millenia. That's the whole point of feminism isn't it? Or at least of radical feminism.
> 
> If you don't think reproduction, the need for men to control it by controlling women and legislating what they are and aren't allowed to do with their bodies and the fact that reproduction and child-rearing are expected to be provided without payment by women is anything to do with this debate then, with respect, you seriously don't know anything about it.
> 
> And if you can't see why these issues are - broadly - significantly less relevant to transwomen then ditto.


I was largely, there just objecting to the phrase 'reproductive _class_' coming from someone who had earlier been talking about the marxist dialectic, and assuming it was meant in the sense that marx talks of a working class for and of itself. If it's meant simply as a synonym for groupings moer generally, then no problem.


----------



## co-op (Dec 19, 2017)

Mation said:


> You're completely correct that you haven't literally mentioned policing in the posts of yours that I have read. And I was making an assumption.
> 
> My assumption was that when you said:
> 
> ...



Not my expectation. A woman (ie not a transwoman) who pushes a reactionary gender role for women should absolutely expect criticism from radicals. Do you not agree with that?

If I've made any distinction between women and transwomen on this thread in terms of this specific issue it's as clear as I can make it that, it is _more_ understandable if some transwomen emphasise/espouse/adopt a reactionary female gender role so as to normalise their own (highly marginalised) status in society. I clearly have not criticised individuals for doing this, to me it's obviously wrong to do so. This is all on the thread.

But to criticise the gender roles being espoused - yes of course that should be permitted, encouraged in fact. It's not imo transphobic to do that, just because some of the fans of those roles happen to be transgendered. But when I have done that on these boards in the past I have absolutely been damned, multiply, for transphobia and there are still quite a few posters who seem to me to be itching to do that again.


----------



## belboid (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> All I was trying to do was show your claim vastly understated the occurrence of autogynephilia. Which it did.


No it didn't. Getting 162 likes on facebook means absolutely nothing. How many came from Russian bots? It certainly is not 'evidence based scientific research'


----------



## smokedout (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> James Cantor’s excellent piece on ‘trans kids’ and desistance:
> 
> Sexology Today!: Statistics faulty on how many trans- kids grow up to stay trans-?



As I'm sure you know, the studies on desistance have been widely criticised for including children who would not meet the threshold for gender dysphoria, and some of the studies Cantor references were not even looking for that but were focussed on feminine or effeminate boys.  He also ignores the follow up work done on the larger study which found:



> *RESULTS: *
> We found a link between the intensity of GD in childhood and persistence of GD, as well as a higher probability of persistence among natal girls. Psychological functioning and the quality of peer relations did not predict the persistence of childhood GD. Formerly nonsignificant (age at childhood assessment) and unstudied factors (a cognitive and/or affective cross-gender identification and a social role transition) were associated with the persistence of childhood GD, and varied among natal boys and girls.
> 
> *CONCLUSION: *
> *Intensity of early GD appears to be an important predictor of persistence of GD*. Clinical recommendations for the support of children with GD may need to be developed independently for natal boys and for girls, as the presentation of boys and girls with GD is different, and different factors are predictive for the persistence of GD.


----------



## andysays (Dec 19, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Sorry to labour this point, but thats Silvia Rivera who suffered a violent attack at the hands of the political current Athos has defended throughout and which led to her atgtempting suicide and withdrawing from politics.



As has already been said, you've consistantly played the cunt on this thread, but with this post you've really surpassed yourself.

Do you actually think anyone with even the smallest ability for critical thinking is taken in by this bullshit, or put it another way, do you think anyone who might still be trying to work out their own position on these issues will be persuaded by your performance?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

belboid said:


> No it didn't. Getting 162 likes on facebook means absolutely nothing. How many came from Russian bots? It certainly is not 'evidence based scientific research'



Now you really are reaching...

Check out these places which will show you great examples of autogynephilia. The last is based on a rebranding of it as 'crossdreaming', similar to Serano's own attempted rebranding as 'female embodiment fantasies':

Free Contacts & Dating for Transgender, Transvestite & Crossdressing Friends | tvChix
Susan's Place Transgender Resources - Index
Crossdreamers


----------



## Mation (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> This explains what's behind the idea and typology, and defines the two different types of trans male ('trans woman'):
> 
> In 1985, sexologist Ray Blanchard used a larger sample size and confirmed the observation that there exists a fundamental difference between homosexual transsexuals (homosexual males romantically and sexually attracted to males) and non-homosexual transsexuals (which includes heterosexual, bisexual and asexual transsexuals):
> 
> ...


Ok, I get the definition there. So back to the question of who is the arbiter of who is autogenephilic? You previously said 'it is what it is' but where is the evidence that this 'condition' isn't just one persons' pet theory (that resonates with some other people) or that it actually applies to anyone or that it is relevant to any/many/most/all trans people?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

smokedout said:


> As I'm sure you know, the studies on desistance have been widely criticised for including children who would not meet the threshold for gender dysphoria, and some of the studies Cantor references were not even looking for that but were focussed on feminine or effeminate boys.  He also ignores the follow up work done on the larger study which found:



Quoting from Cantor's piece:

_This is not a matter of scientists disagreeing with one another over relative strengths and weaknesses across a set of conflicting reports.  The disagreement is not even some people advocating for one set of studies with other people advocating for different set of studies:  Rather, activists are rejecting the unanimous conclusion of every single study ever conducted on the question in favour of a conclusion supported by not one.

Importantly, these results should not be exaggerated in the other direction either: The correct answer is neither 0% nor 100%.  Although the majority of transgender kids desist, it is not a large majority.  A very substantial proportion do indeed want to transition as they get older, and we need to ensure they receive the support they will need.  Despite loud, confident protestations of extremists, the science shows very clearly and very consistently that we cannot take either outcome for granted._


----------



## belboid (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Please explain what you mean as 'present as they choose' without referring to cultural stereotypes. Thank you.


I am talking about practical, material (in the marxist sense) actions. Schools should accept them wearing the uniform assigned to the other sex/gender. They should allow them to take a new name. You are against that, no?

I do also think that schools should abolish uniforms entirely, especially as prescribed by sex, but their failure to do so shouldn't stop pupils attending as the sex/gender they wish.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 19, 2017)

I must be reading a different thread from some people. Smokedout's contributions have been massively helpful to me.


----------



## Mation (Dec 19, 2017)

co-op said:


> Not my expectation. A woman (ie not a transwoman) who pushes a reactionary gender role for women should absolutely expect criticism from radicals. Do you not agree with that?
> 
> If I've made any distinction between women and transwomen on this thread in terms of this specific issue it's as clear as I can make it that, it is _more_ understandable if some transwomen emphasise/espouse/adopt a reactionary female gender role so as to normalise their own (highly marginalised) status in society. I clearly have not criticised individuals for doing this, to me it's obviously wrong to do so. This is all on the thread.
> 
> But to criticise the gender roles being espoused - yes of course that should be permitted, encouraged in fact. It's not imo transphobic to do that, just because some of the fans of those roles happen to be transgendered. But when I have done that on these boards in the past I have absolutely been damned, multiply, for transphobia and there are still quite a few posters who seem to me to be itching to do that again.


Trans women are women. As such they should be allowed to be as politically sound or unsound as cis women.

E2A: Even that's a shit position (mine, as expressed up thar). They just are as sound or unsound as cis women and there shouldn't be any allowed about it, as far as who anyone is. Challenge people's beliefs, yes.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> This isn’t a general theory, and I know for a fact that at least three of those individuals disagree with my interpretation (even though I use their own words).
> 
> What does seem to be the case is that transgender individuals fall into two groups: homosexual and non-homosexual. And the latter have an autogynephilic history. And that’s okay as long as we are honest about it. Indeed, honestly means these trans males could have happier and more fulfilling lives, gained through self knowledge.



So to summarise, transwomen who are sexually orientated towards women are lying fetishists?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

Mation said:


> Ok, I get the definition there. So back to the question of who is the arbiter of who is autogenephilic? You previously said 'it is what it is' but where is the evidence that this 'condition' isn't just one persons' pet theory (that resonates with some other people) or that it actually applies to anyone or that it is relevant to any/many/most/all trans people?



As the piece I linked to shows, it's been around as an idea for at least a century and has been the subject of scientific study for at least that long. It's quite cool to get a grip on the typology because with understanding comes insight. Objections to the typology don't appear to stand up to scrutiny, and there is no alternative understanding that has any serious traction.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

Mation said:


> Trans women are women. As such they should be allowed to be as politically sound or unsound as cis women.



That's an ideological position.


----------



## belboid (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Now you really are reaching...


No, I am pointing out the evidence _you _chose to promote your argument was exceptionally weak. This is why you are now moving on, I guess (after a bit of quoting your own pieces)



> Check out these places which will show you great examples of autogynephilia. The last is based on a rebranding of it as 'crossdreaming', similar to Serano's own attempted rebranding as 'female embodiment fantasies':
> 
> Free Contacts & Dating for Transgender, Transvestite & Crossdressing Friends | tvChix
> Susan's Place Transgender Resources - Index
> Crossdreamers


These seem to largely remove the paraphilic aspects of the original 'theory' which is quite a significant change you are claiming.


----------



## Mation (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> That's an ideological position.


In your opinion.


----------



## Mation (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> As the piece I linked to shows, it's been around as an idea for at least a century and has been the subject of scientific study for at least that long. It's quite cool to get a grip on the typology because with understanding comes insight. Objections to the typology don't appear to stand up to scrutiny, and there is no alternative understanding that has any serious traction.


Oh well in that case! If only I'd realised it had been around for a long time. Of course that makes it sensible!


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

smokedout said:


> So to summarise, transwomen who are sexually orientated towards women are lying fetishists?



Those are your words. not mine.

You might find this conceptualisation more compassionate:

http://www.annelawrence.com/becoming_what_we_love.pdf


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

Mation said:


> Oh well in that case! If only I'd realised it had been around for a long time. Of course that makes it sensible!



You framed it as an individual's pet theory. I showed it's not.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

Mation said:


> In your opinion.



Define 'woman'...


----------



## Mation (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Define 'woman'...


I can't and wouldn't try to.


Miranda Yardley said:


> You framed it as an individual's pet theory. I showed it's not.


That's fair.


----------



## belboid (Dec 19, 2017)

weepiper said:


> The fear of getting pregnant. Sure, there are women who can't. But they usually only find that out as adults. Every female who's sexually active has had the terror of the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy. Trans women will never have that and even before they transitioned they can never really understand it. It's not the same fear for a man.


'Every female who's sexually active' - that excludes a fair few women. And doesn't (materially) apply to pre-pubescent girls (though I do get there might well still be the fear from knowing it is 'what happens' to girls). But is that really it? And, while the fear wont affect a trans woman, some of the material consequences will. And if the immutable difference is down to a fear, then its not a material distinction, is it? And that distinction has been held up as inviolable before. Sorry if this isn't very clear, just trying to think it through as I write.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

belboid said:


> No, I am pointing out the evidence _you _chose to promote your argument was exceptionally weak. This is why you are now moving on, I guess (after a bit of quoting your own pieces)
> 
> These seem to largely remove the paraphilic aspects of the original 'theory' which is quite a significant change you are claiming.



These all contain examples of autogynephilia. And like I said. it's okay as long as we can be honest about it.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Quoting from Cantor's piece:
> 
> _This is not a matter of scientists disagreeing with one another over relative strengths and weaknesses across a set of conflicting reports.  The disagreement is not even some people advocating for one set of studies with other people advocating for different set of studies:  Rather, activists are rejecting the unanimous conclusion of every single study ever conducted on the question in favour of a conclusion supported by not one.
> 
> Importantly, these results should not be exaggerated in the other direction either: The correct answer is neither 0% nor 100%.  Although the majority of transgender kids desist, it is not a large majority.  A very substantial proportion do indeed want to transition as they get older, and we need to ensure they receive the support they will need.  Despite loud, confident protestations of extremists, the science shows very clearly and very consistently that we cannot take either outcome for granted._



Well apart from the fact several of the studies he is referring to did not look at gender dysphoric children, and as such should not be included as evidence of desistance.  And as I just posted later work which Cantor has ignored found that the strength of gender dysphoria was a good indicator of whether it would persist into adulthool.

Which would suggest that precise diagnosis is very important and that intervention, such as puberty blockers, should be used with great care.  Which is what happens.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

Mation said:


> I can't and wouldn't try to.



My own view is that the statement 'trans women are women' while it may be a fine piece of rhetoric, is not good for 'trans women' or for women. 

Finding Middle Ground Between Women’s Rights and Transgender Rights


----------



## belboid (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> These all contain examples of autogynephilia. And like I said. it's okay as long as we can be honest about it.


Well, I'm not searching through three sites to find examples to find examples of where these fantasies include 'the suffering or humiliation of oneself or one's partner' - because that is was a paraphilia is, and the original piece made that central. At a quick look at this theory I had never heard of before, you have added your own twist on it. Which means it isn't really a theory going around for a century or so.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Well apart from the facts several of the studies he is referring to did not look at gender dysphoric children, and as such should not be included as evidence of desistance.  And as I just posted later work which Cantor has ignored found that the strength of gender dysphoria was a good indicator of whether it would persist into adulthool.
> 
> Which would suggest that precise diagnosis is very important and that intervention, such as puberty blockers, should be used with great care.  Which is what happens.



Point is that strength of GD is not a good indicator. One study does not break this finding. I can agree with you that intervention, e.g. blockers. should be used with great care and I'd suggest only in exceptional cases. It certainly should not become the norm.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Those are your words. not mine.
> 
> You might find this conceptualisation more compassionate:
> 
> http://www.annelawrence.com/becoming_what_we_love.pdf



That's a rather bizarre position.  That you insist people must have a sexual fetish despite them telling you otherwise.  Do trans children, who don't desist, also have this sexual fetish?  What about trans men?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

belboid said:


> Well, I'm not searching through three sites to find examples to find examples of where these fantasies include 'the suffering or humiliation of oneself or one's partner' - because that is was a paraphilia is, and the original piece made that central. At a quick look at this theory I had never heard of before, you have added your own twist on it. Which means it isn't really a theory going around for a century or so.



The file linked is a screen grab of the TVChix public landing page (so nobody's private information is being disclosed, this is public). Examples of autogynephilia are highlighted.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

smokedout said:


> That's a rather bizarre position.  That you insist people must have a sexual fetish despite them telling you otherwise.  Do trans children, who don't desist, also have this sexual fetish?  What about trans men?



It is what it is. Autogynephilia is by definition a behaviour limited to males. Interestingly, a lot of 'trans men' tend to be homosexual females, yet 'trans women' tend to be heterosexual males.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Point is that strength of GD is not a good indicator. One study does not break this finding.



But it's the same study, Steensma et al. (2013) that Cantor claims found 63% of kids desisted.  So you appear to accept that part of the study, but not the conclusion that strength of dysphoria was the best indicated of whether it persisted to adulthood.

Cherry picking conclusions like this is not very scientific.


----------



## belboid (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> The file linked is a screen grab of the TVChix public landing page (so nobody's private information is being disclosed, this is public). Examples of autogynephilia are highlighted.


Are they? They looks like fairly typical, cliched even, examples of 'sexy women(swear)'. A completely different thing to "a man’s paraphilic tendency to be sexually aroused by the thought or image of himself as a woman."


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

belboid said:


> Are they? They looks like fairly typical, cliched even, examples of 'sexy women(swear)'. A completely different thing to "a man’s paraphilic tendency to be sexually aroused by the thought or image of himself as a woman."



You're almost there... almost...


----------



## Mation (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> My own view is that the statement 'trans women are women' while it may be a fine piece of rhetoric, is not good for 'trans women' or for women.
> 
> Finding Middle Ground Between Women’s Rights and Transgender Rights


I'm a cis woman. I have no desire or right to tell you what to think or feel.

I stand very firmly with with the trans women and men I know who do not think and feel as you do. (To be clear: not on principal regarding you, but from believing them about themselves.) 

I also personally disagree that this is not good for cis women from my own perspective. But this is, I think, intractable, so I'm stepping out of it, certainly as far as you are concerned.


----------



## belboid (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> You're almost there... almost...


You havent done anything to show that those people are sexually aroused by the thought of themselves as a sexy woman, still less that they are desiring suffering or humiliation. Your claims are collapsing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> You're almost there... almost...


Not sure there's worth getting to


----------



## smokedout (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> It is what it is. Autogynephilia is by definition a behaviour limited to males. Interestingly, a lot of 'trans men' tend to be homosexual females, yet 'trans women' tend to be heterosexual males.



That's not a very satisfactory answer.  Do trans children experience this sexual fetish?

And if autogynephilia doesn't explain transmen, if that must be something else, then why can't it be something else for the huge number of transwomen who say they don't experience autogynephilia.  Or perhaps for those that do autogynephilia is a symptom of that somethting else, not a cause.  No matter how much you jump up and down and insist all transwomen do so for a sexual reason, you can't possibly know this, no-one knows.  So your appeal for scientific debate seems pretty hollow.


----------



## co-op (Dec 19, 2017)

belboid said:


> I was largely, there just objecting to the phrase 'reproductive _class_' coming from someone who had earlier been talking about the marxist dialectic, and assuming it was meant in the sense that marx talks of a working class for and of itself. If it's meant simply as a synonym for groupings moer generally, then no problem.



I'm out of my depth quite fast on proper marxist feminist theory but I think feminists have argued that when the term a reproductive class is used, it means something much more than just another group. The use of the word class is quite deliberate.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

smokedout said:


> But it's the same study, Steensma et al. (2013) that Cantor claims found 63% of kids desisted.  So you appear to accept that part of the study, but not the conclusion that strength of dysphoria was the best indicated of whether it persisted to adulthood.
> 
> Cherry picking conclusions like this is not very scientific.



He's not cherry-picking, he's reporting on what the study says; his piece is about desistance rates. He provides a balanced commentary on that study, thus:

Steensma therefore reported that (80/127 =) 63% of the cases desisted.  The alleged criticism is that one should not assume that the 24 who did not respond or could not be found were desisters.  Regardless of whether one agrees with that, the irrelevance of claim is clearly seen simply by taking it to its own conclusion: When one excludes these 24, one simply finds a desistance rate of (56/103 =) 54% instead of 63%.  That is, although numerically lower, it nonetheless supports the very same conclusion as before. The majority of kids cease to feel transgender when they get older.​
And the central point of the piece is:

we cannot take _either_ outcome for granted.​
Which I hope we could agree on?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

smokedout said:


> That's not a very satisfactory answer.  Do trans children experience this sexual fetish?
> 
> And if autogynephilia doesn't explain transmen, if that must be something else, then why can't it be something else for the huge number of transwomen who say they don't experience autogynephilia.  Or perhaps for those that do autogynephilia is a symptom of that somethting else, not a cause.  No matter how much you jump up and down and insist all transwomen do so for a sexual reason, you can't possibly know this, no-one knows.  So your appeal for scientific debate seems pretty hollow.



I linked above to a piece on how GNC behaviour in children is being equated to them being transgender.

You again misrepresent me, I didn't say all transgender males, and I tried to point out (through Anne Lawrence's piece) that the process is much more complicated and nuanced than a simple 'all transwomen do so for a sexual reason'. You are selling trans males short.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

belboid said:


> You havent done anything to show that those people are sexually aroused by the thought of themselves as a sexy woman, still less that they are desiring suffering or humiliation. Your claims are collapsing.



They're all examples of autogynephilic behaviour...


----------



## Athos (Dec 19, 2017)

smokedout said:


> No matter how much you jump up and down and insist all transwomen do so for a sexual reason...



They haven't insisted that. They referred to *some*, not *all*.

It's impossible to have a sensible discussion with you, when you keep being so disingenuous


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

Mation said:


> I'm a cis woman. I have no desire or right to tell you what to think or feel.
> 
> I stand very firmly with with the trans women and men I know who do not think and feel as you do. (To be clear: not on principal regarding you, but from believing them about themselves.)
> 
> I also personally disagree that this is not good for cis women from my own perspective. But this is, I think, intractable, so I'm stepping out of it, certainly as far as you are concerned.



'Listen to trans people... NO NOT THAT ONE!'


----------



## co-op (Dec 19, 2017)

Mation said:


> Trans women are women.



The entire debate is about what this actually means and yet you just repeat it as a truth undeniable. What's the point? Why were you happy with the term 'transwoman' if it literally means exactly the same thing as 'woman'?


----------



## belboid (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> They're all examples of autogynephilic behaviour...


No they're not. Not without substantial more evidence, anyway. You seem to have completely redefined the term.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

belboid said:


> No they're not. Not without substantial more evidence, anyway. You seem to have completely redefined the term.



Erm no...


----------



## belboid (Dec 19, 2017)

co-op said:


> The entire debate is about what this actually means and yet you just repeat it as a truth undeniable. What's the point? Why were you happy with the term 'transwoman' if it literally means exactly the same thing as 'woman'?


It's about supporting the right to be legally recognised as women, about supporting the GRA, and about supporting much greater support for trans people in schools and in the health service.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> He's not cherry-picking, he's reporting on what the study says; his piece is about desistance rates. He provides a balanced commentary on that study, thus:
> 
> Steensma therefore reported that (80/127 =) 63% of the cases desisted.  The alleged criticism is that one should not assume that the 24 who did not respond or could not be found were desisters.  Regardless of whether one agrees with that, the irrelevance of claim is clearly seen simply by taking it to its own conclusion: When one excludes these 24, one simply finds a desistance rate of (56/103 =) 54% instead of 63%.  That is, although numerically lower, it nonetheless supports the very same conclusion as before. The majority of kids cease to feel transgender when they get older.​
> And the central point of the piece is:
> ...



Of course not.  But that study looked at children referred for gender dysphoria but not necessarily diagnosed.  And it found the more intense the dysphoira the more likely it was to persist - in fact this was the key factor in being able to predict persistence.  So what is wrong with letting these kids socially transition in childhood.


----------



## campanula (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> It is what it is. Autogynephilia is by definition a behaviour limited to males. Interestingly, a lot of 'trans men' tend to be homosexual females, yet 'trans women' tend to be heterosexual males.



In consideration of difference and discrepancies...

It is increasingly worrying that we are reaching for definitions (and a legal and medical framework) when the very nature of the debate (the seemingly impassable gulfs between individualised, emotional, philosophical ideological positions) and the equally contentious,  always changing, always mediated, historical, cultural and social discourses, which refuse homogenous, monolithic (hegemonic) positions.. The urgent need for political validation seems to militate against gender theories which are open-ended, transparent and, most essentially, non-judgemental.

My position - vis a vis the much quoted 'transwomen are women' statement is an acceptance of 'woman' being a philosophical construct...therefore it seems reasonable for a transwoman to be in a state of 'becoming some sort of woman'. That's kind of as far as I would go...but much the same applies to my 6 year old grandchild...


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 19, 2017)

I would like to advise caution about hoping that evidence based research will show us what is most beneficial for any kind of mental distress given the complexity involved. It's a phrase that gets tossed about that gives the illusion of answers being more readily available than is actually the case.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 19, 2017)

Athos said:


> They haven't insisted that. They referred to *some*, not *all*.
> 
> It's impossible to have a sensible division with you, when you keep being so disingenuous





Miranda Yardley said:


> _Gender identity disturbance in males is always accompanied by one of two erotic anomalies. All gender dysphoric males who are not sexually oriented toward men are instead sexually oriented toward the thought or image of themselves as women. _​


----------



## Athos (Dec 19, 2017)

Mation said:


> Trans women are women.





Miranda Yardley said:


> Define 'woman'...





Mation said:


> I can't...



Your whole position is a statement, the meaning of which you admit you don't understand?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 19, 2017)

And homosexuality is an 'erotic anomaly'.  Nice.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Of course not.  But that study looked at children referred for gender dysphoria but not necessarily diagnosed.  And it found the more intense the dysphoira the more likely it was to persist - in fact this was the key factor in being able to predict persistence.  So what is wrong with letting these kids socially transition in childhood.



If you read the paper, for boys age appears to be a significant factor, the older the less likely desistance. This would suggest caution over early transition.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

campanula said:


> My position - vis a vis the much quoted 'transwomen are women' statement is an acceptance of 'woman' being a philosophical construct...therefore it seems reasonable for a transwoman to be in a state of 'becoming some sort of woman'. That's kind of as far as I would go...but much the same applies to my 6 year old grandchild...



It's an interesting idea and one which I have thought about a lot. It would take an awful lot of deconstruction of sex-based socialisation and gain in personal knowledge, possibly through listening to more women, maybe? Either way, we can still acknowledge difference and support each other for who and what we are.


----------



## belboid (Dec 19, 2017)

Athos said:


> Your whole position is a statement, the meaning of which you admit you don't understand?


It doesn't matter how you or I define 'woman,' it is the position in law that matters. The right to have the appropriate passport, and to be able to tell bigots that they have the full legal right to use the 'appropriate' toilet.


----------



## Athos (Dec 19, 2017)

smokedout It's dishonest to attribute a quote by Blanchard to Miranda Yardley, to bolster your claim that they insisted "all trans women do so for a sexual reason", when they'd explicitly referred to 'some'.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And homosexuality is an 'erotic anomaly'.  Nice.



I don't agree it is. FWIW.


----------



## belboid (Dec 19, 2017)

Athos said:


> smokedout It's dishonest attribute a quote by Blanchard to Miranda Yardley, to bolster your claim that they insisted "all trans women do so for a sexual reason", when they'd explicitly referred to 'some'.


MY's use of Blanchard is very pick n mix. Which turns it into a wholly different theory which there is no other support for, that I can see.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

belboid said:


> It doesn't matter how you or I define 'woman,' it is the position in law that matters. The right to have the appropriate passport, and to be able to tell bigots that they have the full legal right to use the 'appropriate' toilet.



As someone who is an actual transitioned transsexual, I can assure you that there is no significant obstacle to getting passports that say whatever you wish, and that the whole toilets thing is a red herring: if someone is or has undergone a medical transition, they should be able to participate freely in public life.


----------



## Athos (Dec 19, 2017)

belboid said:


> It doesn't matter how you or I define 'woman,' it is the position in law that matters. The right to have the appropriate passport, and to be able to tell bigots that they have the full legal right to use the 'appropriate' toilet.



I completely agree. Which is why it makes far more sense to me to say 'trans women should be treated as women in compassionate grounds'; much harder to dispute than a wholly unprovable philosophical claim that they are women.


----------



## belboid (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> As someone who is an actual transitioned transsexual, I can assure you that there is no significant obstacle to getting passports that say whatever you wish, and that the whole toilets thing is a red herring: if someone is or has undergone a medical transition, they should be able to participate freely in public life.


But not anyone else.


----------



## Athos (Dec 19, 2017)

belboid said:


> MY's use of Blanchard is very pick n mix. Which turns it into a wholly different theory which there is no other support for, that I can see.



I don't agree with a lot of what MY says. But we should at least be honest in the discussion.


----------



## belboid (Dec 19, 2017)

Athos said:


> I completely agree. Which is why it makes far more sense to me to say 'trans women should be treated as women in compassionate grounds'; much harder to dispute than a wholly unprovable claim that they are women.


Is that marked on the passport? As I say, what you or I think doesn't really matter, whereas the legal status does.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

belboid said:


> MY's use of Blanchard is very pick n mix. Which turns it into a wholly different theory which there is no other support for, that I can see.



Not being funny, but you really don't appear to understand even the basics. The work of mine I have shared with you has been seen by Blanchard, and he's been happy to share it while favourably commenting on the understanding I have demonstrated.


----------



## belboid (Dec 19, 2017)

Athos said:


> I don't agree with a lot of what MY says. But we should at least be honest in the discussion.


Quite, but it is difficult to tell, sometimes.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

Athos said:


> I don't agree with a lot of what MY says. But we should at least be honest in the discussion.



Disagreement is good.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

Athos said:


> I completely agree. Which is why it makes far more sense to me to say 'trans women should be treated as women in compassionate grounds'; much harder to dispute than a wholly unprovable philosophical claim that they are women.



A lot of people would agree with this statement.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> As someone who is an actual transitioned transsexual, I can assure you that there is no significant obstacle to getting passports that say whatever you wish, and that the whole toilets thing is a red herring: if someone is or has undergone a medical transition, they should be able to participate freely in public life.


Er surely everyone should be able to participate freely in public life


----------



## Athos (Dec 19, 2017)

belboid said:


> Is that marked on the passport? As I say, what you or I think doesn't really matter, whereas the legal status does.



You think the law is based on a philosophical understanding of how trans women meet the definition of a 'woman'?  It's a pragmatic, balance of harms thing. A far more sensible footing than a meaningless slogan.


----------



## belboid (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Not being funny, but you really don't appear to understand even the basics. The work of mine I have shared with you has been seen by Blanchard, and he's been happy to share it while favourably commenting on the understanding I have demonstrated.


Sorry, is he agreeing with you on the bits you disagree with, too? Most people with obscure, pet, theories are happy with others to share them, and comment reasonably on them. So what?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Er surely everyone should be able to participate freely in public life



Yes of course they should.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

belboid said:


> Sorry, is he agreeing with you on the bits you disagree with, too? Most people with obscure, pet, theories are happy with others to share them, and comment reasonably on them. So what?



There you go, poisoning the well...


----------



## smokedout (Dec 19, 2017)

Athos said:


> smokedout It's dishonest attribute a quote by Blanchard to Miranda Yardley, to bolster your claim that they insisted "all trans women do so for a sexual reason", when they'd explicitly referred to 'some'.



She either supports Blanchard's theory or she doesn't.  And Blanchard said all - it has to be all, otherwise it might be something else.

But I'm sure she can speak for herself if she disagrees.


----------



## belboid (Dec 19, 2017)

Athos said:


> You think the law is based on a philosophical understanding of how trans women meet the definition of a 'woman'?  It's a pragmatic, balance of harms thing. A far more sensible footing than a meaningless slogan.


Of course I don't, where on earth do you get from? My point is that your response said absolutely nothing about the important question. It is an obfuscation behind philosophical niceties. My point is that, contra MY, someone should not need to undergo a medical transition to legally change sex/gender (whichever term your local law refers to). It is that the current GRA needs extending, not repealing.


----------



## belboid (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> There you go, poisoning the well...


Your well has run dry, I'm afraid.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

smokedout said:


> She either supports Blanchard's theory or she doesn't.  And Blanchard said all - it has to be all, otherwise it might be something else.
> 
> But I'm sure she can speak for herself of she disagrees.



If you read my work, I have explained why his language may sound unfriendly, it's more to do with objectivity. Anyway, what it all comes down to is whether or not the typology appears to describe the real world. And the vast number of transgender male 'lesbians' out there posting images of themselves in lingerie suggests it is good in that regard.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

belboid said:


> Your well has run dry, I'm afraid.



I can assure you it is bountiful.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

belboid said:


> Of course I don't, where on earth do you get from? My point is that your response said absolutely nothing about the important question. It is an obfuscation behind philosophical niceties. My point is that, contra MY, someone should not need to undergo a medical transition to legally change sex/gender (whichever term your local law refers to). It is that the current GRA needs extending, not repealing.



You are aware a huge number of transsexuals oppose self-ID, not just here but across the world? And you are aware that the GRA currently requires an intent to undergo some treatment, although not surgery? 

Seriously though, if transition is not medical, if one doesn't have surgery, does transition have any meaning at all?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> If you read my work, I have explained why his language may sound unfriendly, it's more to do with objectivity. Anyway, what it all comes down to is whether or not the typology appears to describe the real world. And the vast number of transgender male 'lesbians' out there posting images of themselves in lingerie suggests it is good in that regard.



So not all.  Just some people you've seen on the internet.  It's not really a comprehensive theory of transsexuality if it is only some transwomen, and ignores transmen.

Are you going to answer my question about whether trans children are also driven by autogynephilia, I'd say it's quite important?


----------



## Athos (Dec 19, 2017)

smokedout said:


> She either supports Blanchard's theory or she doesn't.  And Blanchard said all - it has to be all, otherwise it might be something else.
> 
> But I'm sure she can speak for herself if she disagrees.



I'm sure they can. If they have the will to engage with someone as disingenuous as you.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

smokedout said:


> So not all.  Just some people you've seen on the internet.  It's not really a comprehensive theory of transsexuality if it is only some transwomen, and ignores transmen.
> 
> Are you going to answer my question about whether trans children are also driven by autogynephilia, I'd say it's quite important?



It's very good at describing transsexuality in males. 

For children, I addressed the point above for children who are highly GNC when young, who likely will grow up to be gay or lesbian. If you read Anne Lawrence's book, the issue of autogynephilia in children is examined in there. There is less commonality seen in females who transition although a vector foundational upon some erotic etiology is not discounted. This does NOT mean autogynephilia exists in women. Given the epidemic of transitioning girls, particularly with rapid onset gender dysphoria, I think we need good quality, unbiased research to find out the truth.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> It's very good at describing transsexuality in males.
> 
> For children, I addressed the point above for children who are highly GNC when young, who likely will grow up to be gay or lesbian. If you read Anne Lawrence's book, the issue of autogynephilia in children is examined in there.



I don't want to have to read a book to find out what you think.  Perhaps you could just answer the question.


----------



## Mation (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> 'Listen to trans people... NO NOT THAT ONE!'


Nope. It's because I'm also listening to you that I don't want to row with you and would rather step back. I don't agree with you. That doesn't mean I haven't heard you. But I'm cis and so not best placed to tell you the ways in which I think you are wrong*.

I'll reserve that for cis people.

*E2a, as it wasn't clear: about other people whose experience of being trans is different to yours.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 19, 2017)

smokedout said:


> I don't want to have to read a book to find out what you think.  Perhaps you could just answer the question.



I was referring you to Lawrence's commentary on research reported on behaviour... your questions have been answered.


----------



## Athos (Dec 19, 2017)

belboid said:


> Of course I don't, where on earth do you get from? My point is that your response said absolutely nothing about the important question. It is an obfuscation behind philosophical niceties. My point is that, contra MY, someone should not need to undergo a medical transition to legally change sex/gender (whichever term your local law refers to). It is that the current GRA needs extending, not repealing.



Oh, it wasn't clear that was your point. If it is, I agree.


----------



## trashpony (Dec 19, 2017)

weepiper said:


> The fear of getting pregnant. Sure, there are women who can't. But they usually only find that out as adults. Every female who's sexually active has had the terror of the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy. Trans women will never have that and even before they transitioned they can never really understand it. It's not the same fear for a man.


I think it kicks in earlier. Getting breasts was a massive (unwanted) deal for me. Referrals to trans clinics for girls/young women have exploded in the last few years. I wonder if there is a corresponding drop in eating disorders. Dysphoria is pretty much a state of being for teenage girls.


----------



## Mation (Dec 19, 2017)

Athos said:


> Your whole position is a statement, the meaning of which you admit you don't understand?


I didn't say I don't understand. I said I can't define.


----------



## belboid (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> You are aware a huge number of transsexuals oppose self-ID, not just here but across the world? And you are aware that the GRA currently requires an intent to undergo some treatment, although not surgery?


That is why I said the GRA needed extending, not repealing. So your response is either nonsense or deliberately disingenuous.


> Seriously though, if transition is not medical, if one doesn't have surgery, does transition have any meaning at all?


Yes


----------



## belboid (Dec 19, 2017)

I quick reminder of why personal compassion isn't enough - Transgender inmate 'quit suicide pact'


----------



## Athos (Dec 19, 2017)

Mation said:


> I didn't say I don't understand. I said I can't define.



Ok. What do you _understand_ 'a woman' to be?

My point is the same.


----------



## snadge (Dec 19, 2017)

Asked this question before without an answer so I will rephrase it a little stronger.

Why is there a huge schism in the MtF transgender community?


----------



## weepiper (Dec 19, 2017)

belboid said:


> 'Every female who's sexually active' - that excludes a fair few women. And doesn't (materially) apply to pre-pubescent girls (though I do get there might well still be the fear from knowing it is 'what happens' to girls). But is that really it? And, while the fear wont affect a trans woman, some of the material consequences will. And if the immutable difference is down to a fear, then its not a material distinction, is it? And that distinction has been held up as inviolable before. Sorry if this isn't very clear, just trying to think it through as I write.


Female children have it drummed into them from well before puberty that unwanted pregnancy is the End Of The World. Girls are put on the pill at 13 or 14 because parents are so afraid of it. And tbf, pregnancy does literally change your life forever for women. Both physically (your whole body is affected, little things you might not be aware of like your feet get permanently a size bigger, stretch marks, scars, abdominal wall weaknesses, all sorts of stuff) and socially (goodbye the social life you knew before, goodbye to your career in the way you recognise it pre-children, goodbye to financial independence for many many women). These things affect all of us. Yes, even rich women. Your dismissal of this as 'is that really all?' speaks volumes about how little you understand about how female biology affects us. We can't identify our way out of it. It's limiting.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 19, 2017)

trashpony said:


> I think it kicks in earlier. Getting breasts was a massive (unwanted) deal for me. Referrals to trans clinics for girls/young women have exploded in the last few years. I wonder if there is a corresponding drop in eating disorders. Dysphoria is pretty much a state of being for teenage girls.



Interesting question. 

I've been thinking about it in relation to EDs too. Obviously EDs are very complex and can't be reduced to any one cause but anorexia tends to be talked about in terms of girls anxiety about puberty and sexuality, fear of the conflicts of adolescence, not wanting to grow up.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 19, 2017)

Red Cat said:


> Interesting question.
> 
> I've been thinking about it in relation to EDs too. Obviously EDs are very complex and can't be reduced to any one cause but anorexia tends to be talked about in terms of girls anxiety about puberty and sexuality, fear of the conflicts of adolescence, not wanting to grow up.


*DERAIL ALERT*

We know that the age of onset of puberty has fallen drastically in Western countries over the last century. With all the usual caveats about statistics etc, has there been a corresponding decrease in the age at which anorexia/other EDs is first diagnosed?

*DERAIL OVER*


----------



## TruXta (Dec 19, 2017)

Back on the topic of Blanchard's theory of autogynephilia - isn't it in essence unfalsifiable? If MtF "non-homosexual" transsexuals deny being erotically attracted to the image or reality of themselves as females, surely that's proof the theory is incorrect? Or am I missing something blindingly obvious?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 19, 2017)

TruXta said:


> Back on the topic of Blanchard's theory of autogynephilia - isn't it in essence unfalsifiable? If MtF "non-homosexual" transsexuals deny being erotically attracted to the image or reality of themselves as females, surely that's proof the theory is incorrect? Or am I missing something blindingly obvious?



They're liars. And that's science.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 19, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I was referring you to Lawrence's commentary on research reported on behaviour... your questions have been answered.



Not by you they haven't.  I'll ask again, do you think autogynephilia is the driver of childhood MtF transgenderism?


----------



## TruXta (Dec 19, 2017)

smokedout said:


> They're liars. And that's science.


If that's the official position of Blanchard et al, then the theory is as currently formulated unfalsifiable, and on the face of it unlikely to be true.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 19, 2017)

I see that, with their usual sensitivity to the views of lesser beings, the British TERFs have added a Dublin date to their "UK" speaking tour. It seems that the natives aren't doing their feminism in a bigoted enough way, so some sensible Brits have to come to the colonies to tell them how to do it.

It will be interesting to see if they manage to find any Irish-based speakers. They certainly won't have anyone representing any Irish feminist organisation or abortion rights campaign. As previously mentioned in this thread, all such groups here are trans inclusive and their most frequent interaction with TERFs occur when British "gender critical feminists" spend a couple of days trolling the social media accounts of Irish abortion campaigns.


----------



## co-op (Dec 19, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I see that, with their usual sensitivity to the views of lesser beings, the British TERFs have added a Dublin date to their "UK" speaking tour. It seems that the natives aren't doing their feminism in a bigoted enough way, so some sensible Brits have to come to the colonies to tell them how to do it.
> 
> It will be interesting to see if they manage to find any Irish-based speakers. They certainly won't have anyone representing any Irish feminist organisation or abortion rights campaign. As previously mentioned in this thread, all such groups here are trans inclusive and their most frequent interaction with TERFs occur when British "gender critical feminists" spend a couple of days trolling the social media accounts of Irish abortion campaigns.



Well abortion's the number 1 issue for transwomen in Ireland, especially their inability to access it and those silly women 'feminists' probably just don't understand that. They're all timorous of what they can't understand, as you've repeatedly pointed out.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 19, 2017)

TruXta said:


> *DERAIL ALERT*
> 
> We know that the age of onset of puberty has fallen drastically in Western countries over the last century. With all the usual caveats about statistics etc, has there been a corresponding decrease in the age at which anorexia/other EDs is first diagnosed?
> 
> *DERAIL OVER*



I don't know if there's a trend but very young girls can develop anorexia. I think EDs are very complex and it's not really fashionable to think about them in terms of developmental conflict; there have been studies showing some links with sexual abuse and now links with ASD, views on etiology change. But the meaning or function of skipping the developmental stage that is puberty is probably worth thinking about.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 19, 2017)

TruXta said:


> If that's the official position of Blanchard et al, then the theory is as currently formulated unfalsifiable, and on the face of it unlikely to be true.



It's pretty bonkers.  As well as claiming all transwomen who are sexually orientated towards women are driven by erotic fantasies of themselves as a woman it suggests that transwomen who are attracted to men are driven by a desire to be more attractive to straight men.  And it does nothing to explain transmen.

This hasn't stopped it being presented by some trans critical feminists as a proved, scientific and comprehensive theory of transgenderism - hence the 'transsexuality is a male sexual rights movement' meme they are so fond of.


----------



## Cloo (Dec 19, 2017)

I tell you, as per thread title, this doesn't half make my brain hurt. [Flippancy alert] Apparently so far from what I've read in various places trans people  hate women, hate gay people (or is it that gay people hate them?), want children to be genderless, want to pressure loads of children to have medical transitions, are just people with a fetish about having different genitalia, are upholding a conservative gender binary, are going to confuse everyone so much that no one will understand boundaries of ANYTHING sexual ever again, think that everyone who doesn't want to fuck them is a transphobe, are men who just want to get into women's spaces so they can take everything away from women, are left wing, are right wing and probably kick dogs.

Or maybe they are just a small (larger than people might think, but still small) collection of different people who should be allowed to live their lives without everyone else having a moral panic or existential crisis about it.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 19, 2017)

co-op said:


> Well abortion's the number 1 issue for transwomen in Ireland, especially their inability to access it and those silly women 'feminists' probably just don't understand that. They're all timorous of what they can't understand, as you've repeatedly pointed out.



I realise that TERFs like to focus obsessively on the dangers posed by the fearsome transwoman menace and to ignore transmen and non-binary people (except for an occasional bit of concern trolling about teenage girls being led astray), but really it shouldn't be be all that hard to understand that access to abortion rights is actually an issue of immediate personal concern to many people in the latter two groups.

All of the Irish feminist groups and campaign groups that make up the abortion rights movement here (Abortion Rights Campaign, Alliance for Choice, Coalition to Repeal the 8th, ROSA, etc) are trans inclusive for exactly that reason. Just about all of them have been subjected to bursts of sustained trolling on social media by British TERFs more interested in attacking women campaigning for abortion rights for using trans inclusive language than they are in helping those women to gain abortion rights.

Still though, I'm sure your friends will be able to set the natives right. Irish feminists clearly don't know what's best for them and need the wiser metropolitan TERFs of the colonial power to explain things.


----------



## belboid (Dec 19, 2017)

weepiper said:


> Female children have it drummed into them from well before puberty that unwanted pregnancy is the End Of The World. Girls are put on the pill at 13 or 14 because parents are so afraid of it. And tbf, pregnancy does literally change your life forever for women. Both physically (your whole body is affected, little things you might not be aware of like your feet get permanently a size bigger, stretch marks, scars, abdominal wall weaknesses, all sorts of stuff) and socially (goodbye the social life you knew before, goodbye to your career in the way you recognise it pre-children, goodbye to financial independence for many many women). These things affect all of us. Yes, even rich women. Your dismissal of this as 'is that really all?' speaks volumes about how little you understand about how female biology affects us. We can't identify our way out of it. It's limiting.


Sorry, I put that very badly, and really didn’t mean to minimise or disniss your point about the fear of pregnancy. 

But - we’ll, firstly I didn’t say anything about the effect of pregnancy itself, because my point was about those women who don’t experience it, those who haven’t had periods even, or possibly even never had sex. We’re looking for a _universal_ commonality here, so the experience and consequences of pregnancy can’t be it. 

I totally get that the fear of pregnancy can and does start earlier than puberty, but that isn’t an entirely universal either. Obviously no one was on the pill sixty years ago. Not that much earlier than that girls were being married off in ‘preparation’ for motherhood (whether they could experience it or not). But these are social restrictions and oppressions, not biological/material ones. Which isn’t to say it’s not important, just that it’s different.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Dec 19, 2017)

and I think I know some women who are sexually active but aren't worried about pregnancy...


----------



## weepiper (Dec 19, 2017)

Puddy_Tat said:


> and I think I know some women who are sexually active but aren't worried about pregnancy...


Lesbians who don't want to sleep with trans women who still have penises are pretty worried about pregnancy.


----------



## co-op (Dec 19, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Still though, I'm sure your friends will be able to set the natives right. Irish feminists clearly don't know what's best for them and need the wiser metropolitan TERFs of the colonial power to explain things.



Well quite. And the last thing we want is for Irish feminists and English ones to be talking to each other, God knows where that will end.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 19, 2017)

weepiper said:


> Lesbians who don't want to sleep with trans women who still have penises are pretty worried about pregnancy.



My impression is/was that fear of pregnancy isn't one of the important concerns in that scenario at all...  Maybe I am wrong?


----------



## 8ball (Dec 19, 2017)

Well, 105 pages in, I'm going to admit it's not just the OP that's perplexed.
Though I might be perplexed for different reasons...


----------



## weepiper (Dec 19, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> My impression is/was that fear of pregnancy isn't one of the important concerns in that scenario at all...  Maybe I am wrong?


Why would you be on the pill if you're a lesbian? You don't even have to have penetrative sex to get pregnant. As girls are warned in sex ed at school you can get pregnant without the male ejaculating, by transfer of semen in pre-cum from the penis by one or other of you's fingers. Seems an important concern to me.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 19, 2017)

weepiper said:


> Why would you be on the pill if you're a lesbian? You don't even have to have penetrative sex to get pregnant.



Maybe that's why.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 19, 2017)

weepiper said:


> Why would you be on the pill if you're a lesbian? You don't even have to have penetrative sex to get pregnant. As girls are warned in sex ed at school you can get pregnant without the male ejaculating, by transfer of semen in pre-cum from the penis by one or other of you's fingers. Seems an important concern to me.



You are thinking about it in a much more _risk_ based way than I. I was thinking in terms of sexual choice/preference. Lesbians don't expect or want a partner with a penis, and primarily/most importantly I don't think that is because they fear getting pregnant.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 19, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> You are thinking about it in a much more _risk_ based way than I. I was thinking in terms of sexual choice/preference. Lesbians don't expect or want a partner with a penis, and primarily/most importantly I don't think that is because they fear getting pregnant.



To use the vernacular, from a degree of personal experience mixed with reading on the matter, I'd guess that most lesbians just aren't that much into the cock.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 19, 2017)

8ball said:


> To use the vernacular, from a degree of personal experience mixed with reading on the matter, I'd guess that most lesbians just aren't that much into the cock.



Well quite...what I think we are talking about here is why? ..which is not the conversation I imagined having. I thought I knew _why_ and accepted that.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Dec 19, 2017)

weepiper said:


> Seems an important concern to me.



i must admit i was being slightly flippant in response to a post somewhere in today's stuff which (and i can't be bothered to search for it) said it was a fear for 'all women'

but i'm really not quite sure what you're getting at here.

and i really hope i'm reading it wrong.

yes, of course pregnancy is a possible issue if you have sex with someone who has the opposite sort of reproductive bits, no matter how they appear outwardly (and pregnancy - or the risk of it - is no doubt be an issue for some trans-men who have sex with men), and i'm sure that thinking / talking about this is part of the process of informed consent for trans people and people who have sex with trans people.

i don't attempt to speak for all trans people, and i am sure that some are some trans people who are (for the want of a gender neutral term) an arse when it comes to sex and relationships.

but what i seriously don't believe is that there's anything like a significant number of trans people whose bits don't match the gender they present as who are out there trying to trick or coerce people into having sex with them...


----------



## 8ball (Dec 19, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Well quite...what I think we are talking about here is why? ..which is not the conversation I imagined having. I thought I knew _why_ and accepted that.



I don't really know why.  I just took it as an element of definition of 'lesbian'.  
I just figured 'hey, biology'.  Like I do with a lot of things, some of which are very "un-proper-Urbanz".


----------



## weepiper (Dec 19, 2017)

Puddy_Tat said:


> i must admit i was being slightly flippant in response to a post somewhere in today's stuff which (and i can't be bothered to search for it) said it was a fear for 'all women'
> 
> but i'm really not quite sure what you're getting at here.
> 
> ...


What I'm getting at is that there's other reasons why lesbians might not want to sleep with trans women besides bigotry or just not liking cocks.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 19, 2017)

Puddy_Tat said:


> ...but what i seriously don't believe is that there's anything like a significant number of trans people whose bits don't match the gender they present as who are out there trying to trick or coerce people into having sex with them...



It would seem a serious stretch to believe something like that.  To me, anyway.  

You'd need something statistically pushing trans people very hard in the direction of coerciveness.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Dec 19, 2017)

8ball said:


> I don't really know why. I just took it as an element of definition of 'lesbian'.



i can't really speak for lesbians either, but i don't think there's a definitive set of rules about what (or who) you can and can't do.  there isn't for gay men (especially if you include men who have sex with men but who don't identify as gay)

then there's people who are bisexual, pansexual (from what i gather this means they don't accept there being a binary of genders) or queer (similar only more so)

real life isn't tidy.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 19, 2017)

weepiper said:


> What I'm getting at is that there's other reasons why lesbians might not want to sleep with trans women besides bigotry or just not liking cocks.



Aside from the same reason a lot of men wouldn't want to sleep with someone who was born a man, you mean?


----------



## weepiper (Dec 19, 2017)

8ball said:


> Aside from the same reason a lot of men wouldn't want to sleep with someone who was born a man, you mean?


Yes  that's my point.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 19, 2017)

Puddy_Tat said:


> i can't really speak for lesbians either, but i don't think there's a definitive set of rules about what (or who) you can and can't do.  there isn't for gay men (especially if you include men who have sex with men but who don't identify as gay)
> 
> then there's people who are bisexual, pansexual (from what i gather this means they don't accept there being a binary of genders) or queer (similar only more so)
> 
> real life isn't tidy.



Yeah, not speaking for lesbians obv, but just going by what I've been told and the meaning of the word.  It seems a fairly straight overlap between how lesbians feel about penises and gay men feel about vaginas, even though they can often recognise people of the opposite sex as being attractive in many ways.

(this is not to say it is *just* the genitals influencing attraction obv)


----------



## 8ball (Dec 19, 2017)

weepiper said:


> Yes  that's my point.



Do you mean the reason I said *is* the reason, or that there's another obvious reason I'm missing?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 19, 2017)

co-op said:


> Well quite. And the last thing we want is for Irish feminists and English ones to be talking to each other, God knows where that will end.



Irish feminists do talk with English feminists. Particularly those English feminists who are interested in helping out the largest scale feminist struggle currently ongoing in Western Europe, one that extends to a part of the British state.

It's their long experience that the TERF minority faction of British feminism is more interested in pursuing their all consuming obsession with being malicious to and about trans people than they are in showing any solidarity with women struggling for abortion rights. That for instance, articles that Irish feminists publish about abortion which use trans inclusive language will frequently get dozens or hundreds of vitriolic and bigoted denunciatory responses from British TERFs who never bother to engage with them on the central issue they are campaigning on or to offer any help.

Many of those British TERFs are so obsessed with transwomen, by the way, that they frequently believe that the trans inclusive language used by Irish abortion campaigns must be about including transwomen rather than transmen and non binary people. The same conclusion you jumped to.

And now rather than getting involved in organisations like the Abortion Support Network, or London ARC or Women on Web or organising public meeting or protests in England about the absence of abortion rights in NI, the British TERFs are organising a public meeting in Dublin about their own hobbyhorse. People's priorities can be very revealing.


----------



## weepiper (Dec 19, 2017)

8ball said:


> Do you mean the reason I said *is* the reason, or that there's another obvious reason I'm missing?


Besides that reason  a man sleeping with someone who was born a man isn't risking pregnancy.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 19, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Irish feminists do talk with English feminists. Particularly those English feminists who are interested in helping out the largest scale feminist struggle currently ongoing in Western Europe, one that extends to a part of the British state.
> 
> It's their long experience that the TERF minority faction of British feminism is more interested in pursuing their all consuming obsession with being malicious to and about trans people than they are in showing any solidarity with women struggling for abortion rights. That for instance, articles that Irish feminists publish about abortion which use trans inclusive language will frequently get dozens or hundreds of vitriolic and bigoted denunciatory responses from British TERFs who never bother to engage with them on the central issue they are campaigning on or to offer any help.
> 
> ...



Wow.  I didn't know about any of this (ignorance on my part, I know 3 transpeople - all transwomen).
I can understand the wariness of the feminist movement about being co-opted, but the number of transpeople generally seems like it must be really tiny to me.  Then again, knowing the number of people who can't conform to regular gender IDs comfortably is prob relatively unknown at this point...


----------



## iona (Dec 19, 2017)

weepiper said:


> Female children have it drummed into them from well before puberty that unwanted pregnancy is the End Of The World. Girls are put on the pill at 13 or 14 because parents are so afraid of it. And tbf, pregnancy does literally change your life forever for women. Both physically (your whole body is affected, little things you might not be aware of like your feet get permanently a size bigger, stretch marks, scars, abdominal wall weaknesses, all sorts of stuff) and socially (goodbye the social life you knew before, goodbye to your career in the way you recognise it pre-children, goodbye to financial independence for many many women). These things affect all of us. Yes, even rich women. Your dismissal of this as 'is that really all?' speaks volumes about how little you understand about how female biology affects us. We can't identify our way out of it. It's limiting.



I've genuinely never felt the slightest bit worried about the possibility of getting pregnant. This seems to be one of those "female socialisation" things that somehow passed me by


----------



## 8ball (Dec 19, 2017)

weepiper said:


> Besides that reason  a man sleeping with someone who was born a man isn't risking pregnancy.



Are you trying to argue against Rutita's point here (if you are, fair enough, but I thought you weren't)?
(I'm a little drunk btw)


----------



## Coconutjob (Dec 20, 2017)

Puddy_Tat said:


> (especially if you include men who have sex with men but who don't identify as gay)


Aside from rape victims, porn stars and prostitutes, men who have sex with men are gay.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Dec 20, 2017)

i do draw the line at sleeping with trolls


----------



## Coconutjob (Dec 20, 2017)

Puddy_Tat said:


> i do draw the line at sleeping with trolls


I don't identify as a troll.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 20, 2017)

Coconutjob said:


> Aside from rape victims, porn stars and prostitutes, men who have sex with men are gay.



tbf - quite carefully constructed....
I'm calling Ern.


----------



## Coconutjob (Dec 20, 2017)

8ball said:


> tbf - quite carefully constructed....
> I'm calling Ern.


Thanks mate! Who's Ern. Because I ain't.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 20, 2017)

Coconutjob said:


> Aside from rape victims, porn stars and prostitutes, men who have sex with men are gay.



How do you know this?


----------



## 8ball (Dec 20, 2017)

Coconutjob said:


> Thanks mate! Who's Ern. Because I ain't.



He was witty.


----------



## B.I.G (Dec 20, 2017)

Coconutjob said:


> I don't identify as a troll.



More top bantz.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 20, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> More top bantz.



That is how a decent lurker rolls.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 20, 2017)

Perhaps this twit wants to be excluded from this thread as well?

Said in a really angry voice, cos you know what I'm like.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 20, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Perhaps this twit wants to be excluded from this thread as well?
> 
> Said in a really angry voice, cos you know what I'm like.



You're like a woman with a fork in a world of soup.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 20, 2017)

Coconutjob said:


> Thanks mate! Who's Ern. Because I ain't.



How ironic you're admonishing for bad grammar on another thread.

"_I don't think "returner" is a valid conjugation of the verb by the way._"


----------



## Coconutjob (Dec 20, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> How do you know this?


It's known throughout the world, mate.


----------



## Coconutjob (Dec 20, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> How ironic you're admonishing for bad grammar on another thread.
> 
> "_I don't think "returner" is a valid conjugation of the verb by the way._"



Seriously? A missing q-mark is the best you have on me? That's not irony, sunshine, that's desperation!


----------



## Coconutjob (Dec 20, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Perhaps this twit wants to be excluded from this thread as well?
> 
> Said in a really angry voice, cos you know what I'm like.


I like you now, because of your angry voice. It made me laugh.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 20, 2017)

Coconutjob said:


> It's known throughout the world, mate.



Your world is a very narrow one and bears little or no relation to the real one.

Again; how do you know this?


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 20, 2017)

Coconutjob said:


> Seriously? A missing q-mark is the best you have on me? That's not irony, sunshine, that's desperation!



"ain't" it just.

And as I told Happy Larry (who's been very quiet lately) call me sunshine again and I'll shit on your jaguar.


----------



## Coconutjob (Dec 20, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> "ain't" it just.
> 
> And as I told Happy Larry (who's been very quiet lately) call me sunshine again and I'll shit on your jaguar.


Ain't is a perfectly fine English word.
And you can shit on whoever's Jag you like, sunshine, because it won't be mine.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 20, 2017)

Coconutjob said:


> Ain't is a perfectly fine English word.
> And you can shit on whoever's Jag you like, sunshine, because it won't be mine.



We'll see. 

Care to elaborate on your theories on men who have sex with men? Or do you wish to derail even further?


----------



## Coconutjob (Dec 20, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> We'll see.
> 
> Care to elaborate on your theories on men who have sex with men? Or do you wish to derail even further?


Be my guest. I've exhausted my theories and would like to be educated (or derailed if it makes you feel better)


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 20, 2017)

Coconutjob said:


> Be my guest. I've exhausted my theories and would like to be educated (or derailed if it makes you feel better)



You haven't given any theories about men who have sex with men. Except said that they're gay and "it's known throughout the world".

How do you know this?


----------



## Coconutjob (Dec 20, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> You haven't given any theories about men who have sex with men. Except said that they're gay and "it's known throughout the world".
> 
> How do you know this?



I did give my "theory"...aka explanation 



Coconutjob said:


> Aside from rape victims, porn stars and prostitutes, men who have sex with men are gay.



Prostitute, rape victim, porn star.

These are the only men who have sex with other men without identifying as gay.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 20, 2017)

Coconutjob said:


> I did give my theory...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How do you know this? From what evidence? Sources? Citations?


----------



## Coconutjob (Dec 20, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> How do you know this? From what evidence? Sources? Citations?



Oh my god. You're clutching at straws!

I tell you what. My argument is credible. You dismantle it if you can.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 20, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> How do you know this?



What else does it mean to be ‘gay’ - apart from to have sex (for enjoyment) with those of the same sex?


----------



## belboid (Dec 20, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> What else does it mean to be ‘gay’ - apart from to have sex (for enjoyment) with those of the same sex?


Quite a few gay people don’t have sex with their partners (and not just the fucked up catholic ones)


----------



## Coconutjob (Dec 20, 2017)

belboid said:


> Quite a few gay people don’t have sex with their partners (and not just the fucked up catholic ones)


Yeah, but "gay" means "same sex love" in this case... right, regardless of the specifics?
 We're agreed on that, yes?


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 20, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> What else does it mean to be ‘gay’ - apart from to have sex (for enjoyment) with those of the same sex?



And those of us who have sex with any gender?


----------



## purenarcotic (Dec 20, 2017)

weepiper said:


> Why would you be on the pill if you're a lesbian? You don't even have to have penetrative sex to get pregnant. As girls are warned in sex ed at school you can get pregnant without the male ejaculating, by transfer of semen in pre-cum from the penis by one or other of you's fingers. Seems an important concern to me.



Tbh that hadn’t even crossed my mind - I just like vaginas, don’t think that makes me a bigot and think it’s shit lesbians are getting told they are one for only liking it. All smacks a bit of some of the old things trotted out about how we just hadn’t found the right penis but if we just kept trying we would. Like people can’t cope with the idea we don’t need a penis to have enjoyable sex.

E2a - pregnancy not the concern for my lesbian friends either.


----------



## Mation (Dec 20, 2017)

co-op said:


> The entire debate is about what this actually means and yet you just repeat it as a truth undeniable. What's the point? Why were you happy with the term 'transwoman' if it literally means exactly the same thing as 'woman'?


What? Trans is a useful word for describing being trans; an experience that some women have and that some (most) others do not. I didn't say anything about the words meaning exactly the same thing.


----------



## Mation (Dec 20, 2017)

Athos said:


> Ok. What do you _understand_ 'a woman' to be?
> 
> My point is the same.


Something that I can't and wouldn't attempt to describe. My point is the same.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Dec 20, 2017)

I'm a bit confused about all the stuff about cocks tbh. Trans women that i know, only a handful tbf, have told me they don't want to use their penis in sex because of dysphoria  and I understand that trans women who take hormones their penises don't get as hard, shrink and have other side effects.  Is trans women wanting to fuck with a penis something lots of people have experienced?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 20, 2017)

weepiper said:


> Why would you be on the pill if you're a lesbian? You don't even have to have penetrative sex to get pregnant. As girls are warned in sex ed at school you can get pregnant without the male ejaculating, by transfer of semen in pre-cum from the penis by one or other of you's fingers. Seems an important concern to me.


lesbians of my acquaintance have been on the pill because they found it eased period pains


----------



## smokedout (Dec 20, 2017)

Thimble Queen said:


> I'm a bit confused about all the stuff about cocks tbh. Trans women that i know, only a handful tbf, have told me they don't want to use their penis in sex because of dysphoria  and I understand that trans women who take hormones their penises don't get as hard, shrink and have other side effects.  Is trans women wanting to fuck with a penis something lots of people have experienced?



They are everywhere, hanging about on street corners demanding lesbians have sex with them and trailing them down the road screaming transphobe at them if they refuse.  Either that or it's just a clumsy conversation about hetero-normativity, social conditioning and sexuality amongst a few queer teenagers on tumblr and youtube that's been blown out of all proportion by people with a wider political agenda.


----------



## andysays (Dec 20, 2017)

smokedout said:


> They are everywhere, hanging about on street corners demanding lesbians have sex with them and trailing them down the road screaming transphobe at them if they refuse.  Either that or it's just a clumsy conversation about hetero-normativity, social conditioning and sexuality amongst a few queer teenagers on tumblr and youtube that's been blown out of all proportion by people with a wider political agenda.


Not about the threatening tweets which, if I remember correctly, were sent by one of those involved in the incident which sparked this thread, the same person subsequently arrested, and posted here then?

It's one thing to argue that such things aren't representative  (I've not seen anyone here claim they are BTW) but you seem to be denying that they even exist.


----------



## Athos (Dec 20, 2017)

Mation said:


> Something that I can't and wouldn't attempt to describe. My point is the same.



So you're point is no more than:

'Trans women are something I can't describe.'

That's cool.  But hardly surprising that feminists who've sought to apply some critical thinking to this issue aren't queuing up to get on-board.


----------



## Athos (Dec 20, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> lesbians of my acquaintance have been on the pill because they found it eased period pains



They just told you they were lesbians, to let you down gently.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 20, 2017)

Athos said:


> They just told you they were lesbians, to let you down gently.


yeh cos no man can have a platonick relationship with a lesbian.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 20, 2017)

Athos said:


> So you're point is no more than:
> 
> 'Trans women are something I can't describe.'
> 
> That's cool.  But hardly surprising that feminists who've sought to apply some critical thinking to this issue aren't queuing up to get on-board.



The whole 'trans women are women' thing is a huge obstacle to debate, never mind conciliation, and usually comes with and 'end of' or 'no debate'. This means we are unable to have a meaningful discussion because the point central to contention is off limits.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 20, 2017)

smokedout said:


> They are everywhere, hanging about on street corners demanding lesbians have sex with them and trailing them down the road screaming transphobe at them if they refuse.  Either that or it's just a clumsy conversation about hetero-normativity, social conditioning and sexuality amongst a few queer teenagers on tumblr and youtube that's been blown out of all proportion by people with a wider political agenda.



Lol


----------



## bimble (Dec 20, 2017)

Miranda Yardley  I'd be really interested to hear you spell out why you refer to yourself as transexual instead of the usual current terminology. If you go into this on your website please just post a link to the relevant place?


----------



## belboid (Dec 20, 2017)

Athos said:


> So you're point is no more than:
> 
> 'Trans women are something I can't describe.'
> 
> That's cool.  But hardly surprising that feminists who've sought to apply some critical thinking to this issue aren't queuing up to get on-board.


Lol, what patronising drivel. There are many feminists who have applied critical thinking that reject the terf outcome. In fact their thinking isn’t really critical at all, it’s a crude, simplistic, essentialist, argument that has been put forward by conservatives for decades. Their endpoint is the reactionary drivel being promoted by Yardley here.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 20, 2017)

bimble said:


> Miranda Yardley  I'd be really interested to hear you spell out why you refer to yourself as transexual instead of the usual current terminology. If you go into this on your website please just post a link to the relevant place?



Essentially because 'transgender' is a political umbrella encompassing a whole load of different things and is identity based. What is included as 'transgender' is incredibly broad, and includes a whole bunch of identities that are no more than just dressing up. 

I still think 'transsexual' means something specific to myself and others, not least that I have put myself through some fairly brutal surgery to get where I am.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 20, 2017)

belboid said:


> Lol, what patronising drivel. There are many feminists who have applied critical thinking that reject the terf outcome. In fact their thinking isn’t really critical at all, it’s a crude, simplistic, essentialist, argument that has been put forward by conservatives for decades. Their endpoint is the reactionary drivel being promoted by Yardley here.



I don't think you understand what 'essentialist' means. Please explain exactly what I promote that is 'reactionary drivel'. Thank you.


----------



## Mation (Dec 20, 2017)

Athos said:


> So you're point is no more than:
> 
> 'Trans women are something I can't describe.'
> 
> That's cool.  But hardly surprising that feminists who've sought to apply some critical thinking to this issue aren't queuing up to get on-board.


You are the most disingenuous poster on these boards.


----------



## belboid (Dec 20, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I don't think you understand what 'essentialist' means. Please explain exactly what I promote that is 'reactionary drivel'. Thank you.


Your pseudo-scientific 'theory' is anti-rationalist, virtually conspiraloon, guff, and your denying of rights to those who have not undergone surgery leads fairly directly to more deaths of trans people.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 20, 2017)

belboid said:


> Your pseudo-scientific 'theory' is anti-rationalist, virtually conspiraloon, guff, and your denying of rights to those who have not undergone surgery leads fairly directly to more deaths of trans people.



What rights have I denied anyone?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 20, 2017)

andysays said:


> Not about the threatening tweets which, if I remember correctly, were sent by one of those involved in the incident which sparked this thread, the same person subsequently arrested, and posted here then?
> 
> It's one thing to argue that such things aren't representative  (I've not seen anyone here claim they are BTW) but you seem to be denying that they even exist.



I was talking about the claim transwomen are demanding people have sex with them and calling them transphobes if they refuse.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 20, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> What rights have I denied anyone?



Do you support repealing the 2004 GRA?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 20, 2017)

I've just spent a little while following links from this resource page. I recommend it for anyone interested in finding out more about Blanchard and his chums.

Categorically wrong? A Bailey-Blanchard-Lawrence clearinghouse


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 20, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Do you support repealing the 2004 GRA?



I oppose it being changed to accommodate self-declaration, as this may mean trans people may be taken less seriously.

I see the proposed replacement of 'gender reassignment' with 'gender identity' a step backwards. 'Gender reassignment' actually means something, whereas protecting 'gender identity' protects just thoughts and feelings. To my mind, that would make bad law.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 20, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I oppose it being changed to accommodate self-declaration, as this may mean trans people may be taken less seriously.



You are aware that many of the people you seem to be working with politically do want to repeal the 2004 act aren't you?  Have you challenged them about that?  What might that mean for you if it happens?



> I see the proposed replacement of 'gender reassignment' with 'gender identity' a step backwards. 'Gender reassignment' actually means something, whereas protecting 'gender identity' protects just thoughts and feelings. To my mind, that would make bad law.



Do you think it should be legal for crossdressers or non-binary people to be refused housing or employment because of their gender identity?  That's what this proposed law is about.

And as it was rejected by the Tories and Miller's bill ran out of time then this is unlikely to become law anyway.  Which is a shame, because it would have represented a significant step in dismantling the state enforced gender binary.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 20, 2017)

belboid said:


> Your pseudo-scientific 'theory' is anti-rationalist, virtually conspiraloon, guff, and your denying of rights to those who have not undergone surgery leads fairly directly to more deaths of trans people.


Cunt mode firmly on bellend?


----------



## belboid (Dec 20, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> What rights have I denied anyone?


the right to have their gender identity recognised in law. Thus (for example) leaving transwomen in mens prisons where their likelihood of self harm, assault, and suicide is through the roof.


----------



## belboid (Dec 20, 2017)

TopCat said:


> Cunt mode firmly on bellend?


Do you have an argument you would like to put forward?


----------



## Athos (Dec 20, 2017)

Mation said:


> You are the most disingenuous poster on these boards.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 20, 2017)

smokedout said:


> You are aware that many of the people you seem to be working with politically do want to repeal the 2004 act aren't you?  Have you challenged them about that?  What might that mean for you if it happens?



I don't believe there is a realistic chance the 2004 GRA will be repealed. 



smokedout said:


> Do you think it should be legal for crossdressers or non-binary people to be refused housing or employment because of their gender identity?  That's what this proposed law is about.
> 
> And as it was rejected by the Tories and Miller's bill ran out of time then this is unlikely to become law anyway.  Which is a shame, because it would have represented a significant step in dismantling the state enforced gender binary.



The reason it didn't become law was because parliament was dissolved as a result of the General Election. I have never ever suggested anyone should be refused housing or employment based on how they dress or their thoughts or their feelings or other faith. There is a better way to protect the rights of crossdressers and non-binary individuals than protecting the thoughts and feelings, or faith, of 'gender identity': just allow people to wear what they like.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 20, 2017)

Miranda Yardley I realise there's a lot of people engaging with you right now, but I'm a bit worried that you're seemingly willing to champion what seems to be a illogical scientific theory ala Blanchard et al.

If you have any links to responses from BBL or their allies that directly address this criticism I'd be grateful. Ta.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 20, 2017)

belboid said:


> the right to have their gender identity recognised in law. Thus (for example) leaving transwomen in mens prisons where their likelihood of self harm, assault, and suicide is through the roof.



Gender identity is just thoughts and feelings. You can't legislate to protect that.

Apropos of prisons, in case you haven't noticed, our prison system is falling apart. Cultural violence and sexual abuse abounds. The entire system needs reform, and the epidemic of prison suicides across the estate needs to be addressed. 

Do you believe double rapists like Jessica Winfield should be housed with women in prison? Don't you think a better solution would be to have an improved facility for transgender prisoners, where their unique needs can be met?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 20, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I don't believe there is a realistic chance the 2004 GRA will be repealed.



Is this more questions you aren't going to answer then?  You seem pretty evasive on a lot of things.



> The reason it didn't become law was because parliament was dissolved as a result of the General Election. I have never ever suggested anyone should be refused housing or employment based on how they dress or their thoughts or their feelings or other faith. There is a better way to protect the rights of crossdressers and non-binary individuals than protecting the thoughts and feelings, or faith, of 'gender identity': just allow people to wear what they like.



There's no guarantee it would have become law if parliament hasn't been dissolved, it was only a private member's bill.  How else would you propose protecting the rights of non-binary people to be discriminated against without changing the Equalities Act to include the?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 20, 2017)

TruXta said:


> Miranda Yardley I realise there's a lot of people engaging with you right now, but I'm a bit worried that you're seemingly willing to champion what seems to be a illogical scientific theory ala Blanchard et al.
> 
> If you have any links to responses from BBL or their allies that directly address this criticism I'd be grateful. Ta.



Your criticism it's 'illogical'? What makes you say that?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 20, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Gender identity is just thoughts and feelings. You can't legislate to protect that.



Religion is protected under the Equalities Act.  Why not gender identity?


----------



## Athos (Dec 20, 2017)

belboid said:


> Lol, what patronising drivel. There are many feminists who have applied critical thinking that reject the terf outcome. In fact their thinking isn’t really critical at all, it’s a crude, simplistic, essentialist, argument that has been put forward by conservatives for decades. Their endpoint is the reactionary drivel being promoted by Yardley here.



Yes, but it normally amounts to more than a banal one-liner they key term of which the speaker admits to not having any communicable conception of!


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 20, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Is this more questions you aren't going to answer then?  You seem pretty evasive on a lot of things.



I have answered every question you have put to me. Please don't gaslight me.



smokedout said:


> There's no guarantee it would have become law if parliament hasn't been dissolved, it was only a private member's bill.  How else would you propose protecting the rights of non-binary people to be discriminated against without changing the Equalities Act to include the?



If you saw the first reading, you'd have seen the strength of support the bill had, and the way the SNP was leveraging it against the government.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 20, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I don't think you understand what 'essentialist' means. Please explain exactly what I promote that is 'reactionary drivel'. Thank you.


So Blanchard, then, and his disease model of transgender/transsexuality. That he sees homosexuality as deviant - not just him, his fellow travellers such as J Michael 'bisexual men are liars' Bailey, too - is not a conclusion of his theorising. It is the starting point of his theorising. 

I'm very surprised to see you quoting such a person.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 20, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Religion is protected under the Equalities Act.  Why not gender identity?



As I have said a number of times before, we have a protected characteristic for faith. Obviously you realise there are problems with protecting faith, it is after all ideology. And all ideology should be open to question.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 20, 2017)

belboid said:


> Do you have an argument you would like to put forward?


You are a cunt.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 20, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Your criticism it's 'illogical'? What makes you say that?


I could refer you to my previous post, but what it boils down to is that the theory of autogynephilia is, as far as I can see, not falsifiable. Either mtf people are gay or they are aroused by the thought of themselves as women, and if they are not homosexual and deny being autogynephilic then the theory says they must be lying or in denial.

That is pretty much the text book definition of a theory that can't be disproved.


----------



## belboid (Dec 20, 2017)

Athos said:


> Yes, but it normally amounts to more than a banal one-liner they key term of which the speaker admits to not having any communicable conception of!


No one on this thread has put forward a definition of woman that is universal, so why imply that only one side of the debate have failed to do so?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 20, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Your criticism it's 'illogical'? What makes you say that?


It's worse than illogical. It's a bunch of prejudices dressed up as science and used as a means to deny others certain rights or treatments. It's fucking vile.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 20, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So Blanchard, then, and his disease model of transgender/transsexuality. That he sees homosexuality as deviant - not just him, his fellow travellers such as J Michael 'bisexual men are liars' Bailey, too - is not a conclusion of his theorising. It is the starting point of his theorising.
> 
> I'm very surprised to see you quoting such a person.



I think the idea of autogynephilia and the two-type taxonomy is clever. In particular I think the mutually exclusive/collectively exhaustive characteristic of the typology is very clever. Blanchard took many decades of other's work a gave an insightful way of understanding it.

I don't see you engaging with the substance of the argument, which is 'transsexual males fall into two categories differentiated by sexual orientation'. This is supported by neurological evidence.

A Review of the Status of Brain Structure Research in Transsexualism


----------



## bimble (Dec 20, 2017)

smokedout said:


> ..  How else would you propose protecting the rights of non-binary people to be discriminated against without changing the Equalities Act to include them?



Are you legally allowed to deny someone housing or employment based on how they dress / look at the moment? I think basically you are, there's no law saying you can't. If your aim is simply this smokedout, as you seem to say, then why do only 'non binary' people need this protection, why must it be framed in terms of reifying and enshrining in law 'gender identity'.



Miranda Yardley said:


> There is a better way to protect the rights of crossdressers and non-binary individuals than protecting the thoughts and feelings, or faith, of 'gender identity': just allow people to wear what they like.


^ This sounds like a good idea but if its a change in the law that people want it'd be a pretty unwieldly thing and probably impossible to prove (discrimination on grounds of looking / dressing wrong).


----------



## Athos (Dec 20, 2017)

belboid said:


> No one on this thread has put forward a definition of woman that is universal, so why imply that only one side of the debate have failed to do so?



I'm not. I simply queried what that poster meant by that hackneyed phrase she chose to repeat (one that's pretty central to the discussion, you be fair). Seemingly, she's not sure. That's fine; there are, indeed, lots of people with half-baked ideas on this thread.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 20, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I have answered every question you have put to me. Please don't gaslight me.



You haven't answered whether _you think_ transgenderism in children is caused by autogynephilia.  I'm sorry I don't think this is gas lighting, I'd like to know, without having to read a book.  I don't think there's any evidence for that you see.  I don't think transgenderism in children is likely to be caused by a sexual fetish.  And I don't think autogynephilia really adequately explains androphilic transsexuals.  Or as you agree female to males. And most gynephilic male to females say it doesn't describe them, either because they don't experience it or because they don't see it as the motivating factor in changing their gender.  So as a theory of transsexuality it seems to be to be pretty piss weak.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 20, 2017)

TruXta said:


> I could refer you to my previous post, but what it boils down to is that the theory of autogynephilia is, as far as I can see, not falsifiable. Either mtf people are gay or they are aroused by the thought of themselves as women, and if they are not homosexual and deny being autogynephilic then the theory says they must be lying or in denial.
> 
> That is pretty much the text book definition of a theory that can't be disproved.



Well, the taxonomy makes predictions which can be tested. And these things aside, it appears describe the real world very well.


----------



## belboid (Dec 20, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Gender identity is just thoughts and feelings. You can't legislate to protect that.


There are plenty of laws covering thoughts and feelings already, so that's wrong. And whether gender identity is just thoughts and feelings or whether there is a more biological basis for it is one of the things being debated. 



> Apropos of prisons, in case you haven't noticed, our prison system is falling apart. Cultural violence and sexual abuse abounds. The entire system needs reform, and the epidemic of prison suicides across the estate needs to be addressed.
> 
> Do you believe double rapists like Jessica Winfield should be housed with women in prison? Don't you think a better solution would be to have an improved facility for transgender prisoners, where their unique needs can be met?


Avoiding the question again, I see. The 'we must change everything, before we change anything' argument is rarely convincing, and certainly not here.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 20, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> As I have said a number of times before, we have a protected characteristic for faith. Obviously you realise there are problems with protecting faith, it is after all ideology. And all ideology should be open to question.



I have no problem with faith being open to question, but I think it's fair enough that religious people are protected from discrimination in housing, employment and service provision.  I don't see why this can't be applied to non-binary people as well.  And the mechanism for doing that would be the Equalities Act.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 20, 2017)

bimble said:


> ^ This sounds like a good idea but if its a change in the law that people want it'd be a pretty unwieldly thing and probably impossible to prove (discrimination on grounds of looking / dressing wrong).



How on earth do you prove discrimination based on 'gender identity'? I mean, for many people this doesn't even seem to affect how they live their lives, they just say it is an 'identity'. I hope we agree that we would all benefit from a more compassionate society?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 20, 2017)

belboid said:


> There are plenty of laws covering thoughts and feelings already, so that's wrong. And whether gender identity is just thoughts and feelings or whether there is a more biological basis for it is one of the things being debated.
> 
> Avoiding the question again, I see. The 'we must change everything, before we change anything' argument is rarely convincing, and certainly not here.



There's not an awful lot of evidence to show 'gender identity' is biological. Certainly, the evidence for Blanchard's typology far outweighs what evidence there is.

That's a bit rich, considering you just evaded my asking whether that double rapist should have been in a women's prison. Are you going to answer me or not?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 20, 2017)

smokedout said:


> You haven't answered whether _you think_ transgenderism in children is caused by autogynephilia.  I'm sorry I don't think this is gas lighting, I'd like to know, without having to read a book.  I don't think there's any evidence for that you see.  I don't think transgenderism in children is likely to be caused by a sexual fetish.  And I don't think autogynephilia really adequately explains androphilic transsexuals.  Or as you agree female to males. And most gynephilic male to females say it doesn't describe them, either because they don't experience it or because they don't see it as the motivating factor in changing their gender.  So as a theory of transsexuality it seems to be to be pretty piss weak.



Describing AGP as a 'sexual fetish' doesn't help those who live with this. Apropos children, I referred you to a post on my website looking at how gender non-conformity in young children (which is linked to later homosexuality) appears to be interpreted as the child being transgender. The children who later become homosexual would, if they transition, be homosexual not autogynephilic transsexual. Note I am not saying either is more valid, and I am not saying either are 'true trans'.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 20, 2017)

belboid said:


> the right to have their gender identity recognised in law. Thus (for example) leaving transwomen in mens prisons where their likelihood of self harm, assault, and suicide is through the roof.



Please see my earlier response. It answers your point.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 20, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Religion is protected under the Equalities Act.  Why not gender identity?



Again it's thoughts and feelings. I'd prefer our protections to be based on something more material.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 20, 2017)

smokedout said:


> I have no problem with faith being open to question, but I think it's fair enough that religious people are protected from discrimination in housing, employment and service provision.  I don't see why this can't be applied to non-binary people as well.  And the mechanism for doing that would be the Equalities Act.



Surely we are all 'non-binary'? I mean, none of us are one-dimensional stereotypes, are we.


----------



## belboid (Dec 20, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> There's not an awful lot of evidence to show 'gender identity' is biological. Certainly, the evidence for Blanchard's typology far outweighs what evidence there is.


No there isn't, the research you just quoted doesn't really support Blanchard's theory, only one of it's assumptions. Most conspiracy theories start from a couple of basics. It is not support for the wider theory.



> That's a bit rich, considering you just evaded my asking whether that double rapist should have been in a women's prison. Are you going to answer me or not?


Well, I can see this is going to go well, but....

I asked you a question, you answered me with a different question. Why should yours take precedence? You do keep doing this.


----------



## belboid (Dec 20, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Again it's thoughts and feelings. I'd prefer our protections to be based on something more material.


and racial hatred? Hate is just a feeling, isn't it?


----------



## TruXta (Dec 20, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Well, the taxonomy makes predictions which can be tested. And these things aside, it appears describe the real world very well.


Doesn't matter if it did really. If it can't be falsified even in principle it's not a scientific theory, but ideology dressed up as science.


----------



## bimble (Dec 20, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> How on earth do you prove discrimination based on 'gender identity'? I mean, for many people this doesn't even seem to affect how they live their lives, they just say it is an 'identity'. I hope we agree that we would all benefit from a more compassionate society?


True. Hadn't even considered how the proposed legal protection smokedout wants - so as to stop 'non-binary' people being discriminated against because of how they feel about their gender or what they are wearing etc - could actually be made to work in real life, how would a case ever be proved so as to force employers / landlords to comply.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 20, 2017)

TruXta said:


> Doesn't matter if it did really. If it can't be falsified even in principle it's not a scientific theory, but ideology dressed up as science.


Even the terms used are unscientific. Homosexuality is an 'evolutionary mistake', for instance. This is just drivel, working from a mistaken assumption that evolution has some purpose, that somehow there's good evolution and bad evolution. Total drivel.


----------



## belboid (Dec 20, 2017)

bimble said:


> True. Hadn't even considered how the proposed legal protection smokedout wants - so as to stop 'non-binary' people being discriminated against because of how they feel about their gender or what they are wearing etc - could actually be made to work in real life, how would a case ever be proved so as to force employers / landlords to comply.


same way they are forced to comply re, eg, racial discrimination, surely.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 20, 2017)

belboid said:


> No there isn't, the research you just quoted doesn't really support Blanchard's theory, only one of it's assumptions. Most conspiracy theories start from a couple of basics. It is not support for the wider theory.
> 
> Well, I can see this is going to go well, but....
> 
> I asked you a question, you answered me with a different question. Why should yours take precedence? You do keep doing this.



You missed this important passage from the study:


Following this line of thought, Cantor (2011, 2012, but also see Italiano, 2012) has recently suggested that Blanchard’s predictions have been fulfilled in two independent structural neuroimaging studies. Specifically, Savic and Arver (2011) using VBM on the cortex of untreated nonhomosexual MtFs and another study using DTI in homosexual MtFs (Rametti et al., 2011b) illustrate the predictions. Cantor seems to be right. Nonhomosexual MtFs present differences with heterosexual males in structures that are not sexually dimorphic (Savic & Arver, 2011), while homosexual MtFs (as well as homosexual FtMs) show differences with respect to male and female controls in a series of brain fascicles (Rametti et al., 2011a, 2011b). If other VBM and CTh studies on the cortex of homosexual MtFs are added (Simon et al., 2013; Zubiaurre-Elorza et al., 2013), there is a more substantial number of untreated homosexual MtFs and FtMs that fulfill Blanchard’s prediction but still only one study on nonhomosexual MtFs; to fully confirm the hypothesis, more independent studies on nonhomosexual MtFs are needed. A much better verification of the hypothesis could be supplied by a specifically designed study including homosexual and nonhomosexual MtFs.

Finally, for Blanchard, MtF and FtM homosexual transsexuality is an extreme expression of homosexuality. He considered the following continuum: homosexual → gender dysphoric homosexual → transsexual homosexual (Blanchard, Clemmensen, & Steiner, 1987). Later, Blanchard also hypothesized that homosexual transsexuals should show differences in sexually dimorphic brain structures (Blanchard, 2008). Thus, from Blanchard’s view, there would be no brain differences between homosexual transsexuals and homosexual persons. This hypothesis has not been directly tested yet. However, there are two studies in the literature with respect to cortical thickness that, taken cautiously, may approach Blanchard’s hypothesis on the relationship between transsexuality and homosexuality.​


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 20, 2017)

TruXta said:


> Doesn't matter if it did really. If it can't be falsified even in principle it's not a scientific theory, but ideology dressed up as science.



Please explain how it is 'ideology dressed up as science'.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 20, 2017)

belboid said:


> and racial hatred? Hate is just a feeling, isn't it?



When people are prosecuted and the hate crime legislation is in point, the hate is an aggravating factor. That's how the law works. There's nothing anywhere to prevent anyone harbouring malicious thoughts, as long as these are not acted upon.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 20, 2017)

bimble said:


> True. Hadn't even considered how the proposed legal protection smokedout wants - so as to stop 'non-binary' people being discriminated against because of how they feel about their gender or what they are wearing etc - could actually be made to work in real life, how would a case ever be proved so as to force employers / landlords to comply.



Essentially the complainant would be filing something which said 'I was unfairly discriminated against because I feel like a...' and I can't see this ending well.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 20, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Even the terms used are unscientific. Homosexuality is an 'evolutionary mistake', for instance. This is just drivel, working from a mistaken assumption that evolution has some purpose, that somehow there's good evolution and bad evolution. Total drivel.



I'm here to defend my own words not someone else's, I don't do ad hominem arguments, sorry. Why not take this up with the author? He's quite chatty on Twitter.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 20, 2017)

belboid said:


> same way they are forced to comply re, eg, racial discrimination, surely.



One can usually prove race, and one can usually prove religious affiliation. Proving discrimination would follow. Proving 'gender identity' and discrimination based thereon seems unreachable. Again, my issue with protecting 'gender identity' is that IT WEAKENS EXISTING PROTECTIONS. Do you not understand this?


----------



## TruXta (Dec 20, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Please explain how it is 'ideology dressed up as science'.


Are you at all familiar with the notion that a scientific theory needs to be falsifiable?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 20, 2017)

TruXta said:


> Are you at all familiar with the notion that a scientific theory needs to be falsifiable?



Yes, and I explained how it is falsifiable...


----------



## smokedout (Dec 20, 2017)

bimble said:


> True. Hadn't even considered how the proposed legal protection smokedout wants - so as to stop 'non-binary' people being discriminated against because of how they feel about their gender or what they are wearing etc - could actually be made to work in real life, how would a case ever be proved so as to force employers / landlords to comply.



If a landlord threw someone out because they saw them cross dressing, or if someone was refused a job after saying they were non-binary, or because they looked non-binary, then there could be a claim.  Just like there could be for sex, sexuality, religion, race, gender transition or disability.   Obviously discrimination cases can be complex, and hard to prove, but given that this often involves something which can be seen, such as how a person presents, it could be easier than cases involving disability, religion or sexuality.


----------



## co-op (Dec 20, 2017)

belboid said:


> No one on this thread has put forward a definition of woman that is universal, so why imply that only one side of the debate have failed to do so?



Or a definition of a "man". The point is that these concepts (outside of a simple biological explanation) are contested, especially, historically, by feminists, particularly in relation to issues like patriarchal gender roles, male control over female reproductivity and the ensuing enslavement of women. 

To now simply dismiss this debate is incredible arrogance. I'm not surprised that many feminists see the process of erasing feminist critiques of gender, the silencing of actual women and the general tone of furious self-righteousness and justified anger and violence being stereotypically masculine (the fury of men whose privileges are being challenged) and therefore well in accord with patriarchal gender demands.

Where are the voices of transmen in the debate? Why are they so silent?


----------



## TruXta (Dec 20, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Yes, and I explained how it is falsifiable...


I'm sorry, must have missed that. Where was this?


----------



## belboid (Dec 20, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> You missed this important passage from the study:
> 
> 
> Following this line of thought, Cantor (2011, 2012, but also see Italiano, 2012) has recently suggested that Blanchard’s predictions have been fulfilled in two independent structural neuroimaging studies. Specifically, Savic and Arver (2011) using VBM on the cortex of untreated nonhomosexual MtFs and another study using DTI in homosexual MtFs (Rametti et al., 2011b) illustrate the predictions. Cantor seems to be right. Nonhomosexual MtFs present differences with heterosexual males in structures that are not sexually dimorphic (Savic & Arver, 2011), while homosexual MtFs (as well as homosexual FtMs) show differences with respect to male and female controls in a series of brain fascicles (Rametti et al., 2011a, 2011b). If other VBM and CTh studies on the cortex of homosexual MtFs are added (Simon et al., 2013; Zubiaurre-Elorza et al., 2013), there is a more substantial number of untreated homosexual MtFs and FtMs that fulfill Blanchard’s prediction but still only one study on nonhomosexual MtFs; to fully confirm the hypothesis, more independent studies on nonhomosexual MtFs are needed. A much better verification of the hypothesis could be supplied by a specifically designed study including homosexual and nonhomosexual MtFs.
> ...


Yup, that's one point of agreement.


----------



## belboid (Dec 20, 2017)

co-op said:


> Or a definition of a "man". The point is that these concepts (outside of a simple biological explanation) are contested, especially, historically, by feminists, particularly in relation to issues like patriarchal gender roles, male control over female reproductivity and the ensuing enslavement of women.
> 
> To now simply dismiss this debate is incredible arrogance. I'm not surprised that many feminists see the process of erasing feminist critiques of gender, the silencing of actual women and the general tone of furious self-righteousness and justified anger and violence being stereotypically masculine (the fury of men whose privileges are being challenged) and therefore well in accord with patriarchal gender demands.
> 
> Where are the voices of transmen in the debate? Why are they so silent?


eh? I'm not dismissing the argument at all. I'm just disputing one persons claim that their view is the only one.


----------



## belboid (Dec 20, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> One can usually prove race, and one can usually prove religious affiliation. Proving discrimination would follow. Proving 'gender identity' and discrimination based thereon seems unreachable. Again, my issue with protecting 'gender identity' is that IT WEAKENS EXISTING PROTECTIONS. Do you not understand this?


Race is poorly defined, has no solid base in science, and is largely (if not wholly) a product of society. Gender Identity may be less obvious (or it may not be) but so what? Sexuality may (or may not) be less obvious too, so should we dump those laws?  If you want to argue GI will WEAKEN EXISTING PROTECTIONS, you need to put forward an argument, not just hit the caps lock key.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 20, 2017)

TruXta said:


> I'm sorry, must have missed that. Where was this?



Here's Lawrence's argument:

Opponents of Blanchard's theory have replied that such counterarguments effectively make Blanchard's typology "unfalsifiable" (Winters, 2008, ¶ 6), because any departures from the theory's predictions can simply be dismissed as attributable to misreporting, measurement errors, sampling problems, or psychiatric comorbidity. As Lawrence (2010a) noted, however, Blanchard's typology is not in principle unfalsifiable: One can imagine more reliable methods of measuring sexual orientation and autogynephilic arousal (e.g., Rönspies et al., 2015) that could eliminate reliance on questionable self-report measures and contribute to the resolution of disputed issues. For the present, however, disagreements concerning the explanation of departures from the predictions of Blanchard's autogynephilia-based typology remain unresolved.​
Autogynephilia and the Typology of Male-to-Female Transsexualism:  Concepts and Controversies


----------



## smokedout (Dec 20, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> When people are prosecuted and the hate crime legislation is in point, the hate is an aggravating factor. That's how the law works. There's nothing anywhere to prevent anyone harbouring malicious thoughts, as long as these are not acted upon.



But there is a law to prevent people from discriminating on the grounds of employment, law and services.  I fail to understand why extending this protection to people who are non-binary, agender or who reject gender would be the end of the world.  I think it would be a good thing.  And it wouldn't have any impact at all on women only spaces, they could include non-binary people if they chose to, or not, just like they exclude cismen, as long as it was a proportional means of achieving a legitimate aim.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 20, 2017)

belboid said:


> Race is poorly defined, has no solid base in science, and is largely (if not wholly) a product of society. Gender Identity may be less obvious (or it may not be) but so what? Sexuality may (or may not) be less obvious too, so should we dump those laws?  If you want to argue GI will WEAKEN EXISTING PROTECTIONS, you need to put forward an argument, not just hit the caps lock key.



I was emphasising my point which you appear to have missed several times.


----------



## belboid (Dec 20, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Here's Lawrence's argument:
> 
> Opponents of Blanchard's theory have replied that such counterarguments effectively make Blanchard's typology "unfalsifiable" (Winters, 2008, ¶ 6), because any departures from the theory's predictions can simply be dismissed as attributable to misreporting, measurement errors, sampling problems, or psychiatric comorbidity. As Lawrence (2010a) noted, however, Blanchard's typology is not *in principle* unfalsifiable: One can *imagine *more reliable methods of measuring sexual orientation and autogynephilic arousal (e.g., Rönspies et al., 2015) that could eliminate reliance on questionable self-report measures and contribute to the resolution of disputed issues. For the present, however, disagreements concerning the explanation of departures from the predictions of Blanchard's autogynephilia-based typology remain unresolved.​
> Autogynephilia and the Typology of Male-to-Female Transsexualism:  Concepts and Controversies


So it might be falsifiable, but it isnt yet.


----------



## belboid (Dec 20, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I was emphasising my point which you appear to have missed several times.


You have _stated _your point several times, but evidence to that end has been less forthcoming.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 20, 2017)

belboid said:


> So it might be falsifiable, but it isnt yet.



No, it is falsifiable in principle. It's getting round the problem of self-reporting, which always causes problems in data collection.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 20, 2017)

belboid said:


> You have _stated _your point several times, but evidence to that end has been less forthcoming.



I presented a reasoned argument as to why this weakens existing protections...


----------



## Athos (Dec 20, 2017)

belboid said:


> eh? I'm not dismissing the argument at all. I'm just disputing one persons claim that their view is the only one.



Whose claim is that, then?


----------



## TruXta (Dec 20, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Here's Lawrence's argument:
> 
> Opponents of Blanchard's theory have replied that such counterarguments effectively make Blanchard's typology "unfalsifiable" (Winters, 2008, ¶ 6), because any departures from the theory's predictions can simply be dismissed as attributable to misreporting, measurement errors, sampling problems, or psychiatric comorbidity. As Lawrence (2010a) noted, however, Blanchard's typology is not in principle unfalsifiable: One can imagine more reliable methods of measuring sexual orientation and autogynephilic arousal (e.g., Rönspies et al., 2015) that could eliminate reliance on questionable self-report measures and contribute to the resolution of disputed issues. For the present, however, disagreements concerning the explanation of departures from the predictions of Blanchard's autogynephilia-based typology remain unresolved.​
> Autogynephilia and the Typology of Male-to-Female Transsexualism:  Concepts and Controversies


Thanks


----------



## smokedout (Dec 20, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Describing AGP as a 'sexual fetish' doesn't help those who live with this. Apropos children, I referred you to a post on my website looking at how gender non-conformity in young children (which is linked to later homosexuality) appears to be interpreted as the child being transgender. The children who later become homosexual would, if they transition, be homosexual not autogynephilic transsexual. Note I am not saying either is more valid, and I am not saying either are 'true trans'.



Okay, you mean Bailey's essay.  I read it, it's pure speculation, no evidence offered at all for the presence of autogynephilia in children, just a hunch.  And the evidence-free assertion that it's not just sex, but that transwomen are romantically and emotionally attracted to themselves as woman just strikes me as daft.  How many m2f transgender people have ever reported this?

As for the idea that androphilic transsexuals are 'extreme' homosexuals, well that's equally evidence free.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 20, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I think the idea of autogynephilia and the two-type taxonomy is clever. In particular I think the mutually exclusive/collectively exhaustive characteristic of the typology is very clever. Blanchard took many decades of other's work a gave an insightful way of understanding it.
> 
> I don't see you engaging with the substance of the argument, which is 'transsexual males fall into two categories differentiated by sexual orientation'. This is supported by neurological evidence.
> 
> A Review of the Status of Brain Structure Research in Transsexualism



I thought you rejected any biological basis for transsexuality.  Or are you saying there's a biological basis for homosexuality, and androphilic transsexuals, but not gynephilic transsexuals who are just perverts in love with themselves.

Let me guess, I got it wrong, you're not autogynephile yourself are you, you're one of the 'proper' transsexuals who likes men.


----------



## belboid (Dec 20, 2017)

Athos said:


> Whose claim is that, then?


Yardleys


----------



## Athos (Dec 20, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Let me guess, I got it wrong, you're not autogynephile yourself are you, you're one of the 'proper' transsexuals who likes men.



They said the opposite on the last page. 



Miranda Yardley said:


> Note I am not saying either is more valid, and I am not saying either are 'true trans'.



Your persistent dishonest characterisation of anyone who disagrees with you is a bar to meaningful discussion. 

And, for the record, I think MY is wrong.  But I'm not sue the value of engagging with them on these points.  Compassion seems a more fruitful avenue than science or philosophy.


----------



## belboid (Dec 20, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> No, it is falsifiable in principle. It's getting round the problem of self-reporting, which always causes problems in data collection.


So it’s not currently falsifiable in practise.


----------



## co-op (Dec 20, 2017)

belboid said:


> eh? I'm not dismissing the argument at all. I'm just disputing one persons claim that their view is the only one.



If that's all you're doing fine, the absolutely standard line is that discussing the question 'what is a woman' (& /man, but actually no one really seems to care that much about that) is transphobia, unless whatever your definition of 'woman' (/man etc) is one that means that a transwomen is 100% a paid-up woman with the only difference being that she has been 'born in the wrong body' and therefore has a life experience which is totally different (but also sort of not really different at all because inside she's always been a woman and therefore has always experienced life as a woman).

If you don't think that other definitions are possible and that they may not be transphobic & also that signing up to the 'wrong body' thesis can lead to some highly reactionary gender assumptions then we don't disagree here. I'm fascinated by the fact in this debate here that the 'woman born in a man's body' idea has already been semi-dismissed as a sort of fringe thing that most people have got past now - and by posters who have been pretty speedy in reaching for the 'transphobe' slur. 

That's certainly not been true in the very recent past on these boards and I'd gamble it's not true in most of the rest of the places where this sort of debate crops up. Evidence of the thread is that Irish trots would still revile you for it - I mean that's strictly a fringe thing obviously but they are always loud voices in these kinds of debate.


----------



## Athos (Dec 20, 2017)

belboid said:


> Yardleys



Are they claiming that any more than others on the other 'side' are? Surely both are putting their views across?


----------



## belboid (Dec 20, 2017)

Athos said:


> They said the opposite on the last page.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If you think MY is wrong, why not pick her up on it? You are consistently picking up arguments from one side of the debate only. Why?


----------



## Athos (Dec 20, 2017)

belboid said:


> So it’s not currently falsifiable in practise.



I'm not sure you understand what falsifiability is, in terms of the philosophy of science.


----------



## Athos (Dec 20, 2017)

belboid said:


> If you think MY is wrong, why not pick her up on it? You are consistently picking up arguments from one side of the debate only. Why?



I literally explained why in the post you quoted!


----------



## belboid (Dec 20, 2017)

Athos said:


> I literally explained why in the post you quoted!


‘I’m not sure it’s wirth the effort’ - not much of an explanation is it


----------



## Athos (Dec 20, 2017)

belboid said:


> ‘I’m not sure it’s wirth the effort’ - not much of an explanation is it



That's not what I said.


----------



## purenarcotic (Dec 20, 2017)

Can someone explain what gender non conforming means? I think I understand the principle but surely we should be noting that interests / toys etc are not gender specific and anyone could do them, not reinforcing that to engage in it is non conforming. I may have misunderstood what the term means though.


----------



## belboid (Dec 20, 2017)

Athos said:


> That's not what I said.


Sorry, but it looks pretty similar 



Athos said:


> And, for the record, I think MY is wrong.  But I'm not sue the value of engagging with them on these points.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 20, 2017)

smokedout said:


> *You are aware that many of the people you seem to be working with politically do want to repeal the 2004 act aren't you?*  Have you challenged them about that?  What might that mean for you if it happens?





Miranda Yardley said:


> I don't believe there is a realistic chance the 2004 GRA will be repealed.



Isn't this a bit like canvassing for UKIP but saying that you don't believe they'll get elected anyway so it's okay because they have _some_ good things to say?


----------



## Athos (Dec 20, 2017)

belboid said:


> Sorry, but it looks pretty similar



To you maybe.


----------



## bimble (Dec 20, 2017)

purenarcotic said:


> Can someone explain what gender non conforming means? I think I understand the principle but surely we should be noting that interests / toys etc are not gender specific and anyone could do them, not reinforcing that to engage in it is non conforming. I may have misunderstood what the term means though.


I _think_ it means exactly what you've just said. And so.. I agree exactly, as in the problem is the pink and blue isles in the toyshop, not the child who wants to play with 'the wrong kind of toy'.


----------



## belboid (Dec 20, 2017)

Athos said:


> To you maybe.


Thank you for the detailed response expected.


----------



## belboid (Dec 20, 2017)

co-op said:


> If that's all you're doing fine, the absolutely standard line is that discussing the question 'what is a woman' (& /man, but actually no one really seems to care that much about that) is transphobia, unless whatever your definition of 'woman' (/man etc) is one that means that a transwomen is 100% a paid-up woman with the only difference being that she has been 'born in the wrong body' and therefore has a life experience which is totally different (but also sort of not really different at all because inside she's always been a woman and therefore has always experienced life as a woman).
> 
> If you don't think that other definitions are possible and that they may not be transphobic & also that signing up to the 'wrong body' thesis can lead to some highly reactionary gender assumptions then we don't disagree here. I'm fascinated by the fact in this debate here that the 'woman born in a man's body' idea has already been semi-dismissed as a sort of fringe thing that most people have got past now - and by posters who have been pretty speedy in reaching for the 'transphobe' slur.
> 
> That's certainly not been true in the very recent past on these boards and I'd gamble it's not true in most of the rest of the places where this sort of debate crops up. Evidence of the thread is that Irish trots would still revile you for it - I mean that's strictly a fringe thing obviously but they are always loud voices in these kinds of debate.


I have had umpteen of these debates lately, for fairly obvious reasons, and that has honestly never been the response I’ve seen. I have seen people say they’ll walk out if they’re not going to be addressed by the ‘correct’ gender pronouns, and sometimes being an arse, but when I’ve been having discussions they’ve overwhelmingly been just that, discussions. 

As to ‘wrong body’ notions being potentially reactionary, yes it can be. But both ‘sides’ in this argument have a range of views on whether there is, for example a male and a female brain, so that reactionary potential is there on both sides. Also, what people mean by ‘wrong body’ varies amongst trans people. For some it is meant almost literally, for others it’s just a useful shorthand.


----------



## Athos (Dec 20, 2017)

belboid said:


> Thank you for the detailed response expected.



Well,  I don't really know what to say.  I gave a response; you claimed I said something else; I pointed out I didn't; you suggested they're the same; I pointed out they're not. What more is there?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 20, 2017)

purenarcotic said:


> Can someone explain what gender non conforming means? I think I understand the principle but surely we should be noting that interests / toys etc are not gender specific and anyone could do them, not reinforcing that to engage in it is non conforming. I may have misunderstood what the term means though.



It means you don't conform to sex-based cultural stereotypes.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 20, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Isn't this a bit like canvassing for UKIP but saying that you don't believe they'll get elected anyway so it's okay because they have _some_ good things to say?



No, far from it. And yes, I'd change the GRA. Parts of it are very unfair.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 20, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> No, far from it. And yes, I'd change the GRA. Parts of it are very unfair.



So you can answer that question then.  Which parts would you change?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 20, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> So you can answer that question then.  Which parts would you change?



If it were still in point, I'd have addressed the inequality created by allowing a same sex marriage between for example a 'trans man' and a woman by enacting 'equal marriage' sooner. But that was fixed in 2014 so we don't need to worry about it.

I'd redraft the legislation to clarify sex is biological reproductive class and gender are cultural stereotypes. This would be to make this legislation and the Equalities Act clearer.

I'd remove the mechanism by which the legislation works through the issuance of a new short form birth certificate, as a lot of trans people think this part of the law is silly and retcons their life. Or at least I'm make the issuance of the birth certificate up to the trans person if they want it or not.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 20, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> If it were still in point, I'd have addressed the inequality created by allowing a same sex marriage between for example a 'trans man' and a woman by enacting 'equal marriage' sooner. But that was fixed in 2014 so we don't need to worry about it.
> 
> I'd redraft the legislation to clarify sex is biological reproductive class and gender are cultural stereotypes. This would be to make this legislation and the Equalities Act clearer.
> 
> I'd remove the mechanism by which the legislation works through the issuance of a new short form birth certificate, as a lot of trans people think this part of the law is silly and retcons their life. Or at least I'm make the issuance of the birth certificate up to the trans person if they want it or not.



So you wouldn't support this?







Do you support morally mandating transsexuality out of existence like Janice Raymond, or banning trans healthcare like Sheila Jeffries?  I don't think you do, so can't understand why on earth you are organising within a political current that seeks to destroy your life.  Doesn't this stuff ever come up in chats.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 20, 2017)

smokedout said:


> So you wouldn't support this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As I’ve said many times, I defend only my own arguments, not other people’s. If you’re interested in anything I have to say, please bring that up.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 20, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> As I’ve said many times, I defend only my own arguments, not other people’s. If you’re interested in anything I have to say, please bring that up.



I'm not asking you to defend their arguments.  I'm asking why you have chosen to organise with people you don't actually seem to agree with on many of the key issues.  You are playing a key role in an agenda that wants to mandate transsexuality out of existence, or at the very least signifiantly harm transpeople. I'm asking you how you justify that?  The changes they seek might only be a British Donald Trump (or your pal David Davies) away.  How would you feel if trans healthcare was banned, or removed from the NHS, or GRC's were all declared invalid?  Would you still think you were on the right side?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 20, 2017)

TruXta said:


> Thanks



There's a pretty solid rebuttal of autogynephilia, which discusses whether it is falsifiable here: http://www.juliaserano.com/av/Serano-CaseAgainstAutogynephilia.pdf


----------



## TruXta (Dec 20, 2017)

smokedout said:


> There's a pretty solid rebuttal of autogynephilia, which discusses whether it is falsifiable here: http://www.juliaserano.com/av/Serano-CaseAgainstAutogynephilia.pdf


Cheers.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 20, 2017)

smokedout said:


> I'm not asking you to defend their arguments.  I'm asking why you have chosen to organise with people you don't actually seem to agree with on many of the key issues.  You are playing a key role in an agenda that wants to mandate transsexuality out of existence, or at the very least signifiantly harm transpeople. I'm asking you how you justify that?  The changes they seek might only be a British Donald Trump (or your pal David Davies) away.  How would you feel if trans healthcare was banned, or removed from the NHS, or GRC's were all declared invalid?  Would you still think you were on the right side?



Again, I defend only my own position. 

Please explain how anyone I work with has made a realistic call for harm to trans people. 

If you’re worried about losing trans healthcare, I think it’s a massive mistake for trans activists to be lobbying for it to be taken out of mental health, because where then does it sit? I think the demedicalising approach of now is a bad mistake. Also, it ignores the problem of comorbid mental illnesses which never seem to get taken seriously never mind treated. Transactivism is selling trans people short. It promises gold and delivers tin foil.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 20, 2017)

Julia Serano in “Whipping Girl”, Serano’s “transfeminist manifesto”:

When I hit puberty, my newly found attraction to women spilled into my dreams of becoming a girl. For me, sexuality became a strange combination of jealousy, self-loathing, and lust. Because when you isolate an impressionable transgender teen and bombard her with billboard ads baring bikiniclad women and boys’ locker room trash talk about this girl’s tits and that girl’s ass, then she will learn to turn her gender identity into a fetish… my thirteen-year-old brain started concocting scenarios straight out of SM handbooks. Most of my fantasies began with my abduction: I’d turn to putty in the hands of some twisted man who would turn me into a woman as part of his evil plan. It’s called forced feminization, and it’s not really about sex. It is about turning the humiliation you feel into pleasure, transforming the loss of male privilege into the best fuck ever.​
This is classic autogynephilia, written by Serano’s own hand.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 20, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Please explain how anyone I work with has made a realistic call for harm to trans people.



You do not work with, organise with, support or ally with Venice Allan (as quoted in that screenshot?
So you don't think 'getting rid of' the GRA 2004 in it's entirety is harmful to trans people for example?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 20, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Julia Serano in “Whipping Girl”, Serano’s “transfeminist manifesto”:
> 
> When I hit puberty, my newly found attraction to women spilled into my dreams of becoming a girl. For me, sexuality became a strange combination of jealousy, self-loathing, and lust. Because when you isolate an impressionable transgender teen and bombard her with billboard ads baring bikiniclad women and boys’ locker room trash talk about this girl’s tits and that girl’s ass, then she will learn to turn her gender identity into a fetish… my thirteen-year-old brain started concocting scenarios straight out of SM handbooks. Most of my fantasies began with my abduction: I’d turn to putty in the hands of some twisted man who would turn me into a woman as part of his evil plan. It’s called forced feminization, and it’s not really about sex. It is about turning the humiliation you feel into pleasure, transforming the loss of male privilege into the best fuck ever.​
> This is classic autogynephilia, written by Serano’s own hand.




Right. Do other trans women that this theory seeks to label also reflect the same/similar fantasies of self obsession and transformation? I am wondering how common it is.


----------



## belboid (Dec 20, 2017)

Athos said:


> Well,  I don't really know what to say.  I gave a response; you claimed I said something else; I pointed out I didn't; you suggested they're the same; I pointed out they're not. What more is there?


You didn’t point out they’re not the same. You obfuscated. You have consistently criticised one side of the argument but not the other. 

Take a side, absolutely fine. But be honest about it, the same as you are demanding if others.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 20, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Julia Serano in “Whipping Girl”, Serano’s “transfeminist manifesto”:
> 
> When I hit puberty, my newly found attraction to women spilled into my dreams of becoming a girl. For me, sexuality became a strange combination of jealousy, self-loathing, and lust. Because when you isolate an impressionable transgender teen and bombard her with billboard ads baring bikiniclad women and boys’ locker room trash talk about this girl’s tits and that girl’s ass, then she will learn to turn her gender identity into a fetish… my thirteen-year-old brain started concocting scenarios straight out of SM handbooks. Most of my fantasies began with my abduction: I’d turn to putty in the hands of some twisted man who would turn me into a woman as part of his evil plan. It’s called forced feminization, and it’s not really about sex. It is about turning the humiliation you feel into pleasure, transforming the loss of male privilege into the best fuck ever.​
> This is classic autogynephilia, written by Serano’s own hand.


This particular story starts with a transgender teen. It rather begs the question 'how did the person become a transgender teen?'


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 21, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Religion is protected under the Equalities Act.  Why not gender identity?





Miranda Yardley said:


> Again it's thoughts and feelings. I'd prefer our protections to be based on something more material.



Religion is thoughts and feelings. Or it's identity. Or both. In any case, no different from gender identity IMO.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 21, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This particular story starts with a transgender teen. It rather begs the question 'how did the person become a transgender teen?'



Precisely, Serano covers this in the link I posted, arguing that it is a symptom rather than a cause of transgenderism. And that autogynephilia as reported by Blanchard is not uncommon in androphilic transsexuals and cis women.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 21, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> How can a child, or any other human being, know what it feels like to be the opposite sex? Or be anyone/anything other than themselves?



Because it's not as black and white as that. For examples: We know we're not male because despite being born male we feel female, we know we're not straight because we feel gay, we know we're not confined to just preferring one sexuality because we're bisexual or whatever other label one wants to use. We don't feel "right" in our "assigned" roles. Whether they've been assigned by biology or social conditioning.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 21, 2017)

I wanted to be a girl when I was a boy. I thought I should have been and it annoyed me that I was a boy. A lot of water has passed under a lot of bridges since, I'm a man now and I do reasonably well at it, and my adult perspective is that it's a shame we seem to want to fit children into neat boxes we're comfortable with, rather than letting them make their world how they see it. FWIW I'm ''non-binarian'', that's a term I've just made up, or maybe haven't, that fits me into another neat box suitable for public consumption. But _He / Him / His_ are all fine because life's easier for me that way.

Anyway, my son's primary school has a mural on one wall that reads, _All different, All equal_. That's what we're teaching kids from the youngest age now as a basic principle of their society. Where does it end? I guess it ends in a place where a lot of grown ups feel a bit uncomfortable.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 21, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Precisely, Serano covers this in the link I posted, arguing that it is a symptom rather than a cause of transgenderism. And that autogynephilia as reported by Blanchard is not uncommon in androphilic transsexuals and cis women.



I’ve never disputed that autogynephilia is not uncommon in HSTS. I believe in Blanchard’s work he’s quoted around 15% of HSTS exhibit that behaviour. 

Women do not exhibit autogynephilia. Moser’s 2009 paper really is utter junk.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 21, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Because it's not as black and white as that. For examples: We know we're not male because despite being born male we feel female, we know we're not straight because we feel gay, we know we're not confined to just preferring one sexuality because we're bisexual or whatever other label one wants to use. We don't feel "right" in our "assigned" roles. Whether they've been assigned by biology or social conditioning.



Please describe how it feels to be female.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 21, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> my adult perspective is that it's a shame we seem to want to fit children into neat boxes we're comfortable with, rather than letting them make their world how they see it.



Yes I agree. I see many people describing themselves as collections of fractured identities, rather than seeing themselves and others as whole people. How can you have a happy fulfilling relationship with yourself, never mind anyone else, if this is how you see yourself and others?


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 21, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Because it's not as black and white as that. For examples: We know we're not male because despite being born male we feel female, we know we're not straight because we feel gay, we know we're not confined to just preferring one sexuality because we're bisexual or whatever other label one wants to use. We don't feel "right" in our "assigned" roles. Whether they've been assigned by biology or social conditioning.



And those feelings aren’t seperate from the social context, and are tied up with ideas and beliefs. 

And people make sense of their feelings in all manner of different ways.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 21, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Please describe how it feels to be female.



Only the individual can do that. There's no template, you just feel what you are or should or want to be. For instance, there were pressures on me to be straight and it took me a long time to get my head round the fact that I wasn't.


----------



## co-op (Dec 21, 2017)

smokedout said:


> .. but not gynephilic transsexuals who are just perverts in love with themselves.
> 
> .



I’m not getting into this debate but using phrases like “just perverts in love with themselves” is really not helpful. People’s sexuality is always - to me - socially defined, there is no such thing as a ‘pure’ innate sexuality but condemning any manifestation of it as ‘perverted’ is always going to be part of an attempt to set up a hierarchy of worthiness or righteousness. It’s what imo we should be moving away from. It is what it is.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 21, 2017)

belboid said:


> You are consistently picking up arguments from one side of the debate only.



As are you. What a bizarre thing to say.


----------



## Athos (Dec 21, 2017)

belboid said:


> You didn’t point out they’re not the same. You obfuscated. You have consistently criticised one side of the argument but not the other.
> 
> Take a side, absolutely fine. But be honest about it, the same as you are demanding if others.



I've started my side; I'm on the side of women - all women, including trans women.

I've made it clear that I'm trans inclusive.  What I've criticised are the sloppy thinking, and the dishonest gaslighting and bullying employed by some others who hold that view (and in this thread) to force women to think the same, and deny them the right to discus this issue.

But I've also criticised much of the rhetoric of the exclusionary side, too. It's silly not true to suggest I haven't.


----------



## elbows (Dec 21, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Yes I agree. I see many people describing themselves as collections of fractured identities, rather than seeing themselves and others as whole people. How can you have a happy fulfilling relationship with yourself, never mind anyone else, if this is how you see yourself and others?



I may also ask how people can have a happy and fulfilling relationship with themselves when there are others who think they know best, ready and willing to invalidate these peoples sense of self and whittle their complex existences down to something generic that can be neatly dealt with via a crude theory.

Honestly, your own experiences give you a particular kind of insight into these matters but they arguably make you a potentially worse gatekeeper of these issues than someone more naive. No matter how valid the road you travelled, its unlikely to be wide enough to accommodate the rich array of traffic.


----------



## bimble (Dec 21, 2017)

Athos said:


> I've started my side; I'm on the side of women - all women, including trans women.


So therefore you're not on the side of Miranda Yardley because they don't lay claim to the title woman or the pronouns thereof.


----------



## iona (Dec 21, 2017)

purenarcotic said:


> Can someone explain what gender non conforming means? I think I understand the principle but surely we should be noting that interests / toys etc are not gender specific and anyone could do them, not reinforcing that to engage in it is non conforming. I may have misunderstood what the term means though.



I would describe it as acknowledging, rather than necessarily reinforcing, gender roles. In an ideal world there'd be no stereotypes to conform to but while there are it makes sense to have language to talk about them.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 21, 2017)

co-op said:


> I’m not getting into this debate but using phrases like “just perverts in love with themselves” is really not helpful. People’s sexuality is always - to me - socially defined, there is no such thing as a ‘pure’ innate sexuality but condemning any manifestation of it as ‘perverted’ is always going to be part of an attempt to set up a hierarchy of worthiness or righteousness. It’s what imo we should be moving away from. It is what it is.


I agree with this. Suspect smokedout would agree with it too. However Blanchard et al would not agree.


----------



## Athos (Dec 21, 2017)

bimble said:


> So therefore you're not on the side of Miranda Yardley because they don't lay claim to the title woman or the pronouns thereof.



I've said a number of times already that I disagree with much of what they say.


----------



## co-op (Dec 21, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I agree with this. Suspect smokedout would agree with it too. However Blanchard et al would not agree.



I don’t know Blanchards work in any depth, I’ve heard about AGP but that’s it. Yes it looks at face value to be a theory that pathologises transpeople. 

But equally the idea that there is some hard border that can be defined between someone’s gender identity and their erotic sense of them self also seems unlikely to me.


----------



## comrade spurski (Dec 21, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> lesbians of my acquaintance have been on the pill because they found it eased period pains



My eldest was taking the pill at 14 or 15 for that exact reason.
The number of adults who told me that I was being naive and that she "had to be sexually active" was insane.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 21, 2017)

elbows said:


> I may also ask how people can have a happy and fulfilling relationship with themselves when there are others who think they know best, ready and willing to invalidate these peoples sense of self and whittle their complex existences down to something generic that can be neatly dealt with via a crude theory.



This isn't peculiar to trans issues is it? I'd say it's part of the experience of growing up. A lot of parenting techniques and education are based on crude theory. You could very easily argue that most scientific explanations of human ways of being are crude.


----------



## Jonti (Dec 21, 2017)

For a bit of international context, in India, there are up to 1.2 million transgender people, also known as hijras.

Don't really want to give the Wail the links or the traffic, but I found the on-line article something of an eye-opener.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 21, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Yes I agree. I see many people describing themselves as collections of fractured identities, rather than seeing themselves and others as whole people. How can you have a happy fulfilling relationship with yourself, never mind anyone else, if this is how you see yourself and others?



What is a 'whole person' ?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 21, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Only the individual can do that. There's no template, you just feel what you are or should or want to be. For instance, there were pressures on me to be straight and it took me a long time to get my head round the fact that I wasn't.



I see you have drawn a distinction between 'feel like a woman' and 'feel like you want to be a woman'.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 21, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> What is a 'whole person' ?


The secular version of the soul, afaict


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 21, 2017)

TruXta said:


> The secular version of the soul, afaict



No, there's nothing metaphysical behind it. What I'm saying is about looking at yourself and others as people, and valuing them for who they are, rather than seeing them as collections of fractured (disconnected) identities.


----------



## bimble (Dec 21, 2017)

Jonti said:


> For a bit of international context, in India, there are up to 1.2 million transgender people, also known as hijras.


I think its very dubious to apply our word trandgender here, for a start in south asia nobody says 'hijras are women', they've been legally recognised as a third gender for years.


----------



## Athos (Dec 21, 2017)

bimble said:


> I think its very dubious to apply our word trandgender here, for a start in south asia nobody says 'hijras are women', they've been legally recognised as a third gender for years.



In India, if they were considered women, they'd proably be treated even worse!


----------



## TruXta (Dec 21, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> No, there's nothing metaphysical behind it. What I'm saying is about looking at yourself and others as people, and valuing them for who they are, rather than seeing them as collections of fractured (disconnected) identities.


If they see themselves as a collection of fractured identities, what's stopping anyone from valuing them because of or despite that?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 21, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I’ve never disputed that autogynephilia is not uncommon in HSTS. I believe in Blanchard’s work he’s quoted around 15% of HSTS exhibit that behaviour.
> 
> Women do not exhibit autogynephilia. Moser’s 2009 paper really is utter junk.



Moser's study does have sampling problems, but even Lawrence concedes it shows something 'resembles' autogynephilia.

But that aside, if 15% of androphilic transsexuals experience autogynephilia, and a significanat minority of non-androphilic transsexuals don't then Blanchard is wrong, there are not two types but two tendencies.

And given that many transpeople never experience autogynephilia, or only experience it around adolecence or pre-transition, then that suggests it is a symptom, not cause of trangenderism.  It doesn't seem unlikely to me that in a world where women's bodies are so highly fetished and objectified that some people with discordant gender identities might develop fetishes about their body and gender identity particularly at adolescence.  And Lawrence's claim that when this goes away it is because the transperson has developed a romantic attraction to and pair bonded with themselves, similar to a long time married couple who never have sex anymore, is just bonkers.  The hoops that are jumped through to defend this theory are astounding, particularly  given that most of Blanchard's ideas, such as that of erotic location target errors, are pure speculation.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Dec 21, 2017)

bimble said:


> I think its very dubious to apply our word trandgender here, for a start in south asia nobody says 'hijras are women', they've been legally recognised as a third gender for years.



If they are a third gender then this could also come under the trans umbrella since they are identify as a different gender than what they were assigned at birth. Most Hijra are assigned male at birth.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 21, 2017)

TruXta said:


> If they see themselves as a collection of fractured identities, what's stopping anyone from valuing them because of or despite that?



You're completely missing my point.


----------



## Jonti (Dec 21, 2017)

bimble said:


> I think its very dubious to apply our word trandgender here, for a start in south asia nobody says 'hijras are women', they've been legally recognised as a third gender for years.


I'm certainly no expert, and I bow to Wikipedia when it says "Hijra is a term given to eunuchs, intersex people, and transgender people in South Asia." 

Transgender is not just a Western thing.  It's interesting to see how it fares in other cultures and societies.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 21, 2017)

co-op said:


> I’m not getting into this debate but using phrases like “just perverts in love with themselves” is really not helpful. People’s sexuality is always - to me - socially defined, there is no such thing as a ‘pure’ innate sexuality but condemning any manifestation of it as ‘perverted’ is always going to be part of an attempt to set up a hierarchy of worthiness or righteousness. It’s what imo we should be moving away from. It is what it is.



Of course, my language was used to show what I believe is the ideology which lies behind the dogged insistence that autogynephilia explains transgenderism despite the weakness of the theory.


----------



## bimble (Dec 21, 2017)

Athos said:


> In India, if they were considered women, they'd proably be treated even worse!


Which kind of begs the question if we're going to bumble about subsuming the ancient category and cultural practice of Hijra under our trans umbrella where are all the indian transmen?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 21, 2017)

bimble said:


> I think its very dubious to apply our word trandgender here, for a start in south asia nobody says 'hijras are women', they've been legally recognised as a third gender for years.



This may be a mistranslation, but it appears to be the word used by the Indian judiciary



> Seldom, our society realises or cares to realise the trauma, agony and pain which the members of Transgender community undergo, nor appreciates the innate feelings of the members of the Transgender community, especially of those whose mind and body disown their biological sex. Our society often ridicules and abuses the Transgender community and in public places like railway stations, bus stands, schools, workplaces, malls, theatres, hospitals, they are sidelined and treated as untouchables, forgetting the fact that the moral failure lies in the society's unwillingness to contain or embrace different gender identities and expressions, a mindset which we have to change.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 21, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Moser's study does have sampling problems, but even Lawrence concedes it shows something 'resembles' autogynephilia.



Use of a convenience sample means that the conclusions from that study specifically cannot be extended to the general population. That and the way the questions are redrafted (which do not compare like with like) means it has no real worth.



smokedout said:


> But that aside, if 15% of androphilic transsexuals experience autogynephilia, and a significanat minority of non-androphilic transsexuals don't then Blanchard is wrong, there are not two types but two tendencies.
> 
> And given that many transpeople never experience autogynephilia, or only experience it around adolecence or pre-transition, then that suggests it is a symptom, not cause of trangenderism.  It doesn't seem unlikely to me that in a world where women's bodies are so highly fetished and objectified that some people with discordant gender identities might develop fetishes about their body and gender identity particularly at adolescence.  And Lawrence's claim that when this goes away it is because the transperson has developed a romantic attraction to and pair bonded with themselves, similar to a long time married couple who never have sex anymore, is just bonkers.  The hoops that are jumped through to defend this theory are astounding, particularly  given that most of Blanchard's ideas, such as that of erotic location target errors, are pure speculation.



The whole point is that the typology shows there are two types of transsexual, whatever any causality. And as I have shown, the fetishisation does seem to play a part in people's decisions to transition.

Pornography And Autogynephilia In The Narratives Of Adult Transgender Males


----------



## smokedout (Dec 21, 2017)

bimble said:


> Which kind of begs the question if we're going to bumble about subsuming the ancient category and cultural practice of Hijra under our trans umbrella where are all the indian transmen?



Here.  With an ample explanation of why they might not be so visible.


----------



## bimble (Dec 21, 2017)

I’m no expert either but have been very interested in the Hijra phenomenon since I first saw some of them in India years ago (doing the special kind of threatening begging that many do to survive). It does seems to me quite silly to deny the particularity of the ancient history & religious and cultural practices that define the Hijra and just say nope they’re trans women same as anywhere else.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 21, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Use of a convenience sample means that the conclusions from that study specifically cannot be extended to the general population. That and the way the questions are redrafted (which do not compare like with like) means it has no real worth.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Somewhat ironic that you should criticise a sampling method then come up with something based on a handful of people's quotes you found on the internet.  Again it doesn't strike me as suprising that someone would look to pornography as a way to understand their sexuality, or that transwomen might be aroused by porn featuring transwomen who they can more easily identify with.  This really seems to be saying look, look, transsexuals have a sexuality, therefore none of the other stuff can be authentic.  No other group, including fetishists, are assumed to be so soley and universally controlled by sexual desires.  And that you pick and choose which transsexuals this applies to (ones not like you) really does start to look like prejudice.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 21, 2017)

bimble said:


> I’m no expert either but have been very interested in the Hijra phenomenon since I first saw some of them in India years ago (doing the special kind of threatening begging that many do to survive). It does seems to me quite silly to deny the particularity of the ancient history & religious and cultural practices that define the Hijra and just say nope they’re trans women same as anywhere else.



Of course, but what is does show is that some forms of gender trancendence, with many of the same behaviours including bodily/genital modifications, have emerged in a very different culture - rather undermining the claim made by some trans critical feminists that transgenderism is a late 20th century phenomena invented by the pharmaceutical industry.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 21, 2017)

bimble said:


> I’m no expert either but have been very interested in the Hijra phenomenon since I first saw some of them in India years ago (doing the special kind of threatening begging that many do to survive). It does seems to me quite silly to deny the particularity of the ancient history & religious and cultural practices that define the Hijra and just say nope they’re trans women same as anywhere else.



Yes, it's known as 'cultural appropriation'. It also misses the point in that many 'third gender' categories in indigenous cultures are exist as a way to accommodate homosexual males into society. What we know as 'transgender' is predominantly the domain of heterosexual males.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 21, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Somewhat ironic that you should criticise a sampling method then come up with something based on a handful of people's quotes you found on the internet.  Again it doesn't strike me as suprising that someone would look to pornography as a way to understand their sexuality, or that transwomen might be aroused by porn featuring transwomen who they can more easily identify with.  This really seems to be saying look, look, transsexuals have a sexuality, therefore none of the other stuff can be authentic.  No other group, including fetishists, are assumed to be so soley and universally controlled by sexual desires.  And that you pick and choose which transsexuals this applies to (ones not like you) really does start to look like prejudice.



Not really. It's established practice that convenience sampling cannot be used like that. And my piece is not making a generalisation, it's making an observation.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 21, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Yes, it's known as 'cultural appropriation'. It also misses the point in that many 'third gender' categories in indigenous cultures are exist as a way to accommodate homosexual males into society. What we know as 'transgender' is predominantly the domain of heterosexual males.



Not if referral rates amongst young people are to be believed, transboys outnumbered transgirls last year I believe.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 21, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Not if referral rates amongst young people are to be believed, transboys outnumbered transgirls last year I believe.



That seems to be a distinct population with a distinct cause (rapid onset gender dysphoria). I'm not sure why anyone would consider this a cause for celebration.


----------



## co-op (Dec 21, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Of course, my language was used to show what I believe is the ideology which lies behind the dogged insistence that autogynephilia explains transgenderism despite the weakness of the theory.



Yes apologies if my quote made it look otherwise. My point was that even if it is AGP that (solely, partially, whatever) drives people to transition, I don't care about that as such. There's nothing wrong with that.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 21, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> That seems to be a distinct population with a distinct cause (rapid onset gender dysphoria). I'm not sure why anyone would consider this a cause for celebration.



Rapid onset gender dysphoria seems to be a term referenced in just one recent study featuring an online questionaire of parents who were recruited via the websites of three trans critical feminist groups.  What was that you were saying about sample biases?

If young transmen are able to understand themselves better and feel more confident coming out or accessing treatment, then yes, I'd say that is a good thing.  If your position is that they are all deluded liars then I suppose you wouldn't think so.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 21, 2017)

co-op said:


> Yes apologies if my quote made it look otherwise. My point was that even if it is AGP that (solely, partially, whatever) drives people to transition, I don't care about that as such. There's nothing wrong with that.



I don't really disagree, except that it doesn't seem to be a very coherent or accurate explanation of what is going.  And given that transwomen are often highly sexualised, both as woman but also as as hyper-sexually motivated males deviants, I'm not sure how helpful it is, unless of course you are trying to build a case that transwomen are hyper-sexually motivated male deviants.  I'd suggest this is the sole reason this out of date, incomplete, weakly evidenced and at times batshit insane theory is given much credence today.


----------



## co-op (Dec 21, 2017)

smokedout said:


> I don't really disagree, except that it doesn't seem to be a very coherent or accurate explanation of what is going.  And given that transwomen are often highly sexualised, both as woman but also as as hyper-sexually motivated males deviants, I'm not sure how helpful it is, unless of course you are trying to build a case that transwomen are hyper-sexually motivated male deviants.  I'd suggest this is the sole reason this out of date, incomplete, weakly evidenced and at times batshit insane theory is given much credence today.



FWIW on my shallow knowledge if anyone's saying that AGP is THE cause of the desire to transition that seems crude and simplistic to me. But equally, rejecting AGP as ever having any component part in a desire to transition also seems really unlikely. Why wouldn't there be an erotic component to gender identity? Or to gender transition?

Unless you are committed to the idea that a person just "is", and were born, a different gender than the one which they have been assigned in which case it becomes necessary to obliterate AGP because it relates so strongly to the act of transition rather than the magical state of being the correct gender.

Do you think AGP is a component of some people's desire to transition? Or is it never?


----------



## Jonti (Dec 21, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Yes, it's known as 'cultural appropriation'. It also misses the point in that many 'third gender' categories in indigenous cultures are exist as a way to accommodate homosexual males into society. What we know as 'transgender' is predominantly the domain of heterosexual males.


This reads as dismissive of the Indian experience.  I feel more like applauding the fact the country has elected a trans woman as a mayor. That's probably a first for anywhere in the world.


----------



## bimble (Dec 21, 2017)

So following this logic ends up in a position of musing that India is a light to the world in terms of its understanding of gender & (trans)women’s rights. That really is quite bonkers.


----------



## Jonti (Dec 21, 2017)

bimble said:


> I’m no expert either but have been very interested in the Hijra phenomenon since I first saw some of them in India years ago (doing the special kind of threatening begging that many do to survive). It does seems to me quite silly to deny the particularity of the ancient history & religious and cultural practices that define the Hijra and just say nope they’re trans women same as anywhere else.


Except no-one's said that.

Hirja consider themselves trangender, and Indian law recognises them as a third gender.  That's far from saying they're trans women same as anywhere else.  We could probably learn a thing or two from them.


----------



## bimble (Dec 21, 2017)

Jonti said:


> We could probably learn a thing or two from them.


Like what? Having read that article in the Daily Mail what is it you want us to learn from them?


----------



## Jonti (Dec 21, 2017)

bimble said:


> Like what? Having read that article in the Daily Mail what is it you want us to learn from them?


To be sufficiently politically progressive as to start electing transgender Mayors? To have the third gender recognised in law?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 21, 2017)

smokedout said:


> If your position is that they are all deluded liars then I suppose you wouldn't think so.



I think you've just smoked yourself out. Why is your thinking so black and white, why can you not deal with nuance? The corollary of 'yes, lots of young girls are suddenly seeking to transition to be men, this is of concern' is not 'these girls are all deluded liars'.

We can always help transgender people better if we can understand why they think the way they do about themselves.


----------



## bimble (Dec 21, 2017)

Jonti said:


> To be sufficiently politically progressive as to start electing transgender Mayors? To have the third gender recognised in law?


Yes, India very politically progressive, a model to us all, especially around women's rights, see all the rape cases that get thrown out with 'well she shouldn't have been outside wearing trousers etc.


----------



## Jonti (Dec 21, 2017)

Dismissive much?


----------



## bimble (Dec 21, 2017)

Jonti said:


> Dismissive much?


Of the idea that India's poltical & judicial system has a lot to teach us about overcoming the damaging impact of the gender binary? Yes.


----------



## Jonti (Dec 21, 2017)

Well, that's a relief. I was beginning to think you'd taken issue with something I'd said.


----------



## co-op (Dec 21, 2017)

Jonti said:


> We could probably learn a thing or two from them.



We could I'm sure but gay sex is still illegal in India which makes it pretty backward legally as far as L & G rights go. And the fact that India is ahead on mtf trans rights (although arguably not on ftm trans rights) once again highlights how being apparently trans-progressive can in fact underwrite really reactionary patriarchal attitudes to sex and gender.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Dec 21, 2017)

bimble said:


> I’m no expert either but have been very interested in the Hijra phenomenon since I first saw some of them in India years ago (doing the special kind of threatening begging that many do to survive). It does seems to me quite silly to deny the particularity of the ancient history & religious and cultural practices that define the Hijra and just say nope they’re trans women same as anywhere else.



Is anyone saying that on this thread though? If they have, I've missed it.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 21, 2017)

co-op said:


> FWIW on my shallow knowledge if anyone's saying that AGP is THE cause of the desire to transition that seems crude and simplistic to me. But equally, rejecting AGP as ever having any component part in a desire to transition also seems really unlikely. Why wouldn't there be an erotic component to gender identity? Or to gender transition?
> 
> Unless you are committed to the idea that a person just "is", and were born, a different gender than the one which they have been assigned in which case it becomes necessary to obliterate AGP because it relates so strongly to the act of transition rather than the magical state of being the correct gender.
> 
> Do you think AGP is a component of some people's desire to transition? Or is it never?



No I wouldn't say never, there are few absolutes when it comes to human beings.  But if autogynephilia is a product of gender dysphoria, rather than the cause, then even if it is present it is not the underlying reason why someone might want to transition.  

I think it's also difficult to nail down exactly what autogynephilia is.  Is it solely erotic arousal at the thought of being the opposite sex, or could it also be arousal at the idea of being sexual in a body you do not feel dysphoric about - Blanchard has always struck me as woolly about this.  Because if the second were a motivation to transition would that really be autogynephilic, or just a motivation to have a sex life you can enjoy because you are in a body you feel comfortable (or non-dysphoric) in?


----------



## Athos (Dec 21, 2017)

smokedout said:


> No I wouldn't say never, there are few absolutes when it comes to human beings.  But if autogynephilia is a product of gender dysphoria, rather than the cause, then even if it is present it is not the underlying reason why someone might want to transition.
> 
> I think it's also difficult to nail down exactly what autogynephilia is.  Is it solely erotic arousal at the thought of being the opposite sex, or could it also be arousal at the idea of being sexual in a body you do not feel dysphoric about - Blanchard has always struck me as woolly about this.  Because if the second were a motivation to transition would that really be autogynephilic, or just a motivation to have a sex life you can enjoy because you are in a body you feel comfortable (or non-dysphoric) in?



More's the point, why does it matter?


----------



## bimble (Dec 21, 2017)

huh. I just googled 'where have all the transvestites gone' and the top link was to Miranda Yardley 's site.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 21, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I think you've just smoked yourself out. Why is your thinking so black and white, why can you not deal with nuance? The corollary of 'yes, lots of young girls are suddenly seeking to transition to be men, this is of concern' is not 'these girls are all deluded liars'.
> 
> We can always help transgender people better if we can understand why they think the way they do about themselves.



I think you prefer to tell transgender people why they think the way they do about themselves, rather than understand it.

At a rough calculation around one in ten thousand under 18s was referred to a gender identity clinic last year, just over half of them girls.  Of course not all will be diagnosed with GID and even fewer will have any medical intervention before adulthood.  There is also anecdotal evidence of more girls experimenting with gender identities, although clearly few go on to seek any professional help.  I'd say this could mean one of three things:

Increased awareness of and less stigma surrounding transgenderism is making it easier for young transgender people to come out and ask for help.

A generation is emerging which has a more fluid approach to gender identity as something which is not fixed but something you can experiment with and explore.

It has become fashionable for young girls to call themselves transgender even if they aren't, or adopt non-feminine gender identities, possibly. some argue, in part because of social pressures which are founded in misogyny, and possibly because it is seen as more socially acceptable than identifying as lesbian.

I'd suggest the rise is probably a bit of all three.  The first two seem quite promising and only the third strikes me as a cause for concern, and it involves factors which are really just speculation at this stage.  But if there is truth in it, then as long as those seeking treatment stays so low and clear diagnostic protocols are maintained then any long term damage to the individuals experimenting with their gender can be minimised.  I think it would be a great shame if the engineered social panic over this led to the first two reasons I gave being undermined or nullified.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 21, 2017)

Athos said:


> More's the point, why does it matter?



Because if you are a member of a marginalised group that historically has been cast as sexual deviants then it might matter if someone was accusing you of being motivated by a sexual fetish you didn't actually experience.  Of course this probably doesn't matter to you, the self-selected arbiter of how transpeople should respond to discrimination, stigmatisation and prejudice.


----------



## co-op (Dec 21, 2017)

smokedout said:


> No I wouldn't say never, there are few absolutes when it comes to human beings.  But if autogynephilia is a product of gender dysphoria, rather than the cause, then even if it is present it is not the underlying reason why someone might want to transition.



Yes, which comes first is important if you want to establish an aetiology of “where does transgenderism come from”?(apologies for the crap terminology). But I genuinely don’t care because I think either pathway is equally valid and fundamentally I don’t care about the aetiology; I don’t think transpeople have to be “explained”. IMO They just are and my narky side says only a repressive with an agenda needs to do so. But reading Miranda Yardley’s posts makes me think I have just scratched the surface of this compared to someone who has actually transitioned so I’m going to do more thinking about that.





“smokedout said:


> I think it's also difficult to nail down exactly what autogynephilia is.  Is it solely erotic arousal at the thought of being the opposite sex, or could it also be arousal at the idea of being sexual in a body you do not feel dysphoric about - Blanchard has always struck me as woolly about this.  Because if the second were a motivation to transition would that really be autogynephilic, or just a motivation to have a sex life you can enjoy because you are in a body you feel comfortable (or non-dysphoric) in?




Again I can see there’s a debate there but why does it really matter unless there’s some major consequence; both seem completely valid to me, it seems unlikely that even a person strongly experiencing AGP would “really” know which came first because our erotic urges and our identity is so intertwined and frankly both first and second options you outline seem pretty damned hot in the right circumstances. Just going intiuitively here I think there’s an element of erotic AGP in most performative sexual identity, ie in everyone. Not in every sexual encounter for sure, but in quite a few - how can the experience of a sexual partner be irrelevant to ones own experience? And how can that experience be imagined except by imagining it as though you were experiencing it?

But I’m no expert on AGP and my instinct is to critique academic sexual categorisation.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 21, 2017)

co-op said:


> Again I can see there’s a debate there but why does it really matter unless there’s some major consequence; both seem completely valid to me, it seems unlikely that even a person strongly experiencing AGP would “really” know which came first because our erotic urges and our identity is so intertwined and frankly both first and second options you outline seem pretty damned hot in the right circumstances. Just going intiuitively here I think there’s an element of erotic AGP in most performative sexual identity, ie in everyone. Not in every sexual encounter for sure, but in quite a few - how can the experience of a sexual partner be irrelevant to ones own experience? And how can that experience be imagined except by imagining it as though you were experiencing it?



I think the consequence is that the autogynephile theory has allowed some to attempt to cast transgenderism as a male sexual rights movement, and that this has had wider social consequences for transpeople.  This is a problem that is likely to come up whenever transgender people talk honestly about their sexuality if it immediately becomes an attack point used to negate any other aspects of gender dysphoria.  Miranda just did it on this thread with Julie Serano's explanation of her early sexuality - suddenly everything else is inauthentic, she's a male fetishist and that's all there is to her experience of gender dysphoria.  If transgenderism becomes portrayed as a purely sexual phenomena then that sets the stage for a reactionary attack on trans rights or healthcare.  This is what both trans critical feminists and the conservative right are aiming for, which is why they never shut up about it.  And as far as most transpeople are concerned it's not even true, it doesn't describe them.  So I think it does matter sadly.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 21, 2017)

Been reading a few of the articles linked to ++ - sadly not had the time to read much of Blanchard's original papers. Must say that the language used in a lot of the psychiatric literature makes my blood boil a bit. Paraphilia and so on. And that whole "erotic target location error" thing makes bad evolutionary psychology look like quantum physics.


----------



## Athos (Dec 21, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Because if you are a member of a marginalised group that historically has been cast as sexual deviants then it might matter if someone was accusing you of being motivated by a sexual fetish you didn't actually experience.  Of course this probably doesn't matter to you, the self-selected arbiter of how transpeople should respond to discrimination, stigmatisation and prejudice.



Just seems like you're engaging on other's terms. Why does it matter whether or not some trans people have a sexual driver? Gay people have a sexual 'motive', but nobody seems to see any need to deny that as a precondition of their fair treatment.

Another tiresome and dishonest dig in there, I notice.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 21, 2017)

Athos said:


> Just seems like you're engaging on other's terms. Why does it matter whether or not some trans people have a sexual driver? Gay people have a sexual 'motive', but nobody seems to see any need to deny that as a precondition of their fair treatment.
> 
> Another tiresome and dishonest dig in there, I notice.


I think the point smokey is trying to make is that the framing of some trans people's sexual motives as fetishes and paraphilias comes with a firmly, if these days somewhat covert, moral judgment as something deficient, wrong or pathological.


----------



## Athos (Dec 21, 2017)

TruXta said:


> I think the point smokey is trying to make is that the framing of some trans people's sexual motives as fetishes and paraphilias comes with a firmly, if these days somewhat covert, moral judgment as something deficient, wrong or pathological.



And mine is that denying that some trans people have autogyneohilic feelings is a dead end, given there's able evidence of it.  As is trying to set up some distinction between those who do and those who don't. Why not just concede that it's inconceivable that gender identity and sexuality don't ever interact, but argue that that fact isn't a legitimate basis to discriminate against trans people?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 21, 2017)

Athos said:


> And mine is that denying that some trans people have autogyneohilic feelings is a dead end, given there's able evidence of it.  As is trying to set up some distinction between those who do and those who don't.



Nobody has denied some transpeople experience autogynephilia, and the distinction was set up by Blanchard and is supported by Miranda on this thread.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 21, 2017)

Athos said:


> And mine is that denying that some trans people have autogyneohilic feelings is a dead end, given there's able evidence of it.  As is trying to set up some distinction between those who do and those who don't. Why not just concede that it's inconceivable that gender identity and sexuality don't ever interact, but argue that that fact isn't a legitimate basis to discriminate against trans people?


I might be missing something - did smokedout deny that ATG is real?


----------



## Athos (Dec 21, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Nobody has denied some transpeople experience autogynephilia, and the distinction was set up by Blanchard and is supported by Miranda on this thread.



What point have you been trying to make about it, then?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 21, 2017)

Why not read what I already wrote.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Dec 21, 2017)

This stuff is always quite messy. I think a lot of what Miranda is coming out with(being familiar with their output before urban) is in reaction to more toxic trans politics, the sort of stuff that has put pressure on Ru Paul to not say the word "tranny" even though that word was used to used to refer to transvestites not transsexuals generally and there's even been moves to prohibit cross dressing in trans lefty sects which is fucking insane because transvestites don't tend to do that for shits and giggles it is an important part of their identity, though they are not transgender. I don't want to speak out of turn but reading this thread it seems a lot of people sticking their oar in have a very vague knowledge of the nuances involved here, and throw the word Transphobe around far too easily, lots of us know of the different perspectives and find it less easy to take a strict line on anything really, just because it's a a cis person pointing out difficulties it doesn't mean they hate Trans folks.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 22, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I see you have drawn a distinction between 'feel like a woman' and 'feel like you want to be a woman'.



That's your opinion. It's down to the individual. Your experiences can no more dictate to others than mine can.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 22, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> That's your opinion. It's down to the individual. Your experiences can no more dictate to others than mine can.



What? She’s describing how you’re using language.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 22, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> What? She’s describing how you’re using language.



Is she really. Good to know.


----------



## Athos (Dec 22, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Why not read what I already wrote.


I did. It's unclear.


----------



## co-op (Dec 22, 2017)

smokedout said:


> I think the consequence is that the autogynephile theory has allowed some to attempt to cast transgenderism as a male sexual rights movement, and that this has had wider social consequences for transpeople.  This is a problem that is likely to come up whenever transgender people talk honestly about their sexuality if it immediately becomes an attack point used to negate any other aspects of gender dysphoria.  Miranda just did it on this thread with Julie Serano's explanation of her early sexuality - suddenly everything else is inauthentic, she's a male fetishist and that's all there is to her experience of gender dysphoria.  If transgenderism becomes portrayed as a purely sexual phenomena then that sets the stage for a reactionary attack on trans rights or healthcare.  This is what both trans critical feminists and the conservative right are aiming for, which is why they never shut up about it.  And as far as most transpeople are concerned it's not even true, it doesn't describe them.  So I think it does matter sadly.




What you say here is only true if AGP is being used as the_ sole_ explanation for transgendersism - as I've said before that seems obviously too crude and anyway, why does transgenderism need 'explaining'? But equally, trying to write off AGP because it's been used as a way of pathologising TG is too crude too.

I think MY was entitled to quote JS; JS was being invoked as an authority on how AGP either didn't exist or was irrelevant and yet her own description of her own sexual awakening seems really consistent with AGP. Again, I'm totally in the 'and so what?' camp here. It's just as likely that TG > AGP as the other way round (maybe more so) but in an ideal world who should care about that anyway?

I get that in the non-ideal world we're actually in the idea that mtf TG is basically no more than just another sexual fetish is an attack on the seriousness with which transwomen will be taken, and will therefore be part of any political attack on transpeople more generally. 

That's never something I've argued for and absolutely don't. Although I've come across AGP and read some of MY's stuff before I hadn't appreciated the extent to which she appears to locate AGP absolutely as The Central Issue here and I can see why transpeople would have an issue with that.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 22, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> That's your opinion. It's down to the individual. Your experiences can no more dictate to others than mine can.


She quoted you. Not an opinion.


----------



## bimble (Dec 22, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Is she really. Good to know.


Yes. You said this:


krtek a houby said:


> Only the individual can do that. There's no template, *you just feel what you are or should or want to be*.


 What a person is and what they want to be - are those not the same thing then?


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 22, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Is she really. Good to know.



Christ you’re thick


----------



## smokedout (Dec 22, 2017)

co-op said:


> What you say here is only true if AGP is being used as the_ sole_ explanation for transgendersism - as I've said before that seems obviously too crude and anyway, why does transgenderism need 'explaining'? But equally, trying to write off AGP because it's been used as a way of pathologising TG is too crude too.
> 
> I think MY was entitled to quote JS; JS was being invoked as an authority on how AGP either didn't exist or was irrelevant and yet her own description of her own sexual awakening seems really consistent with AGP. Again, I'm totally in the 'and so what?' camp here. It's just as likely that TG > AGP as the other way round (maybe more so) but in an ideal world who should care about that anyway?



Had Miranda quoted Julie Serano more fully it would have been clear that she is quite open about having experienced autogynephilia, but that she believes it is a symptom of gender dysphoria not the cause.  Since it does not usually appear in transmen, there is no evidence of it in trans-children*, it only appears infrequently in androphilic transsexuals and many non-androphilic transsexuals say they haven't experienced it or that it went away after transition or adolescence, I think Serano is correct - it is obviously not something fundamental or universal to the transgender experience.  

A recent large scale study did not replicate Blanchard's findings, but interestingly did find that age and ethnicity were siginifcant predicters of autogynephilia.  This suggests it could be a fetish which has developed in reponse to social attitudes and taboos within a given time/culture and leads the authors to speculate that autogynephilia “may be a historically fading phenomenon.”  

Yardley and Blanchard would both agree that at the very least autogynephilia is much less common  in androphilic transsexuals, and it is here the theory runs into real trouble, although it's often overlooked.  Blanchard claims that transgenderism in androphilic transsexuals is caused by 'exteme homosexuality'.  There are suggestions they may be motivated to appear as a woman so men are more likely to have sex with them.  What this suggests is some kind of gay essence, an essence which is intrinsically feminine in nature - according to the theory the more 'gay' you are then the more likely you are to become transsexual.  It's reactionary nonsense.

* Lawrence does offer up two case reports of boys younger than age three who expressed a desire to wear cross-sex clothing and who had erections when they did so.  This strikes me as being as creepy as it is desperate.


----------



## bimble (Dec 22, 2017)

Looking at the methodology of that study, i do find it all very peculiar.
It says "Transvestic fetishism during a given stage of life was coded as 0 (no sexual arousal from any type of feminine dressing either in public or in private) or 1 (sexual arousal from one or more types of feminine dressing either in public or in private). ..
What is the actual difference between the 'symptom' the study searches for above and the well known fact that women in general are supposed to 'feel sexy' by wearing matching / frilly underwear for instance, or dressing up in heels and lipstick.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 22, 2017)

bimble said:


> Looking at the methodology of that study, i do find it all very peculiar.
> It says "Transvestic fetishism during a given stage of life was coded as 0 (no sexual arousal from any type of feminine dressing either in public or in private) or 1 (sexual arousal from one or more types of feminine dressing either in public or in private). ..
> What is the actual difference between the 'symptom' the study searches for above and the well known fact that women in general are supposed to 'feel sexy' by wearing matching / frilly underwear for instance, or dressing up in heels and lipstick.



Possibly not much, similar arousal has been found in cis-women, although the sampling methods of this study have been criticised.


----------



## bimble (Dec 22, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Possibly not much, similar arousal has been found in cis-women, although the sampling methods of this study have been criticised.


The sciencification of this just makes me laugh to be honest. A survey of 29 people is not really needed to confirm that the advice to women in our society on how to 'feel sexy' generally starts with the instruction to buy some expensive lingerie.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 22, 2017)

bimble said:


> Looking at the methodology of that study, i do find it all very peculiar.
> It says "Transvestic fetishism during a given stage of life was coded as 0 (no sexual arousal from any type of feminine dressing either in public or in private) or 1 (sexual arousal from one or more types of feminine dressing either in public or in private). ..
> What is the actual difference between the 'symptom' the study searches for above and the well known fact that women in general are supposed to 'feel sexy' by wearing matching / frilly underwear for instance, or dressing up in heels and lipstick.


This is a good question. The whole edifice looks like nonsense on stilts to me. 

There are all kinds of objectionable assumptions in here, from the idea that homosexuality is a 'mistake' to the pathologising of fetishes, when fetishes are all over the place, particularly wrt clothing - a person with no kind of fetish whatever wrt clothing is probably in the minority in our society.


----------



## bimble (Dec 22, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> a person with no kind of fetish whatever wrt clothing is probably in the minority in our society.


I agree, and feel vaguely sorry for any such person.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 22, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Christ you’re thick



Great contribution. I'm delighted you have it all sussed and are not at all perplexed.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 22, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Great contribution. I'm delighted you have it all sussed and are not at all perplexed.



Lol


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 22, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Lol



If you've got an issue with me, fine. But don't fuck up an already divisive thread with it. I don't agree with her comments; I don't believe she is correct with her every utterance. But that's between myself and her. Stop jumping in and shit stirring for the sake of it.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 22, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> If you've got an issue with me, fine. But don't fuck up an already divisive thread with it. I don't agree with her comments; I don't believe she is correct with her every utterance. But that's between myself and her. Stop jumping in and shit stirring for the sake of it.



How about you don’t deliberately misunderstand what posters like Miranda Yardley have said; and don’t make sarcy comments to others when they point out where you’ve failed to understand a (fairly simple) point.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 22, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> That's your opinion. It's down to the individual. Your experiences can no more dictate to others than mine can.



No, you literally did. Literally!


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 22, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> mBut that's between myself and her. Stop jumping in and shit stirring for the sake of it.



If you want a private conversation do it via pm. The nature of a forum like this is that others can and will comment on your posts


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 22, 2017)

smokedout said:


> I think the consequence is that the autogynephile theory has allowed some to attempt to cast transgenderism as a male sexual rights movement



I think that lesbians are being called transphobic for not wanting 'trans women' as partners has a far more blatant bearing on this.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 22, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> How about you don’t deliberately misunderstand what posters like Miranda Yardley have said; and don’t make sarcy comments to others when they point out where you’ve failed to understand a (fairly simple) point.



How about you stay out of my face with your own brand of sarccy comments - that's pretty much your m.o. here. There's nothing else to you.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 22, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> No, you literally did. Literally!



Literally did what?


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 22, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> How about you stay out of my face with your own brand of sarccy comments - that's pretty much your m.o. here. There's nothing else to you.



No. You don’t get to dictate whether others can comment on your posts or not. You’ve tried this before with other posters.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 22, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> No. You don’t get to dictate whether others can comment on your posts or not. You’ve tried this before with other posters.



Fuck right off with that. You're dictating to me. And don;t bring cross beef into it, either. I have as much right to question statements as much as the next person.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 22, 2017)

smokedout said:


> A recent large scale study did not replicate Blanchard's findings, but interestingly did find that age and ethnicity were siginifcant predicters of autogynephilia.  This suggests it could be a fetish which has developed in reponse to social attitudes and taboos within a given time/culture and leads the authors to speculate that autogynephilia “may be a historically fading phenomenon.”



Great critique of Nuttbrock here:

Autogynephilia and the Typology of Male-to-Female Transsexualism:  Concepts and Controversies

I've reproduced the quote below about the age relationship. I have noticed a lot of the younger transgender males display characteristics of physiological and anatomical autogynephilia, in particular focus on hips, pregnancy and lactation. This is very consistent with behaviours of older transgender males, formerly transvestites. I think it's great that society has become more tolerant of males who wish to transition, now if we can achieve this would them claiming on some level to be 'female' we might get somewhere.

Nuttbrock et al. (2011) proposed an "important, albeit highly theoretical, hypothesis — that transvestic fetishism may be a historically fading phenomenon" (p. 256). Their conjecture derived from their study of transvestic fetishism — the most prevalent manifestation of autogynephilia — in a diverse group of transgender males, including a discrete subgroup of nonandrophilic cross-dressers. Because these cross-dressers, unlike most other participants, were primarily older and white (Hwahng & Nuttbrock, 2007), Nuttbrock et al. found that transvestic fetishism was correlated with older age and white ethnicity as well as nonandrophilic orientation. Accordingly, Nuttbrock et al. argued that transvestic fetishism could theoretically be primarily a generational phenomenon, because among older white MtFs, "dressing in the female role was frequently a highly secretive and exotic phenomenon . . . [which] may largely account for the[ir] higher levels of transvestic fetishism" (p. 256). Nichols (2014) made a similar argument concerning autogynephilia generally, albeit without offering either evidence or explanation: "Autogynephilia is disappearing . . . . Blanchard's theory is not a description of an essentialist phenomenon but rather of a cultural one, a presentation of gender bound by time and place" (p. 72).

Reports of the impending disappearance of autogynephilia, however, appear to be premature. Erotic cross-dressing and other manifestations of autogynephilia have been documented for centuries, in both Western and non-Western cultures (Lawrence, 2013). Adolescents with transvestic fetishism continue to be referred for clinical evaluation in the twenty-first century (Zucker et al., 2012). Moreover, some MtF transsexuals who have completed sex reassignment and live publicly as women report that they continue to experience autogynephilic arousal (Lawrence, 2005, 2013), suggesting that the secretive cross-dressing invoked by Nuttbrock et al. (2011) is not a prerequisite for such arousal. Concluding that autogynephilia is disappearing because it is more often reported by older MtF transgender persons makes as much sense as concluding that Alzheimer's disease is disappearing because it is diagnosed primarily in older adults. Autogynephilia seems likely to remain a clinically important phenomenon for the foreseeable future.​


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 22, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Fuck right off with that. You're dictating to me. And don;t bring cross beef into it, either. I have as much right to question statements as much as the next person.


Why are you even letting him bait you? You are right about his MO, ignore his comments. He hasn't got much going on as you know and certainly isn't worth your attention.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 22, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Fuck right off with that. You're dictating to me. And don;t bring cross beef into it, either. I have as much right to question statements as much as the next person.



I won’t ‘fuck off’

I’m not ‘dicatating’ anything to you.

Not bringing ‘beef.

You weren’t questioning anything, you were (deliberately) misunderstanding what Miranda was saying to you - and when this was pointed out to you, your response was to be a sarcy twat.

Do you understand what Miranda was saying to you.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 22, 2017)

bimble said:


> The sciencification of this just makes me laugh to be honest. A survey of 29 people is not really needed to confirm that the advice to women in our society on how to 'feel sexy' generally starts with the instruction to buy some expensive lingerie.



The study is meaningless for many reasons. Also from the link I posted above:

Moser (2009) reported the responses of 29 female hospital employees to his Female Autogynephilia Scale, which used items modified from scales originally devised by Blanchard (1985, 1989b) to measure autogynephilia and related traits (Lawrence, 2010b). About half of respondents reported at least occasional "autogynephilic" arousal. But Moser modified Blanchard's original language on the advice of female colleagues and friends, to better investigate the specifics of their self-reported arousal or to provide "needed context" (Moser, 2010a, p. 694). Consequently, Moser's modified items arguably did not adequately distinguish between being aroused by wearing sexy clothing or by imagining that a potential romantic partner finds one attractive — which natal women apparently do experience — and being aroused simply by the idea that one is wearing _women's_ clothing or has a _woman's_ body — which natal women probably rarely if ever experience (Lawrence, 2010b). Moser (2009) conceded that "It is possible that autogynephilia among MTFs and natal women are different phenomena and the present inventories lack the sophistication to distinguish these differences" (p. 544). Lawrence (2010b) argued that this was probable, on the grounds that Moser's items "fail[ed] to adequately assess the essential element of autogynephilia — sexual arousal simply to the thought of being a female" (p. 3).​


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 22, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Why are you even letting him bait you? You are right about his MO, ignore his comments. He hasn't got much going on as you know and certainly isn't worth your attention.



Hi rutita 

You’ll note the point I made upthread was shared by others - hardly pointless.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 22, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Literally did what?



This:




			
				krtek a houby said:
			
		

> Only the individual can do that. There's no template, you just feel what you are or should or want to be. For instance, there were pressures on me to be straight and it took me a long time to get my head round the fact that I wasn't.



I see you have drawn a distinction between 'feel like a woman' and 'feel like you want to be a woman'.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 22, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> I won’t ‘fuck off’
> 
> I’m not ‘dicatating’ anything to you.
> 
> ...



You are bringing cross thread beef into it. Mentioning other posters, calling me thick as if it has any bearing on this thread. Which is about being perplexed and the complexity of transgender. You may well have it all sussed - good for you. But I don't. And Miranda's take on it may not necessary be mine.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 22, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> This:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you have drawn a distinction between 'feel like a woman' and 'feel like you want to be a woman'.



Everybody has a different take, a different journey. There's no set rules in the LGBT community and one person's experience, hopes, needs and feelings aren't necessarily going to be another's.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 22, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Hi rutita
> 
> You’ll note the point I made upthread was shared by others - hardly pointless.



Other people managed to be less abusive about the point being made. He's right about your MO. It's noticable that you like to have a go at him. Just back the fuck off. You don't win anything by being a prick. This is currently the most interesting thread on Urban IMO. Why not engage with the discussion instead?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Dec 22, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> A person with no kind of fetish whatever wrt clothing is probably in the minority in our society.



Really? That's quite a bold assertion to make.  In my own experience people with fetishes are in the minority, but that may be my own confirmation bias (I do not and would not consider dudes with fetishes). 




bimble said:


> I agree, and feel vaguely sorry for any such person.



Why would you? I certainly don't want your pity and It's a bit insulting to say tbh. Should the tables be turned "I feel vaguely sorry for those with fetishes" there would be outrage.

There's a point somewhere to be made here about fetishes,  capitalism, power structures and consumerism but I'm not sure if this is the thread for it, though.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 22, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Other people managed to be less abusive about the point being made. He's right about your MO. It's noticable that you like to have a go at him. Just back the fuck off. You don't win anything by being a prick. This is currently the most interesting thread on Urban IMO. Why not engage with the discussion instead?



Hmm, you may want to read our interaction yesterday/today - doesn’t really fit with your characterisation. 

You seem happy to flit between complaining about personal abuse, and making abusive comments. 

But I guess that’s your MO. 

Shall we return to the thread?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 22, 2017)

Have we reached the point where Krtek and co derail the thread and get it binned then?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 22, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Everybody has a different take, a different journey. There's no set rules in the LGBT community and one person's experience, hopes, needs and feelings aren't necessarily going to be another's.



But there is a distinction...


----------



## snadge (Dec 22, 2017)

Interesting article here

The Experiment on Our Children: Doctors Don’t Know Who the Real Trans Kids Are


Although this is US based it also reflects what is happening here in UK, especially with crazies like this.

Lobby group demands free sex change hormones for children | Daily Mail Online

(Apologies for DM link)


----------



## bimble (Dec 22, 2017)

Fair enough FabricLiveBaby! I think maybe the whole idea of what is and isn't defined as a fetish is worth looking at (if not here). In what you were quoting above I was using the term very broadly, to include things like my penchant for pocketsquares and a crisp shirt, which aren't (arguably) the same as only being turned on by say rubber or extreme footwear or whatever.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 22, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> But there is a distinction...



Please elaborate. I genuinely don't follow what you're trying to say.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 22, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Hmm, you may want to read our interaction yesterday/today - doesn’t really fit with your characterisation.
> 
> You seem happy to flit between complaining about personal abuse, and making abusive comments.
> 
> ...



My MO is I can give as good as I get, your snide sarcasm and assumption of righteousness nd intelligence by declaring other people 'thick' doesn't wash with me.  Get over it and yes return to the thread, haven't seen you post much up until now but look forward to your contributions, naturally. 

Or you could call me hysterical again. That worked a treat. Either way you'll not get another response.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 22, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> My MO is I can give as good as I get, your snide sarcasm and assumption of righteousness by declaring other people 'thick' doesn't wash with me.  Get over it and yes return to the thread, haven't seen you post much up until now but look forward to your contributions, naturally.
> 
> Or you could call me hysterical again. That worked a treat. Either way you'll not get another response.



Dunno how calling people thick equates to assuming righteousness, but glad you’re happy to get back on topic.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 22, 2017)

bimble said:


> Fair enough FabricLiveBaby! I think maybe the whole idea of what is and isn't defined as a fetish is worth looking at (if not here). In what you were quoting above I was using the term very broadly, to include things like my penchant for pocketsquares and a crisp shirt, which aren't (arguably) the same as only being turned on by say rubber or extreme footwear or whatever.


I was also using the term broadly, purposely setting the bar very low because that is what the researchers did in their definitions.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Dec 22, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I was also using the term broadly, purposely setting the bar very low because that is what the researchers did in their definitions.



Please elaborate?


----------



## andysays (Dec 22, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is a good question. The whole edifice looks like nonsense on stilts to me.
> 
> There are all kinds of objectionable assumptions in here, from the idea that homosexuality is a 'mistake'* to the pathologising of fetishes, when fetishes are all over the place, particularly wrt clothing - a person with no kind of fetish whatever wrt clothing is probably in the minority in our society*.



Do you actually understand what a fetish is, and how it differs from eg a preference?

This thread is rife with people making unsubstatiated claims which others are supposed to accept unquestioningly, but this is just bollocks, pure and simple


----------



## TruXta (Dec 22, 2017)

andysays said:


> Do you actually understand what a fetish is, and how it differs from eg a preference?
> 
> This thread is rife with people making unsubstatiated claims which others are supposed to accept unquestioningly, but this is just bollocks, pure and simple


What's wrong with it? There's totally a sliding scale between preference and fetish with no clear demarcation.


----------



## snadge (Dec 22, 2017)

TruXta said:


> What's wrong with it? There's totally a sliding scale between preference and fetish with no clear demarcation.



Preferences are fetishes, plain and simple.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 22, 2017)

snadge said:


> Preferences are fetishes, plain and simple.


I'd say it's the other way around, but essentially of a kind.


----------



## bimble (Dec 22, 2017)

Unless you're into Freud, which I'm very not, I think it's daft to say all fetishism is some kind of abberation / a  'condition', whilst liking frilly underwear on women is just, you know, totally normal.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 22, 2017)

TruXta said:


> I'd say it's the other way around, but essentially of a kind.



I’d say you’re both wrong.


----------



## snadge (Dec 22, 2017)

TruXta said:


> I'd say it's the other way around, but essentially of a kind.




To me the words are interchangeable, usually fetish as a describer is used by people who are uncomfortable with the action, almost as a slur, we all have fetishes, ie sexual preferences that other people may not understand, the problem is when that word is used to describe sexual preference that is abhorrent, ie necrophilia. peadophillia and rape fixation.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 22, 2017)

bimble said:


> Unless you're into Freud, which I'm very not, I think it's daft to say all fetishism is some kind of abberation / a  'condition', whilst liking frilly underwear on women is just, you know, totally normal.



Not sure why you're attributing that argument to Freud.


----------



## bimble (Dec 22, 2017)

I just can't resist any excuse to bash Freud (its a pet hate thing).  One of his celebrated theories was about how the meaning of the fetish is always..  a penis substitute.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 22, 2017)

bimble said:


> I just can't resist any excuse to bash Freud (its a pet hate thing).  One of his celebrated theories was about how the meaning of the fetish is always..  a penis substitute.


True, but the term is much older and has pretty much always carried a negative connotation.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 22, 2017)

8ball said:


> I’d say you’re both wrong.


Care to share why?


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 22, 2017)

bimble said:


> I just can't resist any excuse to bash Freud (its a pet hate thing).  One of his celebrated theories was about how the meaning of the fetish is always..  a penis substitute.



I've noticed.

Celebrated by who?


----------



## bimble (Dec 22, 2017)

Red Cat Are you a Freud fan? This would just be a big diversion .. I think he and his ideas should never have been taken seriously by anybody and his influence on how we think about ourselves has been extremely negative, the fetish theory just a minor case in point.


----------



## andysays (Dec 22, 2017)

A sexual fetish may or may not be pathological, but it's definitely more than a mere preference


> Sexual fetishism or erotic fetishism is a sexual fixation on a nonliving object or nongenital body part. The object of interest is called the fetish; the person who has _a fetish_ for that object is a fetishist. A sexual fetish may be regarded as a non-pathological aid to sexual excitement, or as a mental disorder if it causes significant psychosocial distress for the person or has detrimental effects on important areas of their life


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 22, 2017)

bimble said:


> Red Cat Are you a Freud fan? This would just be a big diversion .. I think he and his ideas should never have been taken seriously by anybody and his influence on how we think if ourselves has been extremely negative, the fetish thing just a minor case in point.



I think it's easy to Freud bash. He was of a time and place. He was extremely creative and wrote a lot, abandoned ideas, contradicted them, developed them. I don't agree that he can be summed up easily, or the foundation of modern psychoanalytic psychotherapeutic practice dismissed so easily.


----------



## snadge (Dec 22, 2017)

andysays said:


> A sexual fetish may or may not be pathological, but it's definitely more than a mere preference




That Wiki article is so biased it reminded me why I do not use Wiki as a source anymore, maybe check back on the same article in a month or so and it will have been edited to fuck by some other obsessive cunt.


----------



## bimble (Dec 22, 2017)

I don't want to go down a Freud-bashing route, it would keep me entertained for days but I think everyone else would get bored quite fast and its not relevant to the thread really. Highly recommend the book 'Why Freud was Wrong' though (by Richard Webster), to anyone interested in the subject. Especially around his 'methodology'.

But where does the term 'kink' fit in with all of this i wonder.. Is that the missing bit between fetishism as a sort of disease and just 'preference'?


----------



## snadge (Dec 22, 2017)

bimble said:


> I don't want to go down a Freud-bashing route, it would keep me entertained for days but I think everyone else would get bored quite fast and its not relevant to the thread really. Highly recommend the book 'Why Freud was Wrong' through (by Richard Webster), to anyone interested in the subject. Especially around his 'methodology'.
> 
> But where does the term 'kink' fit in with all of this i wonder.. Is that the missing bit between fetishism as a sort of disease and just 'preference'?



Kink is used by people that use fetish as a slur, to accept others fetishes without demonising them.

According to a majority portion of the populace, anything other than missionary position sex between a man and a woman is a fetish, to gain populace to attack any type of sex that they vehemently disagree with they will use the word 'kink' to describe sexual practise that they may not agree with but will accept for support in their puritan mission.  

Also fetishism is not a fucking disease lol.

Are Sexual Fetishes Psychologically Healthy?

Here is an interesting article although it does contain this gem.



> Though some of us have a predilection for something, the fetishist cannot technically climax without his or her fetish present.



I would love to know what is meant by that.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 22, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I think that lesbians are being called transphobic for not wanting 'trans women' as partners has a far more blatant bearing on this.



I'm fairly sure Jeffries made claims along those lines long before a handful of daft kids starting talking about that stuff on tumblr.


----------



## snadge (Dec 22, 2017)

BTW if anyone is interested in the explosion of FtM referrals today maybe take look on Tumblr under the tags MlM, Achilles or follow the shitty Yaoi anime series, especially Yuri on ice.

10 years ago Tavistock was dealing with young girls with eating disorders, now they have 70% FtM wanting to be be gay boys (note not men).

Tumblr is a fucking cesspit for young people and is a fucking peados dream, there is a lot more going on with this phenomenon that we can first see.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 22, 2017)

TruXta said:


> Care to share why?



Because the definition of fetish.

Though I guess you could argue that everyone might be an outlier on _some_ possible scale...


----------



## smokedout (Dec 22, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Great critique of Nuttbrock here:
> 
> Autogynephilia and the Typology of Male-to-Female Transsexualism:  Concepts and Controversies
> 
> ...



That's not a critique of the study though, it just questions a speculative theory the authors drew from the evidence they found, and seems to misunderstand the difference between disappearing and disappeared.

That's an interesting piece from Lawrence though which seems to be reaching for an 'authentic' transsexuality, particularly the comment about researchers noticing "androphilic MtFs had a more feminine appearance than nonandrophilic MtFs."

This strikes me as a particularly reactionary notion, suggesting that a transwoman can only be authentic if she is attracted to men, like a proper woman.  There is no room for trans-lesbians in the theory of autogynephilia, they are all fetishists so the doctrine goes.  This seems to suggest autogynephilia not only depends on essentialism, but assumes that the defining feature of the feminine essence is sexual desire for men.  Blanchard, being quite conservative, is likely to agree, after all his work is underpinned by essentialism, as Lawrence explains:



> The postulated etiological distinction was this: Androphilic MtF transsexuals were extremely feminine androphilic men whose cross-gender identities derived from their female-typical attitudes, behaviors, and sexual preferences. Nonandrophilic MtF transsexuals, in contrast, were conventionally masculine, fundamentally gynephilic men who resembled transvestites in that they experienced paraphilic arousal from the fantasy of being women (autogynephilia); their cross-gender identities derived from their autogynephilic sexual orientations.



It appears some gender critical feminists are quite happy to accept a theory underpinned by gender essentialism as long as it gives them a chance to smear transwomen as male perverts.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 22, 2017)

8ball said:


> Because the definition of fetish.
> 
> Though I guess you could argue that everyone might be an outlier on _some_ possible scale...


A fetish is merely a particular kind of preference.


----------



## snadge (Dec 22, 2017)

I will say this again, I fully support the Trans people that are called Truscum within the community, these are the Trans people that DO suffer from Dysphoria and have had medical intervention to help them come to terms with the schism in their existence, they usually just get on with their lives and nobody knows any different and if they do, they accept it as an extremely brave thing to do. These people have my full support, I would die to protect them from harm

What we have now is what is self classed as Trucute, non transitioning people that are extremely fucking vocal, labelling people as transphobic for not wanting to have sex with someone with genitals that do not interest them, it is not just happening with lesbians but with gay men, CIS men and CIS women also. Trucutes penned the 'Die Truscum' meme on Twitter etc and are now adding 'Die Cishet', as I said before Tumblr, deviant art and a few other sites are enabling this.


----------



## snadge (Dec 22, 2017)

TruXta said:


> A fetish is merely a particular kind of preference.





smokedout said:


> It appears some gender critical feminists are quite happy to accept a theory underpinned by gender essentialism as long as it gives them a chance to smear transwomen as male perverts.



If transwomen still have a cock and demand people that are not interested in cock accommodate them they are fucking dodgy as fuck.

How people still support them demanding this is beyond me.


----------



## bimble (Dec 22, 2017)

snadge i can't even figure out how to look at tumblr , its an alien world. But "tucute" as a rallying call? jesus.


----------



## snadge (Dec 22, 2017)

bimble said:


> snadge i can't even figure out how to look at tumblr , its an alien world. But "tucute" as a rallying call? jesus.



It's fucking awful to be true, so many predators on there the place should be fucking nuked, it's the place to be if you are young and struggling with the reality of the cruel world, it is chock full of cultish behaviour and power tripping and is a go to place for fucking dodgy predators.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 22, 2017)

snadge said:


> If transwomen still have a cock and demand people that are not interested in cock accommodate them they are fucking dodgy as fuck.



Can you give an example of one trans activist organisation, or any high profile trans-activist, claiming that lesbians who don't want to sleep with transwomen who've retained their penis are transphobic?  Or an example of somebody transgender accusing someone of transphobia because they wouldn't have sex with them?

See whenever I look I seem to find far more people talking about how transwomen demand lesbians sleep with them than I can find any transwomen actually demanding this.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 22, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Can you give an example of one trans activist organisation, or any high profile trans-activist, claiming that lesbians who don't want to sleep with transwomen who've retained their penis are transphobic?  Or an example of somebody transgender accusing someone of transphobia because they wouldn't have sex with them?
> 
> See whenever I look I seem to find far more people talking about how transwomen demand lesbians sleep with them than I can find any transwomen actually demanding this.



What did you make of the links I and others shared above to mainstream sites like everyday feminism?


----------



## bimble (Dec 22, 2017)

I'm just putting this here because  (tumblr is educational)
Nounself pronouns - Nonbinary


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 22, 2017)

TruXta said:


> A fetish is merely a particular kind of preference.



What kind?


----------



## snadge (Dec 22, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Can you give an example of one trans activist organisation, or any high profile trans-activist, claiming that lesbians who don't want to sleep with transwomen who've retained their penis are transphobic?  Or an example of somebody transgender accusing someone of transphobia because they wouldn't have sex with them?
> 
> See whenever I look I seem to find far more people talking about how transwomen demand lesbians sleep with them than I can find any transwomen actually demanding this.



Try Laurelai Bailey, Zinnia Jones/Satana Kennedy, if you want evidence of crazy cult shenanigans search for Vade on Tumblr, fucking awful person, I've been folowing genuine trans people and the trucute scene for a long time now, I already mentioned that I have a dog in this race as I was confused about how I identified but Sea Star called me transphobic for it lol.

I will not repeat that story as I can't be fucking bothered.

I have many more that I can chuck your way, I have already mentioned the Yuri on Ice phenomenon that young girls are identifying with on Tumblr, if and when you research that you may understand where I am planting my flag.


----------



## snadge (Dec 22, 2017)

bimble said:


> I'm just putting this here because  (tumblr is educational)
> Nounself pronouns - Nonbinary



Lol, keep digging, there is an abundance of crazy to be found.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 22, 2017)

TruXta said:


> A fetish is merely a particular kind of preference.



Might want to re-check that definition.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 22, 2017)

snadge said:


> Try Laurelai Bailey, Zinnia Jones/Satana Kennedy, if you want evidence of crazy cult shenanigans search for Vade on Tumblr, fucking awful person, I've been folowing genuine trans people and the trucute scene for a long time now, I already mentioned that I have a dog in this race as I was confused about how I identified but Sea Star called me transphobic for it lol.
> 
> I will not repeat that story as I can't be fucking bothered.
> 
> I have many more that I can chuck your way, I have already mentioned the Yuri on Ice phenomenon that young girls are identifying with on Tumblr, if and when you research that you may understand where I am planting my flag.



I don't want to have to wage through a load of youtube videos.  I was hoping for a specific link to someone credible from within trans-activism saying that lesbians who don't want to sleep with pre-op transwomen are transphobic, or a transgender activist organisation making similar claims.  Alternatively an example of somebody accusing someone of transphobia for refusing to sleep with them, or demanding sex under the threat of being called transphobic.  Surely if this was as wdespread as some insist there'd be stories about this on forums or something.  All I can ever find is a load of shouty kids, not always trans, saying sometimes daft, sometimes angry and sometimes quite naive things about sex and transphobia and genitals and heteronormativity on social media.  I wonder what percentage of the global trans population they represent, and whether it is really legitimate to portray this as a universal, or even common trans demand when it appeears to be a virtually non-existent eccentricity that possibly exists amongst some young queer people who spend too much time arguing on tumblr.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Dec 22, 2017)

snadge said:


> It's fucking awful to be true, so many predators on there the place should be fucking nuked, it's the place to be if you are young and struggling with the reality of the cruel world, it is chock full of cultish behaviour and power tripping and is a go to place for fucking dodgy predators.



Yes. I don't know much about tumblr but I do know about Steam (the gaming platform) and YouTube as I've been following the gamergate thing since it was a wee baby and also the YouTube manosphere.

Shit is rife on there too.



snadge said:


> Try Laurelai Bailey, Zinnia Jones/Satana Kennedy, if you want evidence of crazy cult shenanigans search for Vade on Tumblr, fucking awful person, I've been folowing genuine trans people and the trucute scene for a long time now,



Seconded. Terrible cultist and *creepy* people. I also have a personal story (not from one of the big names that you mentioned) but it's really dark, and involves very vulnerable young women at the behest of one very creepy individual "transwoman" (one woman rape victim and one 14 year old lesbian.. All of whom very rapidly started to identify as some form of trans/non binary after getting into close quarters with this individual, and one of which has deleted their presence online entirely).

That part of the rabbit hole is creepy, cultish, and preys on very vulnerable young women. I would even go as far as to say grooming.

I don't want to talk about it because I don't think anyone would believe it, and also I feel so ashamed that I nearly got sucked into it myself. There are some very sick fucks using trans people (the dysphoric type) as a sheild for a lot of dodgy stuff.

Ugh. I need to go wash myself. It's an experience that makes me want to heave.

I'm only posting this cos I'm pissed and tired (5 hour plane journey to the UK). Fuck it. I've written it now.


----------



## snadge (Dec 22, 2017)

smokedout said:


> I don't want to have to wage through a load of youtube videos.  I was hoping for a specific link to someone credible from within trans-activism saying that lesbians who don't want to sleep with pre-op transwomen are transphobic, or a transgender activist organisation making similar claims.  Alternatively an example of somebody accusing someone of transphobia for refusing to sleep with them, or demanding sex under the threat of being called transphobic.  Surely if this was as wdespread as some insist there'd be stories about this on forums or something.  All I can ever find is a load of shouty kids, not always trans, saying sometimes daft, sometimes angry and sometimes quite naive things about sex and transphobia and genitals and heteronormativity on social media.  I wonder what percentage of the global trans population they represent, and whether it is really legitimate to portray this as a universal, or even common trans demand when it appeears to be a virtually non-existent eccentricity that possibly exists amongst some young queer people who spend too much time arguing on tumblr.



What the fuck does 'credible' mean, have you ever looked at these sites I have mentioned to actually disprove what I am saying, do you want peer reviewed articles as evidence maybe?

Here's another shitfuck, parents are loaded and covered his arse after being convicted of rape and is now the Admin of Trans Dykes United, changing his birthname and gender to once again becoming invisible.

Convicted sex offender seeks access to women’s locker rooms through bathroom law – Family Policy Institute of Washington

Note, this rapists criteria for being a woman is 6 months on HRT, not surgery.

You want any more?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 22, 2017)

snadge said:


> What the fuck does 'credible' mean, have you ever looked at these sites I have mentioned to actually disprove what I am saying, do you want peer reviewed articles as evidence maybe?
> 
> Here's another shitfuck, parents are loaded and covered his arse after being convicted of rape and is now the Admin of Trans Dykes United, changing his birthname and gender to once again becoming invisible.
> 
> ...


That source is a mouthpiece for political Christianity. 

Here's their For Churches section:



> Churches have a major role to play in addressing the cultural and moral issues of our day. The voice of the church matters. In times such as these when we see timeless values under attack all around us in our society, the need for the Church to be a strong voice for biblical truth is more critical than ever. These are great resources for learning what your legal parameters are for staying within the guidelines of your 501(c)3 status.


----------



## snadge (Dec 22, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That source is a mouthpiece for political Christianity.
> 
> Here's their For Churches section:




So fuck, does it matter what 'their' agenda is when there are fucking police records and actual posts by the rapist to verify what I have said.

What the fuck is your problem?


----------



## iona (Dec 22, 2017)

snadge said:


> I will say this again, I fully support the Trans people that are called Truscum within the community, these are the Trans people that DO suffer from Dysphoria and have had medical intervention to help them come to terms with the schism in their existence, they usually just get on with their lives and nobody knows any different and if they do, they accept it as an extremely brave thing to do. These people have my full support, I would die to protect them from harm
> 
> What we have now is what is self classed as Trucute, non transitioning people that are extremely fucking vocal, labelling people as transphobic for not wanting to have sex with someone with genitals that do not interest them, it is not just happening with lesbians but with gay men, CIS men and CIS women also. Trucutes penned the 'Die Truscum' meme on Twitter etc and are now adding 'Die Cishet', as I said before Tumblr, deviant art and a few other sites are enabling this.



A tiny minority of vocal idiots from the more... out there... corners of the Internet really aren't representative of any kind of "trans community."

I'd never even heard/read the term "trucute" before reading your post, and I've only ever come across "truscum" in reddit posts asking what it means ("it's just nonsense, ignore it" is the usual answer ime). I just went and looked, out of interest, and searching "truscum" brings back 22 results in r/asktransgender, 1 in r/transgender, 1 in r/transgenderUK, 9 in r/ftm and 0 in r/mtf. Searching "trucute" didn't bring back a single result in any of those subs. I'm not claiming Reddit is representative of any kind of trans community as a whole either - but that's the point, Tumblr nonsense isn't either.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 22, 2017)

8ball said:


> Might want to re-check that definition.


Why? Maybe if you try to formulate something we can communicate better.


----------



## snadge (Dec 22, 2017)

iona said:


> A tiny minority of vocal idiots from the more... out there... corners of the Internet really aren't representative of any kind of "trans community."
> 
> I'd never even heard/read the term "trucute" before reading your post, and I've only ever come across "truscum" in reddit posts asking what it means ("it's just nonsense, ignore it" is the usual answer). I just went and searched, out of interest, and searching "truscum" brings back 22 results in r/asktransgender, 9 in r/ftm and 0 in r/mtf



Try twitter, it is rife as fuck. Tumblr also, I just don't get how you are willing to brush this toxic behaviour under the carpet, maybe read FabricLiveBaby!  's post above to see how prevalent it actually is

It is also not a 





> A tiny minority of vocal idiots from the more... out there... corners of the Internet really aren't representative of any kind of "trans community.


 it's sadly far more invasive than just a few people.

I'm still stuck in the rabbit hole but there are groups of people also using discord etc to groom people to their cause, MtF non transitioning individuals call straight people eggs, ready to be hatched.

One question to finish this off, do you feel that Transgender status should be deserved after an internet decision or after surgery? I have already asked you this but I will ask again, do you believe that gender dysphoria should be present for access to drugs?


----------



## 8ball (Dec 23, 2017)

TruXta said:


> Why? Maybe if you try to formulate something we can communicate better.



The semantic range of "fetish" is beyond a mild kink - it ranges from a fairly intense interest to being unable to really sexually function without it being present, depending on the context and who you ask.

So it depends, I guess, on what you meant when you said "preference" (which can also vary by context), but  taking your post at face value to mean "something I like, if it happens to be coming my way", I'd personally say you weren't quite in the ballpark.


----------



## snadge (Dec 23, 2017)

8ball said:


> The semantic range of "fetish" is beyond a mild kink - it ranges from a fairly intense interest to being unable to really sexually function without it being present, depending on the context and who you ask.
> 
> So it depends, I guess, on what you meant when you said "preference" (which can also vary by context), but  taking your post at face value to mean "something I like, if it happens to be coming my way", I'd personally say you weren't quite in the ballpark.



TruXta is bang in the middle of the ballpark, semantics aside, (new descriptions of behaviour have been a mainstay of people that refuse to accept reality for centuries) fetish is used as a derogatory term for sexual actions that they find deviant, kink is used as an adjective to allow them to accept that sexual action as not too deviant, sexual preference, kink and fetish all mean the same fucking thing, just some people have a fucking problem realising it because they are prudes and need a description to allow them to put that preference in a position where other people that don't fucking care are pushed to think that it is somehow wrong.

Fucking Fnords in action.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 23, 2017)

Ooh, language-police self-awareness failure.


----------



## iona (Dec 23, 2017)

snadge said:


> Try twitter, it is rife as fuck. Tumblr also, I just don't get how you are willing to brush this toxic behaviour under the carpet, maybe read FabricLiveBaby!  's post above to see how prevalent it actually is
> 
> It is also not a  it's sadly far more invasive than just a few people.
> 
> ...



I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the first question, could you elaborate please? 

You haven't asked me the second question before (you did ask if I "believe in" dysphoria, which I answered), but I don't think it's possible to give a simple yes or no answer. There are varied opinions as to what actually constitutes gender dysphoria for a start - some people claim to _only_ experience gender euphoria and not dysphoria, for example, while others would describe GE as one manifestation of GD and therefore consider someone who experiences GE to be dysphoric.

The dsm lists the following criteria (see below), of which an adult or adolescent must experience at least two for at least six months - assuming I'm reading it correctly (and I'm not a professional or owt), someone with eg "a strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the other gender" and "a strong conviction that [they have] the typical feelings and reactions of the other gender" could technically be given a diagnosis of gender dysphoria without experiencing the strongly negative feelings towards their assigned gender or primary/secondary sex characteristics generally associated with the term "dysphoria."


Spoiler: DSM-V gender dysphoria criteria 




A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and primary and/or secondary sex characteristics
A strong desire to be rid of one’s primary and/or secondary sex characteristics
A strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the other gender
A strong desire to be of the other gender
A strong desire to be treated as the other gender
A strong conviction that one has the typical feelings and reactions of the other gender


----------



## snadge (Dec 23, 2017)

8ball said:


> Ooh, language-police self-awareness failure.




Lol, maybe but I realise that the descriptions will mean different things to different people because of fear.

Here is an awesome Tumblr rant on the Yaoi fandom from a gay boy (not, it's a fucking girl that identifies as a girl but she's so fucked up she thinks she can tell other fucked up girls that they are just pretending to be gay guys).


----------



## snadge (Dec 23, 2017)

iona said:


> A strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the other gender
> A strong desire to be of the other gender
> A strong desire to be treated as the other gender
> A strong conviction that one has the typical feelings and reactions of the other gender



Ok so we agree that a MtF keeping their dick is not Dysphoric.


----------



## iona (Dec 23, 2017)

snadge said:


> Ok so we agree that a MtF keeping their dick is not Dysphoric.



No, I don't think we do. Dx criteria isn't "at least two of the following for at least six months, oh and that must also specifically include genital dysphoria"

Also, dysphoria isn't the only factor that influences a trans person's decision to have/not have genital surgery.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 23, 2017)

8ball said:


> The semantic range of "fetish" is beyond a mild kink - it ranges from a fairly intense interest to being unable to really sexually function without it being present, depending on the context and who you ask.



I think this is what is meant by fetish also. Which is much the same as the definition andysays posted. I don't understand the desire to broaden it out of any particular meaning or to claim there is a moral dimension to what is a descriptive term.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 23, 2017)

Red Cat said:


> I think this is what is meant by fetish also. Which is much the same as the definition andysays posted. I don't understand the desire to broaden it out of any particular meaning or to claim there is a moral dimension to what is a descriptive term.


Not really the definition used in the study.  It counted a report of sexual arousal from wearing women's clothing at any stage in life as evidence of transvestite fetishism. 

You might want to set the bar higher but it didn't.  As for andysays' definition, it verges on ludicrous - if you're turned on by anything other than genitals? That's a crazy definition. Are you're going to redefine faces as genitals or is there such a thing as a face fetish?


----------



## TopCat (Dec 23, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Fuck right off with that. You're dictating to me. And don;t bring cross beef into it, either. I have as much right to make up deluded shit as the next person.


Fixed.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 23, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not really the definition used in the study.  It counted a report of sexual arousal from wearing women's clothing at any stage in life as evidence of transvestite fetishism.
> 
> You might want to set the bar higher but it didn't.  As for andysays' definition, it verges on ludicrous - if you're turned on by anything other than genitals? That's a crazy definition. Are you're going to redefine faces as genitals or is there such a thing as a face fetish?



I wasn't talking about the study.

It's not andysays personal definition. How do you define fetish then?


----------



## andysays (Dec 23, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not really the definition used in the study.  It counted a report of sexual arousal from wearing women's clothing at any stage in life as evidence of transvestite fetishism.
> 
> You might want to set the bar higher but it didn't.  As for andysays' definition, it verges on ludicrous - *if you're turned on by anything other than genitals?* That's a crazy definition. Are you're going to redefine faces as genitals or is there such a thing as a face fetish?



That's not "my" definition at all. 

The definition I quoted, which was the first one I found when googling but which also agrees with my understanding of the term, was as follows



> Sexual fetishism or erotic fetishism is *a sexual fixation* on a nonliving object or nongenital body part.



Do you, and the others reducing it to a mere preference, understand the diffence between a fixation and a preference?


----------



## TruXta (Dec 23, 2017)

andysays said:


> That's not "my" definition at all.
> 
> The definition I quoted, which was the first one I found when googling but which also agrees with my understanding of the term, was as follows
> 
> ...


A fixation is merely a strong and enduring preference. It's fucking obvious really.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 23, 2017)

My understanding is that a fetish is something, an object or body part, that is _required _in order to be aroused. It's not about liking something better.


----------



## bimble (Dec 23, 2017)

The very next sentence of that wikipedia entry that you quoted andysays goes on to say "A sexual fetish may be regarded as a non-pathological aid to sexual excitement, or as a mental disorder if it causes significant psychosocial distress for the person or has detrimental effects on important areas of their life."
I really don't think this is as simple as you seem to suggest nor do I see the point in trying to drive at a definition that says this here is a fetish and this here is just a kink / preference.
I think the definition of a _paraphilia_ is that the person cannot get aroused unless that thing / practice is present, which is not the same as 'fetish' and definitely not the thing that started this conversion (that study asking yes or no have you ever felt turned on by wearing feminine clothing).


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 23, 2017)

No one suggested it was simple, but that there is a definition which is quite narrow. A fetish is considered a paraphilia if it causes suffering to the person with the fetish or others, gets in the way of relationships in a way that causes distress.


----------



## bimble (Dec 23, 2017)

My understanding is different, and doesn't include dependance / compulsion. I don't want to 'overshare' but have been peripherally involved  on and off in a sort of self-named 'fetish scene' for a while (though less recently) and its definitely not always about 'I _need_ this'/ can't do sex without it.  Maybe you'd say these aren't real fetishists then but I just don't see what the point is of such strict definitions.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 23, 2017)

If we don't have definitions it's not possible to have a conversation.

Of course we can say that general use means the definition may have changed over time. Does a looser definition mean it loses its original meaning? Does it add to our understanding? Does it detract? All questions for a discussion I would've thought, especially on a thread that's all about boundaries, categories, how fixed are these, how flexible can a category be and still be a category etc.


----------



## bimble (Dec 23, 2017)

That's true Red Cat . It's good to check in with each other and see whether we understand more or less the same thing by the words we use. I guess with these categories (of what used to be called sexual deviance) things do change quite fast.


----------



## andysays (Dec 23, 2017)

bimble said:


> My understanding is different, and doesn't include dependance / compulsion. I don't want to 'overshare' but have been peripherally involved  on and off in a sort of self-named 'fetish scene' for a while (though less recently) and its definitely not always about 'I _need_ this'/ can't do sex without it.  Maybe you'd say these aren't real fetishists then but I just don't see what the point is of such strict definitions.



Your understanding and that of others may be different, but I notice than none of you have actually cited any evidence in support of your claims. Words do actually have generally agreed and, in some cases, strictly defined meanings and it's not really on for you to argue humpty-dumpty-like that *you* understand a word to mean something different and therefore it *does* mean something different

There's a funny and ironic parallel here between this and those who think they can change the centuries old meaning of the terms "man" and especially "woman" and demand that everyone must accept their new definition or be condemned as "transphobic".

Just as there is no necessary negative (moral or otherwise) judgement involved in declaring something a fetish as distinct from a preference, there is no necessary negative (moral or otherwise) judgement involved in not accepting someone's claim that because they feel like a woman, everyone must accept that they are a woman.

Neither imply, or even support, discriminating against those people in any way, and it's both dishonest and counter-productive to insist that they automatically do.

(this post is not aimed specifically at bimble, rather it's inspired by her last post which it's a response to)


----------



## bimble (Dec 23, 2017)

andysays said:


> Your understanding and that of others may be different, but I notice than none of you have actually cited any evidence in support of your claims.


What sort of evidence would you like? 
My evidence is me & people like me that i've known for years who would for sure say they have a fetish, but definitely wouldn't say they _need _that thing to be happening in order to have a sexual experience.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 23, 2017)

The 'evidence in support' of the claim is the methodology of the paper in question, which itself was adapted from Blanchard's Cross-Gender Fetishism Scale. And adapting that, the researchers landed upon this methodology (as previously partly quoted by bimble):



> Transvestic fetishism during a given stage of life was coded as 0 (no sexual arousal from any type of feminine dressing either in public or in private) or 1 (sexual arousal from one or more types of feminine dressing either in public or in private). Measurements of the patterns of transvestic fetishism across the life course were constructed from the life course specific assessments. Participants who reported that any of these four types of feminine dressing was “sexually arousing” in private or in public, during any stage of their life, were coded with lifetime transvestic fetishism (0=no; 1=yes). Additional dimensions of transvestic fetishism were coded by determining whether sexual arousal was associated with feminine dressing during particular phases of the life course. Following Moffitt (1993), life-course specified transvestic fetishism was assessed as lifecourse persistent (scored if transvestic fetishism was indicated during both adolescence and post-adolescence); adolescent limited (scored if transvestic fetishism was indicated during adolescence only); or adult onset (scored if transvestic fetishism was indicated after adolescence only).



It is very clear to me that what you would call 'preference', these authors call 'fetish'. I haven't checked the original Blanchard methodology, but they were purposely trying to follow it in order to test his claims, so unless they got this badly wrong, Blanchard was also using the term in this way. 

I agree that it's important to define terms in this kind of discussion. These authors did so.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 23, 2017)

We were talking more broadly as you know.


----------



## bimble (Dec 23, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It is very clear to me that what you would call 'preference', these authors call 'fetish'.


Exactly. Nothing more than ‘did it turn you on yes /no’ in their criterion.


----------



## andysays (Dec 23, 2017)

bimble said:


> What sort of evidence would you like?
> My evidence is me & people like me that i've known for years who would for sure say they have a fetish, but definitely wouldn't say they _need _that thing to be happening in order to have a sexual experience.



I'm going out now, but I will attempt to return to this later, with (hypothetical) examples


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 23, 2017)

bimble said:


> That's true Red Cat . It's good to check in with each other and see whether we understand more or less the same thing by the words we use. I guess with these categories (of what used to be called sexual deviance) things do change quite fast.



Who called this sexual deviance? Here again is this category with no reference to who's category it is.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 23, 2017)

Red Cat said:


> We were talking more broadly as you know.


This whole part of the discussion was kicked off by this paper's definition. The definition used in the opening posts by bimble and by me, including the one that andysays slagged off, followed this paper's broad definition because that is what we were discussing. I said as much pages ago.  

I happen to agree that the broad approach with a sliding scale is a more sensible description of something as nuanced and complex as sexual arousal than a massively narrow definition in which the absence of the fetish object must prevent climax. But either way, it's really important to get a handle on what Blanchard et al mean by the term and how they classify fetish in their scale because otherwise you're not going to understand their work.


----------



## bimble (Dec 23, 2017)

Here's a sciencey-looking study that found over 62% of random german men told the researchers they had 'paraphilic' arousal patterns, with only 1.7% saying this had caused them some distress. What this proves I have no idea really, but their conclusion was that the best thing in future would be to concentrate only on people who reported that their sexual interests caused them or other people distress. How Unusual are the Contents of Paraphilias? Paraphilia‐Associated Sexual Arousal Patterns in a Community‐Based Sample of Men


----------



## campanula (Dec 23, 2017)

Jesus fucking wept!

My teenage 'awakening' - a mishmash of 'The Sensual Woman by 'J', various skinhead novels and a lurid Aleister Crowley paperback (which imprinted 'The Great Whore of babylon' on my teenage psyche), looking up 'intercourse, coition' and such in the dictionary and the obligatory 'Nervous' and 'Spin the Bottle' games in empty garages.

My 6 year old granddaughter refused to wear her Puffa coat because it 'made her look fat' - felt profoundly depressed and alarmed at the world she will have to negotiate her way around.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 23, 2017)

snadge said:


> What the fuck does 'credible' mean, have you ever looked at these sites I have mentioned to actually disprove what I am saying, do you want peer reviewed articles as evidence maybe?



No, just a link to a trans organisation, or trans-activist demanding that lesbians sleep with transwomen and claiming if they don't it makes them transphobic, or an example of this actually happening in the real world.  I know tumblr can be grim, I know there are nasty exploitative people out there, some of them trans, I know there have been trans criminals.

But specifically I'd like to see an example of this alleged demand, that lesbians accept transwomen with penises as sexual partners or they are transphobic, made in some kind of reasonable or credible way.  Because probably half a dozen times on this thread people have claimed this is what transpeople are demanding - that this is part of political 'tran ideology'.  So i'd like to see someone demanding it.  Because I don't think it's true beyond a few random kids that are no more representative of transgender people or trans-activism than Isis are representative of Islam, people who bomb abortion clinic are representative of Christians or Jeffrey Dahmer was representative of gay men.


----------



## bimble (Dec 23, 2017)

smokedout said:


> But specifically I'd like to see an example of this alleged demand, that lesbians accept transwomen with penises as sexual partners or they are transphobic, made in some kind of reasonable or credible way.


This seems to meet your criteria? Its logical after all, the argument that, otherwise, people are being reduced to their genitals not their identities. 
The Cotton Ceiling Is Real and It’s Time for All Queer and Trans People to Fight Back
or
The Struggle To Find Trans Love In San Francisco


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 23, 2017)

bimble said:


> This seems to meet your criteria? Its logical after all, the argument that, otherwise, people are being reduced to their genitals not their identities.
> The Cotton Ceiling Is Real and It’s Time for All Queer and Trans People to Fight Back
> or
> The Struggle To Find Trans Love In San Francisco



Yes. And links similar to these were posted previously on this thread, as smokedout has been reminded of.


----------



## andysays (Dec 23, 2017)

bimble said:


> What sort of evidence would you like?
> My evidence is me & people like me that i've known for years who would for sure say they have a fetish, but definitely wouldn't say they _need _that thing to be happening in order to have a sexual experience.



Actually, I'm not going to provide examples ATM, this post simply suggests to me that you and your friends are unaware of the real meaning of the word fetish, or perhaps are using it in this incorrect way because it makes you feel in some way transgressive or edgy.

If it's simply something you enjoy rather than something you have an actual fixation on, then (unless you can provide some kind of even vaguely authoritative definition of fetish which supports you and your friends' usage) then it isn't a fetish.


----------



## bimble (Dec 23, 2017)

That’s fine andysays , just means that you also disagree with the definition that started this whole diversion, as used by those ‘diagnosing’ autogynephilia as a fetish.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 23, 2017)

I find the focus on genitalia weird tbh. The wikipedia definition of fetish quoted, which I think is ludicrous, attempts to pathologise sexual arousal caused by everything other than the genitals! I find that quite mad in a society where our genitals are almost never on display, and we tend to be turned on by pretty much anything but most of the time. There are few things less sexy than a nudist colony.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 23, 2017)

bimble said:


> This seems to meet your criteria? Its logical after all, the argument that, otherwise, people are being reduced to their genitals not their identities.
> The Cotton Ceiling Is Real and It’s Time for All Queer and Trans People to Fight Back
> or
> The Struggle To Find Trans Love In San Francisco



Well the first wasn't written by someone trans, the second fair enough although the argument is somewhat more nuanced than usually presented and is talking specifically about queer rather than traditionally lesbian spaces.

So we've got one blogpost and a few tweets/tumblr posts.  MadeInBedlam I couldn't find the links without scrolling through the thread.

How many million transwomen are being smeared on the basis of what is clearly a fringe viewpoint even within queer communities?


----------



## bimble (Dec 23, 2017)

smokedout Do you agree that its logical though, what they're saying? However well or badly its expressed, the idea is that: If you agree that trans women are women then surely it follows that it is transphobic to rule them out - as a group - as sexual partners saying you only like biological women?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 23, 2017)

It strikes me that this is another example by the way of how transwomen are effectively censored by the relentless attempts to smear them as sexually  predatory men.  Just as they can't discuss sex or sexuality without their entire identity being reduced to a sexual fetish they can't discuss the difficulties they face finding partners, and wondering whether transphobia has a role in that.	That is not the same as demanding people sleep with them or insisting they are transphobes, it's a perfectly normal thing for lonely and marginalised people to talk about.  Disabled people for example, have had this kind of discussion quite openly in radical circles for a long time - but no-one ever accuses them of being part of rape culture if they suggest societal prejudice or unease with disabled people's bodies may be one reason they find it difficult to find sexual partners.


----------



## andysays (Dec 23, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I find the focus on genitalia weird tbh. *The wikipedia definition of fetish quoted, which I think is ludicrous, attempts to pathologise sexual arousal caused by everything other than the genitals!* I find that quite mad in a society where our genitals are almost never on display, and we tend to be turned on by pretty much anything but most of the time. There are few things less sexy than a nudist colony.



Are you really this obtuse and unable to understand simply language, or are you deliberately misrepresenting the quote I posted, which (unless you'd like to actually demonstrate otherwise) provides, with citations, the actual meaning of the term rather than the various nonsenses paraded here by you and others?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 23, 2017)

andysays said:


> Are you really this obtuse and unable to understand simply language, or are you deliberately misrepresenting the quote I posted, which (unless you'd like to actually demonstrate otherwise) provides, with citations, the actual meaning of the term rather than the various nonsenses paraded here by you and others?





> Sexual fetishism or erotic fetishism is a sexual fixation on a nonliving object or nongenital body part.



Your definition, provided by you. Now we can debate the word 'fixation' - I see a sliding scale here, as do others; you clearly see something different.

I'd go further and question why a genital body part causing arousal ought to be particularly privileged in this way. I don't think we develop our sexual desire in that way, that there is some kind of default 'natural' setting that gets us excited specifically by genitalia, with all other erotic stimuli somehow part of a separate system. In other words, someone who is 'fixated' on penises or vaginas is not displaying any essentially different kind of behaviour from someone who is fixated on other things.

Do you acknowledge that you were mistaken earlier and didn't realise that we were following the definition given by the paper under discussion at the time?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 23, 2017)

bimble said:


> smokedout Do you agree that its logical though, what they're saying? However well or badly its expressed, the idea is that: If you agree that trans women are women then surely it follows that it is transphobic to rule them out - as a group - as sexual partners saying you only like biological women?



I don't think it is transphobia as such on an individual basis, it is about preferences, revulsions and all the other complex and personal things that make up our sexual desires.  I don't think anyone on an individual basis should ever be attacked for that, and I haven't seen that happening.  But I don't really think it's entirely an unfair thing to question whether transphobia has played a role in forming our sexual selves, just as misogyny and homophobia may have also played a role.  I don't think someone who discusses that should immediately be shut down and accused of rape culture.  It's only because of the presumption of transwomen as sexually predatory men that this happens to transpeople and not other marginalised groups discussing similiar things in my opinion.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 23, 2017)

There's a tone to this debate that reminds me of the kind of (old-school?) homophobia that thinks_ I don't like gays, they all want to molest me!_


----------



## co-op (Dec 23, 2017)

smokedout said:


> It strikes me that this is another example by the way of how transwomen are effectively censored by the relentless attempts to smear them as sexually  predatory men.



There are feminists who try to do this (none on this thread I think) but it's also possible to think that the demand that "transwomen are women" without any qualification or discussion of what that means is not transphobic, and not because you believe that transwomen (all/many) are predatory men in drag. The 'lesbians who don't want to have sex with a transwoman with a penis are transphobic' line is obviously daft to any sensible person but it kind of follows logically from the idea that you cannot question the "no, ifs, no buts, transwomen are women" line. If the latter is true then why is the former false? You seem to me to be dealing with that by retreating into individualism - 'individual lesbians just aren't into penises and that's cool'.

The mantra 'transwomen are women' does make banning the Vagina Monologues as transphobic logical, it also means women objecting to shared showers at an all-women camp in the US that can be used by transwomen with penises who are sharing with teenagers are transphobic (a real incident). Maybe that's right but I think women without penises are entitled to discuss it and reach a conclusion for themselves without being told to shut the fuck up for transphobia.

You've said on this thread that the 'woman born in a man's body' line is not important or only really held by a minority of transpeople or something similar. In itself this is a highly contentious claim and believe me you will be shot at very hard indeed for stating it in public; many people have it as act of faith that not accepting it is evidence that you are profoundly transphobic. To me this is real revolution eating itself stuff. Why can't transpeople argue for their rights as transpeople? Surely all sexual liberals/radicals/ whatever would support that?


----------



## spanglechick (Dec 23, 2017)

I think the phenomenon identified in those articles must be pretty heartbreaking for trans women.  Not much was said about trans men looking for men to date, and I'd imagine there's rejection of trans men by gay men too.  

It's telling how well-accepted trans men are into lesbian communities in many cases, and perhaps points to what we were saying about why trans men have historically felt less need to officially transition, because of the acceptance of 'masculine' behaviours in non trans women.  But it points to a general feeling that genitalia maketh the man, or woman, when it comes to sexuality.   And I'm surprised by that.  

I noodled earlier from my position of cishet privilege, about whether I'd want a lover who turned out not to have a penis.  For that, the jury is still out.  But as a straight woman I can see myself overwhelmingly more likely to have a sexual relationship with a trans man than with any kind of woman.  While I have experimented, I am ultimately straight, and would find a trans woman undesirable for the same reasons as a cis woman.  

But it seems like lots of other people feel the opposite.  And that must be utterly heartbreaking for those transpeople who are also lesbian or gay. 

I wouldn't say that makes cis lesbians transphobic, but I can understand the despair that drives people to hyperbole.  That said, rape threats? Fuck that.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 23, 2017)

co-op said:


> Surely all sexual liberals/radicals/ whatever would support that?



Almost all socialist, feminist and other radicals already support trans rights. The only conflict within the left on trans rights is between a transphobic faction of the radfem minority of the feminist movement and everybody else. It’s because these issues are largely settled on the left - at least to the degree that everybody agrees that going out of your way to shit on a deeply oppressed minority is unacceptable - that the TERFs have ended up seeking out alliances with social conservatives, from David Davis to the Murdoch press.

There is no significant battle within the left, no “revolution eating itself”. The TERFs are not a significant social force and hold no sway on the wider left. The significant battle is between supporters of trans rights and social conservatives. That some TERFs find these alignments uncomfortable isn’t particularly significant and isn’t something the wider left has any reason to concern itself with.


----------



## bimble (Dec 23, 2017)

co-op said:


> Why can't transpeople argue for their rights *as transpeople*? Surely all sexual liberals/radicals/ whatever would support that?


What do you think that would look like ?(genuine question).


----------



## co-op (Dec 23, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Almost all socialist, feminist and other radicals already support trans rights. The only conflict within the left on trans rights is between a transphobic faction of the radfem minority of the feminist movement and everybody else. It’s because these issues are largely settled on the left - at least to the degree that everybody agrees that going out of your way to shit on a deeply oppressed minority is unacceptable - that the TERFs have ended up seeking out alliances with social conservatives, from David Davis to the Murdoch press.
> 
> There is no significant battle within the left, no “revolution eating itself”. The TERFs are not a significant social force and hold no sway on the wider left. The significant battle is between supporters of trans rights and social conservatives. That some TERFs find these alignments uncomfortable isn’t particularly significant and isn’t something the wider left has any reason to concern itself with.



And "supporting trans rights" means accepting without qualification that 'transwomen are women' regardless of biology, regardless of socialisation? Just in some mysterious essence of womanhood that they have always been part of (or has always been part of them) that cannot be defined and is beyond debate. 

And women born as women have no right to question this or any of the logical consequences - eg that lesbians who don't want sex with a transwomen with a penis are transphobic?

And anyone who does so is a (disregardable) terf? In your terms on this thread, middle-aged, fearful and timorous. Silly old women.


----------



## co-op (Dec 23, 2017)

bimble said:


> What do you think that would look like ?(genuine question).



That's for transpeople to decide and would almost certainly involve more than one position I'd guess.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 23, 2017)

co-op said:


> And "supporting trans rights" means accepting without qualification that 'transwomen are women' regardless of biology, regardless of socialisation? Just in some mysterious essence of womanhood that they have always been part of (or has always been part of them) that cannot be defined and is beyond debate.
> 
> And women born as women have no right to question this or any of the logical consequences - eg that lesbians who don't want sex with a transwomen with a penis are transphobic?
> 
> And anyone who does so is a (disregardable) terf? In your terms on this thread, middle-aged, fearful and timorous. Silly old women.



What a bizarre series of questions. 

Yes, as you know, arguing that trans people should not be able to live their lives as people of the gender of their choice, both legally and socially, is transphobic. And it remains transphobic even when people who strongly hold anti-trans views mischievously and dishonestly present their strongly held views as “just asking questions”.

As you also know, nobody is suggesting that anyone has to have sex with anyone they don’t want to have sex with. Sex with a transwoman is no more mandatory for lesbians than it is for straight men. Treating transwomen as women does not mean that you have to desire sex with them any more than treating any other woman as a woman means that you are obliged to have sex with her. The TERF fixation on this issue, and in particular their fixation on the idea that lesbians, rather than straight women, straight men or gay men, will somehow be obliged to have sex that they don’t want with trans people, reveals more about the paranoia and irrationalism of the TERF milieu than it does about trans people. Trans people are not a gigantic male conspiracy against lesbianism and those who believe otherwise are cranks.

And again as you know, women in every survey and study in both the US and the UK are much more accepting of trans rights than men are. I realize that TERFs at some level believe that their bizarre political fringe movement reflects the true interests of women as a whole, but women as a whole have never signed up for that. If we were really going to do something as stupid as assigning adjectives like “silly”, “fearful” or “timorous” to whole genders on the basis of their transphobia, it would have to be to men, who are after all more likely to have an objection to sharing toilet facilities with trans people. The TERF view ultimately implies that men are on average  currently closer to a correct understanding of trans issues than women are and that social conservatives are better on the subject than most people on the left.


----------



## co-op (Dec 23, 2017)

I don't think you've bothered read a thing on this thread, you just turn up, make your Great Announcement featuring all the straw men you wish someone had said and then depart for a few pages, and then come back and do it all again. 

You haven't taken up a single question and tried to answer it, I think you're the complete political hack. At least smokedout and others have tried grappling with the difficulties of the subject.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 23, 2017)

co-op said:


> I don't think you've bothered read a thing on this thread, you just turn up, make your Great Announcement featuring all the straw men you wish someone had said and then depart for a few pages, and then come back and do it all again.
> 
> You haven't taken up a single question and tried to answer it, I think you're the complete political hack. At least smokedout and others have tried grappling with the difficulties of the subject.



I did engage with and answer your questions. You just don't like the answers because they don't cede any ground to your anti-trans assumptions.

You should get used to not liking other people's responses to your arguments thinly disguised as questions. The usual left wing responses to TERFery tend these days to be a great deal less polite than I've been on this thread. Most younger leftists think it's entirely obvious that TERFs are no better than racists.


----------



## andysays (Dec 23, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Your definition, provided by you. Now we can debate the word 'fixation' - I see a sliding scale here, as do others; you clearly see something different.
> 
> I'd go further and question why a genital body part causing arousal ought to be particularly privileged in this way. I don't think we develop our sexual desire in that way, that there is some kind of default 'natural' setting that gets us excited specifically by genitalia, with all other erotic stimuli somehow part of a separate system. In other words, someone who is 'fixated' on penises or vaginas is not displaying any essentially different kind of behaviour from someone who is fixated on other things.
> 
> Do you acknowledge that you were mistaken earlier and didn't realise that we were following the definition given by the paper under discussion at the time?



Dishonest subjective Humpty Dumpty bullshit from start to finish from you, as so often.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 23, 2017)

andysays said:


> Dishonest subjective Humpty Dumpty bullshit from start to finish from you, as so often.


No Wikipedia definitions handy then?


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 23, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This whole part of the discussion was kicked off by this paper's definition. The definition used in the opening posts by bimble and by me, including the one that andysays slagged off, followed this paper's broad definition because that is what we were discussing. I said as much pages ago.
> 
> I happen to agree that the broad approach with a sliding scale is a more sensible description of something as nuanced and complex as sexual arousal than a massively narrow definition in which the absence of the fetish object must prevent climax. But either way, it's really important to get a handle on what Blanchard et al mean by the term and how they classify fetish in their scale because otherwise you're not going to understand their work.



So are you arguing that despite his use of medical psychiatric terminology such as transvestic fetishism, Blanchard actually meant by fetishism something broader and more colloquial?


----------



## andysays (Dec 23, 2017)

TruXta said:


> No Wikipedia definitions handy then?


Do you actually have either an alternate definition to suggest, or a coherent non-subjective argument to make about what's incorrect about that definition? 

If not, I'm not really interested in wasting my time on you.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 23, 2017)

andysays said:


> Do you actually have either an alternate definition to suggest, or a coherent non-subjective argument to make about what's incorrect about that definition?
> 
> If not, I'm not really interested in wasting my time on you.


Non subjective? Are you kidding me? As if the one you gave isn't subjective. Incredible.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 23, 2017)

co-op said:


> There are feminists who try to do this (none on this thread I think) but it's also possible to think that the demand that "transwomen are women" without any qualification or discussion of what that means is not transphobic, and not because you believe that transwomen (all/many) are predatory men in drag. The 'lesbians who don't want to have sex with a transwoman with a penis are transphobic' line is obviously daft to any sensible person but it kind of follows logically from the idea that you cannot question the "no, ifs, no buts, transwomen are women" line. If the latter is true then why is the former false? You seem to me to be dealing with that by retreating into individualism - 'individual lesbians just aren't into penises and that's cool'.



I'm not sure that's a retreat as such, more that on an individual basis it is impossible to tell whether a preference is purely authentic or motivated by conscious or unconscious transphobia.  The individual themselves might not even know.  It also strikes me as unnecessarily provocative.  But on a societal basis then I think it can more easily be examined.  As an example, if someone claims to be repulsed by the thought of gay or lesbian sex then that's up to them and the reasons why are their's to know.  But we might question why so many people claim to be repulsed by the thought of lesbian or gay sex, and whether societal homophobia is a factor in this.


> The mantra 'transwomen are women' does make banning the Vagina Monologues as transphobic logical, it also means women objecting to shared showers at an all-women camp in the US that can be used by transwomen with penises who are sharing with teenagers are transphobic (a real incident). Maybe that's right but I think women without penises are entitled to discuss it and reach a conclusion for themselves without being told to shut the fuck up for transphobia.



As far as I can tell the only place to have banned the Vagina Monologues is Uganda for promoting lesbianism.  An all women's theatre group in the states decided to cancel a production of it because the women involved felt it wasn't inclusive enough, because it didn't include transwomen but also because they felt there were problems with race, class and other identities.  Lots of transwomen have been involved with the Vagina Monologues however.

I'm not trying to nitpick by the way, but don't you see how this stuff is just relentless.  The slightest thing transpeople do, or is done on their behalf - a few stupid tweets, a campus theatre groups decision - is immediately turned into overblown hyperbole and used to attack all transpeople.  And these myths and assumptions do not come from nowhere, there are political factions, both within radical feminism and the conservative right who are deliberately pursuing this strategy.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 23, 2017)

Red Cat said:


> So are you arguing that despite his use of medical psychiatric terminology such as transvestic fetishism, Blanchard actually meant by fetishism something broader and more colloquial?


Have you read the methodology quoted? The answer is in there.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 23, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Have you read the methodology quoted? The answer is in there.



It wasn't clear to me actually, hence why I'm asking you.

eta

Actually, don't bother. I'm not that interested in the specifics of Blanchard. But I am interested in definitions, categories, their history, who created them, how they're used, and I think those broader issues could help unstick some aspects of this debate generally. So I have no interest in being brought back on task as you see it.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 23, 2017)

co-op said:


> You've said on this thread that the 'woman born in a man's body' line is not important or only really held by a minority of transpeople or something similar. In itself this is a highly contentious claim and believe me you will be shot at very hard indeed for stating it in public; many people have it as act of faith that not accepting it is evidence that you are profoundly transphobic. To me this is real revolution eating itself stuff.



Lots of transpeople haave criticised the born in the wrong body narrative without being shot down in flames as transphobic, I would imagine it depends on the context and manner in which it is done.



> Why can't transpeople argue for their rights as transpeople? Surely all sexual liberals/radicals/ whatever would support that?



I wouldn't be so sure, trans critical feminists are currently trying to spike proposed laws that might create a gender neutral category and would provide legal protection to non-binary people.  And non-binary people are fighting for that.

But I'd suggest the main reason is that we live in a highly gendered society, and that many people do not question that and many support it.  The idea of men's brains and women's brains is very widely held.  And it seems easier for people within that binary to accept people transcending it, because they have a brain, or even spirit of the opposite gender to the one they were assigned then it is for people to conceptualise a new gender formation.  I don't agree with that, but it's the political reality trans people are stuck with.  And that some transpeople support, possibly because they feel it adequately describes their experiences, or possibly because they feel that's all that's on the table. 

The whole terfs vs all transpeople is not a fair fight.  I might be reaching with this analogy, but if Germaine Greer said something as spiteful about women who wear lipstick on national television as she has said about transwomen she would immediately be plunged into a battle not just within radical feminism, but also with the far larger part of society that has conservative views on the gender binary.  But they would be very different fights with very different underlying political principles.  Transgenderism is not a political position, so it is unfair to assume a more radical criticism of gender from trans people then in society at large, although I would guess that on the whole transpeople probably have more radical views on gender than the general population, but that's just a hunch.

And I know you concede this.  But I'd suggest it describes the main reason why many trans people are not fighting for a third gender or the end of gender, and it's the same reason hardly anyone else is.  And people want to live comfortably and at ease in the here and now, not fight for some unpopular and abstract notion of a third gender in the distant future.  Even radicals are probably not that enticed by becoming a seperate distinct group that makes up less than one percent of the population, because it often doesn't end well for such groups.  The pragmatic thing (and what's working) is to fight for their rights to be legally recognised, and as far as possible socially accepted, in their aquired gender now.

Obviously from a radical perspective this is all horribly reformist, but isn't that the nature of all liberationist struggles like this.  The right to be able to go to the toilet safely and walk down the street without getting beaten up trumps any distant radical goals.


----------



## The Flying Pig (Dec 23, 2017)

*Corporate Shortlisted LB women*

*Inspirational Leaders | *See the full inspirational leaders shortlist






*PIPS BUNCE | Director at Credit Suisse*
Pips is a Director and Head of Global Markets Technology Core Engineering Integration Components at Credit Suisse, and also co-lead of their LGBT and Ally network. Credit Suisse’s LGBT and Ally network fosters a workplace environment that is open and inclusive for all regardless of their gender identity, gender expression or sexuality. Pips identifies as gender fluid spending half her time as Phil and the other half as Pippa both at work and at home with her wife and children. She works closely with other firms educating around Trans* and non-binary identities and has produced articles and documentaries on the subject with organisations including the Financial Times and the BBC. Pips is highly active in working to eradicate marginalisation and promote the importance of authenticity.

 Pips/Paul wakes up in the morning and then decides (I don't know how) whether he is Pips or Paul for his working day at Credit Suisse Bank in London. He was in the top 30 business women in the Financial times but cannot see him in the top 30 for men. When the banking and financial world is promoting and heralding this it makes me wonder why?  Can anyone shed some light on my confusion here.


----------



## The Flying Pig (Dec 23, 2017)

The Flying Pig said:


> *Corporate Shortlisted LB women*
> 
> *Inspirational Leaders | *See the full inspirational leaders shortlist
> 
> ...


Where i have put he I could have put she or done half and half but maybe I just find it all a bit too confusing.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 23, 2017)

Red Cat said:


> It wasn't clear to me actually, hence why I'm asking you.





> sexual arousal from one or more types of feminine dressing either in public or in private



... at any time in a person's life

... is enough to get them a place on the Scale of Transvestic Fetishism

Hence both bimble and I talking about this fetishism and fetishism in general following this broad definition.

I've not been able to find anything meaningful by Blanchard on this particular topic that isn't behind a paywall. So I have to take these researchers on their word that this is following Blanchard's methodology. Maybe you'll have better success if you have a look and can report back.


----------



## co-op (Dec 24, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Lots of transpeople haave criticised the born in the wrong body narrative without being shot down in flames as transphobic, I would imagine it depends on the context and manner in which it is done.



I know these voices exist but they are far less common than you say and seriously you will get shot down in flames as transphobic for saying it. Try getting Nigel Irritable  to say it; he's obviously a publicly political person and his identity is known - there's no way he's ever going to challenge a claim like the 'wrong body' narrative in public even if he was smart or imaginative enough to see how reactionary it is. The risk of his being chucked out of the cool kids club that he thinks he's now in is just way too big. Someone would denounce him and that would be it; he's a transphobe. It's literally never going to happen.




smokedout said:


> But I'd suggest the main reason is that we live in a highly gendered society, and that many people do not question that and many support it.  The idea of men's brains and women's brains is very widely held.  And it seems easier for people within that binary to accept people transcending it, because they have a brain, or even spirit of the opposite gender to the one they were assigned then it is for people to conceptualise a new gender formation.  I don't agree with that, but it's the political reality trans people are stuck with.  And that some transpeople support, possibly because they feel it adequately describes their experiences, or possibly because they feel that's all that's on the table.



I've repeatedly said that it's obviously understandable why most trans people do not necessarily want to be the storm troops for non-binary sexual radicalism, as you say they have enough practical problems to deal with. And you're right of course that claiming your existence via demonstrating that you comply fully with currently powerful ideology like the patriarchal gender binary is a highly practical step - so long as the only thing you care about is a variant of transrights. 

But it doesn't for one minute change the fact that it's a highly reactionary strategy if you believe (as I do) that the gender binary is reproduced via incessant coercion in contemporary society (meaning for example that the word 'cis' is almost certainly bullshit) and is deeply toxic for most individuals who experience chronic identity anxiety as a result with all the political consequences that follow.

If you really don't agree with the whole 'spirit of a woman' thing then we may not disagree about that much, welcome to transphobia.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 24, 2017)

TopCat said:


> Fixed.



Excuse me, what are you accusing me of making up on this thread? I've given my opinion on how each person has different experiences. Is this not the case now? How is that deluded shit, exactly?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 24, 2017)

co-op said:


> I know these voices exist but they are far less common than you say and seriously you will get shot down in flames as transphobic for saying it. Try getting Nigel Irritable  to say it; he's obviously a publicly political person and his identity is known - there's no way he's ever going to challenge a claim like the 'wrong body' narrative in public even if he was smart or imaginative enough to see how reactionary it is. The risk of his being chucked out of the cool kids club that he thinks he's now in is just way too big. Someone would denounce him and that would be it; he's a transphobe. It's literally never going to happen.



From Janet Mock



From Julie Serano



> There is perhaps no better way to begin a discussion about being a trans woman with the quote that has become practically synonymous with that experience in the public's mind: that we feel like 'women trapped in men's bodies'.  This saying has become so popular and widespread that it's safe to say these days that's it's far more often parodied by cissexuals than used by transsesuals to describe thir own experiences.



To my knowledge neither of them were accused of transphobia for saying this.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 24, 2017)

Perhaps if people listened to what trans people say, rather than what trans exclusionary feminists tell people trans people say, this discussion would be less fractious.


----------



## co-op (Dec 24, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Perhaps if people listened to what trans people say, rather than what trans exclusionary feminists tell people trans people say, this discussion would be less fractious.



I'm going on what people say when I say it. Including on this thread within the last couple of pages.


----------



## LDC (Dec 24, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Perhaps if people listened to what trans people say...



Which trans people exactly? Just the ones that agree with you, or just any trans people? I listen to plenty of trans people, but they tend to be the communist/anarchist ones that are just as critical of some of trans activism and identity politics as some on here are.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 24, 2017)

co-op said:


> I'm going on what people say when I say it. Including on this thread within the last couple of pages.



Perhaps tone and content is a factor?  Or perhaps people would prefer to hear from trans people describing how it feels to be trans rather than from non trans people telling trans people how they should feel about being trans?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 24, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Which trans people exactly? Just the ones that agree with you, or just any trans people? I listen to plenty of trans people, but they tend to be the communist/anarchist ones that are just as critical of some of trans activism and identity politics as some on here are.



Just like it's possible to be an anti-racist but reject identity politics it is possible to support trans-inclusion and reject identity politics.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 24, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> If we were really going to do something as stupid as assigning adjectives like “silly”, “fearful” or “timorous” to whole genders on the basis of their transphobia, it would have to be to men, who are after all more likely to have an objection to sharing toilet facilities with trans people.


Why do you assert men are more likely to object to sharing toilets with trans people? 
Any evidence to back this up?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 24, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Most younger leftists think it's entirely obvious that TERFs are no better than racists.



Many call them fascists. Which just exposes their political cluelessness.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 24, 2017)

.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 24, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Perhaps if people listened to what trans people say, rather than what trans exclusionary feminists tell people trans people say, this discussion would be less fractious.


But don't listen to Miranda Yardley as she is the wrong type of trans woman. In fact better to listen to trans theorists such as yourself?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 24, 2017)

TopCat said:


> But don't listen to Miranda Yardley as she is the wrong type of trans woman. In fact better to listen to trans theorists such as yourself?



I did listen to what Miranda Yardley said.  I'm still waiting for her to explain the how she squares the gender essentialism which is central to the autogynpehilia theory with her own rejection of essentialism.


----------



## co-op (Dec 24, 2017)

TopCat said:


> But don't listen to Miranda Yardley as she is the wrong type of trans woman. In fact better to listen to trans theorists such as yourself?



FWIW if I've understood her right I don't agree with her but I think she is sure entitled to her point of view.


----------



## Athos (Dec 24, 2017)

TopCat said:


> Why do you assert men are more likely to object to sharing toilets with trans people?
> Any evidence to back this up?


Even if it's true, what does it tell us beyond the fact that women are socialised to accommodate other wishes?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 24, 2017)

co-op said:


> FWIW if I've understood her right I don't agree with her but I think she is sure entitled to her point of view.



I think you missed the point that it was in response to smokedout suggesting ‘you should perhaps listen to trans women’ whilst meaning the ones he agrees with.


----------



## co-op (Dec 24, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Perhaps tone and content is a factor?  Or perhaps people would prefer to hear from trans people describing how it feels to be trans rather than from non trans people telling trans people how they should feel about being trans?



No I'm talking about reflexive pile-ons based on an assumption that this is a nice 'n' simple bigotry vs anti-bigotry argument. It's pretty much what happened a couple of years back on these boards. 

It was just before the Rachel Dolziel story broke and it was some consolation watching the same un-thought-out liberals turning themselves inside out trying to reconcile their transgender 'defence' with their transracial righteous fury. (and just in case anyone is desperate to misinterpret, no I don't think the two are meaningfully analogous, it's just _liberals _really struggle to make the difference).


----------



## co-op (Dec 24, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Or perhaps people would prefer to hear from trans people describing how it feels to be trans rather than from non trans people telling trans people how they should feel about being trans?



Maybe they would prefer this; but when (as happened before) a transwoman turns up and starts laying down what appropriate female gender behaviour is and how this is innate then anyone with any grip of the topic is bound to challenge it, right? Instead there was just unctuous creeping. The only people who criticised her views were those who had already all been denounced as bigots.


----------



## Athos (Dec 24, 2017)

smokedout said:


> I did listen to what Miranda Yardley said.  I'm still waiting for her to explain the how she squares the gender essentialism which is central to the autogynpehilia theory with her own rejection of essentialism.



Isn't your own position 'gender essentialism'? The idea that woman-ness exists innately and independently of biology or socialisation is literally to say there's an essence of womanhood.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 24, 2017)

TopCat said:


> Why do you assert men are more likely to object to sharing toilets with trans people?
> Any evidence to back this up?



Results of the latest British social attitudes survey. Results of every recent study carried out in the US. All online and just a search away. Men are more likely to be transphobic than women and are more likely to hold transphobic attitudes on every related issue, from whether they believe legal discrimination is justified to whether they feel comfortable sharing toilets with trans people. In Britain at the moment only 13% of women describe themselves as very or moderately uncomfortable sharing toilet facilities (just 4% “very uncomfortable”).

This really shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone who hasn’t been paying disproportionate attention to the views of a transphobic faction of radfems and their attempts to present their fringe ideology as the view of “women”. Women in Western anglophone countries are currently on average more progressive on every social issue and more generally left wing than men. Those women who are transphobic, like men who are transphobic, are much more likely to be social conservatives than TERFs.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 24, 2017)

Athos said:


> Even if it's true, what does it tell us beyond the fact that women are socialised to accommodate other wishes?



For a man who is ostentatiously concerned about the right of a tiny group of TERFs be listened to respectfully, you seem remarkably dismissive of the views of much larger numbers of women.


----------



## co-op (Dec 24, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> This really shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone who hasn’t been paying disproportionate attention to the views of a transphobic faction of radfems and their attempts to present their fringe ideology as the view of “women”.



No you're arse over tit here. It wouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who has been paying attention to radical feminists and their analysis of toxic masculinity. It wouldn't be any surprise at all to them that men performing masculinity hate transwomen.


----------



## Athos (Dec 24, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> For a man who is ostentatiously concerned about the right of a tiny group of TERFs be listened to respectfully, you seem remarkably dismissive of the views of much larger numbers of women.



I don't accept your premise, that's its only TERFs who have concerns.


----------



## bimble (Dec 24, 2017)

Nigel Irritable I'd quite like to know how you define TERF, as you use the term in every one of your posts here.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 24, 2017)

Athos said:


> I don't accept your premise, that's its only TERFs who have concerns.



That’s not my premise at all. TERFs are a tiny and unrepresentative group even among the minority of women who hold transphobic views. The bulk of that minority are social conservatives (ie they overlap heavily with the minority of women who hold for example homophobic views or who hold that sex outside of marriage is wrong).

Being a tiny and unrepresentative group doesn’t in itself mean that they are wrong, of course. But it does make their frequent attempts to naturalise the views of their tiny highly ideological fringe movement as the expression of “women’s concerns” or as “women asking questions” entirely mischievous. So called “gender critical feminists” are about as representative of women as the Nation of Islam is of black people or the Alliance for Workers Liberty is of the working class.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 24, 2017)

co-op said:


> No you're arse over tit here. It wouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who has been paying attention to radical feminists and their analysis of toxic masculinity. It wouldn't be any surprise at all to them that men performing masculinity hate transwomen.



And yet in one of the ironies inherent to TERF politics it turns out that they prefer the political conclusions that men “performing masculinity” reach when it comes to trans rights to the views of the bulk of women.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 24, 2017)

Athos said:


> Even if it's true, what does it tell us beyond the fact that women are socialised to accommodate other wishes?



Good job there's rational men like you around to set them straight then.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 24, 2017)

bimble said:


> Nigel Irritable I'd quite like to know how you define TERF, as you use the term in every one of your posts here.



Somebody who opposes the right of trans people to both legally and socially live as the gender of their preference and who uses some variant of a radical feminist analysis of gender to justify this view. 

This is a very small number of people of course, usually in Britain associated with one of a number of declining political or subcultural milieus. The vast majority of people with “concerns” about trans rights are not TERFs but are instead social conservatives. It’s that balance of forces that leads TERFs, who are usually left wing (or in Britain centrists), to ally with the forces of social conservatism.

The significant debate in wider society when it comes to trans people is that between advocates of trans rights on the one hand and social conservatives on the other. Unfortunately that fact is regularly obscured in the discussion here.


----------



## Athos (Dec 24, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Good job there's rational men like you around to set them straight then.


Says you. The irony!


----------



## Athos (Dec 24, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> That’s not my premise at all. TERFs are a tiny and unrepresentative group even among the minority of women who hold transphobic views. The bulk of that minority are social conservatives (ie they overlap heavily with the minority of women who hold for example homophobic views or who hold that sex outside of marriage is wrong).
> 
> Being a tiny and unrepresentative group doesn’t in itself mean that they are wrong, of course. But it does make their frequent attempts to naturalise the views of their tiny highly ideological fringe movement as the expression of “women’s concerns” or as “women asking questions” entirely mischievous. So called “gender critical feminists” are about as representative of women as the Nation of Islam is of black people or the Alliance for Workers Liberty is of the working class.



They are the concerns of (some) women. This is a case of (some) women asking questions. Hence, they're women's concerns and questions. I don't think that phraseology implies any claim that they're universal amongst women.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 24, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Somebody who opposes the right of trans people to both legally and socially live as the gender of their preference and who uses some variant of a radical feminist analysis of gender to justify this view.
> 
> This is a very small number of people of course, usually in Britain associated with one of a number of declining political or subcultural milieus. The vast majority of people with “concerns” about trans rights are not TERFs but are instead social conservatives. It’s that balance of forces that leads TERFs, who are usually left wing (or in Britain centrists), to ally with the forces of social conservatism.
> 
> The significant debate in wider society when it comes to trans people is that between advocates of trans rights on the one hand and social conservatives on the other. Unfortunately that fact is regularly obscured in the discussion here.


From what I've witnessed, TERF is mostly a term of abuse flung around by a vocal fringe of transrights activists at anyone female who happens to disagree with them on any point at all. 

It's bullshit identity politics at its worst that's proving to be so divisive that IMO it risks undoing much of the progress that's been made via less divisive approaches in the past.

Just an observation from the sidelines.


----------



## co-op (Dec 24, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Somebody who opposes the right of trans people to both legally and socially live as the gender of their preference and who uses some variant of a radical feminist analysis of gender to justify this view.



Here you go, since you can't say anything except your repetitive strategic overview of the balance of forces on this - some straightforward yes/no questions;

Am I a terf because I think any group promoting patriarchal gender roles needs challenging, even if that group happens to be made up of transwomen?

Am I a terf if I question how it is that a person 'becomes a woman' (or even stranger, just "is" a woman) when they have neither female biology (if that's relevant) nor any experience of the intensive gender-socialisation into a female gender role that women raised as women get?

Am I a terf if it appears to me that the word "cis" contains within it at the very least a strong implication that most people are non-coerced into their gender roles, are happy in them and that they constitute a 'natural' gender binary? (all of which assumption seems utterly wrong to me)

Is it terf to reject the meaningfulness of the 'woman born in a man's body' narrative?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 25, 2017)

You have the causation confused. You aren’t a TERF because you ask these or other questions. You argue these opinions, sometimes disingenuously presenting them as “questions”, because you are a TERF.


----------



## co-op (Dec 25, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> You have the causation confused. You aren’t a TERF because you ask these or other questions. You argue these opinions, sometimes disingenuously presenting them as “questions”, because you are a TERF.



"I cannot answer your questions so I will just call you a terf instead. In the circles I hang out in that always does the trick."

FWIW I put them as questions because you have never addressed (or even tried to address) any of the complex questions on this thread and I thought some yes/no versions might help me understand where you are coming from. It seems to me that, for example, smokedout has a nuanced position and might not even describe me as a terf despite our obvously coming to this from different angles. I would be gennuinely interested in their answers to these questions. They've obviously engaged with it and thought about this. 

You haven't and are unable to respond to the most straightforward & open criticisms. I understand that you are trapped by the fact that you are a practising politician and in public you have to parrot the party line but maybe you can at least admit in private that there are complexities that won't magically disappear just because you stick your fingers in your ears and chant la-la-la?

It should be clear that there are a significant number of regular thoughtful posters on these boards who also think this. Are they all terfs too? Is that your only response?


----------



## Sunset Tree (Dec 25, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> You have the causation confused. You aren’t a TERF because you ask these or other questions. You argue these opinions, sometimes disingenuously presenting them as “questions”, because you are a TERF.



They seem like fair enough questions.  How would you know if someone asking these was being genuine or doing it because they're a TERF, and would it really matter in terms of your answers?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 25, 2017)

co-op said:


> "I cannot answer your questions so I will just call you a terf instead. In the circles I hang out in that always does the trick."
> 
> FWIW I put them as questions because you have never addressed (or even tried to address) any of the complex questions on this thread and I thought some yes/no versions might help me understand where you are coming from. It seems to me that, for example, smokedout has a nuanced position and might not even describe me as a terf despite our obvously coming to this from different angles. I would be gennuinely interested in their answers to these questions. They've obviously engaged with it and thought about this.
> 
> ...



It’s genuinely fun to watch you gloat because you imagine that endlessly repeating the greatest hits of TERFery, dishonestly phrased as questions, constitutes some kind of clever argument. It’s like dealing with a witless internet new atheist happily convinced that anyone who treats his views with contempt just can’t answer Reason and Science. Unfortunately discovering something I explained in one of my first posts on this thread is less of an achievement than you think it is. Here it is again:

“To be blunt about it the point of my posts wasn't to invite yet another debate on TERF talking points. I'm all too familiar with their arguments and have come to the conclusion that they are so incoherent that they are of little interest in themselves. I'm more interested in the material and sociological factors that go into creating a movement nominally committed to gender abolition that spends most of its time angrily insisting that people are whatever gender they are told they are and lobbying the Tories to keep medical gatekeepers to gender recognition. That I have a certain amount of sympathy for members of an oppressed group who have ended up with these weird politics doesn't mean I have any particular respect for those politics.”

That is, I’m interested in TERFism as a movement and as a case study in people’s ability to talk themselves around to the most perverse conclusions given their supposed starting points. I have no more interest in debating TERF views on their own terms than I do in debating Scientologists on the theology of Xenu. Or more precisely, I have as much interest in having an amicable discussion about trans rights with obsessional transphobes as I do in chatting about the rights of black people with dedicated racists.

As for you personally, you aren’t even arguing your dull TERF talking points in good faith - you insist on portraying your strongly held fringe ideological views as “questions” or “concerns” even though everyone reading this discussion is well aware that you believe that you already have the answers to your supposed questions. Those “questions” are designed, not particularly subtly, to smuggle TERF assumptions into a discussion from the start.

Take for instance the first one about challenging “any group promoting patriarchal gender norms”, by which you mean trans people. I don’t accept any of the premises embedded in that question and nor would anyone who has any knowledge of trans movements that hasn’t been filtered through the presumptions of your milieu of bigoted zealots. Trans people are not a “group promoting patriarchal gender norms”. TERFs, despite the more and more vestigial rhetoric about gender abolition, do actively promote patriarchal gender norms by seeking to police deviance from those norms through reinforcing legal, medical and social restrictions on the rights of trans people.

There is a particularly vicious hypocrisy involved in first demanding that trans people be subjected to medical or legal tests of a sort that inherently act as strong pressures to present themselves in stereotyped ways to pass and then following that up by denouncing the supposed tendency of trans people to act in gender stereotyped ways. On this issue TERFism is an older sibling chortling “why do you keep punching yourself?” in the form of a political movement.

If the “gender critical” were slightly less consumed with malice and slightly less paranoid about the great trans conspiracy against women, they might start to wonder if demanding that the Tories police the boundaries of gender harder is really such a good idea. They might also widen their focus from the terrible transwoman menace to trans phenomena as a whole and begin to wonder how exactly they have come to view large numbers of young people rejecting their assigned genders in favor of a variety of alternatives, along with the related rise in the visibility of people with intersex conditions, as a threat rather than the most significant step forward for gender abolitionism in decades. I have no expectation that TERFs in any numbers will prove capable of taking a look at that wider picture however. They’ve staked too much on fearmongering, they have in practical terms given up on gender abolition and they are incapable of thinking outside of their movement’s framing (a framing inherent to your “questions”).

Please though, continue to gloat. If you are taking requests, the parts where you invent bizarre stuff about what I believe and why are the best bits. So far I believe in gendered spirits or at least pretend to because admitting the unanswerable power of TERF arguments would both end my flourishing career as a “practicing politician” and get me “thrown out of the cool kids gang”. That’s pretty good, but I think you can get crazier if you really try.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 25, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It’s genuinely fun to watch you gloat because you imagine that endlessly repeating the greatest hits of TERFery, dishonestly phrased as questions, constitutes some kind of clever argument. It’s like dealing with a witless internet new atheist happily convinced that anyone who treats his views with contempt just can’t answer Reason and Science. Unfortunately discovering something I explained in one of my first posts on this thread is less of an achievement than you think it is. Here it is again:
> 
> “To be blunt about it the point of my posts wasn't to invite yet another debate on TERF talking points. I'm all too familiar with their arguments and have come to the conclusion that they are so incoherent that they are of little interest in themselves. I'm more interested in the material and sociological factors that go into creating a movement nominally committed to gender abolition that spends most of its time angrily insisting that people are whatever gender they are told they are and lobbying the Tories to keep medical gatekeepers to gender recognition. That I have a certain amount of sympathy for members of an oppressed group who have ended up with these weird politics doesn't mean I have any particular respect for those politics.”
> 
> ...



Nice wall of text. How do you think the casual observer will interpret  your refusal to engage with the questions posed along with the other implied threats that disagreeing with your line might bring?


----------



## Sunset Tree (Dec 25, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> That is, I’m interested in TERFism as a movement and as a case study in people’s ability to talk themselves around to the most perverse conclusions given their supposed starting points. I have no more interest in debating TERF views on their own terms than I do in debating Scientologists on the theology of Xenu. Or more precisely, I have as much interest in having an amicable discussion about trans rights with obsessional transphobes as I do in chatting about the rights of black people with dedicated racists.



The questioned posed seem very different in nature than debating the theology of xenu.



co-op said:


> Am I a terf if I question how it is that a person 'becomes a woman' (or even stranger, just "is" a woman) when they have neither female biology (if that's relevant) nor any experience of the intensive gender-socialisation into a female gender role that women raised as women get?





co-op said:


> Is it terf to reject the meaningfulness of the 'woman born in a man's body' narrative?



Just the two I've quoted here.  I don't think I'm a terf.  I don't know much about trans issues really.  But these seems like key questions.  Are these questions that are just not allowed to be asked because the answers should be self-evident?  Can you answer them and help me understand?  I genuinely don't know the answer to these, or how a man who wants to live as a woman just 'is' a woman.  These aren't easy things for most people to understand, and I'm sure a lot of people who aren't terfs would ask these.


----------



## andysays (Dec 25, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Nice wall of text. How do you think the casual observer will interpret  your refusal to engage with the questions posed along with the other implied threats that disagreeing with your line might bring?



There are no "casual observers" here, apparently, only those who accept trans-ideology 100% on one side and TERFs on the other.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 25, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Nice wall of text. How do you think the casual observer will translate your refusal to engage with the questions posed along with the other implied threats that disagreeing with your line might bring?



That would depend on whether this casual observer is capable of deciphering that wall of text, understanding why I don’t accept the premises baked into those talking points posed as questions and noting that there are no threats in it implied or otherwise. In your case I don’t hold out much hope.


----------



## Sunset Tree (Dec 25, 2017)

I read the wall of text and still not sure how terf premises are baked into those talking points?  I feel like these are the questions most people would ask if trying to understand trans issues.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 25, 2017)

Very unfestive of Nigel Irritable to go full trot without giving away free newspapers


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 25, 2017)

Sunset Tree said:


> Can you answer them and help me understand?



If you really want my view as to whether you are a TERF, the questions you should be asking are different from those our resident transphobes use to frame the discussion. Do you oppose the right of trans people to live as the gender of their choice, legally and socially? If the answer is yes, you are a transphobe. If you are a transphobe, do you justify that position by recourse to some variant of a radfem gender analysis? If the answer is also yes, then you are a TERF.

It is unlikely to be difficult for you to work out if you are, in my view, a TERF. And people can and do have a range of views on the issues that our transphobic posters use as the basis for their disingenuous questions. Trans people certainly argue a range of views on them. Nobody particularly cares what you think as long as you aren’t using those views (or views dishonestly posed as “just questions”) to further the oppression of a highly discriminated against minority.


----------



## Sunset Tree (Dec 25, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> If you really want my view as to whether you are a TERF, the questions you should be asking are different from those our resident transphobes use to frame the discussion. Do you oppose the right of trans people to live as the gender of their choice, legally and socially? If the answer is yes, you are a transphobe. If you are a transphobe, do you justify that position by recourse to some variant of a radfem gender analysis? If the answer is also yes, then you are a TERF.
> 
> It is unlikely to be difficult for you to work out if you are, in my view, a TERF. And people can and do have a range of views on the issues that our transphobic posters use as the basis for their disingenuous questions. Trans people certainly argue a range of views on them. Nobody particularly cares what you think as long as you aren’t using those views to further the oppression of a highly discriminated against minority.



I don't oppose the right of trans people to live as the gender of their choice.  Can't you ask those questions while supporting that right?  Are you saying that just asking those questions is transphobic and furthers the oppression of a minority by its very act?

I just think that those questions don't sound too offensive and it might be better to engage with them than automatically call someone a terf (because what if a non-terf is asking?).


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 25, 2017)

Sunset Tree said:


> I read the wall of text and still not sure how terf premises are baked into those talking points?  I feel like these are the questions most people would ask if trying to understand trans issues.



The questions assume that trans people and trans women in particular promote patriarchal ideology. They assume that TERF bigotry against trans people constitutes “challenging” that ideology. They assume that there is a universal female social conditioning which all women assigned female from birth are subjected to and which shapes all women in similar ways. They assume that trans people usually or even always describe themselves as having some sort of gendered spirit trapped in the “wrong bodies”. All of these are highly ideological claims and all of them are false.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 25, 2017)

Sunset Tree said:


> I don't oppose the right of trans people to live as the gender of their choice.



Good.




			
				“Sunset Tree said:
			
		

> I just think that those questions don't sound too offensive and it might be better to engage with them than automatically call someone a terf (because what if a non-terf is asking?).



There’s no risk of mistaken identity here. Coop has been arguing this shit for years.


----------



## Sunset Tree (Dec 25, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The questions assume that trans people and trans women in particular promote patriarchal ideology. They assume that TERF bigotry against trans people constitutes “challenging” that ideology. They assume that there is a universal female social conditioning which all women assigned female from birth are subjected to and which shapes all women in similar ways. They assume that trans people usually or even always describe themselves as being trapped in the “wrong bodies”. All of these are highly ideological claims and all of them are false.



Perhaps 'universal female social conditioning' is a bit strong, but it's not controversial to say that boys and girls are socialised differently, surely?  Generally speaking.

I know the 'wrong bodies' idea has fallen out of favour.  That is even more confusing because that was my genuine understanding of trans for ages.  How is it defined now?  Dysphoria?  Because I've head people say that's also too medicalised.

The patriarchal thing, well I have seen examples where trans people want to transition to the most stereotypical girly/housewife type role imaginable.  I can kind of see why feminists who have been trying to deconstruct those roles would challenge that.  Couldn't say how representative that is, I only know one trans person irl and he (f2m) doesn't act any exaggerated gender roles he's just a normal guy.

Even if I were to accept that co-op is anti-trans, it doesn't answer whether those questions are legit under any circumstances from anyone?  Or how those questions are answered.


----------



## Sue (Dec 25, 2017)

Nigel Irritable, it might be worth thinking about how you express yourself. You might be making some decent points in there somewhere but your aggressive and abrasive tone really puts my back up so I miss any you do make.

Surely in political discussions, listening to other peoples views, convincing them of your arguments and then taking them with you is key? Imo you're doing the absolute opposite on this thread.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 25, 2017)

Sue said:


> Nigel Irritable, it might be worth thinking about how you express yourself. You might be making some decent points in there somewhere but your aggressive and abrasive tone really puts my back up so I miss any you do make.
> 
> Surely in political discussions, listening to other peoples views, convincing them of your arguments and then taking them with you is key? Imo you're doing the absolute opposite on this thread.



I’m not gullible enough to imagine that TERFs - a hardened and obsessional group of dedicated anti-trans activists who have already proven themselves willing to become pariahs in wider left, feminist and lgbt circles - are remotely open to being convinced to give up their hobby horse. Most of my direct engagement with TERF views here comes about only because TERFs repeatedly demand a response to this or that tired talking point. 

As I’ve said from the start, I’m not particularly interested in the substance of their beliefs in so far as there is a substance to them. I’m interested in them as an example of a marginal political movement the activity of which lies in opposition to their declared goals. That doesn’t require being polite and it certainly doesn’t require trying to bring people who do things like refer to transwomen as “intact males”, as if they were livestock, along with my argument.


----------



## Sue (Dec 25, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I’m not gullible enough to imagine that TERFs - a hardened and obsessional group of dedicated anti-trans activists who have already proven themselves willing to become pariahs in wider left, feminist and lgbt circles - are remotely open to being convinced to give up their hobby horse. Most of my direct engagement with TERF views here comes about only because TERFs repeatedly demand a response to this or that tired talking point.
> 
> As I’ve said from the start, I’m not particularly interested in the substance of their beliefs in so far as there is a substance to them. I’m interested in them as an example of a marginal political movement the activity of which lies in opposition to their declared goals. That doesn’t require being polite and it certainly doesn’t require trying to bring people who do things like refer to transwomen as “intact males”, as if they were livestock, along with my argument.



So what about people who aren't TERFS who genuinely want to know more about the different views and debates on both sides, like me, for example? You don't care about engaging with them?

When people ask certain questions in good faith, you automatically appear to believe that they're not asking in good faith and label them as TERFs. Which stops people who are genuinely interested engaging any further. 

Maybe you'd learn stuff if you did try and communicate with people differently?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 25, 2017)

Who have I described as a TERF who isn’t one?

And no, I don’t really have much interest in holding a friendly debate with bigots for the benefit of those who want to see “both sides” of the argument between anti-trans activists and their opponents. Left wing or feminist transphobia is an extremely marginal phenomenon with little political significance. It’s also in the latter stages of being completely excluded from leftist, feminist and lgbt movements. I don’t need to argue at length with it and certainly not on its own terms. It’s already defeated. That, incidentally, is what co-op was acknowledging when she was fantasizing about me being afraid to agree with her lest I be ostracized.

This shit only matters in so far as it’s proponents put themselves at the service of socially conservative transphobia, whether that be their meetings with David Davis or their endless attempts to get trans scare stories into the right wing press. It matters then because they allow the actually significant transphobic social force, conservatism, to muddy the waters in what is otherwise a straightforward conservative/progressive debate. So most of what I post on this thread is about that.


----------



## Athos (Dec 25, 2017)

Nigel Irritable What about people who believe that trans people have the right to live legally and socially as the gender they say they are, but who don't believe that trans people actually are that gender? Are they transphobes?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 25, 2017)

Sunset Tree said:


> Perhaps 'universal female social conditioning' is a bit strong, but it's not controversial to say that boys and girls are socialised differently, surely?  Generally speaking.



The trans exclusionary position requires that there be some crucial element of socialization which is both fundamentally shaping in its effects and universal for people assigned female, in all circumstances, without also shaping any transwomen. That there are differences in general terms between the socialization that boys and girls are subjected to isn’t in dispute but also isn’t enough to ground an argument that transwomen should be unwelcome in women’s spaces because if the difference isn’t universal and fundamental some cis women would be on the wrong side of any exclusionary line.

TERFs end up making sweeping and crude claims about socialization because similarly sweeping and crude claims about biology proved unsatisfactory. Both because biological sex isn’t neatly binary either (there are more intersex people than out trans people) and because the incongruity between making essentialist arguments rooting behavioral differences in biological sex and gender abolitionism is too clear even for people who are used to internalizing contradictory arguments.

(As an aside it’s worth noting that a number of masculine presenting cis women have reported being harassed in bathrooms by anti-trans zealots convinced that they are transwomen. Whether the rationale for discrimination is biology or socialization, in practice exclusions will usually be enforced according to the whims and prejudices of freelance gender vigilantes).

As you know a transman and know that he isn’t a walking stereotype, you know that trans people do not inherently act as pushers of gender stereotypes. In fact, trans people, like everyone else are all over the place in terms of gendered presentation. For the most part - simply because they’ve had to think about it more - trans people tend to have more critical views about gender than the rest of the population. The main counter to that is that trans people are often subjected to various tests of their gender, ranging from casual social dismissal of their claims to extended formal legal and medical gatekeeping. Those processes tend to push trans people towards more stereotypical behaviors in order to satisfy their interlocutors. There is something shockingly cruel about people who agitate to maintain and reinforce this gate keeping simultaneously attacking people forced to respond to these tests for supposedly furthering stereotypes.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 25, 2017)

Fuck sake, have you nothing better to do this evening?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 25, 2017)

Athos said:


> Nigel Irritable What about people who believe that trans people have the right to live legally and socially as the gender they say they are, but who don't believe that trans people actually are that gender? Are they transphobes?



I couldn’t give a shit about them either way, if they aren’t seeking to exclude, victimize or discriminate against trans people. You can be as wrong as you like as long as you don’t try to use those wrong views to, for instance, agitate for reinforced medical gatekeeping, try to stop trans people from using their preferred toilets or place transphobic scare stories in the right wing media.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 25, 2017)

TruXta said:


> Fuck sake, have you nothing better to do this evening?



Actually no. I’m drinking a beer, ignoring a romcom I’ve seen before and waiting for dinner time. I will however be turning my semi comatose attention to a sports forum in a few minutes time, in a shocking display of cis gender stereotyping.


----------



## Athos (Dec 25, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I couldn’t give a shit about them either way, if they aren’t seeking to exclude, victimize or discriminate against trans people. You can be as wrong as you like as long as you don’t try to use those wrong views to, for instance, agitate for reinforced medical gatekeeping, try to stop trans people from using their preferred toilets or place transphobic scare stories in the right wing media.



I didn't ask you to care. I asked if you think that's transphobic?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 25, 2017)

Athos said:


> I didn't ask you to care. I asked if you think that's transphobic?



While I suppose I should be flattered that my blessing or condemnation is so important to you, I’m left wondering what part of “I don’t give a shit” confused you.


----------



## Athos (Dec 25, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> While I suppose I should be flattered that my blessing or condemnation is so important to you, I’m left wondering what part of “I don’t give a shit” confused you.



Come on, it's a reasonable question.  You've been happy to pontificate about what makes a TERF, until now. Why can't you answer this one?


----------



## RD2003 (Dec 25, 2017)

Genuinely not wanting to antagonise any side in this debate, I can honestly say that I've never met a single person who is even aware of the argument.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 25, 2017)

Athos said:


> Come on, it's a reasonable question.  You've been happy to pontificate about what makes a TERF, until now. Why can't you answer this one?


NI's answers regarding trans exclusion have concentrated on political positions - public stances intended to influence others. I think it's reasonable and consistent for him to answer your question in this way.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 25, 2017)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Yes I agree. I see many people describing themselves as collections of fractured identities, rather than seeing themselves and others as whole people. How can you have a happy fulfilling relationship with yourself, never mind anyone else, if this is how you see yourself and others?



Are the people using the term "fractured identity", using it in the clinical psychological sense? If not then, to be fair, identity theory even as far back as Goffman defined what we term our individual "identity" as a collection of sometimes complementary, sometimes contradictory facets.


----------



## Athos (Dec 25, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> NI's answers regarding trans exclusion have concentrated on political positions - public stances intended to influence others. I think it's reasonable and consistent for him to answer your question in this way.



You would.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 25, 2017)

RD2003 said:


> Genuinely not wanting to antagonise any side in this debate, I can honestly say that I've never met a single person who is even aware of the argument.


Wouldn't say I've never met anyone aware of these arguments. However, I've never met just about anyone irl who _discusses it in the way_ both sides have here ('here', as in the online 'terf v trans' thing that urban is now mirroring).


----------



## Sue (Dec 25, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Who have I described as a TERF who isn’t one?
> 
> And no, I don’t really have much interest in holding a friendly debate with bigots for the benefit of those who want to see “both sides” of the argument between anti-trans activists and their opponents. *Left wing or feminist transphobia is an extremely marginal phenomenon with little political significance*. It’s also in the latter stages of being completely excluded from leftist, feminist and lgbt movements. I don’t need to argue at length with it and certainly not on its own terms. It’s already defeated. That, incidentally, is what co-op was acknowledging when she was fantasizing about me being afraid to agree with her lest I be ostracized.
> 
> This shit only matters in so far as it’s proponents put themselves at the service of socially conservative transphobia, whether that be their meetings with David Davis or their endless attempts to get trans scare stories into the right wing press. It matters then because they allow the actually significant transphobic social force, conservatism, to muddy the waters in what is otherwise a straightforward conservative/progressive debate. So most of what I post on this thread is about that.



I'm not quite sure why you're bothering to post if it's so insignificant/marginal and if you don't want to actually have a debate about this or put your points across in a more helpful/less aggressive way. Each to their own I guess.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 26, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Are the people using the term "fractured identity", using it in the clinical psychological sense? If not then, to be fair, identity theory even as far back as Goffman defined what we term our individual "identity" as a collection of sometimes complementary, sometimes contradictory facets.



Does he say collection? There's a difference between saying parts of ourselves are in conflict (the basis of drama, stories, psychoanalysis etc.) and describing the self as a _collection _of anything. The word suggests to me a deliberate gathering.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 26, 2017)

In reply to no one in particular but, I wonder how much of this debate - the original debate about the perameters of being female (or male), who polices it, what follows from it - would simply disappear if society was radically reordered?* The reason I ask that naïve question is not so much a banal interjection, more to get into an equally obvious area: how should radicals approach difficult issues, in ways that build solidarity that connect struggles and seek to avoid such shitstorms as this? For me it's about class and prefigurative politics, along with a bit of common decency.  Another and perhaps better way of putting this would be to ask 'what would this debate look like in the absence of identity politics'?

* The answer to that is of course that complex issues of identity  - personal and political - never actually disappear, but have the potential to become something less fucked up and zero sum - something that reconfigures human diversity and complexity into something actually _positive_.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 26, 2017)

Wilf said:


> In reply to no one in particular but, I wonder how much of this debate - the original debate about the perameters of being female (or male), who polices it, what follows from it - would simply disappear if society was radically reordered?* The reason I ask that naïve question is not so much a banal interjection, more to get into an equally obvious area: how should radicals approach difficult issues, in ways that build solidarity that connect struggles and seek to avoid such shitstorms as this? For me it's about class and prefigurative politics, along with a bit of common decency.  Another and perhaps better way of putting this would be to ask 'what would this debate look like in the absence of identity politics'?
> 
> * The answer to that is of course that complex issues of identity  - personal and political - never actually disappear, but have the potential to become something less fucked up and zero sum - something that reconfigures human diversity and complexity into something actually _positive_.


I’m not convinced that this debate would look like anything in particular in the absence of identity politics.  I’m firmly of the opinion that people’s entire make-up — identity, assumptions about social ordering, where they look politically for answers, behaviours, adoption of roles, you name it — is firmly rooted in the context of the society they exist in.  And these things are all interrelated.  I’ve spoken at length in the past about the transition from industrialism to consumerism and what that implies for identity construction, political priorities and dominant narratives, and this is an example of social context both making and being made by the people in it.

I think what we’re experiencing at the moment across all of mainstream society is the continued emphasis of the individual over the collective, the commodification of the self into the Marketing Character and the creation of bespoke identities stitched together from pieces of what were previously parts of coherent narratives.  It’s both caused by and symptomatic of broader trends — generation rent, infantilisation, disintegration of social structures, changing work patterns, social media, the “global village”, you name it.

I am careful to describe all this as a complex web of self-reinforcing (and sometimes self-antagonistic) forces both internal and external rather than simple cause and effect.  It’s not just that people experience a context and therefore become a particular character.  People make and remake themselves in the circumstances they’d find themselves in and, in doing so, they make and remake society, and vice versa.  That is our defining evolutionary characteristic — extraordinary brain plasticity, which makes us able to adapt to whatever environment (physical or social) we find ourselves in.  We aren’t just born a particular way and then cope as best we can with the environment we are in.  We are literally chemically and physically made (both in terms of brain structure and epigenetically) by the environment, and we also act to reform our environment.

Looking at this specific debate, one question has been why there is such an increase in transgenderism.  I think you have to look at this trend as part of its wider social context.  From that point I can only speculate but, at the very least, I am not surprised in a commodified, consumerised world that there would be an increase in people whose core identity contains facets that place them outside of traditional narratives of how to be.

That’s why, returning to your question, I don’t think this debate would exist without also having it in the context of identity politics.  Identity politics is part and parcel of the same social context as the thing it is being applied to.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 26, 2017)

Sue said:


> Nigel Irritable, it might be worth thinking about how you express yourself. You might be making some decent points in there somewhere but your aggressive and abrasive tone really puts my back up so I miss any you do make.
> 
> Surely in political discussions, listening to other peoples views, convincing them of your arguments and then taking them with you is key? Imo you're doing the absolute opposite on this thread.


Toeing the party line does not involve discussion.


----------



## RD2003 (Dec 26, 2017)

Wilf said:


> In reply to no one in particular but, I wonder how much of this debate - the original debate about the perameters of being female (or male), who polices it, what follows from it - would simply disappear if society was radically reordered?* The reason I ask that naïve question is not so much a banal interjection, more to get into an equally obvious area: how should radicals approach difficult issues, in ways that build solidarity that connect struggles and seek to avoid such shitstorms as this? For me it's about class and prefigurative politics, along with a bit of common decency.  Another and perhaps better way of putting this would be to ask 'what would this debate look like in the absence of identity politics'?
> 
> * The answer to that is of course that complex issues of identity  - personal and political - never actually disappear, but have the potential to become something less fucked up and zero sum - something that reconfigures human diversity and complexity into something actually _positive_.


Outside of perhaps a few hundred thousand people for whom identity politics is the main thing in life, I'm not sure that anybody really thinks about their 'identity' or could even describe what it's supposed to be. All I can come up with for myself is 'white male underachieving wanker who doesn't particularly care about it. '


----------



## lazythursday (Dec 26, 2017)

RD2003 said:


> Outside of perhaps a few hundred thousand people for whom identity politics is the main thing in life, I'm not sure that anybody really thinks about their 'identity' or could even describe what it's supposed to be. All I can come up with for myself is 'white male underachieving wanker who doesn't particularly care about it. '


I think this is bollocks. If you're part of a group that has historically faced discrimination you are uncomfortably aware of that status and what that means for your everyday life. That doesn't mean 'identity politics' is your main thing in life.


----------



## 19force8 (Dec 26, 2017)

Liked for the shared identity


----------



## RD2003 (Dec 26, 2017)

lazythursday said:


> I think this is bollocks. If you're part of a group that has historically faced discrimination you are uncomfortably aware of that status and what that means for your everyday life. That doesn't mean 'identity politics' is your main thing in life.


Maybe so, but the fact that most people haven't historically faced discrimination only reinforces what I've said. A good proportion of those who bang the identity politics drum the loudest have never faced any kind of discrimination.


----------



## RD2003 (Dec 26, 2017)

19force8 said:


> Liked for the shared identity



There's a lot of us around, but not too many have found the courage to come out yet.


----------



## lazythursday (Dec 26, 2017)

RD2003 said:


> Maybe so, but the fact that most people haven't historically faced discrimination only reinforces what I've said. A good proportion of those who bang the identity politics drum the loudest have never faced any kind of discrimination.


Most people? women? I am not a fan of identity politics as in a form of politics that puts identity first and ignores class. But your comment is typical of a frame of mind that has junked all sorts of issues of dicrimination and inequality into a bin marked 'identity politics'.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 26, 2017)

Red Cat said:


> Does he say collection? There's a difference between saying parts of ourselves are in conflict (the basis of drama, stories, psychoanalysis etc.) and describing the self as a _collection _of anything. The word suggests to me a deliberate gathering.



"Collection" is my paraphrasing. Goffman suggests it - that we interpollate with facets of identity we want to integrate, but that we also take on identities from our environment, identities we may have to actively dispose of, if we don't agree with/feel right about them.  Of course, we're also forever adding new facets to our identities.  "Collection" is just an easy way of saying "an ever-shifting, ever-evolving assemblage of identity facets" in this case.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 26, 2017)

RD2003 said:


> Outside of perhaps a few hundred thousand people for whom identity politics is the main thing in life, I'm not sure that anybody really thinks about their 'identity' or could even describe what it's supposed to be. All I can come up with for myself is 'white male underachieving wanker who doesn't particularly care about it. '



Identity facets:
Sports preference(s).
Music preference(s).
Booze preference(s).
Dietary preference(s).
Religious preference(s) including atheism.

There's five off of the top of my head, besides "race", gender and masturbation status.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 26, 2017)

RD2003 said:


> Maybe so, but the fact that most people haven't historically faced discrimination only reinforces what I've said. A good proportion of those who bang the identity politics drum the loudest have never faced any kind of discrimination.



"Never faced any..." is kind of a broad brush.  IMO it's more accurate to say "will not have faced a sufficient degree of discrimination to have actually suffered by it".


----------



## Sunset Tree (Dec 26, 2017)

The loudest IDpol proponents are nearly always privileged in terms of social class.  Posh university students.  Not saying they'll have never faced any kind of identity-based unfairness, but they are not people who are struggling with structural disadvantage.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 26, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Collection" is my paraphrasing. Goffman suggests it - that we interpollate with facets of identity we want to integrate, but that we also take on identities from our environment, identities we may have to actively dispose of, if we don't agree with/feel right about them.  Of course, we're also forever adding new facets to our identities.  "Collection" is just an easy way of saying "an ever-shifting, ever-evolving assemblage of identity facets" in this case.



I'm not convinced our sense of self develops in such a conscious way and I don't suppose Goffmann's theory was so blunt as to suggest that we develop our identity by conforming to the main social classification systems.


----------



## Sunset Tree (Dec 26, 2017)

In my limited recollection of studying sociology, Goffman was all about how we have multiple social roles and follow certain scripts depending on which role we're performing at the time.  Is that the same as multiple identities?


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 26, 2017)

Sunset Tree said:


> In my limited recollection of studying sociology, Goffman was all about how we have multiple social roles and follow certain scripts depending on which role we're performing at the time.  Is that the same as multiple identities?



I don't think of a social role as an identity in that we all consciously play social roles that don't always conform to our sense of who we are, we're aware of the gap between internal and external, but that may have been what Goffmann meant by social identity? (not my area)


----------



## Sunset Tree (Dec 26, 2017)

Red Cat said:


> I don't think of a social role as an identity in that we all consciously play social roles that don't always conform to our sense of who we are, we're aware of the gap between internal and external, but that may have been what Goffmann meant by social identity? (not my area)



I think because we are socialised into these roles and internalise them they can constitute parts of our identity.  

I had a quick google because this is quite interesting.  There's a few writers who've used Goffman to understand trans experience.  About how gender identities have to be negotiated and performed in different contexts.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 26, 2017)

Sunset Tree said:


> I think because we are socialised into these roles and internalise them they can constitute parts of our identity.
> 
> I had a quick google because this is quite interesting.  There's a few writers who've used Goffman to understand trans experience.  About how gender identities have to be negotiated and performed in different contexts.



I suppose I was thinking of adult social roles where we are often conscious of a gap between self and role. But yeh, we're internalising right from the beginning when we identify with people in our families, their roles or functions, and they become part of us.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 26, 2017)

Sunset Tree said:


> I think because we are socialised into these roles and internalise them they can constitute parts of our identity.
> 
> I had a quick google because this is quite interesting.  There's a few writers who've used Goffman to understand trans experience.  About how gender identities have to be negotiated and performed in different contexts.



I do think it would be good if we could follow some of these tangents without it being seen as a diversion that takes away from the importance of the issue.


----------



## co-op (Dec 26, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The questions assume that trans people and trans women in particular promote patriarchal ideology. They assume that TERF bigotry against trans people constitutes “challenging” that ideology. They assume that there is a universal female social conditioning which all women assigned female from birth are subjected to and which shapes all women in similar ways. They assume that trans people usually or even always describe themselves as having some sort of gendered spirit trapped in the “wrong bodies”. All of these are highly ideological claims and all of them are false.



For someone who throws around the accusation of dishonesty you're very ready to set up views that neither I nor anyone else has expressed and claim that they are what we're saying. That's pretty dishonest of you Nigel.

I can't be bothered to go through each individual lie and point out that I have neither said it nor think it but I think quite a few people have been following the thread closely enough to know what you're doing. 

But I'll respond to this post because it's shorter than the huge Christmas Day message.

Good example of your dishonesty first, you say "the questions assume that trans people and trans women in particular promote patriarchal ideology" - nope absolutely not, never said it, know well that it's not true. The question was when 'trans people do promote stereotypical gender binaries as natural, is critiquing that transphobic?' - it seems to me obvious the answer is 'no', yet of course that accusation happens, I've direct experience of it on these boards. _Of course_ this makes anyone who has some grounding in feminism raise at least an eyebrow. Why wouldn't it? Denouncing someone as a transphobe for criticising gender stereotypes that underwrite patriarchy is a classic example of the silencing of women.

Second you say - "They assume that there is a universal female social conditioning which all women assigned female from birth are subjected to and which shapes all women in similar ways"

Well yes guilty I do basically think that (allowing for the fact that you've slightly overdone and simplified it). It's pretty intrinsic to anything beyond basic liberal legal-equality feminism that it's likely to be true. Do you think feminism has any foundation in anything beyond legal equality? Believe me a lot of people do actually believe this.

Thirdly you say "They assume that trans people usually or even always describe themselves as having some sort of gendered spirit trapped in the “wrong bodies”"

I can't speak for the "they" you say have this view, just for myself but yes this has been an extremely common narrative that I've heard and from other posters responses it looks like that's quite common. I got flamed pretty heavily as being a transphobe for saying this didn't make sense to me on these boards a couple of years ago. You certainly didn't pop up on the previous thread to denounce it, quite the reverse you just called me a terf for saying it.  Now just a couple of years later you're tossing it casually on the scrapheap as just another example of TERF transphobiery. In some ways that's progress because it seems that quite a few people, including you, now acknowledge it's a pretty difficult thing to make sense of. But it makes you look pretty shabby to me - even by the normal standards of trot 180 degree strategic about-turns.

More generally you adopt this Olympian disdain towards anyone who doesn't follow whatever microsect CC you are speaking for, anyone who questions it is dismissed as a weird historical dead end that you can sneer & mock out of court. I think that's unlikely to be the case. I have no idea of how representative U75 is of anything but it's really noticeable that you have posted many dozens of times on this thread and have barely received a single 'like', nor have you found much agreement with your posts. Many of the posts I have put up have got 15-20 likes and the questions I have asked you have been echoed. Of course I get that it's a pretty shallow measure and for sure I didn't start posting on this topic because I was courting popularity, on the contrary I knew full well I was likely to get a lot of grief. But the multiple posters who have agreed with what I have posted on here represent a really wide range of posters with many hundreds of thousands of posts between them and many years of posting. I think that suggests that your 'historical dead end' analysis may be as crap as your understanding of the whole topic.

Get your head around this; I don't consider myself a terf, nor do I endorse the views of a large number of the rad fems on this topic. But I really detest the kind of snidey ganging up that some self-described trans-defenders like you indulge in. It's pathetic.


----------



## co-op (Dec 27, 2017)

Here's the kind of transwoman Nigel Irritable thinks has just got it all wrong, but luckily he can set them right and point out they're just a terf  

(click on tweet for the thread)


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 27, 2017)

Sunset Tree said:


> The loudest IDpol proponents are nearly always privileged in terms of social class.  Posh university students.  Not saying they'll have never faced any kind of identity-based unfairness, but they are not people who are struggling with structural disadvantage.



Are there any stats for these posh/privileged university students,just out of curiosity?

Also, let's say there's the annual Pride marches. I always believed we were a mix of LGBT people from all walks of life, joining together, despite any perceived class divisions. Is that unity/idpol/mindless optimism,in your view? Genuine question.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 27, 2017)

Red Cat said:


> I suppose I was thinking of adult social roles where we are often conscious of a gap between self and role. But yeh, we're internalising right from the beginning when we identify with people in our families, their roles or functions, and they become part of us.


I think Goffman’s point was that there is no “self” separate from the roles we take on.  If you view identity as transactional, constructed via relations rather than being something intrinsic, then when we assume a role that leads us to interact with others in a particular way, that results in us assuming an identity along with that role.  We don’t just “act out” the role, we become it.  

I found it quite a compelling idea, to be honest.  It is consistent with a broader rejection of brain/mind dualism and also links a social psychological perspective with a behaviourist one (i.e. the self is the sum of our social behaviours)


----------



## Sunset Tree (Dec 27, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Are there any stats for these posh/privileged university students,just out of curiosity?
> 
> Also, let's say there's the annual Pride marches. I always believed we were a mix of LGBT people from all walks of life, joining together, despite any perceived class divisions. Is that unity/idpol/mindless optimism,in your view? Genuine question.



I wouldn't view the pride marches as identity politics no.  Cross-class solidarity against genuine issues around sexuality, gender, race etc doesn't mean identity politics.  This has been discussed quite a lot on the identity politics thread if you're interested.  Critiquing identity politics doesn't mean diminishing genuine struggles of oppressed minorities.

The posh students thing is just my observation tbh.  Identity politics has flourished within universities and student politics.  You can just see the class markers of a lot of the people involved a mile away.


----------



## Cloo (Dec 27, 2017)

Things have been interestingly illustrated yesterday by kerfuffle over Lewis Hamilton's castigating of his nephew for wearing a dress

Some trans campaigners were suggesting if people were unhappy about his comments, they ought to donate to a charity support trans kids and their families, which was immediately leapt upon by others going 'Hah! These people oppose someone saying a boy can't wear a dress, but are implying a boy wearing a dress is trans so they are reinforcing the idea that dresses are for girls because they say trans women are girls!' Which I think is bollocks sophistry, although I still say the 'kids expressing themselves outside gender norms' should be separate from the trans issue although it is related in some ways. Anti-trans types (whether TERFS or right-wing media) confuse this support from the trans community of non-gender-conforming kids as a cult of demanding kids transition, which of course it isn't, it's just intended I think as a general show of support.


----------



## Sue (Dec 27, 2017)

Cloo said:


> Things have been interestingly illustrated yesterday by kerfuffle over Lewis Hamilton's castigating of his nephew for wearing a dress
> 
> Some trans campaigners were suggesting if people were unhappy about his comments, they ought to donate to a charity support trans kids and their families, which was immediately leapt upon by others going 'Hah! These people oppose someone saying a boy can't wear a dress, but are implying a boy wearing a dress is trans so they are reinforcing the idea that dresses are for girls because they say trans women are girls!' Which I think is bollocks sophistry, although I still say the 'kids expressing themselves outside gender norms' should be separate from the trans issue although it is related in some ways. Anti-trans types (whether TERFS or right-wing media) confuse this support from the trans community of *non-gender-conforming kids* as a cult of demanding kids transition, which of course it isn't, it's just intended I think as a general show of support.


Or maybe it's a just a young child playing dress up, nothing more, nothing less, and talking about 'non-gender conforming kids' in this context is way OTT?


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 27, 2017)

kabbes said:


> I think Goffman’s point was that there is no “self” separate from the roles we take on.  If you view identity as transactional, constructed via relations rather than being something intrinsic, then when we assume a role that leads us to interact with others in a particular way, that results in us assuming an identity along with that role.  We don’t just “act out” the role, we become it.
> 
> I found it quite a compelling idea, to be honest.  It is consistent with a broader rejection of brain/mind dualism and also links a social psychological perspective with a behaviourist one (i.e. the self is the sum of our social behaviours)



I hate behaviourism. And 'the self is the sum of our social behaviours' sound almost actuarial. 

I prefer to think of self rather than identity, although of course selves are always in a process of being and becoming in relationships, including in the womb. But there is also such thing as temperament. And I believe we have very complex inner worlds that aren't only understandable in terms of theories that suggest a kind of mirror or replica of the outside. 

Brain body dualism isn't satisfying but we just don't have theories that are able to get over that in a very convincing or practical way. Which then leaves us with ideas about humans that may sound like secular versions of religion, but so be it. I think novels and theatre tell us more about ourselves than most psychology.


----------



## Cloo (Dec 27, 2017)

Sue said:


> Or maybe it's a just a young child playing dress up, nothing more, nothing less, and talking about 'non-gender conforming kids' in this context is way OTT?


I don't think gender non-conforming is 'OTT', although maybe gender 'non-conforming behaviour' might be better in this instance, it's not a medical label or anything, it's just a way of describing kids behaving in ways society doesn't consider typical of their gender as far as I know, a shorthand for 'tomboys and boys that like to wear dresses'.

Yes, I agree it is just a boy wearing a dress but society has unfortunately politicised it.

NB, I find it fascinating that we have a generally non-offensive word for 'boyish girls' but no accepted phrase for the opposite that I'm aware of. I feel there is still this massive monolith of an idea that femaleness is shameful that we need to get over. Tomboys might be considered a bit odd but they're not generally considered shameful, whereas a girlish boy is still, as Hamilton thinking his comments were acceptable illustrates, looked upon as an embarrassment. This shame at femaleness seems to be at the heart of so many issues around gender and misogyny.


----------



## co-op (Dec 27, 2017)

Cloo said:


> NB, I find it fascinating that we have a generally non-offensive word for 'boyish girls' but no accepted phrase for the opposite that I'm aware of. I feel there is still this massive monolith of an idea that femaleness is shameful that we need to get over. Tomboys might be considered a bit odd but they're not generally considered shameful, whereas a girlish boy is still, as Hamilton thinking his comments were acceptable illustrates, looked upon as an embarrassment. *This shame at femaleness seems to be at the heart of so many issues around gender and misogyny.*



It's at the heart of a patriarchal concept of gender. It is _the_ problem, everything else is just symptoms.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 27, 2017)

Cloo said:


> I don't think gender non-conforming is 'OTT', although maybe gender 'non-conforming behaviour' might be better in this instance, it's not a medical label or anything, it's just a way of describing kids behaving in ways society doesn't consider typical of their gender as far as I know, a shorthand for 'tomboys and boys that like to wear dresses'.
> 
> Yes, I agree it is just a boy wearing a dress but society has unfortunately politicised it.
> 
> NB, I find it fascinating that we have a generally non-offensive word for 'boyish girls' but no accepted phrase for the opposite that I'm aware of. I feel there is still this massive monolith of an idea that femaleness is shameful that we need to get over. Tomboys might be considered a bit odd but they're not generally considered shameful, whereas a girlish boy is still, as Hamilton thinking his comments were acceptable illustrates, looked upon as an embarrassment. This shame at femaleness seems to be at the heart of so many issues around gender and misogyny.



If strength gets categorised as masculine and weakness as feminine of course people will feel humiliated. Hence why it's not that tricky to understand how a racing driver who works in very 'masculine' world where it's highly probable he feels he can't be in touch with anything about himself he deems 'feminine', gets a bit anxious about his nephew wearing a dress, and shows the world what a man he is by mocking his nephew on video. 

It's not specifically a trans issue at all.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 27, 2017)

Certainly in my experience I know many women who say_ I was a real tomboy when I was young..._ but hardly one man who says _I wad really girly when I was young..._ Now I come to think about it the difference is quite stark.


----------



## weepiper (Dec 27, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> Certainly in my experience I know many women who say_ I was a real tomboy when I was young..._ but hardly one man who says _I wad really girly when I was young..._ Now I come to think about it the difference is quite stark.


Because being 'like a girl' is used as an insult to boys from the very beginning. You throw like a girl. He kicks a ball like a girl. You going to let a girl beat you? Stop crying like a little girl. Etc etc etc. Lewis Hamilton is doing the exact same thing, and like all the others who do it not thinking once about what he's saying to the girls in the room at the same time.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 27, 2017)

weepiper said:


> Because being 'like a girl' is used as an insult to boys from the very beginning. You throw like a girl. He kicks a ball like a girl. You going to let a girl beat you? Stop crying like a little girl. Etc etc etc.



I'm well aware of this, I got it myself at school and I'm being very careful not to do or say anything that devalues girls or femininity to my little boy.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 27, 2017)

Red Cat said:


> I hate behaviourism. And 'the self is the sum of our social behaviours' sound almost actuarial.
> 
> I prefer to think of self rather than identity, although of course selves are always in a process of being and becoming in relationships, including in the womb. But there is also such thing as temperament. And I believe we have very complex inner worlds that aren't only understandable in terms of theories that suggest a kind of mirror or replica of the outside.
> 
> Brain body dualism isn't satisfying but we just don't have theories that are able to get over that in a very convincing or practical way. Which then leaves us with ideas about humans that may sound like secular versions of religion, but so be it. I think novels and theatre tell us more about ourselves than most psychology.


I don’t have a view on behaviourism yet — ask me in a year!  But I am interested in where the crossover occurs between different models of reality.  Those crossover points probably start to hint at the wider truth.

One thing I am not fond of, though, is metaphysical explanations for things that really just kick the can down the road.  Why do we do something?  Because genetics!  Or because brain!  Or because environment!  Because some indefined essence!  But none of these things explain, they just push the problem along to the next level.  It just becomes the problem of the homonculus.


----------



## co-op (Dec 27, 2017)

Red Cat said:


> If strength gets categorised as masculine and weakness as feminine of course people will feel humiliated. Hence why it's not that tricky to understand how a racing driver who works in very 'masculine' world where it's highly probable he feels he can't be in touch with anything about himself he deems 'feminine', gets a bit anxious about his nephew wearing a dress, and shows the world what a man he is by mocking his nephew on video.



It's not just strength vs weakness but the entire range of human behaviours that get gendered in our society. A key one for a male racing driver is 'competence' vs 'incompetence' (obviously the former is male. the latter female) - particularly where this relates to cars. Women can't drive properly, FACT.


----------



## co-op (Dec 27, 2017)

Red Cat said:


> gets a bit anxious about his nephew wearing a dress, and shows the world what a man he is by mocking his nephew on video.



The tragedy is that he isn't really 'showing the world' what a man he is; he's showing himself. No one knew that his nephew put on a dress until Lewis told them all - there was literally no public stigma to purge _at all_. But still he had to post the clip, to purge himself. 

Collectively men police male behaviour and women police female (as a general rule). But individually, my god we police ourselves. Tragic.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 27, 2017)

Sunset Tree said:


> I wouldn't view the pride marches as identity politics no.  Cross-class solidarity against genuine issues around sexuality, gender, race etc doesn't mean identity politics.  This has been discussed quite a lot on the identity politics thread if you're interested.  Critiquing identity politics doesn't mean diminishing genuine struggles of oppressed minorities.
> 
> The posh students thing is just my observation tbh.  Identity politics has flourished within universities and student politics.  You can just see the class markers of a lot of the people involved a mile away.



What are class markers? This is the first time I've heard this term. But then, there's a lot of "new" terminology about these days.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 27, 2017)

kabbes said:


> I don’t have a view on behaviourism yet — ask me in a year!  But I am interested in where the crossover occurs between different models of reality.  Those crossover points probably start to hint at the wider truth.
> 
> One thing I am not fond of, though, is metaphysical explanations for things that really just kick the can down the road.  Why do we do something?  Because genetics!  Or because brain!  Or because environment!  Because some indefined essence!  But none of these things explain, they just push the problem along to the next level.  It just becomes the problem of the homonculus.



No, they don't explain but form part of a picture that may always remain unclear. An appreciation of process and interrelationship is more helpful. And not mistaking models for essences.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 27, 2017)

co-op said:


> The tragedy is that he isn't really 'showing the world' what a man he is; he's showing himself. No one knew that his nephew put on a dress until Lewis told them all - there was literally no public stigma to purge _at all_. But still he had to post the clip, to purge himself.



Yes, it's a fantasy in his own mind that he put out there. I agree, very like a purging.


----------



## Sunset Tree (Dec 27, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> What are class markers? This is the first time I've heard this term. But then, there's a lot of "new" terminology about these days.



You can tell when someone is posh.  I wasn't using some new terminology I just meant things that mark someone as being from a certain class background.  Accent, lifestyle, that sort of thing.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 27, 2017)

co-op said:


> It's not just strength vs weakness but the entire range of human behaviours that get gendered in our society. A key one for a male racing driver is 'competence' vs 'incompetence' (obviously the former is male. the latter female) - particularly where this relates to cars. Women can't drive properly, FACT.



Sure. Strength and weakness was a simplification.


----------



## comrade spurski (Dec 27, 2017)

TopCat said:


> Toeing the party line does not involve discussion.



What party line? (genuine question)


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 27, 2017)

Sunset Tree said:


> You can tell when someone is posh.  I wasn't using some new terminology I just meant things that mark someone as being from a certain class background.  Accent, lifestyle, that sort of thing.



Ah, ok.


----------



## Sunset Tree (Dec 27, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Ah, ok.



It has genuinely been my experience that the more vocal proponents of identity politics are well-off university students, postgraduates, academics etc.  I always think it's a style of politics which could only thrive among the economically privileged.  It requires treating class as an identity, equal to gender/race/sexuality/ability, rather than a set of structured material relations.  Convenient if you've had a sheltered life but want to be in the oppressed group.

Sorry for the tangent this would be better on the identity politics thread.


----------



## co-op (Dec 27, 2017)

comrade spurski said:


> What party line? (genuine question)



I think Nigel is a member of some Irish Trotskyist party. I could be wrong but you could certainly play Debating With Trots Bingo with his posts.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 27, 2017)

Sunset Tree said:


> It has genuinely been my experience that the more vocal proponents of identity politics are well-off university students, postgraduates, academics etc.  I always think it's a style of politics which could only thrive among the economically privileged.  It requires treating class as an identity, equal to gender/race/sexuality/ability, rather than a set of structured material relations.  Convenient if you've had a sheltered life but want to be in the oppressed group.
> 
> Sorry for the tangent this would be better on the identity politics thread.



Probably. But I remain stedfast in my own views as to class and identity politics, without the stereotypical sheltered life to go with it.

Anyways, that's not important. This thread has me perplexed because the topic is something nobody I know would really talk about. Which is why I watch it but tbh, I'm still perplexed. There are a hell of a lot of different viewpoints and I cannot say which is "right".

As regards transgender, I take people as I find. I've had several decades to realise that people cannot be classified, labelled, boxed into any one group. We're much more diverse and individual than that. But we can still unite on a lot of issues.

But I have found that the ordinary person doesn't get transgenderism and the discussion here would make the head spin. That's just _*my*_ take on it. Discussion is good but this in depth thread is not something I have found to exist outside of it. IYSWIM...


----------



## comrade spurski (Dec 27, 2017)

co-op said:


> I think Nigel is a member of some Irish Trotskyist party. I could be wrong but you could certainly play Debating With Trots Bingo with his posts.


Cheers.


----------



## Sunset Tree (Dec 27, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> But I have found that the ordinary person doesn't get transgenderism and the discussion here would make the head spin. That's just _*my*_ take on it. Discussion is good but this in depth thread is not something I have found to exist outside of it. IYSWIM...



Yeah, I agree with that.  Most people don't really get trans issues, including myself.  It seems like a lot of the basic questions ordinary people might ask are considered transphobic or the answers should be self-evident.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 27, 2017)

Sunset Tree said:


> Yeah, I agree with that.  Most people don't really get trans issues, including myself.  It seems like a lot of the basic questions ordinary people might ask are considered transphobic or the answers should be self-evident.



For sure. The answers are not self-evident (at least, not to me) and I'm (if I have to lable myself) LGBT. But I only started "identifying" as such when I received abuse from people. Got sick of hiding who I am. Not that I wear a badge, or anything.

Trans people get a lot of stick, from what I;ve seen and heard. And from within the community itself.


----------



## Sea Star (Dec 27, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Disabled people for example, have had this kind of discussion quite openly in radical circles for a long time - but no-one ever accuses them of being part of rape culture if they suggest societal prejudice or unease with disabled people's bodies may be one reason they find it difficult to find sexual partners.



to be fair - it happens often enough to autistic men. At least in my experience anyway.


----------



## Sea Star (Dec 27, 2017)

Sunset Tree said:


> Yeah, I agree with that.  Most people don't really get trans issues, including myself.  It seems like a lot of the basic questions ordinary people might ask are considered transphobic or the answers should be self-evident.


and yet I (and I'm guessing most trans people who have engaged with cis people on trans issues for long enough) usually can see a stark difference in people who are genuine and people who are trolling. And I offered to talk to anyone who has questions via a private message where I won't get piled on by the usual subjects and I can attempt a genuine answer to any question. Not had a single person take me up on this so that leaves me wondering how genuine are the questions being asked on this and other threads.


----------



## Sunset Tree (Dec 27, 2017)

I don't use the PM function. I actually have it switched off. What I like about forums is the format of public threads with multiple responses.

It's up to you whether to respond but surely the answers would be the same whether someone is genuine or trolling?


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 27, 2017)

Sea Star said:


> and yet I (and I'm guessing most trans people who have engaged with cis people on trans issues for long enough) usually can see a stark difference in people who are genuine and people who are trolling. And I offered to talk to anyone who has questions via a private message where I won't get piled on by the usual subjects and I can attempt a genuine answer to any question. Not had a single person take me up on this so that leaves me wondering how genuine are the questions being asked on this and other threads.



Well, on a personal level, you and I have interacted via pm and I think you know I support you and always value your input. My questions here are genuine in the sense that despite my own experiences over the last 30 years or so, I still find myself perplexed. Simply because the whole sexuality/gender/identity thing is not black and white.


----------



## Sea Star (Dec 27, 2017)

Sunset Tree said:


> I don't use the PM function. I actually have it switched off. What I like about forums is the format of public threads with multiple responses.
> 
> It's up to you whether to respond but surely the answers would be the same whether someone is genuine or trolling?


My intitial answer would be the same. Their responses would not be.


----------



## campanula (Dec 27, 2017)

Sea Star said:


> Not had a single person take me up on this so that leaves me wondering how genuine are the questions being asked on this and other threads.



Because no-one specifically wants your  output in a PM, no-one is genuine, interested or has anything to add.? Any idea how bizarrely self-obsessed this sounds...unless you truly believe you are the self-appointed spokesperson for all transpeople, at all times?

Whilst 'lived experience' has its place in any analysis, there are also limiting factors where it becomes impossible to separate the personal from the general...and the easy claims of phobia and prejudice. The things is, when we offer up our personal experience as being somehow representative of ALL experiences, we effectively deny the collective, the class analysis in favour of restrictive and easily refuted personal anecdote...which has limited applications for understanding political or social movement. 
It's something we do...because we are sentient individuals looking to engage with others...but we also need to keep a cool distance.


----------



## Sea Star (Dec 27, 2017)

if i refuse to answer points I'm a cunt, and if I offer to answer points I'm a cunt.


Just fuck off


and yeah why would you want a trans person giving their point of view ever?

Funny how so many people demanded i answer their points in public but won't ask me in private.

Obviously it's Miranda Yardley who should be listened to at all times.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 27, 2017)

It's a public forum.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 27, 2017)

Sea Star said:


> if i refuse to answer points I'm a cunt, and if I offer to answer points I'm a cunt.
> 
> 
> Just fuck off
> ...



Could it be that a minority of people here see you as easily riled and tend to have a go? Accuse you of making it all about yourself when you reply passionately about stuff you have experienced?

Some people get a kick out of undermining others, so no matter what you say, it will always be held up to ridicule and/or intense scrutiny?

As for the poster you mentioned, I'm not convinced by her at all.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 27, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Could it be that a minority of people here see you as easily riled and tend to have a go? Accuse you of making it all about yourself when you reply passionately about stuff you have experienced?
> 
> Some people get a kick out of undermining others, so no matter what you say, it will always be held up to ridicule and/or intense scrutiny?
> 
> As for the poster you mentioned, I'm not convinced by her at all.



That hasn't happened here. What has happened is a bunch of people have had a discussion on a public forum.


----------



## Sea Star (Dec 27, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> Could it be that a minority of people here see you as easily riled and tend to have a go? Accuse you of making it all about yourself when you reply passionately about stuff you have experienced?


I know I am. I acknowledge that weakness but also it's not surprising considering the shit I've been through. I believe my experience is valuable - and I notice that the average gender critical person is very quick to personalise things when they accuse me of trying to invalidate their experiences just by existing. What is trans if it's not personal? I can't see how to discuss trans without personalising it. I also don;t believe that any cis person will ever be able to understand so that makes it hard to discuss if they keep demanding that they be made to understand.

I've said before that so many things on this thread are said, that are wrong, but are going unchallenged - one I've seen today is the claim that "transgenderism" - whatever that is - is on the rise. There is absolutely no evidence for this - though i see transphobes using it as a way to invalidate us almost daily. Doesn;t get challenged on Urban 75 though. But everything I say does, however non-controversial. I believe I'm being held to standards that no one else on this thread is.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 27, 2017)

Again, that hasn't happened here. No one has demanded anything of you at all.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 27, 2017)

Sea Star said:


> I know I am. I acknowledge that weakness but also it's not surprising considering the shit I've been through. I believe my experience is valuable - and I notice that the average gender critical person is very quick to personalise things when they accuse me of trying to invalidate their experiences just by existing. What is trans if it's not personal? I can't see how to discuss trans without personalising it. I also don;t believe that any cis person will ever be able to understand so that makes it hard to discuss if they keep demanding that they be made to understand.
> 
> I've said before that so many things on this thread are said, that are wrong, but are going unchallenged - one I've seen today is the claim that "transgenderism" - whatever that is - is on the rise. There is absolutely no evidence for this - though i see transphobes using it as a way to invalidate us almost daily. Doesn;t get challenged on Urban 75 though. But everything I say does, however non-controversial. I believe I'm being held to standards that no one else on this thread is.



Do you really believe that a dozen or so eejits can dictate to you? Can invalidate your experiences or expertise?

You're better than that, you know you are. Lookit, it's the same names over and over again. You're singled out because you care.

Says more about them than it does you.


----------



## Athos (Dec 27, 2017)

Sea Star said:


> if i refuse to answer points I'm a cunt, and if I offer to answer points I'm a cunt.
> 
> 
> Just fuck off
> ...



Why would you prefer it be done by pm?


----------



## co-op (Dec 27, 2017)

Sea Star said:


> I've said before that so many things on this thread are said, that are wrong, but are going unchallenged - one I've seen today is the claim that "transgenderism" - whatever that is - is on the rise. There is absolutely no evidence for this - though i see transphobes using it as a way to invalidate us almost daily.



The only example of this I've seen is the claim that there has apparently recently been a steep rise in the number of young ftm transpeople. You're right it's not been evidenced much. It's seen as relevant by some I think because the numbers of ftm and mtf are so uneven but it's not something I claim any knowledge of. I haven't seen anyone else claim that 'transgenderism' is on the rise on this thread.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 27, 2017)

Athos said:


> Why would you prefer it be done by pm?


Control.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Dec 27, 2017)

Sea Star said:


> if i refuse to answer points I'm a cunt, and if I offer to answer points I'm a cunt.
> 
> 
> Just fuck off
> ...


This is quite a good example of why people may be unwilling to try and talk to you.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 27, 2017)

co-op said:


> The only example of this I've seen is the claim that there has apparently recently been a steep rise in the number of young ftm transpeople. You're right it's not been evidenced much. It's seen as relevant by some I think because the numbers of ftm and mtf are so uneven but it's not something I claim any knowledge of. I haven't seen anyone else claim that 'transgenderism' is on the rise on this thread.


I referenced it in this post of a few days ago, to be fair:



kabbes said:


> I’m not convinced that this debate would look like anything in particular in the absence of identity politics.  I’m firmly of the opinion that people’s entire make-up — identity, assumptions about social ordering, where they look politically for answers, behaviours, adoption of roles, you name it — is firmly rooted in the context of the society they exist in.  And these things are all interrelated.  I’ve spoken at length in the past about the transition from industrialism to consumerism and what that implies for identity construction, political priorities and dominant narratives, and this is an example of social context both making and being made by the people in it.
> 
> I think what we’re experiencing at the moment across all of mainstream society is the continued emphasis of the individual over the collective, the commodification of the self into the Marketing Character and the creation of bespoke identities stitched together from pieces of what were previously parts of coherent narratives.  It’s both caused by and symptomatic of broader trends — generation rent, infantilisation, disintegration of social structures, changing work patterns, social media, the “global village”, you name it.
> 
> ...



It wasn’t core to what I was saying, though.  I wasn’t intending to assert an increase in transgenderism at all, I was just using my perception of the increase (and I admit that I didn’t even think to question this perception) as an illustration of my point.

(Also, I am one of the many, many posters that Sea Star very vocally put on ignore in the past, which implies it really shouldn’t be me she is talking about, but there you go...)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 27, 2017)

Sea Star said:


> if i refuse to answer points I'm a cunt, and if I offer to answer points I'm a cunt.
> 
> 
> Just fuck off
> ...


I don't want a private convo on this. For better or worse I want the ideas tested in public.  

Fwiw I've never pmed someone to continue a discussion in the way you suggest. It wouldn't occur to me to do so.


----------



## co-op (Dec 27, 2017)

kabbes said:


> I referenced it in this post of a few days ago, to be fair:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn’t core to what I was saying, though.  I wasn’t intending to assert an increase in transgenderism at all, I was just using my perception of the increase (and I admit that I didn’t even think to question this perception) as an illustration of my point.



Thanks, I did read your post but was concentrating on the theoretical ideas more so forgot this bit.


----------



## campanula (Dec 27, 2017)

I confess to coming at this from an equally reprehensible personal position...but to be perfectly honest, the supposed 'oppressions' of people being mean to you, Krtek, because you define your sexual orientation as whatever, pales into utter insignificance (this is not Uganda) compared to removing fundamental human needs of shelter, food, access to healthcare, water, personal safety. And vague accusations of colleagues nastiness and bigotry, whilst completely unacceptable, is nothing compared to the vicious slaps doled out to the poor, the powerless, the disenfranchised and disabled...and I resent the energy being spent going down this individualised rabbithole which meanders onwards forever.

But hey, that's just me and I accept the folly of my position...and having stated it, I can hardly whine if my simplistic views are slated.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 27, 2017)

comrade spurski said:


> What party line? (genuine question)


SWP.


----------



## campanula (Dec 27, 2017)

TopCat said:


> SWP.



Of course!

The interminable waffle, the enthusiasm to smear (terfy ffs) and most of all, the reluctance to actually engage on any level other than a particular form of (dated) toxic and highly codified demands and exhortations. Shoulda known from the off.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 27, 2017)

TopCat said:


> SWP.



I thought NI was CWI?


----------



## co-op (Dec 27, 2017)

TopCat said:


> SWP.



Oh my god, we are taking lectures on correct feminist theory from an SWP hack? No wonder he's so defensive and evasive.


----------



## Sunset Tree (Dec 27, 2017)

campanula said:


> I confess to coming at this from an equally reprehensible personal position...but to be perfectly honest, the supposed 'oppressions' of people being mean to you, Krtek, because you define your sexual orientation as whatever, pales into utter insignificance (this is not Uganda) compared to removing fundamental human needs of shelter, food, access to healthcare, water, personal safety. And vague accusations of colleagues nastiness and bigotry, whilst completely unacceptable, is nothing compared to the vicious slaps doled out to the poor, the powerless, the disenfranchised and disabled...and I resent the energy being spent going down this individualised rabbithole which meanders onwards forever.
> 
> But hey, that's just me and I accept the folly of my position...and having stated it, I can hardly whine if my simplistic views are slated.



I basically agree with you.  I don't want to minimise the gender-based difficulties people have.  I totally understand that you can be well-off and still have a really difficult time grappling with your identity.  But the loudest idpol activists are usually thriving in so many ways they take for granted, it makes their understanding of themselves as oppressed (and white cis hetero males as the oppressor) actually insulting.  Strip out the class analysis and you're left with a nonsense understanding of the world.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 27, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> I thought NI was CWI?


Hehehe
 Just winding the silly fucker up. Whichever of the 57 varieties, it is a shot one.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 27, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Control.



That's not in itself a bad thing. Wanting a degree of control over interactions - especially when they touch on extremely personal matters - is not a weird or inhuman desire.


----------



## campanula (Dec 27, 2017)

Um yep, social class (with all its complex meanings) does, imo, work as a foundation for understanding how oppression is played out...and essentially, work as a conduit for communicating the often difficult theoretical questions (for me) which are expressed in a dynamic environment...or yes, everything solid does indeed melt into air.

At its most basic, I admit to not really knowing SeaStar but also, not really wanting to engage with her either. Does this make me transphobic...or just operating on the often shallow, frequently misplaced personal level of internet relationships. And why would it have even the tiniest relevance to issues in the wider world? Not to mention, my online life and relationships are only the smallest part of my day, contribute almost zero to political activism.
Perspective needed, surely...especially relating to issues where we are most deeply and personally invested.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 27, 2017)

The “gender critical” just “asking questions” again, by which I mean swarming the BBC Woman’s Hour Twitter feed denouncing them for interviewing a black transwoman about racism.


----------



## campanula (Dec 27, 2017)

30 years ago, I was induced to go along to a co-counselling group (was having a torrid time with partner)...where one of the most pressing concerns of the group was centred on child sexual abuse. My friend and neighbour (who persuaded me to go) was almost wistful and dismayed that, until that point, she had no memory, recollection or indeed, reason to claim abuse in her past...and yet...she formulated a false memory/ suppression claim where she had been abused but had blocked it out...but by bringing this up, was now a bona-fide member of the oppressed group.

I was fucking flabberghasted. She pursued this for some months, to the huge distress of her parents and siblings...although, once the group eventually lost its internal cohesion (by a series of competing claims to be the most damaged - one even produced a badge which said 'public school survivor), her false memories also vanished.

However, for a few months, she sincerely believed herself to be irredeemably broken while relying on the almost cultish group approval.

I was disturbed and appalled by the whole counselling thing, which seemed to be wholly narcissistic...and yet I am also aware that this is not any sort of representation of counselling or even group dynamics...but the eagerness with which she was so terribly keen to be accepted, 'special' and even excused any amount of stuff because of this 'abuse' was telling and also spoke to various other anxieties and insecurities which she felt unable to articulate (unlike the current topic of interest).

We want, so very desperately, to belong, to be part of something, to have an identity...while at the same time, there is a concerted effort to dissolve the 'mob' into ever smaller, ineffective groups. Even seemingly innocuous things such as pricing wc families out of football, closing pubs and workingmens (apols) clubs, stifling education and policing the internet...not to mention abhorrent housing and employment conditions, all of which militate against collective endeavour. Having a group identity is comforting, offers us security and empathy and forms friendship networks which have replaced older family and community belonging...but we should always be mindful of the systemic processes at play which will undermine us, segregate us and keep us at each others throat.

Like VP, I also do a lot of form filling for benefit claims for my neighbours - many of whom are prejudiced, with dodgy as fuck ideas about the world. I don't particularly even like them very much...but the issue (for me) is class solidarity...which will always take precedence...and we can have a good argument about immigrants as well.


----------



## Sunset Tree (Dec 27, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The “gender critical” just “asking questions” again, by which I mean swarming the BBC Woman’s Hour Twitter feed denouncing them for interviewing a black transwoman about racism.




This is the woman who said all white people are guilty of racial violence?

I didn't think much of that short clip.  Typical smug liberalism: if people don't agree it's because they just don't understand yet and need to be educated.  I hate that attitude.

The comments under that are full of the 'trans woman ARE women' mantra, and if you don't agree you need education.  Does an education just mean agreeing with them?  I still don't really get this.  If it's not a 'woman trapped in a mans body' and just a desire to live as a woman, is that the same as just 'being' a woman?  These comments don't help.



> I repeat, she is a woman. A wonderful woman, taking time to educate us. If you don’t like this content, again, go read some right wing stuff- it’ll be perfect for you.





> Trans women identify as women, share many common experiences with other women, for all intents and purposes ARE women outside their biological inability to bear children.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 27, 2017)

Sunset Tree said:


> I didn't think much of that short clip.



I don’t think much of it either. But I think considerably less of the dozens of bigots whose response to a black transwoman talking about racism isn’t to engage, critically or otherwise, with what she is saying but to line up to condemn woman’s hour for interviewing a “man”. These people are not looking for a debate, they are looking to hound trans people from the public sphere.


----------



## bimble (Dec 27, 2017)

Why did you characterise those people you’re angry with on Twitter as gender critical / asking questions when they show no sign of either? You seem a bit confused Nigel Irritable , having said (many times) that Terfs are a tiny insignificant vestigial subsect of feminists it looks like you see them everywhere.


----------



## comrade spurski (Dec 27, 2017)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The “gender critical” just “asking questions” again, by which I mean swarming the BBC Woman’s Hour Twitter feed denouncing them for interviewing a black transwoman about racism.




I am no expert on this subject but have a few views.

 because some call a trans woman a man and refuse to acknowledge her as a woman it is not ok to accuse everyone who thinks or believes that trans women do not fully understand what it is like to be a woman and therefore what it is like to be oppressed as a woman  trans phobic.

I do not think that labelling every woman who is verbalising this and other concerns as trans phobic as a Terf is helpful, fair or acceptable.

Calling a trans woman a man is disgraceful and, in my opinion, hateful and I have no time for those people but they seem to be a minority imo.

This analogy does not fit the issue but imo does fit how people could approach the debate.

Back around 2000 I was involved in campaigning to support asylum seekers where I worked.

A lot of people, including a lot of 2nd and 3rd generation black and asian people were expressing very anti immigrant and anti asylum seeker views.
The choice was to condemn them all or to take up the debate. None were organised racist types but if I had simply condemned them as though they were BNP types I'd have been isolated but because I listened I was able to answer a lot of questions and sway some and soften the attitude of others. This worked to such a degree that I was asked to write a factsheet about asylum seekers for the local union by members who wanted information to take up the arguments.
At no point did I soften or hide my anti racist views but I listened so I could answer concerns rather than lecture. It was slow (and irritating at times) but well worth it...and in truth the was no short cut.

Your argument reads like "I know you are trans phobic so fuck you."

By all means stand your ground against people who are refusing to accepting trans woman and trans men but you appear to be using a broad brush which wrongly paints far too many as abusers.

Most people are confused by the terminology, do not fully understand the issues because (in my opinion) a few are intent on using acronyms, jargon and speaking like intellectuals. An honest discussion occasionally breaks out in this thread but from my perspective it is a thread full of insults, point scoring and intellectual vanity (on many sides)

Like I said I am no expert but the important issue here is building alliances because the bigger alliance the lesser the chance of trans phobia taking hold.

And building alliances requires genuine debate on all sides not hectoring.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 27, 2017)

bimble said:


> Why did you characterise those people you’re angry with on Twitter as gender critical / asking questions when they show no sign of either? You seem a bit confused Nigel Irritable , having said (many times) that Terfs are a tiny insignificant vestigial subsect of feminists it looks like you see them everywhere.



I realize that it can be difficult to tell far right or social conservative transphobes from ”gender critical” transphobes when they are all posting much the same thing, but even the more obtuse among us should be able to work out which group people called things like “Dr Radfem” or with bios reading “still a radical feminist” belong to.

As for seeing them everywhere, no, fortunately not. Just in the pages of right wing (British) media and in the occasional social media swarm. I’ve never once encountered someone pushing anti-trans “feminist” views in the real world, not socially, not at work, not on the left here and not in the abortion rights movement here.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 27, 2017)

co-op said:


> Oh my god, we are taking lectures on correct feminist theory from an SWP hack? No wonder he's so defensive and evasive.


NI isn't SWP. (Well unless he's recently changed party)


----------



## Cloo (Dec 27, 2017)

Lewis Hamilton thing seems to have bought the TERFS out on Twitter again wittering about a trans cult determined to transition children and get everyone sexually abused by making them so confused about gender that they will NEVER understand sexual boundaries again. 

Occurred to me that the simple answer about gender and boundaries is that you teach what appropriate behaviour is or isn't regardless of the gender or perceived gender of the person doing it. If someone in a changing room, for example, were to behave inappropriately and upsettingly, you report them to someone, whatever the perpetrator's gender is or appears to be.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Dec 27, 2017)

Cloo said:


> Lewis Hamilton thing seems to have bought the TERFS out on Twitter again wittering about a trans cult determined to transition children and get everyone sexually abused by making them so confused about gender that they will NEVER understand sexual boundaries again.


Which only shows how full of idiotic shit Twitter is.


----------



## bemused (Dec 27, 2017)

Cloo said:


> Lewis Hamilton thing seems to have bought [..]



God forbid someone has a joke with their nephew without having to apologize for offending people he'll never meet.

I joked a lot with the kids in my family sorry if any of our mutual teasings offended anyone.


----------



## Cloo (Dec 27, 2017)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Which only shows how full of idiotic shit Twitter is.


It really is... and why anyone really bothers to argue there I just don't know, no one is ever going to change anyone's opinion in an argument on there.  But I find it useful to get out of my bubble a bit and see what people I disagree with might be thinking and why.

comrade spurski - I agree that we shouldn't call everyone expressing concerns about how we talk about gender and about women's spaces TERFS. I will use it for anyone insisting trans is  cult of men who want to violate women's spaces and rights, though.


----------



## belboid (Dec 27, 2017)

bemused said:


> God forbid someone has a joke with their nephew without having to apologize for offending people he'll never meet.
> 
> I joked a lot with the kids in my family sorry if any of our mutual teasings offended anyone.


Do you do so in front of five millions followers?


----------



## MochaSoul (Dec 27, 2017)

What do people here think of Kristina Harrison's (thanks co-op for bringing her to our attention) view?
Is this the view of a self-hating transwoman? Of a TERF? Is her use of "their own" in her tweet exclusionary? How do people decide whose voices are to be heard in this debate?


----------



## Cloo (Dec 27, 2017)

I think it's one of those areas where we have to strike a difference between 'theoretical' and 'reality'. There may be a 'theoretical' issue with self-identification but will that really translate into an actual issue given the small minority of people we are talking about here? Will it really change the whole status of humanity to allow a small number of people to identify differently to their birth gender?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 27, 2017)

If it affects women then that’s half the country’s population; not ‘a small minority of people’.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 27, 2017)

> When you make sex a self defined identity, by default you silence natal women because they will no longer have a say in the very boundaries of their own sex. Instead you've just handed the right to determine who is a woman & who shapes their priorities to transwomen & men.



One problem that immediately strikes me here is that there are natal women who support the idea of gender self-certification. This tweet doesn't seem to acknowledge that.


----------



## Cloo (Dec 27, 2017)

The small minority I'm talking about is trans people, not people affected. Btw, for context I am a cis woman.

So one argument I just heard on Twitter was 'I always told my kids to find a woman if they are on their own and have a problem and that won't work now'. Except I've always told my kids just to find someone else with kids. And if you still say 'only women', well what is the chance that the woman approached happens to be a trans woman who is a predatory sex abuser? I mean, seriously.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 27, 2017)

Cloo said:


> The small minority I'm talking about is trans people, not people affected. Btw, for context I am a cis woman.
> 
> So one argument I just heard on Twitter was 'I always told my kids to find a woman if they are on their own and have a problem and that won't work now'. Except I've always told my kids just to find someone else with kids. And if you still say 'only women', well what is the chance that the woman approached happens to be a trans woman who is a predatory sex abuser? I mean, seriously.


Like the kid's going to know anyway! Are they going to ask for the birth certificate or something?


----------



## bimble (Dec 27, 2017)

MochaSoul 's question was not Is this quote 100% correct but how do people place voices like this, and Miranda Yardleys, who refuse to be put neatly in either camp of a simplistically imagined divide ( trans-women-are-women-end-of on one side and 'terfs'/transphobes on the other).  Personally I'm really glad of them doing what they're doing, even if I don't agree with everything they say its good to hear dissenting complex views from people who have actually gone through transitioning and lived with these questions for years.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 27, 2017)

Does anybody have anything from Argentina indicating problems? It's the best case study we have, with a self-certifying law in place since 2012, and all I can find are positive stories. It's a society where being a transvestite was illegal in some places, and the new law was very much proposed as a means of bringing to an end discrimination. As I said, all I can find is positive news about it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 27, 2017)

bimble said:


> MochaSoul 's question was not Is this quote 100% correct but how do people place voices like this, and Miranda Yardleys, who refuse to be put neatly in either camp of a simplistically imagined divide ( trans-women-are-women-end-of on one side and 'terfs'/transphobes on the other).  Personally I'm really glad of them doing what they're doing, even if I don't agree with everything they say its good to hear dissenting complex views from people who have actually gone through transitioning and lived with these questions for years.


I don't think the view of Kristina Harrison as presented in that tweet is complex, tbh. I think it's simplistic.

As for people being silenced, who is being silenced? I see the likes of Julia Long invited to consult with government and appearing on the tv.


----------



## bimble (Dec 27, 2017)

I'm not talking about that tweet, it's not a great tweet, this thread of hers was much better (not sure how to post a link to the whole thing but you can read it all if you click):



Question was where do voices like hers fit in,when she can't be called a terf or presumably a transphobe.


----------



## MochaSoul (Dec 27, 2017)

Cloo said:


> Will it really change the whole status of humanity to allow a small number of people to identify differently to their birth gender?


Who decides that? Who's allowed in the debate?

I confess, I hadn't much thought about it until just a few weeks ago. I have been avidly reading this thread because, as littlebabyjesus points out, I was one of those women who were all for gender self-certification... until a friend of mine shouted a me in despair. She was fondled by her gynecologist during examination before she was 20. Now, this didn't happen here in Britain. No only that but it happened in an armed forces setting. She never pressed charges, never identified the man, kept the whole thing from even from her family, left the force and some time later she emigrated here. She's been here for 15 years or so. She has been grateful for the facility to ask for her gynecologist to be female ever since I told her about it. She shouted at me because "How could I be so flippant?!" (I was the one to ask about the facility and then tell her about it because she wouldn't go to the doctor despite her pelvic pain becoming disabling). She's afraid of the can of worms that will open itself in her mind at the thought of being examined by a transwoman especially if they are as successful passing as female as to pass her by. She's well aware of how flimsy the probability of that happening just as she is aware of the probabilities of male gynecologists being sexual predators but her fear is her fear.
Will she be dismissed as transphobic if she voices her fears to her GP? Will the GP be dismissed as transphobic if they raise her case?

Where is her voice in this debate?


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 27, 2017)

nvm, wrong


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 27, 2017)

bimble said:


> I'm not talking about that tweet, it's not a great tweet, this thread of hers was much better (not sure how to post a link to the whole thing but you can read it all if you click):
> 
> 
> 
> Question was where do voices like hers fit in,when she can't be called a terf or presumably a transphobe.



Fair dos, yes I saw that earlier. Hadn't realised it was the same person.


----------



## Cloo (Dec 27, 2017)

Totally valid issue MochaSoul - I have said earlier in the thread that I am aware that although I don't much mind about trans women in 'women's spaces', I do know there are other women for whom it is problematic for reasons that are not about transphobia. I mean, I have never been abused, I have never felt a need for women's spaces but I appreciate it is different for others. It's a total bugger as there are really no happy compromises here for anyone - I recognise that if you have women's spaces that say they will allow anyone identifying as female to join, it will be unacceptable and distressing to some women for reasons that are not because they hate trans women and don't want them to have rights and freedom to live how they wish. And if you say that women's groups/spaces or at least some of them will not accept trans women, that is profoundly distressing and crushing to many trans women. It seems like there are some trans feminists who effectively say that they want equality but accept they cannot claim to be a woman without the trans prefix, and they don't have the right to access every women's space, but I expect they are a minority.


----------



## comrade spurski (Dec 27, 2017)

Cloo said:


> comrade spurski - I agree that we shouldn't call everyone expressing concerns about how we talk about gender and about women's spaces TERFS. *I will use it for anyone insisting trans is  cult of men who want to violate women's spaces and rights, though.*



That is fair enough...it is a vile argument imo.

I know people who worry about having to share toilets and changing rooms but are not dismissive of trans men and women.

I know others that are ignorant of many of the issues and terminologies (as am I) and I mean ignorant in it's true sense not as an insult.

Neither of these things are hateful and it seems to me that people can be reassured and educated.


This is very different to calling trans women men and implying they are seeking to abuse women by pretending to be women.


----------



## comrade spurski (Dec 27, 2017)

MochaSoul said:


> Who decides that? Who's allowed in the debate?
> 
> I confess, I hadn't much thought about it until just a few weeks ago. I have been avidly reading this thread because, as littlebabyjesus points out, I was one of those women who were all for gender self-certification... until a friend of mine shouted a me in despair. She was fondled by her gynecologist during examination before she was 20. Now, this didn't happen here in Britain. No only that but it happened in an armed forces setting. She never pressed charges, never identified the man, kept the whole thing from even from her family, left the force and some time later she emigrated here. She's been here for 15 years or so. She has been grateful for the facility to ask for her gynecologist to be female ever since I told her about it. She shouted at me because "How could I be so flippant?!" (I was the one to ask about the facility and then tell her about it because she wouldn't go to the doctor despite her pelvic pain becoming disabling). She's afraid of the can of worms that will open itself in her mind at the thought of being examined by a transwoman especially if they are as successful passing as female as to pass her by. She's well aware of how flimsy the probability of that happening just as she is aware of the probabilities of male gynecologists being sexual predators but her fear is her fear.
> Will she be dismissed as transphobic if she voices her fears to her GP? Will the GP be dismissed as transphobic if they raise her case?
> ...



No it ain't transphobic.
I wouldn't want to be intimately examined by a female doctor unless in an emergency but I am not sexist. I think women make equally good Drs and nurses as men but I would be really uncomfortable.

It seems to me that your friend or anyone else has the same right to feel as I do.

That is a world away to calling a trans woman a man imo.


----------



## MochaSoul (Dec 28, 2017)

comrade spurski said:


> No it ain't transphobic.



Says who? (besides you, that is). This thread has enough examples of asking questions being tarred with transphobia, TERFdom, MRactivism and right wing alignment and this thread is tame compared to "out there".



comrade spurski said:


> That is a world away to calling a trans woman a man imo.



What's the difference between calling a transwoman a man and seeing them as one?


----------



## Athos (Dec 28, 2017)

MochaSoul said:


> What's the difference between calling a transwoman a man and seeing them as one?



For one thing, you can properly and meaningfully legislate for what people do (i.e. what they say to a trans person - if it crosses the line into abuse, or about trans people - if it amounts to e.g. incitement), but can't for what they think (i.e. how someone conceives of sex/gender).


----------



## 19force8 (Dec 28, 2017)

MochaSoul said:


> Will she be dismissed as transphobic if she voices her fears to her GP?


Maybe there's a difference between transphobia as a psychological condition and transphobia as a political idea. The fact she worries about the possibility that she might not be able to detect whether or not a gynaecologist is a transwoman does seem rather extreme. I would say *dismissal* would be as inappropriate as dismissing an agoraphobic's fear about leaving the house.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 28, 2017)

Is it transphobic to have a sex-based concept of man/woman?


----------



## comrade spurski (Dec 28, 2017)

MochaSoul said:


> Says who? (besides you, that is). This thread has enough examples of asking questions being tarred with transphobia, TERFdom, MRactivism and right wing alignment and this thread is tame compared to "out there".
> 
> 
> 
> What's the difference between calling a transwoman a man and seeing them as one?



Deleted original response as I completely misunderstood this post.


----------



## Sunset Tree (Dec 28, 2017)

I ended up reading a 2015 urban thread about trans issues.  A lot of the same points are hashed out but there is a lot more assertion that trans means being 'born in the wrong body'.  People were so sure of that then but it seems to have fallen out of favour.


----------



## co-op (Dec 28, 2017)

Sunset Tree said:


> I ended up reading a 2015 urban thread about trans issues.  A lot of the same points are hashed out but there is a lot more assertion that trans means being 'born in the wrong body'.  People were so sure of that then but it seems to have fallen out of favour.



I re-read part of that thread too (the Goldsmiths one) and I noticed that too. What's interesting to me is that the 'wrong body' idea was _absolutely dominant_ in that thread and when I and others criticised it we were definitely damned as transphobes.

But in this thread the people throwing around the transphobe slurs are either utterly dismissing the 'wrong body' theory (in fact Nigel Irritable has turned it right round and is now claiming that it's so wrong that only transphobes would even push the 'wrong body' theory) or are saying it's a marginal unimportant thing.

So I'm taking from that; that this is a fast-changing area of thought and the idea that there is a nice fixed straightforward position that radicals can easily unite around is obviously bullshit.

And the obvious follow-on from that is that we should take less notice of the shouty transphobe denouncers. If they can u-turn like this, so fast, on such central stuff, they really don't have a clue what they're talking about and should be treated with real caution.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 28, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Is it transphobic to have a sex-based concept of man/woman?



I think some people would say that having a sex-based concept of man and woman means that you're denying trans people their existence.

Without wanting it to be a discussion that excludes people who don't have the 'right' language I don't see how any discussion around trans issues can be simple and not include questions about how we categorise the world around us.


----------



## Sunset Tree (Dec 28, 2017)

co-op said:


> I re-read part of that thread too (the Goldsmiths one) and I noticed that too. What's interesting to me is that the 'wrong body' idea was _absolutely dominant_ in that thread and when I and others criticised it we were definitely damned as transphobes.
> 
> But in this thread the people throwing around the transphobe slurs are either utterly dismissing the 'wrong body' theory (in fact Nigel Irritable has turned it right round and is now claiming that it's so wrong that only transphobes would even push the 'wrong body' theory) or are saying it's a marginal unimportant thing.
> 
> ...



I was liking a few posts so may have brought that thread up in a few people's notifications again.  I read the first fifty pages, it was fascinating.  

Yeah, the assertion that 'trans women just ARE woman' along with the 'wrong body' assertion were very popular on that thread.  They got tons of likes and were accepted as self-evidence truths.  Anyone who wanted to discuss the nature of what it means to be a woman was met with fierce criticism.  That's definitely changed on this thread, because a few feminists have written about the nature of growing up with with a female body and female socialisation, and it's been well-received.  Really interesting how some of these key assertions have changed in just a short time.


----------



## rutabowa (Dec 28, 2017)

I'm def glad I've always chosen the "don't comment because i don't know what the fuck I'm talking about" path on this topic, that's for sure.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 28, 2017)

co-op said:


> I re-read part of that thread too (the Goldsmiths one) and I noticed that too. What's interesting to me is that the 'wrong body' idea was _absolutely dominant_ in that thread and when I and others criticised it we were definitely damned as transphobes.
> 
> But in this thread the people throwing around the transphobe slurs are either utterly dismissing the 'wrong body' theory (in fact Nigel Irritable has turned it right round and is now claiming that it's so wrong that only transphobes would even push the 'wrong body' theory*) or are saying it's a marginal unimportant thing.
> 
> ...



I re-read some of that too, to check out the wrong body theory, because I recalled responding to that.

I also remember being quite afraid of being called a transphobe and trying to get it right.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 28, 2017)

Had another look for stuff about Argentina. The likes of Julia Long and Dr RadFem appear not to have written anything about the Argentinian experience at all. I find this rather odd. Nothing about Ireland or Malta either, from what I can find. They campaign against a particular law, but never refer to the places that already have such a law or the experiences of people there. 

Maybe Miranda Yardley can help out. Have I just missed this stuff through inadequate google skills? Is it discussed in meetings?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 28, 2017)

bimble said:


> I'm not talking about that tweet, it's not a great tweet, this thread of hers was much better (not sure how to post a link to the whole thing but you can read it all if you click):
> 
> 
> 
> Question was where do voices like hers fit in,when she can't be called a terf or presumably a transphobe.




Genuinely cannot understand what Kristina Harrison is saying here. Not that I disagree with it, I genuinely can't parse the meaning of that sentence at all. I think it might have a quadruple negative in it.


----------



## spanglechick (Dec 28, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Genuinely cannot understand what Kristina Harrison is saying here. Not that I disagree with it, I genuinely can't parse the meaning of that sentence at all. I think it might have a quadruple negative in it.


She says, 

I demand trans rights. 
However what we have now is that the issue of trans rights has been conflated with the fight that some people want, which is to minimise or eliminate biological definitions of sex.  
I think this is tragic, because it is happening at the expense of the trans issues I think are more important: equality; freedom from violence and discrimination; proper services; and a real fight against systemic transphobia.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 28, 2017)

co-op said:


> Here you go, since you can't say anything except your repetitive strategic overview of the balance of forces on this - some straightforward yes/no questions;
> 
> Am I a terf because I think any group promoting patriarchal gender roles needs challenging, even if that group happens to be made up of transwomen?



No, can you point to any organised (political) group made up of transwomen who are promoting patriarchal gender roles?  If you are talking about individuals and tumblr cliques then I guess the question would be does someone challenge transwomen more than ciswomen, or cismen?  Because to do so - to treat a group differently, and more harshly, simply because they are trans - would of course be transphobia.  I do not see the same energy poured into deconstructing Katie Price or any number of high profile macho men by trans critical feminists.



> Am I a terf if I question how it is that a person 'becomes a woman' (or even stranger, just "is" a woman) when they have neither female biology (if that's relevant) nor any experience of the intensive gender-socialisation into a female gender role that women raised as women get?



No, not to question it.  But to insist that anyone who does not meet a purely subjective definition of woman, which is not shared by everyone, has no right to ever organise politically as a woman, or enter a women only space, despite what other women might think, is trans exclusionary and that would make someone a terf.



> Am I a terf if it appears to me that the word "cis" contains within it at the very least a strong implication that most people are non-coerced into their gender roles, are happy in them and that they constitute a 'natural' gender binary? (all of which assumption seems utterly wrong to me)



No, but to refuse to accept a linguistic need for a pragmatic antonym for trans, especially on the basis that there is no such thing as trangenderism -  there are normal women and men who sometimes have 'pretend feels' - would be a characteristic of terf ideology.



> Is it terf to reject the meaningfulness of the 'woman born in a man's body' narrative?



No, as I pointed out several trans people have done this themselves.  But to reject the meaningfulness of gender dysphoria, or the meaningfulness of how some trans people report experiencing their bodies - to claim these things are delusions at best, or lies for some sinister rapey intent at worst - would also be a hallmark of terf ideology.

I don't think throwing terf around is particularly helpful because it is a highly ideological position which I'd suggest shares some common factors:-

That the gender binary is a social construct used to oppress biological women and to invert it reinforces rather than weakens the gender binary.

That you cannot change your sex and even if you change your gender (and parts of your biological sex) you should remain defined by your underlying sex - meaning presumably internal reproductive organs and chromosones.

That male to female transgenderism always has a sexual motive, either as a means to invade women's spaces and abuse women, or autogynephilia.  As such transgenderism is a male sexual right's movement.  Terfs don't tend to talk much about transwomen who are sexually orientated towards men. 

That transwomen continue to display male patterns of violence and as such it is not safe to permit them to use women only services.

That female to male transgenderism is the result of the patriarchy causing lesbians to hate their bodies.

That trans inclusive ciswomen have been brainwashed by the patriarchy and need protecting by demanding on their behalf that all women only spaces become trans exclusive.

That transgenderism is an ideology designed to reinforce the gender binary rather than a way of how people have chosen to describe their lived experiences.  As such the transgender phenomena is always inauthentic, trans people are liars or deluded.

That despite being mad, deluded, sexual perverts transwomen have enormous power due to their male socialization and have seized control of  medical, legal, political and social institutions preventing any dissenting voices.

That transgenderism is a late 20th century western phenomena instigated by the pharmaceutical industry to trick men with a sexual fetish into buying estrogen pills.

That transgender rights and ciswomen's rights are always in opposition and that the growing social and legal acceptence of transgenderism represents the greatest current threat to women - and as such should be the priority of feminism.  To counter this threat feminists should work towards morally mandating transsexuality out of existence using legal, social and medical means.

That such is the threat to women that any tactic can be justified no matter the harm such as lying to try and smear transwomen as sexual predators.  Similarly any allegiance against transwomen is legitimate, even with the worst kind of patriarchs such as the right wing press and old school conservatives here and Trump supporting Republicans and evangelicals in the states.  This is a fight for survival and so the enemy's enemy is always their friend.


I'd suggest anyone who appears to agree with all or most of this could be rightly described as a terf, and sadly that includes most of the women curently leading the fight against the GRA amendments.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 28, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> She says,
> 
> I demand trans rights.
> However what we have now is that the issue of trans rights has been conflated with the fight that some people want, which is to minimise or eliminate biological definitions of sex.
> I think this is tragic, because it is happening at the expense of the trans issues I think are more important: equality; freedom from violence and discrimination; proper services; and a real fight against systemic transphobia.



Thanks for that. This is why I avoid twitter, some concepts require more than one sentence.


----------



## bimble (Dec 28, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Thanks for that. This is why I avoid twitter, some concepts require more than one sentence.


Did you click and read the rest of her numbered points? (if you're interested in her point of view she does expand on it there).


----------



## Athos (Dec 28, 2017)

smokedout said:


> But to insist that anyone who does not meet a purely subjective definition of woman...



Saying you're a woman because you feel like what you feel it must feel like to be a woman is literally as subjective a definition of 'woman' as is possible to conceive!



smokedout said:


> No, but to refuse to accept a linguistic need for a pragmatic antonym for trans...



There is no 'linguistic' need.  Linguistically, 'not trans' would suffice. Any 'need' is purely ideological. (Such that, to label as 'cis' women who don't want to be so labelled is a deliberate and disrespectful ideologically-motivated act.)


----------



## co-op (Dec 28, 2017)

smokedout said:


> No, can you point to any organised (political) group made up of transwomen who are promoting patriarchal gender roles?  If you are talking about individuals and tumblr cliques then I guess the question would be does someone challenge transwomen more than ciswomen, or cismen?  Because to do so - to treat a group differently, and more harshly, simply because they are trans - would of course be transphobia.  I do not see the same energy poured into deconstructing Katie Price or any number of high profile macho men by trans critical feminists.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks for this post, I haven't got time to respond to it today, maybe for a couple of days but I will.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 28, 2017)

Athos said:


> There is no 'linguistic' need.  Linguistically, 'not trans' would suffice. Any 'need' is purely ideological. (Such that, to label as 'cis' women who don't want to be so labelled is a deliberate and disrespectful ideologically-motivated act.)



In this context, _not trans _is just a synonym for default / normal. That IMO makes it less useful than the term _cis_.

I also think it's OK to say, _I don't see myself as cis_. I also think it's OK to not talk about it. The term exists for people who do want to.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 28, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> In this context, _not trans _is just a synonym for default / normal. That IMO makes it less useful than the term _cis_.
> 
> I also think it's OK to say, _I don't see myself as cis_. I also think it's OK to not talk about it. The term exists for people who do want to.



I’ve mostly had it barked at me pejoratively. As it’s another way for the idpolers have to invalidate my views.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 28, 2017)

I imagine you've been called worse in your time.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 28, 2017)

I’d rather be criticised on my words and actions than my identity though.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 28, 2017)

Yeah, fair enough. I am being facetious. A bit.


----------



## Athos (Dec 28, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> In this context, _not trans _is just a synonym for default / normal. That IMO makes it less useful than the term _cis_.
> 
> I also think it's OK to say, _I don't see myself as cis_. I also think it's OK to not talk about it. The term exists for people who do want to.



I completely agree. But my point was that's an ideological position. There's no *linguistic* necessity for 'cis' any more than there's a linguistic necessity for, say, a word that means 'not a butcher'.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 28, 2017)

Pedantry point: Trans is an adjective so more accurately would be there not being an antonym of orange, vain or psychopathic (I actually wasn’t thinking about Trump).


----------



## smokedout (Dec 28, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Pedantry point: Trans is an adjective so more accurately would be there not being an antonym of orange, vain or psychopathic (I actually wasn’t thinking about Trump).



Or bad, good, cold or hot.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 28, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Or bad, good, cold or hot.



Interesting that those arguing against gender binaries also argue in favour of them.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 28, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Interesting that those arguing against gender binaries also argue in favour of them.



cis/trans is not a gender binary.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 28, 2017)

I'd leave the pedantry to Pickers if I were you.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 28, 2017)

smokedout said:


> cis/trans is not a gender binary.



An antonym of something creates a binary.


----------



## spanglechick (Dec 28, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> An antonym of something creates a binary.


Noooo.


Light and dark are antonyms, but they don’t stop a spectrum existing in between.


----------



## MochaSoul (Dec 28, 2017)

19force8 said:


> Maybe there's a difference between transphobia as a psychological condition and transphobia as a political idea



1. So... we go from pathologising gender non conformity in some individuals to pathologising gender orthodoxy in others? 

I do read my friend's fear as extreme (even if I don't blame her for it) but I also read it as a *fear of men*, rather than a fear of transwomen, expanded to them only via a sex based definition of "man" rather than a gender one. I don't see it as more or less irrational (for want of a better word) that such a fear might be compounded by not being confident in identifying which is which or having to rely on others for disclosure.

2. To me, this doesn't sound like transphobia being confined to the political sphere.



> Sexual attraction is a complex phenomenon, and of course there is lots of individual variation. I certainly do not expect every cis queer woman to swoon over me. And if it were only a small percentage of cis dykes who were not interested in trans women at all, I would write it off as simply a matter of personal preference. But this not a minor problem—it is systemic; it is a predominant sentiment in queer women’s communities. *And when the overwhelming majority of cis dykes date and fuck cis women, but are not open to, or are even turned off by, the idea of dating or fucking trans women, how is that not transphobic?* And to those cis women who claim a dyke identity, yet consider trans men, but not trans women, to be a part of your dating pool, let me ask you this: How are you not a hypocrite?...
> ...* My purpose in writing this piece is to highlight how cis dykes’ unwillingness to consider trans women as legitimate partners translates directly into a lack of community for queer-identified trans women.*



That feels profoundly invasive to me and I'm not a lesbian. I'd not take kindly to being urged to sleep with white people supposedly to prove racism opposition credentials or my commitment to welcoming all races into shared spaces. I shudder to think how that kind of thinking can be used to manipulate less confident or assured minds especially young minds and especially young women's minds.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 28, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> Noooo.
> 
> Light and dark are antonyms, but they don’t stop a spectrum existing in between.



You got me. Although, nobody considered the spectrum when barking cis at me.


----------



## MochaSoul (Dec 28, 2017)

Athos said:


> For one thing, you can properly and meaningfully legislate for what people do (i.e. what they say to a trans person - if it crosses the line into abuse, or about trans people - if it amounts to e.g. incitement), but can't for what they think (i.e. how someone conceives of sex/gender).



I should have been more specific I guess. I was putting myself in my friend's place actually. Should healthcare be withheld from my friend because she has a fear of men? Could/should the law intervene in her case?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 28, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> An antonym of something creates a binary.


Not really, or at least if it's true, it is only trivially true. Any category A has 'not-A' also as a category, otherwise it isn't meaningful. And binaries don't have to be opposites: male and female are not opposites in any meaningful way.

Your earlier example of psychopaths is illuminating here, perhaps. We don't have a word for 'not-psychopath'. To be a psychopath is to be a problem for the rest of us. There are terms for such things as 'not-autistic' and 'not-trans' because, perhaps in a ham-fisted way, people are trying to move away from certifying these conditions as a problem for the rest of us - to create a more accepting situation where they're accepted for what and who they are. We have no desire to do that for someone like a psychopath, so few of us would have a problem with calling non-psychopaths something like 'normal'. That we may not be so comfortable calling non-autism spectrum or non-trans people 'normal' is surely because of our attitude towards autistic or trans people, because we do not seek to other them - we actively seek not to other them. And there's a judgement there - who should we other, who should we not - and for societies as a whole, those who are othered has changed over time. Gay people are no longer othered by the state or increasingly by general society, as the obvious example.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 28, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not really, or at least if it's true, it is only trivially true. Any category A has 'not-A' also as a category, otherwise it isn't meaningful. And binaries don't have to be opposites: male and female are not opposites in any meaningful way.
> 
> Your earlier example of psychopaths is illuminating here, perhaps. We don't have a word for 'not-psychopath'. To be a psychopath is to be a problem for the rest of us. There are terms for such things as 'not-autistic' and 'not-trans' because, perhaps in a ham-fisted way, people are trying to move away from certifying these conditions as a problem for the rest of us - to create a more accepting situation where they're accepted for what and who they are. We have no desire to do that for someone like a psychopath, so few of us would have a problem with calling non-psychopaths something like 'normal'. That we may not be so comfortable calling non-autism spectrum or non-trans people 'normal' is surely because of our attitude towards autistic or trans people, because we do not seek to other them - we actively seek not to other them. And there's a judgement there - who should we other, who should we not - and for societies as a whole, those who are othered has changed over time. Gay people are no longer othered by the state or increasingly by general society, as the obvious example.



So rigid binaries are useful, until they’re not. The thing with language is it’s organic. Ham fisted changes gets people’s backs up as far as I can tell.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 28, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> So rigid binaries are useful, until they’re not. The thing with language is it’s organic. Ham fisted changes gets people’s backs up as far as I can tell.


Yes, language is organic, and a bunch of people discussing a particular issue have found the term cisgender meaningful and useful. It means 'not-trans' but in a way that offers no judgement on being trans.

If someone has a go at you for being a cis het male, for instance, take them to task for what they say, but I'm guessing that you wouldn't dispute the validity of the terms 'het' or 'male' as meaningful terms.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 28, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, language is organic, and a bunch of people discussing a particular issue have found the term cisgender meaningful and useful. It means 'not-trans' but in a way that offers no judgement on being trans.
> 
> If someone has a go at you for being a cis het male, for instance, take them to task for what they say, but I'm guessing that you wouldn't dispute the validity of the terms 'het' or 'male' as meaningful terms.



They’re meaningful to describe me. Also to dismiss my views from a particular perspective. I haven’t seen cis used in any other setting yet.


----------



## Athos (Dec 29, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> Noooo.
> 
> 
> Light and dark are antonyms, but they don’t stop a spectrum existing in between.



But that's at odds with idea that 'cis just means not trans' which many assert. If it's accepted that some people are neither cis nor trans, and nobody is labelled as either who doesn't want to be, that's fine.


----------



## Athos (Dec 29, 2017)

MochaSoul said:


> I should have been more specific I guess. I was putting myself in my friend's place actually. Should healthcare be withheld from my friend because she has a fear of men? Could/should the law intervene in her case?



I think women like your friend have a right to ask to be examined by someone of the same sex and gender as them.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 29, 2017)

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/12/2...rights-review-amid-right-wing-press-backlash/

Government kicking the issue into the long grass apparently. 



> The Gender Recognition Act does not regulate who is permitted to use gender-segregated spaces, but much of the coverage of the issue has inaccurately claim that reforms would give more people permission to enter female toilets.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Delaying reform will not make anyone safer, nor will it salve the wounds of those who find themselves personally harmed by someone else's identity. All it will do is prolong a situation where trans folk are obliged to wade through all sorts of bureaucratic indignities just to get to a point most of us are born at.

Anyone who is happy with this development wants to take a look at who they're lining up alongside, ie the gutter press and the tory right. And then maybe ask themselves if dashing the hopes of transgender people is likely to actually resolve any of the issues involved to anyone's satsifaction, or restore society to an imaginary past time of comfortingly rigid dichotomies.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 29, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> They’re meaningful to describe me. Also to dismiss my views from a particular perspective. I haven’t seen cis used in any other setting yet.


You've not been looking very hard then. There were lots of examples given on the 'cis' thread that you posted many times on. People discussing trans issues in a sensible, reasoned way, using cis and cisgender in their discussions.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 29, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/12/2...rights-review-amid-right-wing-press-backlash/
> 
> Government kicking the issue into the long grass apparently.
> 
> ...



Indeed, a campaign spearheaded by the Tory right and based on misunderstanding and outright lies about what had been proposed.  To stop a change that could have made a huge difference in the lives of a small number of people and as the experience of other countries suggests would barely have been even noticed by anyone else.  Gender neutral passports now off the cards as well.  Not the proudest day in the history of gender critical feminism, or those who believed their lies.  David Davies must be pissing himself though.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 29, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You've not been looking very hard then. There were lots of examples given on the 'cis' thread that you posted many times on. People discussing trans issues in a sensible, reasoned way, using cis and cisgender in their discussions.


Your labelling was smug and patronising.


----------



## andysays (Dec 29, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Indeed, a campaign spearheaded by the Tory right and based on misunderstanding and outright lies about what had been proposed.  To stop a change that could have made a huge difference in the lives of a small number of people and as the experience of other countries suggests would barely have been even noticed by anyone else.  *Gender neutral passports now off the cards as well*.  Not the proudest day in the history of gender critical feminism, or those who believed their lies.  David Davies must be pissing himself though.



Can you explain how, in your opinion, the Gender Recognition Act would have made gender neutral passports any more 'on the cards' than they are currently.

It appears to me (although I'm open to reasoned persuasion otherwise) that an Act which focusses on enabling some people to have their new or non-birth gender legally recognised would do absolutely nothing for those of us seeking a less gender determined society or, on a personal level, who wish not to be defined by our gender and/or to have our behaviour proscribed and our social and other relations with others influenced by anyone's gender expectations, and (and this bit is crucial) don't see any reason why it should be necessary for anyone to "identify" in any particular way or go through a legal (non) gender recognition process in order to achieve this.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 29, 2017)

andysays said:


> Can you explain how, in your opinion, the Gender Recognition Act would have made gender neutral passports any more 'on the cards' than they are currently.



GRA reform would be necessary for gender neutral passports, and there were hints this might be included in the consultation especially as the government is facing an awkward court case over the issue.



> It appears to me (although I'm open to reasoned persuasion otherwise) that an Act which focusses on enabling some people to have their new or non-birth gender legally recognised would do absolutely nothing for those of us seeking a less gender determined society or, on a personal level, who wish not to be defined by our gender and/or to have our behaviour proscribed and our social and other relations with others influenced by anyone's gender expectations,



How would the proposed amendments have proscribed your personal behaviour anymore than it is already?  And the act you are talking about happened in 2004. what was proposed was to make it less intrusive and bureacratic.


> and (and this bit is crucial) don't see any reason why it should be necessary for anyone to "identify" in any particular way or go through a legal (non) gender recognition process in order to achieve this.



Of course you don't, you aren't trans and are not prepared to accept what trans people tell you about their lives.  Things like being harrassed at customs because your gender presentation doesn't match your passport or being humiliated and interrogated about your sex when trying to open a bank account will never affect you.  So why should you care?


----------



## bimble (Dec 29, 2017)

I had another one of those semi-arguments with the boyfriend about this the other day and he said something that I found helpful: When I hear 'trans women are women' I've been taking it as a sort of philosophical statement, or an ideological position, making me want to know what the word women means then. He said that this is to hear it wrong and totally out of context because  'trans women are women' is actually a sort of placard / banner in response to trans women's treatment by society, its a demand to be _treated _as women not a statement about platonic categories type thing. So (he said) the statement is 'just' a response to conditions, a demand for justice and fair treatment, and to read it the other way, as I've been doing, is as stupid as responding to 'Black Lives Matter' as if the people saying it think other colours of lives don't matter.
I found it kind of helpful anyway.


----------



## Sunset Tree (Dec 29, 2017)

bimble said:


> I had another one of those semi-arguments with the boyfriend about this the other day and he said something that I found helpful: When I hear 'trans women are women' I've been taking it as a sort of philosophical statement, or an ideological position, making me want to know what the word women means then. He said that this is to hear it wrong and totally out of context because  'trans women are women' is actually a sort of placard / banner in response to trans women's treatment by society, its a demand to be _treated _as women not a statement about platonic categories type thing. So (he said) the statement is 'just' a response to conditions, a demand for justice and fair treatment, and to read it the other way, as I've been doing, is as stupid as responding to 'Black Lives Matter' as if the people saying it think other colours of lives don't matter.
> I found it kind of helpful anyway.



That is an interesting way to look at it.  It makes sense.  Sometimes I wish people would communicate more clearly though.  It's like when someone says 'fuck white people', but when you challenge them they say it's actually a statement about structural racism not an attack on individual white people.  Maybe should communicate it better in the first place and avoid a lot of conflict.

For me it would depend on the context.  In a serious philosophical discussion about the nature of womanhood placard slogans aren't so helpful or appropriate.  In other contexts I can see how it is useful.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 29, 2017)

Just for reference there's info on how to apply for a gender recongition certificate at: Obtaining Your Gender Recognition Certificate – Gender Identity Research & Education Society

It is hugely bureacratic, especially given all the other things that need to happen like changing your name and then details with banks, tax, benefits etc.  It is also potentially quite expensive.  Would it really have been such a disaster to make this a bit easier?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 29, 2017)

TopCat said:


> Your labelling was smug and patronising.


While you have contributed fuck all to this debate beyond abuse. You've been a fucking disgrace.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 29, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> While you have contributed fuck all to this debate beyond abuse. You've been a fucking disgrace.



Yeah, remember your comments that those who disliked the Cis label ‘should get a grip’. 

Have a word with yourself.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Dec 29, 2017)

Sue said:


> Or maybe it's a just a young child playing dress up, nothing more, nothing less, and talking about 'non-gender conforming kids' in this context is way OTT?


Aye, my son used to be into painting his nails aged 3, he one hundred per cent considers himself male and kids tend to have strong ideas about this as soon as they are able to communicate them IME. I have told a lot of men he likes having his nails painted and a fair number have told me they did when they were kids too-yet you would never know that was common , but his dad was shitty about it. 

 I have been teaching my son that being a boy or a girl can mean many things as they seem to pick up stereotypes really -scarily- quickly, he has responded to this positively and will now correct his friends when they refer to toys or clothes as being gendered. But I was struck fairly early on by how prevalent this gender shite was, I didn't expect to have to be undoing my son's education on pink and blue cups as soon as he started nursery, fuck sake!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 30, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Yeah, remember your comments that those who disliked the Cis label ‘should get a grip’.
> 
> Have a word with yourself.


You told me to fuck off when I pointed out the internal contradictions of what you were saying on that thread.  

As for this thread top cat appears solely to be interested in slagging off other posters while contributing no ideas of his own.  He's been a fucking disgrace.


----------



## andysays (Dec 30, 2017)

smokedout said:


> ...Of course you don't, you aren't trans and are not prepared to accept what trans people tell you about their lives.  Things like being harrassed at customs because your gender presentation doesn't match your passport or being humiliated and interrogated about your sex when trying to open a bank account will never affect you.  So why should you care?



It's a great shame that you are consistently unable to post without descending into dishonest misrepresentation, personalised attacks and accusations of transphobia.

I haven't said anything to suggest I don't believe or accept what trans people say about being harassed or that I don't care about it because it doesn't affect me directly. I do believe and accept that trans people are frequently harassed etc, and (even though it doesn't affect me directly) I think they should be able to live their lives free of such harassment.

But I'm also willing to listen to, to believe and to accept what people other than trans people say about being harassed, oppressed and be regularly stereotyped according to gender as to what they should and shouldn't wear, do, think or say, and to give those concerns just as much attention as those from trans people, something which you have consistantly refused to do as you dismiss other people's concerns and recounting of experiences as being the result of being in thrall to TERF ideology.

And most of the people who are being harassed, oppressed and regularly stereotyped according to gender as to what they should and shouldn't wear, do, think or say are, still, women in the traditional sense who were born with a female anatomy and assigned their gender at birth.

As I said previously, I would like to see all people able to live their lives free of gender-based harassment, oppression and stereotyping, but while this GRA may make life easier for some trans people in significant and worthwhile ways, I don't see how it will benefit the vast majority of people, and I'm concerned that it may contribute to further embedding gender-based assumptions about men and (particularly) women in law, which I can't view as a positive development.

Do you actually have any meaningful response to any of that, or are you just going to continue to misrepresent and accuse of transphobia anyone who doesn't agree 100% with what you want?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 30, 2017)

andysays said:


> It's a great shame that you are consistently unable to post without descending into dishonest misrepresentation, personalised attacks and accusations of transphobia.
> 
> I haven't said anything to suggest I don't believe or accept what trans people say about being harassed or that I don't care about it because it doesn't affect me directly. I do believe and accept that trans people are frequently harassed etc, and (even though it doesn't affect me directly) I think they should be able to live their lives free of such harassment.
> 
> ...



Are laws designed to protect marginalised and minority groups intended to benefit the vast majority of people, beyond of course those protections being available to them and those they care about?  When did this become a test of whether new legislation is worthwhile?  Is the entire notion of solidarity dead now? 

As you acknowledge this may make life easier for some people in significant and worthwhile ways.  So the only question should be is that to the detriment of other people.  And beyond some vague claim about embedding gender-based assumptions, as if a millenia old gender binary system is being propped up by the few thousand people changing their legal gender, the answer is no, it will not be to the detriment of anyone.  And given the way the current system treats non-binary people I'd suggest it's those opposed to reform who are the gender reactionaries.

I didn't call you transphobic.  I said you didn't care about this beecause it doesn't affect you.  And like many non trans people (not necessarily you of course), who reproduce the gender binary constantly and do not feel enduring distress about that, or even notice it for the most part, you appear to hold trans people to a higher standard of gender radicalism than non trans people.  You expect trans-people to muddle through life with a vague, incomplete legal gender identity, with all the administrative problems that brings, despite being compelled to live under a gender binary and arguably being one of the groups that suffers most from that.  Why the fuck should they have to live like that when a simple bureacratic change could make things a lot easier?

And all in the name of smashing the gender binary, as if this too is the responsibility of trans people and not gender typical people, and in particular men, who are actually the ones reproducing that binary.


----------



## co-op (Dec 30, 2017)

I haven't really got time to do this post justice but fwiw here goes



smokedout said:


> No, can you point to any organised (political) group made up of transwomen who are promoting patriarchal gender roles?  If you are talking about individuals and tumblr cliques then I guess the question would be does someone challenge transwomen more than ciswomen, or cismen?  Because to do so - to treat a group differently, and more harshly, simply because they are trans - would of course be transphobia.  I do not see the same energy poured into deconstructing Katie Price or any number of high profile macho men by trans critical feminists.



I'm glad you agree that criticising transpeople who push stereotyped gender binaries is not transphobic. No I don't know organised groups who openly do this (I'm not in the know on the whole scene) but it's really clear that many transpeople do as individuals and so do their allies. 

I totally disagree that anyone criticising transpeople who push reactionary gender ideals is transphobic just because you aren't critiquing non-trans people as much/more/whatever. This is the 'you can't criticise Israel until you've criticised Turkmanistan' argument. It's bullshit, not least because it demands an agreed hierarchy of attack-worthiness. I have only ever seen it used to defend the indefensible in other spheres, it's interesting seeing it come up here. 




smokedout said:


> No, not to question it.  But to insist that anyone who does not meet a purely subjective definition of woman, which is not shared by everyone, has no right to ever organise politically as a woman, or enter a women only space, despite what other women might think, is trans exclusionary and that would make someone a terf.



As has been pointed out, once you take out biology and socialisation, what you are left with and what you are defending here is the "purely subjective" idea of what it is to be a woman; it's literally just a feeling. You are saying that anyone who magically has that feeling is entitled to make demands of women who have both biological and socialised claims to 'being a woman' and any woman who disagrees is a "terf"




smokedout said:


> No, but to refuse to accept a linguistic need for a pragmatic antonym for trans, especially on the basis that there is no such thing as trangenderism -  there are normal women and men who sometimes have 'pretend feels' - would be a characteristic of terf ideology.



For sure - but who's said this? (ie that there is no such thing as transgenderism); Literally no one ever as far as I know. Explain to me how "cis" does not embody an assumption of binary normativity and the assumption that most people are 'naturally' happier in their binary.




smokedout said:


> No, as I pointed out several trans people have done this themselves.  But to reject the meaningfulness of gender dysphoria, or the meaningfulness of how some trans people report experiencing their bodies - to claim these things are delusions at best, or lies for some sinister rapey intent at worst - would also be a hallmark of terf ideology.



Again you've set up an argument ("rejecting the meaningfulness of gender dysphoria") that literally no one has ever said (that I am aware of). When a side in an argument continually sets up ridiculous straw men, I think we're entitled to allege bad faith. I've argued this point on another post but I'll say it again; re-read the Goldsmith's thread on this - the 'wrong body' argument was continually used and was never challenged by the self-styled defenders of the transcommunity and anyone (like me) who did was instantly denounced as transphobic. Suddenly now, it's all cool to deny the wrong body theory - as I pointed out Nigel I has gone so far as to allege that only a transphobe would put it forward it's so daft.

If you are so all over the place on such a key central tenet of what you think you are defending, why should anyone listen to what you're saying now? Who knows what you're going to ditch in the next 2 years?




smokedout said:


> I don't think throwing terf around is particularly helpful because it is a highly ideological position which I'd suggest shares some common factors:-



Hasn't stopped you doing it one hell of a lot on this thread repeatedly. Don't you worry about your credibility when you contradict yourself so openly?



smokedout said:


> I'd suggest anyone who appears to agree with all or most of this could be rightly described as a terf, and sadly that includes most of the women curently leading the fight against the GRA amendments.



Yes I'd agree with a lot of that too - but since it's at least 90% strawman arguments that no one on this thread has made I'm not sure what the relevance of this long section is here? I know there are out-there radfems who do think & say some of those things but why this continual conflation of those with people like myself and others on this thread?

My guess is that we are not actually that far apart on a lot of this.


----------



## co-op (Dec 30, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Anyone who is happy with this development wants to take a look at who they're lining up alongside, ie the gutter press and the tory right. And then maybe ask themselves if dashing the hopes of transgender people is likely to actually resolve any of the issues involved to anyone's satsifaction, or restore society to an imaginary past time of comfortingly rigid dichotomies.



If we're going to look at who's lining up with who, you might want to check that the GRA was brought forward by Theresa May. What is she? A funky progressive?

Challenging and undermining rigid gender dichotomies is exactly what radical feminism has always been about. The point is radicals should support radical transgender people, not right wing ones who often love rigid gender dichotomies. This is what this thread has been about.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 30, 2017)

co-op said:


> I haven't really got time to do this post justice but fwiw here goes
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm on my phone so will reply to this properly later but you seem to have missed the point. You asked what makes someone a terf and I answered, I didn't call you a terf, or anyone in this thread that I remember. I have pointed out people using dishonest terf propaganda, possibly unwittingly, but that doesn't necessarily make someone a terf.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 30, 2017)

smokedout said:


> Just for reference there's info on how to apply for a gender recongition certificate at: Obtaining Your Gender Recognition Certificate – Gender Identity Research & Education Society
> 
> It is hugely bureacratic, especially given all the other things that need to happen like changing your name and then details with banks, tax, benefits etc.  It is also potentially quite expensive.  Would it really have been such a disaster to make this a bit easier?



Nobody benefits from delaying or scrapping the gender recognition act. There are no provisions in it which don't already exist in many other places. The GRA is just a vicarious target for people who are aware that they might come across as arseholes if they came out and attacked trans folk directly. None of the arguments from team TERF seem to have any bearing on anything that's actually in the proposed legislation. 

Keeping a needlessly unpleasant gender recognition process will not make trans people go away, nor will it protect anyone from abuse. Another thing it won't do is make the bitter, ignorant axe-grinders at the daily mail and/or TERF HQ feel any better, because people who get that riled up about shit that doesn't really affect them will always find something new to be upset about.


----------



## bimble (Dec 30, 2017)

The current system, where you have to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the panel and doctors that you are 'living as' the gender you want to be recognised as, that process massively reinforces the rules of acting / dressing "like a woman".


----------



## co-op (Dec 30, 2017)

smokedout said:


> I'm on my phone so will reply to this properly later but you seem to have missed the point. You asked what makes someone a terf and I answered, I didn't call you a terf, or anyone in this thread that I remember. I have pointed out people using dishonest terf propaganda, possibly unwittingly, but that doesn't necessarily make someone a terf.



Sorry got you now. I wondered why you were on that.


----------



## co-op (Dec 30, 2017)

bimble said:


> The current system, where you have to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the panel and doctors that you are 'living as' the gender you want to be recognised as, that process massively reinforces the rules of acting / dressing "like a woman".



Yep, performing the patriarchy is part of the medical process.


----------



## bimble (Dec 30, 2017)

co-op said:


> Yep, performing the patriarchy is part of the medical process.


Yep, so it's inconsistent (and a bit stupid) for people who say they want to get rid of the whole idea of gender to support the medicalised beaurocratic system that exists now, where if you showed up dressed in say baggy jeans a checked shirt and no makeup and sat with your legs apart instead of demurely crossed your chances of being recognised as a woman would be reduced.


----------



## andysays (Dec 30, 2017)

bimble said:


> Yep, so it's inconsistent (and a bit stupid) for *people who say they want to get rid of the whole idea of gender* to support the medicalised beaurocratic system that exists now, where if you showed up dressed in say baggy jeans a checked shirt and no makeup and sat with your legs apart instead of demurely crossed your chances of being recognised as a woman would be reduced.



It's almost like some of these people don't want to get rid of the whole idea of gender at all, but actually want to create for themselves a position where they can choose all the individual and individualist bits of "being a woman" they like without having to deal with all the generalised social oppression which anyone with half a brain recognises that women have had to deal with for millenia, and they're not in the least concerned if their incoherent arguments actually further entrench gender stereotypes, not only socially but now legally too


----------



## bimble (Dec 30, 2017)

andysays said:


> It's almost like some of these people don't want to get rid of the whole idea of gender at all, but actually want to create for themselves a position where they can choose all the individual and individualist bits of "being a woman" they like without having to deal with all the generalised social oppression which anyone with half a brain recognises that women have had to deal with for millenia, and they're not in the least concerned if their incoherent arguments actually further entrench gender stereotypes, not only socially but now legally too



At first reading I was honestly not sure who you're describing there andysays - trans rights activists or 'terfs' , which kind of goes to show how messy this whole thing is, when you try to think about it head on.

Which reminds me .. You said this earlier:


andysays said:


> And most of the people who are being harassed, oppressed and regularly stereotyped according to gender as to what they should and shouldn't wear, do, think or say are, still, women in the traditional sense who were born with a female anatomy and assigned their gender at birth.



I think the 'stereotyped' bit at least is not true, reckon that the past couple of generations of feminist work has had an effect on loosening the strictures of gender for women around here at least, whilst men are left behind, encased in the rule book of masculinity. Which maybe (just an idea) explains why there's up till now been so many more MtF trans people. I watched a video on youtube of Miranda Yardley in conversation where she described herself not as a woman but as a 'refugee from masculinity', which I liked.


----------



## Cloo (Dec 30, 2017)

bimble said:


> The current system, where you have to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the panel and doctors that you are 'living as' the gender you want to be recognised as, that process massively reinforces the rules of acting / dressing "like a woman".


I'd never thought about that. Yes, I guess it's problematic in that for those purposes you can't be a short-haired woman wearing jeans and shirt.

I don't think many people want to 'get rid of the whole idea of gender' - more they want people to have the choice of gender, or indeed the choice not to have a gender.


----------



## Combustible (Dec 30, 2017)

co-op said:


> The point is radicals should support radical transgender people, not right wing ones who often love rigid gender dichotomies. This is what this thread has been about.



Do you apply the same standards to non-trans women？ Are they only deserving of support if they reject gender binaries altogether (a miniscule fraction of the worldwide female population)?  Are they all right-wing if they don't agree? Or is it only transgender people who's support is qualified in this way.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 30, 2017)

co-op said:


> I haven't really got time to do this post justice but fwiw here goes
> 
> I'm glad you agree that criticising transpeople who push stereotyped gender binaries is not transphobic. No I don't know organised groups who openly do this (I'm not in the know on the whole scene) but it's really clear that many transpeople do as individuals and so do their allies.
> 
> I totally disagree that anyone criticising transpeople who push reactionary gender ideals is transphobic just because you aren't critiquing non-trans people as much/more/whatever. This is the 'you can't criticise Israel until you've criticised Turkmanistan' argument. It's bullshit, not least because it demands an agreed hierarchy of attack-worthiness. I have only ever seen it used to defend the indefensible in other spheres, it's interesting seeing it come up here.



I do not think that is a valid comparison.  Gender critical feminists claim to be opposed to all gender yet are obsessed with attacking trans people and seem to give everyone else a free pass, including working closley with staunch supporters of the gender binary like the Republican Party and right wing press.  A valid comparison would be a human rrights movement that claimed to be against all human rights abuses but only ever went on about Israel whilst cosying up to the Saudis.  I would be suspicious of the motives of such a movement for obvious reasons.



> As has been pointed out, once you take out biology and socialisation, what you are left with and what you are defending here is the "purely subjective" idea of what it is to be a woman; it's literally just a feeling. You are saying that anyone who magically has that feeling is entitled to make demands of women who have both biological and socialised claims to 'being a woman' and any woman who disagrees is a "terf"



I haven't taken out biology and socialisation.  They are both contested grounds, especially as some people are now socially transitioning as very young children.  Other people have had decades of socialiation in their aquired gender.  Is socialisation from birth the only thing that counts?  Obviously there is a huge amount of disagreement here.  The same applies to biology.  Transgenderism may have some biological root for a start.  But even discounting that, which bits of biology?  Hormones, chromosones, genitals, reproductive capacity - does the biology have to be authentic, as in biology someone was born with?  Again this is highly contested ground.  And even beyond this then there is the question of the female gender, which we may not like, but which exists?  Does gender trump physical sex, or should it, in some areas at least such as provision of services for those attacked or abused because of their gender?  'Woman' is a biological, social, legal and political category.  Where trans people stand within all these categories again highly contested ground.


> For sure - but who's said this? (ie that there is no such thing as transgenderism); Literally no one ever as far as I know. Explain to me how "cis" does not embody an assumption of binary normativity and the assumption that most people are 'naturally' happier in their binary.



Binary normativity is the system we live under and most people perform their gendered roles according to their biological sex.  This is due to coercion perhaps, and not entirely happily in many cases, but they do and are cis and trans pople don't and are trans.  And to be able to discuss this in all kinds of circumstances requires words to describe both states of being. 

And lots of trans critical rad fems have said transsexuality doesn't exist.



> Again you've set up an argument ("rejecting the meaningfulness of gender dysphoria") that literally no one has ever said (that I am aware of). When a side in an argument continually sets up ridiculous straw men, I think we're entitled to allege bad faith. I've argued this point on another post but I'll say it again; re-read the Goldsmith's thread on this - the 'wrong body' argument was continually used and was never challenged by the self-styled defenders of the transcommunity and anyone (like me) who did was instantly denounced as transphobic. Suddenly now, it's all cool to deny the wrong body theory - as I pointed out Nigel I has gone so far as to allege that only a transphobe would put it forward it's so daft.



It's not at all suddenly all cool to deny the wrong body theory, what some trans people have been saying for decades is that this is not the totality of the trans experience, that being 'trapped in the wrong body' is too simplistic a way to describe gender gysphoria and that nothing is universal to everybody who is trans.  Without doubt many trans people do feel discomfort with their body, and a sense it isn't how it should be.  In fact discomfort with genitalia is one of the diagnostic criteria for childhood gender dysphoria.  But that is not all there is to being trans, and the idea of an inner woman/man trapped in the wrong body does not really describe how gender dysphoria feels for many people.  I really don't think you should use the Goldsmith's thread as a basis for all trans thought and then use this one as an example of how all trans people have changed their positions.


----------



## bimble (Dec 31, 2017)

MochaSoul This story in the news today reminded me of what you'd written about your friend. 
The female NHS nurse I asked for came with stubble


----------



## TopCat (Dec 31, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You told me to fuck off when I pointed out the internal contradictions of what you were saying on that thread.
> 
> As for this thread top cat appears solely to be interested in slagging off other posters while contributing no ideas of his own.  He's been a fucking disgrace.


You are a sanctimonious hypocrite and whine when it's pointed out.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Dec 31, 2017)

Hampstead ladies say swimming pond is not gender fluid | Daily Mail Online


----------



## Cacadores (Dec 31, 2017)

Spanglechick: That's a pretty reprehensible comment. No one 'deserves' a slap for holding a camera, nor for disagreeing.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 31, 2017)

Cacadores said:


> Spanglechick: That's a pretty reprehensible comment. No one 'deserves' a slap for holding a camera, nor for disagreeing.



What drew you to this board/this thread/that particular comment?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 31, 2017)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Hampstead ladies say swimming pond is not gender fluid | Daily Mail Online



How convenient that the UKs most well known anti-trans feminist Julie Bindel turns out to be a regular user and was available to give a quote.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 31, 2017)

smokedout said:


> I do not think that is a valid comparison.  Gender critical feminists claim to be opposed to all gender yet are obsessed with attacking trans people and seem to give everyone else a free pass, including working closley with staunch supporters of the gender binary like the Republican Party and right wing press.  A valid comparison would be a human rrights movement that claimed to be against all human rights abuses but only ever went on about Israel whilst cosying up to the Saudis.  I would be suspicious of the motives of such a movement for obvious reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I should think any way of being human is too complex to sum up in a one liner. But the argument on that thread was presented in quite a categorical way - mine and others experience of wanting to be boys when we were younger was dismissed as *not the same thing*. Now I don't think that one thread on urban is representative of anything, but I think you're minimising how hard it was then to have a discussion, and how hard it continues to be.

As for categories and classifications being contested, I made that point several times on this thread, in fact most of my posts have been about this in one way or another, and yet there's been very little response to that as though it's of no interest whatsoever.


----------



## Cacadores (Dec 31, 2017)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Aye, my son used to be into painting his nails aged 3, he one hundred per cent considers himself male and kids tend to have strong ideas about this as soon as they are able to communicate them IME. I have told a lot of men he likes having his nails painted and a fair number have told me they did when they were kids too-yet you would never know that was common , but his dad was shitty about it.
> 
> I have been teaching my son that being a boy or a girl can mean many things as they seem to pick up stereotypes really -scarily- quickly, he has responded to this positively and will now correct his friends when they refer to toys or clothes as being gendered. But I was struck fairly early on by how prevalent this gender shite was, I didn't expect to have to be undoing my son's education on pink and blue cups as soon as he started nursery, fuck sake!


The pink and blue cups issue was a myth used by the Swedish government to promote their 'gender tolerant' nursery programme in the early 2000s. If you've ever been a teacher, you'd know what a fag it would be to have to divide up cups by colour - why bother? not to mention that when you order picnic cups, they either come in one colour or in a host of colours. The gender stereo-typing was made up. 

Girls and boys experiment with dressing up but that doesn't mean they want to change gender. Imagining what it's like to be the other sex is how a child tries to work out the characteristics of the other children they meet or how adults behave. After all, if some activist reckons that a boy really wants to be a girl because he paints his nails then they have a very narrow and naive view about boys' behavioural traits. Seems to me it's these activists with the intolerant and prejudiced attitudes about what a girl or boy can be.

Moreover, putting a child on a gender reassessment programme, as they're doing at the Tavistock Institute in London, is plain evil. We have no idea of the long term damage this can do to children. 

Transgender people have huge suicide rates. And their rate of suicide is unrelated to where they live: in a tolerant city or a backward country, it makes no difference. More damningly, the rate post-op and pre-op is the same. And when you put a little girl on hormone therapy or pubity blockers, you're destroying their chance of their overies ever producing eggs and therefore preventing them from ever having children. We're sitting on a time bomb.


----------



## Cacadores (Dec 31, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> What drew you to this board/this thread/that particular comment?


 Er, the OP perhaps?


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 31, 2017)

smokedout said:


> *most people perform their gendered roles according to their biological sex.... and are cis and trans pople don't and are trans.*  And to be able to discuss this in all kinds of circumstances requires words to describe both states of being.



Ok so now the definition has changed from a gender identity to a gender role. Unless you’re conflating a (conceptual) gender identity with gender roles/expectations.

By this definition those who defy gendered expectations are - by definition - trans. Which isn’t true is it?


----------



## smmudge (Dec 31, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Ok so now the definition has changed from a gender identity to a gender role. Unless you’re conflating a (conceptual) gender identity with gender roles/expectations.
> 
> By this definition those who defy gendered expectations are - by definition - trans. Which isn’t true is it?



No, you're trying to deny the antecedent. If you perform the gendered role according to your biological sex then you are cis. It does NOT logically follow from that, that if you DON'T perform the gendered role according to your biological sex you are therefore trans, or even not cis. Like I said, denying the antecedent, common but logical fallacy.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 31, 2017)

smmudge said:


> No, you're trying to deny the antecedent. If you perform the gendered role according to your biological sex then you are cis. It does NOT logically follow from that, that if you DON'T perform the gendered role according to your biological sex you are therefore trans, or even not cis. Like I said, denying the antecedent, common but logical fallacy.



Er where did you get that I’m ‘trying to deny he antecedent’? If could kindly not make stuff up 

Anyway, you’re missing the point.

Gendered roles for men and women - and the compliance with these roles - isn’t the same as a gender identity.

And given that Cis simply means ‘not trans’, what’s your point anyway?

ETA you’re also ignoring the post I quoted, and the claim it made


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 31, 2017)

smmudge said:


> If you perform the gendered role according to your biological sex then you are cis.



So where does this leave biological men who perform the masuline role but internally identify as a woman?


----------



## MochaSoul (Dec 31, 2017)

bimble said:


> MochaSoul This story in the news today reminded me of what you'd written about your friend.
> The female NHS nurse I asked for came with stubble



Thanks bimble . I had thought it might only be a matter of time but I didn't think it would be this soon. Aargh! It's hard for me though not to see this as a case of bad faith. I may need to be disabused here but **in my day to day** when I say "man" I don't really include transmen and when I say "woman" I don't really include transwomen. Has common parlance changed already? If it has, fair enough, I'm more behind the times than I thought. If it hasn't, it sounds rather like the service has taken for granted that patients will follow its politics and has not even bothered to issue guidelines to the effect of "asking patients themselves".

I dread to think yet another burden to be shouldered by women like my friend will be that of making sure the wording on these kind of requests prevents a conflation of sex with gender (as reflected in the nurse's response) but I don't think transgender women should bear that burden either. I don't think it's that difficult for whoever receives this sort of request to ask the patient if they would mind being attended to by a transgender woman/man.


----------



## Cacadores (Dec 31, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Ok so now the definition has changed from a gender identity to a gender role. Unless you’re conflating a (conceptual) gender identity with gender roles/expectations.
> 
> By this definition those who defy gendered expectations are - by definition - trans. Which isn’t true is it?


Your use of the word 'defy' is interesting. And true. There is certainly an act of rebellion involved with the activists on this subject. The truth is that most so-called 'trans' people don't want to defy anyone. They want to be quiet and to slide into their preferred sexual identity without confrontation. It's the activists who think that the definitions are important. Because altering sex or gender definitions by use of legislation is brainwashing and has already happened in Canada and New York where you can face prosecution if you correctly identify the sex of self-proclaimed 'trans' person. And it's about to happen here.

The words are an attempt at brainwashing. Activists use the word 'trans' deliberately. We used to have the words transvestite and transsexual. Now we have 'trans' which attempts to conflate the two. And deliberately so.

We might think a transsexual who has had a permanent operation to alter their body is in a terrible bind if people insist on describing them by their chromosomal sex. And is therefore deserving of accommodation. But we shouldn't forget that operations only alter appendages. They don't alter the chromosomes that make a man who was born a boy into  a female, no matter how many hormone suppressors they take. Their brain remains a man's brain. Which rather contrasts the oft-repeated idea that 'I always knew I was a girl inside'. Which is why it's near impossible for transsexual men to compete as women in Olympic sports. Most authorities require a testosterone count of 2 or 3 whereas transexuals manifesting as men are showing counts of 7 to 10. There is, of course, a move to raise the limit. By transsexual activists. Which could push real women out of their own sport. Something that already happening in American women's kick boxing or cage fighting.

The brainwashing comes in because the vast majority of 'trans' people have never had the operation. The whole world was lead to believe that Katlin Jenner hadva sex change. He didn't. His appendages are intact but at least he's on mild hormone therapy. Yet proposed British legislation could make it illegal for authorities to identify a man as man merely because he says he is woman. He wouldn't even have to dress as a woman.

This stuff doesn't just come from nowhere. Columbia University did employ staff sent over from the Frankfurt School. Which was funded by Communists. Then by the Rockefeller organisation. And they produce the literature used in our universities and extended by Marxist lecturers in the humanities which is driving this stuff. And the Tavistock Institute in London took on their ideology and is giving it medical cover. Marx didn't advocate destroying the family on a whim. He had a reason.

Until what seems a few minutes ago, gender dysmorphia was an illness. And no wonder when true dysmorphic transvestitism is a predictor of suicide. Post-op or pre-op it makes no difference.

We're messing with things we don't understand.


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 31, 2017)

Cacadores said:


> sent over from the Frankfurt School. Which was funded by Communists. Then by the Rockefeller organisation. And they produce the literature used in our universities and extended by Marxist lecturers in the humanities which is driving this stuff. And the Tavistock Institute in London took on their ideology and is giving it medical cover. Marx didn't advocate destroying the family on a whim. He had a reason.
> 
> .



Lol fuck off.


----------



## campanula (Dec 31, 2017)

O Dear.
Damn, I was just heading off to bed...


----------



## Athos (Dec 31, 2017)

Cacadores said:


> Your use of the word 'defy' is interesting. And true. There is certainly an act of rebellion involved with the activists on this subject. The truth is that most so-called 'trans' people don't want to defy anyone. They want to be quiet and to slide into their preferred sexual identity without confrontation. It's the activists who think that the definitions are important. Because altering sex or gender definitions by use of legislation is brainwashing and has already happened in Canada and New York where you can face prosecution if you correctly identify the sex of self-proclaimed 'trans' person. And it's about to happen here.
> 
> The words are an attempt at brainwashing. Activists use the word 'trans' deliberately. We used to have the words transvestite and transsexual. Now we have 'trans' which attempts to conflate the two. And deliberately so.
> 
> ...



Fucking he'll!


----------



## Shechemite (Dec 31, 2017)

Athos said:


> Fucking he'll!



When alt/far right types go on about ‘cultural Marxism’, what they’re alluding to is the conspiracy theory elaborated above. 

Of course it’s ‘Marxism’ without the materialism or class struggle, which is a funny sort of Marxism.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 31, 2017)

What's heartening about U75 is that no matter posters' differences on a matter, we always manage to set that shit aside and unite to fuck conspiracist imbeciles off


----------



## Cacadores (Jan 1, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> So where does this leave biological men who perform the masuline role but internally identify as a woman?


 'Internally identify.... " What can that possibly mean? 

Identification means pointing out something your external senses perceive. And if it's internal no one else can ever know. There is no line between describing something with no material basis and pretence. Some men pretend to be women by dressing up as them.

If you want to pin-point lie, then ask yourself where the utility is. A man who acts or dresses like a woman is pretending. But the pretence can have a utility if it fulfills a purpose I.e. to reduce others' expectations, to live a calmer life or to fullfil a desire to wear flamboyant dress. Especially if you can get others to go along with the pretence. 
But doing that Internally has no utility and it means nothing. It's no more than a whim untested by reality that others can know nothing about.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 1, 2018)

Cacadores said:


> 'Internally identify.... " What can that possibly mean?
> 
> Identification means pointing out something your external senses perceive. And if it's internal no one else can ever know. There is no line between describing something with no material basis and pretence. Some men pretend to be women by dressing up as them.
> 
> ...



Your New Years must be a right blast


----------



## Cacadores (Jan 1, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> When alt/far right types go on about ‘cultural Marxism’, what they’re alluding to is the conspiracy theory elaborated above.
> 
> Of course it’s ‘Marxism’ without the materialism or class struggle, which is a funny sort of Marxism.


 The Frankfurt School is a real school and set of principles with a real history. With search engines at your fingertips there's really no excuse for ignorantly dismissing fact.

As for Marxism, culture was indeed one of Marx's concerns. Which of Marx's books have you read? A limited number I would guess. This does not avoid the fact that 'cultural marxism' is a name given to a set of conclusions reached at by the Critical Theorists. Derrida and others using Deconstruction methodologies in France which had, and are still having, a profound influence on the way humanities are taught in Western universities. And the link to the Frankfurt School, Marx, societal breakdown and Cultural Theory is pretty well-attested.

A willingness to dismiss something you don't know anything about shows an insane lack of curiosity, wouldn't you say?


----------



## bimble (Jan 1, 2018)

Fuck off Cacadores , take your ‘degenerate culture’ bollocks elsewhere. 
Happy New Year everyone else


----------



## Cacadores (Jan 1, 2018)

bimble said:


> Fuck off Cacadores , take your ‘degenerate culture’ bollocks elsewhere.
> Happy New Year everyone else



Now why would you pretend to be incapable like that? Inhumane and divisive? And spout hate speech?

Are you trying to play the victim card?

Because this time of year is for people to come together. So Happy New Year to you.

Isn't that much nicer?


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 1, 2018)

Cacadores said:


> Now why would you pretend to be incapable like that? Inhumane and divisive? And spout hate speech?
> 
> Are you trying to play the victim card?
> 
> ...



lol. Opaque.


----------



## Humberto (Jan 1, 2018)

Cacadores said:


> Now why would you pretend to be incapable like that? Inhumane and divisive? And spout hate speech?
> 
> Are you trying to play the victim card?
> 
> ...



go and fuck off with your 'hate speech' shit.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 1, 2018)

Cacadores said:


> The Frankfurt School is a real school and set of principles with a real history. With search engines at your fingertips there's really no excuse for ignorantly dismissing fact.
> 
> As for Marxism, culture was indeed one of Marx's concerns. Which of Marx's books have you read? A limited number I would guess. This does not avoid the fact that 'cultural marxism' is a name given to a set of conclusions reached at by the Critical Theorists. Derrida and others using Deconstruction methodologies in France which had, and are still having, a profound influence on the way humanities are taught in Western universities. And the link to the Frankfurt School, Marx, societal breakdown and Cultural Theory is pretty well-attested.
> 
> A willingness to dismiss something you don't know anything about shows an insane lack of curiosity, wouldn't you say?



What ‘fact’ am I ignorantly dismissing darling?

And do elaborate on this Marxism without class struggle/materialism, and how the Frankfurt School wasn’t merely an academic grouping, but the origin of the decline of the West.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 1, 2018)

The Fabian Society are shit.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 1, 2018)

?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 1, 2018)

Cacadores said:


> Your use of the word 'defy' is interesting. And true. There is certainly an act of rebellion involved with the activists on this subject. The truth is that most so-called 'trans' people don't want to defy anyone. They want to be quiet and to slide into their preferred sexual identity without confrontation. It's the activists who think that the definitions are important. Because altering sex or gender definitions by use of legislation is brainwashing and has already happened in Canada and New York where you can face prosecution if you correctly identify the sex of self-proclaimed 'trans' person. And it's about to happen here.
> 
> The words are an attempt at brainwashing. Activists use the word 'trans' deliberately. We used to have the words transvestite and transsexual. Now we have 'trans' which attempts to conflate the two. And deliberately so.
> 
> ...



It would be a shame to derail this discussion but you should definitely start a thread about the Frankfurt School.

Ideally on a different internet forum.

Happy New Year everyone.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 1, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> ?



They’re cultural Marxists.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 1, 2018)

Right


----------



## Cacadores (Jan 1, 2018)

Humberto said:


> go and fuck off with your 'hate speech' shit.


 If you want to understand the culture you're in, then try reading the Book of John. 

There is an alternative to hatred.


----------



## Humberto (Jan 1, 2018)

I know the book of John just fine thanks


----------



## Humberto (Jan 1, 2018)

Listen, I don't know who you are listening to, Alex Jones, David Icke or whoever, but you need to fuck them off. Read your bible properly if that is what you are into. Who ended up in heaven, Lazarus who fed off crumbs he didn't get, or the rich man?


----------



## Humberto (Jan 1, 2018)

fucking derail apols


----------



## Cacadores (Jan 1, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> What ‘fact’ am I ignorantly dismissing darling?
> 
> And do elaborate on this Marxism without class struggle/materialism, and how the Frankfurt School wasn’t merely an academic grouping, but the origin of the decline of the West.


Well, I asked you which of Marx's works you've read and then we can start from there. Or shall we assume you haven't?

Also, why would I elaborate on Marxism without class struggle? If you read my post carefully you'll find that was your proposition, not mine.

Nor did I ever suggest the Frankfurt School wasn't an academic grouping. Again, that would be your proposition, not mine.

As for ignorantly dismissing, that would be everything in post-No. 3782. Not saying you are ignorant, but to dismiss a fact simply by associating it with an ill-defined group you don't like, and which, as far as we know, isn't here; rather than adressing the argument or facts does strike one as a rather ignorant way to argue. Or do you disagree?

So why not start there. Tell me what you disagree with.

That is, something I actually wrote this time as opposed to you disagreeing with what you wrote. Which never ends well,
dear.


----------



## Humberto (Jan 1, 2018)

Yer basically a representative for Icke/Jones  DvD merchants

So fuck off


----------



## TopCat (Jan 1, 2018)

This is by far the most interesting thread on the site. Happy New Year!


----------



## Sunset Tree (Jan 1, 2018)

Referring to aspects of liberalism as cultural marxism is quite common among conspiracy theorists of the right.  Although it's associated with the far-right it's quite common with youtube 'rationalists', libertarians, that side of the internet culture wars.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 1, 2018)

And Tory councillors it seems


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 1, 2018)

anders breivik and melanie philips both fans of the term.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 1, 2018)

Red Cat said:


> I should think any way of being human is too complex to sum up in a one liner. But the argument on that thread was presented in quite a categorical way - mine and others experience of wanting to be boys when we were younger was dismissed as *not the same thing*. Now I don't think that one thread on urban is representative of anything, but I think you're minimising how hard it was then to have a discussion, and how hard it continues to be..



Given you didn't grow up to be trans then perhaps it wasn't the same thing? Or perhaps as you said its a continuum.  The evidence shows that many children go through periods of some kind of gender nonconformity or even dysphoria but it is the strength of that dysphoria that is the best predicter of whether someone becomes a trans adult.  Yours diminished in adulthood to a point where you could live with, for many trans people it gets worse, often building to a crisis point which leads them to socially or medically transition.

I suspect what rankles is the idea that some form of gender discomfort in childhood is the same as transgenderism is the implication that the first group managed to cure themselves and as such trans adults are deficient in some way for not doing the same. Or their feelings are not really authentic and if they just developed a radical analysis of gender they'd be fine.

Until recently most trans people presented for treatment in middle age, often after a lifetime of denial and self-repression.  All the evidence shows it is not something that goes away. For someone to say they felt like that's bit as a kid but it mostly went away does not match with the typical transgender experience which is why most would say it's not the same thing, or if it is it is very different in magnitude. Perhaps a better understanding could be reached if there was a general acceptance that all feelings of gender unease, discomfort or dysphoria are sincere and authentic, whether someone ends up cis or trans, or does not feel comfortable identifying as eithetr, which is fine.

That doesn't remove the need for a descriptive antonym for trans though, even if like all such binaries, including man/woman, it does not quite adequately explain everyone.


----------



## xenon (Jan 1, 2018)

Was Cacadores banned earlier, unbanned and re-banned today? Sure I read this before going out last night and they were banned then.
/not important


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 1, 2018)

xenon said:


> Was Cacadores banned earlier, unbanned and re-banned today? Sure I read this before going out last night and they were banned then.
> /not important



At twenty to two this morning. Reason - N/A


----------



## xenon (Jan 1, 2018)

I must have read this thread this morning when pissed.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 1, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Given you didn't grow up to be trans then perhaps it wasn't the same thing? Or perhaps as you said its a continuum.  The evidence shows that many children go through periods of some kind of gender nonconformity or even dysphoria but it is the strength of that dysphoria that is the best predicter of whether someone becomes a trans adult.  Yours diminished in adulthood to a point where you could live with, for many trans people it gets worse, often building to a crisis point which leads them to socially or medically transition.
> 
> I suspect what rankles is the idea that some form of gender discomfort in childhood is the same as transgenderism is the implication that the first group managed to cure themselves and as such trans adults are deficient in some way for not doing the same. Or their feelings are not really authentic and if they just developed a radical analysis of gender they'd be fine.
> 
> ...



I wasn't arguing that it was the same, didn't do so in that thread, and haven't done in this one. I was referring to the use of the category transgender or gender dysphoria being used in a way that when I was _wondering_ if it was a continuum I was told clearly that it wasn't. Now, I don't know if it is a continuum, I think there are points at which something becomes qualitatively different, and categorical boundaries and definitions are useful, but that's what discussion is for.

I said absolutely nothing about cure. The idea that you suggest rankles is very far from anything I have thought or posted.

Perhaps it may be better if people's attempts at exploration were also seen as sincere and authentic rather than as expressions of arguments met elsewhere that look a bit the same but aren't.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 1, 2018)

Red Cat said:


> I wasn't arguing that it was the same, didn't do so in that thread, and haven't done in this one. I was referring to the use of the category transgender or gender dysphoria being used in a way that when I was _wondering_ if it was a continuum I was told clearly that it wasn't. Now, I don't know if it is a continuum, I think there are points at which something becomes qualitatively different, and categorical boundaries and definitions are useful, but that's what discussion is for.
> 
> I said absolutely nothing about cure. The idea that you suggest rankles is very far from anything I have thought or posted.
> 
> Perhaps it may be better if people's attempts at exploration were also seen as sincere and authentic rather than as expressions of arguments met elsewhere that look a bit the same but aren't.



I wasn't suggesting you made that argument, just pointing out an implication that could, and often is drawn from such an argument, either by the person making it or those reading it.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 1, 2018)

smokedout said:


> I wasn't suggesting you made that argument, just pointing out an implication that could, and often is drawn from such an argument, either by the person making it or those reading it.



Thanks for making that clearer.


----------



## Jonti (Jan 1, 2018)

This video from India's transgender community went viral it seems.  It gets really funny at one minute in when it features "The Seatbelt Crew" in action. Highly recommended.


----------



## Athos (Jan 1, 2018)

smokedout said:


> I suspect what rankles is the idea that That doesn't remove the need for a descriptive antonym for trans though, even if like all such binaries, including man/woman, it does not quite adequately explain everyone.



So you accept, now, that there are people who are neither trans nor cis, then?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 1, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> The Fabian Society are shit.



Not least because they still haven't learned, after almost 140 years, that top-down reformism and social engineering don't work.  Mind you, the fact that all the Fabians I know are centre-right shits, probably doesn't help them.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 1, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> all the Fabians I know



This will be remembered at the People’s Tribunal.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 1, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> This will be remembered at the People’s Tribunal.



One has to know the enemy, in order to understand the enemy, comrade.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 1, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> One has to know the enemy, in order to understand the enemy, comrade.



You expect us to believe that?


----------



## weepiper (Jan 1, 2018)

I've seen a lot of tweets accusing the woman who refused a trans woman to do her smear test of being a bigot. Fuck that, frankly. A smear test is an incredibly invasive thing that we have to submit ourselves to, they're NOT FUN and anything that makes it more distressing like having someone you didn't agree to doing it is a perfectly valid reason to feel too uncomfortable to go ahead with it. I can't actually believe this is in question.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 1, 2018)

weepiper said:


> I've seen a lot of tweets accusing the woman who refused a trans woman to do her smear test of being a bigot. Fuck that, frankly. A smear test is an incredibly invasive thing that we have to submit ourselves to, they're NOT FUN and anything that makes it more distressing like having someone you didn't agree to doing it is a perfectly valid reason to feel too uncomfortable to go ahead with it. I can't actually believe this is in question.



Tbf ive called a racist for not wanting MH staff to talk to each other in their (non-English) languages in front of me (or other patients) when seeking help in a crisis. 

There’s a denial of vulnerability across the board in the NHS and social care.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 1, 2018)

weepiper said:


> I've seen a lot of tweets accusing the woman who refused a trans woman to do her smear test of being a bigot. Fuck that, frankly. A smear test is an incredibly invasive thing that we have to submit ourselves to, they're NOT FUN and anything that makes it more distressing like having someone you didn't agree to doing it is a perfectly valid reason to feel too uncomfortable to go ahead with it. I can't actually believe this is in question.



Meanwhile Dr Radfem is accusing the nurse of trying to force the patient into state sanctioned sexual abuse.  Both extremes best ignored I'd say.

Pretty shitty for the nurse though, having her gender and appearance deconstructed on the front pages of the right wing press just for doing her job.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 1, 2018)

smokedout said:


> just for doing her job.



A nurse ignoring a patients distress (and causing unnecessary distress) and overriding their wishes is ‘just doing their job’?


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 1, 2018)

And what’s so ‘extreme’ about describing the unwanted touching/viewing of/intrusion into genitalia as sexual abuse?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 1, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> And what’s so ‘extreme’ about describing the unwanted touching/viewing of/intrusion into genitalia as sexual abuse?



Sexual abuse generally has a sexual or power based motive, not a medical one.

Worth noting the NHS apologised for a 'recording error' along with conceding the nurse could have been more professional. So an admin fuck up and a stroppy nurse led to someone having a smear test re-scheduled. Hardly front page news, unless you're a right wing newspaper using it to have a go at both transpeople and the NHS.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 1, 2018)

Seriously what do we know about this incident? Woman books smear test and requests female nurse. Trans nurse turns up and is told she's a man by patient. Nurse explains she's trans, woman says she'd rather have a cis nurse and reschedules. NHS says ok and apologises. Right wing press goes into meltdown over political correctness gone mad. Rad fems accuse the nurse of sexual abuse.

People need to have a proper word with themselves imo if their 'concerns' about transgenderism are leading them to support this shitty tabloid anti-worker bollocks.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 1, 2018)

smokedout said:


> a stroppy nurse .



Who in your previous post was ‘just doing their job’. 

It’s notable that the distress and wishes of patients in a vulnerable state isn’t part of your commentary here. You do seem unable to see things from the views of those other than your chosen ‘side’


----------



## smokedout (Jan 1, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Who in your previous post was ‘just doing their job’.’



Well I presume that was her intention when she walked in the room.

I





> t’s notable that the distress and wishes of patients in a vulnerable state isn’t part of your commentary here. You do seem unable to see things from the views of those other than your chosen ‘side



Not at all, her distress (although embarrassment is the word she used) has been well covered. I was just pointing out the other side of the story as a way to highlight what is is a thinly veiled two pronged attack on both trans rights and the NHS by the Murdoch press. And one terfs are happy to go along with if it gives them a chance to smear a transwoman as a sexual abuser.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 1, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Well I presume that was her intention when she walked in the room.



And then went on to be ‘stroppy’, as raised by the patient and acknowledged by yourself. So not ‘just doing their job’ 



smokedout said:


> her distress (although embarrassment is the word she used)



You lying little worm. Why do you think being dishonest is a useful tactic? She described herself as being distressed.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 2, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> And then went on to be ‘stroppy’, as raised by the patient and acknowledged by yourself. So not ‘just doing their job’



Not acknowledged by the patient in any version of the story I saw, the stroppy comment was inferred by me on the basis of the NHS apology which said the nurse could have been more professional. The only reported complaint from the patient was that she was trans and looked like a man.



> You lying little worm. Why do you think being dishonest is a useful tactic? She described herself as being distressed.



Apologies, the report I read just said embarrassed. Others say embarrassed and distressed. I'm sure it was upsetting for both the patient and the nurse. Not front page news upsetting though, unless your agenda is to incite fear and hatred of trans women and to undermine the NHS.  Which was the only point of this story.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 2, 2018)

I find it astonishing that anyone on the left could join in a Murdoch press attack on a working class person  who was just doing their job. Whatever you think of trans rights its not the nurse's fault this happened. We've already seen one suicide after the press came after a transwoman like this:  Trans teacher believed to have killed herself 'had told of press harassment'


----------



## smmudge (Jan 2, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Er where did you get that I’m ‘trying to deny he antecedent’? If could kindly not make stuff up
> 
> Anyway, you’re missing the point.
> 
> ...



Cis doesn't just mean 'not trans', as has been pointed out, yes they are antonyms but it is a spectrum, there are other identities. Not everyone who defies gendered expectations is trans, and may also be cis - and that assertion is entirely consistent with smokedout's post.

There is identity theory as discussed above which suggests performance cannot be extricated from identity, it is one I personally subscribe to. The 'role' is not identity but the performance is, even if this is just to yourself, so this person would not be cis either:



MadeInBedlam said:


> So where does this leave biological men who perform the masuline role but internally identify as a woman?



Because it uses a much wider concept of performance, which is not distinguished from an "internal identity".


----------



## bimble (Jan 2, 2018)

smmudge what theory are you talking about? Do you mean Judith Butler's ideas about gender as performative or are you talking about some other theory with a more wishy washy idea that might include something like an 'internal identity' ?


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 2, 2018)

Goffman's theory of social identity and role was discussed briefly not so long ago.

eta Not talking for smmudge , just noting that was the most recent identity theory mentioned on the thread.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 2, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> And what’s so ‘extreme’ about describing the unwanted touching/viewing of/intrusion into genitalia as sexual abuse?



Extremely disingenuous when referring to a medical procedure for which the patient has given consent.


----------



## bimble (Jan 2, 2018)

I request a female nurse to do my cervical smear tests. Maybe the system will just adapt to ask you to specify whether you are or aren't including trans women when you request that. Would that be a problem?


----------



## hot air baboon (Jan 2, 2018)

Junior doctors used to boast about how many "Tubes" they had done. The initials stood for Totally Unnecessary Breast Examinations. 

Health: Hands off my chest, doctor


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 2, 2018)

Notably a procedure that neither smokedout or spookyfrank have to endure.


----------



## Athos (Jan 2, 2018)

smmudge said:


> Cis doesn't just mean 'not trans'...



Yet many assert exactly that. And others imply it. For instance, smokedout seemed to be suggesting it. When I queried it, they threw their toys out of the pram. And have studiously ignored the question of whether someone can be neither cis nor trans, that's been repeated since.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 2, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Notably a procedure that neither smokedout or spookyfrank have to endure.



I've had my genitals examined, and operated on, by both male and female staff. My preference would have been that none of it was necessary in the first place, but beyond that any qualified professional is fine with me. And I know it's not the same for boys and my opinion doesn't count for much, but the 'sexual assault' idea has not come from the patient involved at all, but from some twitter rent-a-gob (the loathsome extent of whose bigotry is exposed elsewhere on this thread) who has decided to weigh in because it suited her agenda to do so.

I sympathise with the patient, both because she experienced something that made her uncomfortable and because the anti-trans brigade has dragged her into the gutter press on the back of it.

I also sympathise with the nurse, who deserves better than to be characterised as a rapist simply for doing, or attempting to do her job.


----------



## bemused (Jan 2, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> I sympathise with the patient, both because she experienced something that made her uncomfortable and because the anti-trans brigade has dragged her into the gutter press on the back of it.



You'd think that folks were emotionally intelligent enough to accept that in some cases people will want to discriminate. When you are naked and being poked around by a group of people that would seem, to me at least, one of those scenarios where that discrimination would be understandable.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 2, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> I also sympathise with the nurse, who deserves better than to be characterised as a rapist simply for doing, or attempting to do her job.



I sympathise with the nurse as it was entirely avoidable - the hospital could have taken steps to prevent this situation arising. 
Although, if the law passes and someone’s gender can be declared by themselves, would the hospital have any legal standing to somehow prevent it happening in future?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 2, 2018)

Athos said:


> Yet many assert exactly that. And others imply it. For instance, smokedout seemed to be suggesting it. When I queried it, they threw their toys out of the pram. And have studiously ignored the question of whether someone can be neither cis nor trans, that's been repeated since.



No I haven't, but I'm not interested in getting into petty point scoring over things you think I've said.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 2, 2018)

Athos said:


> Yet many assert exactly that. And others imply it. For instance, smokedout seemed to be suggesting it. When I queried it, they threw their toys out of the pram. And have studiously ignored the question of whether someone can be neither cis nor trans, that's been repeated since.



I don't think that's accurate Athos.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 2, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I sympathise with the nurse as it was entirely avoidable - the hospital could have taken steps to prevent this situation arising.
> Although, if the law passes and someone’s gender can be declared by themselves, would the hospital have any legal standing to somehow prevent it happening in future?


Looking at the current law, if the nurse in question had legally changed gender, as it stands now, it appears that the hospital would have been prevented from acting. Exception is made for religious marriages and competing in sport, but there's nothing else in there, and indeed an employer even revealing that a person has changed gender is in most cases illegal. Reading the act, the issue doesn't appear to have been considered at all.


----------



## co-op (Jan 2, 2018)

Combustible said:


> Do you apply the same standards to non-trans women？ Are they only deserving of support if they reject gender binaries altogether (a miniscule fraction of the worldwide female population)?  Are they all right-wing if they don't agree? Or is it only transgender people who's support is qualified in this way.



I'm not sure why you're confused about my opinion here but here goes.

I think we should support non-trans women who advocate for, live as, etc etc a pov relating to gender which is non-hierarchical, non-binary, and non-prescriptive or coercive, especially, of course, when they are up against binary-normative, hierarchical, etc etc groups that seek to legitimise or normalise reactionary gender stereotyping (even if those groups are made up of non-trans women). This follows obviously from everything I've posted, right? 

Yes I think those women who argue for right-wing reactionary positions are right wing. Don't you?

Equally I think exactly the same about groups of or individual transwomen advocating. As I said - and you quoted - _The point is radicals should support radical transgender people, not right wing ones who often love rigid gender dichotomies. This is what this thread has been about.
_
This means that sometimes I criticise some transwomen's pov and also I criticise concepts like "cis" which seem to me to be inherently binary-normative. According to some this makes me a transphobe. Do you think so?


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 2, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> it appears that the hospital would have been prevented from acting.



I think much distress would have been avoided both to patient and nurse (I can't think the situation as outlined was easy on the nurse) by asking patients who make these sorts of requests whether they include/exclude transgender people in those requests. Don't hospitals have a duty of care toward their staff as well as their patients? Or do they think society has evolved beyond gender issues just because of a change in the law? Such a simple measure would have avoided much controversy, it would've denied the newspapers a story and it would have protected the nurse herself without outing them.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 2, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> I think much distress would have been avoided both to patient and nurse (I can't think the situation as outlined was easy on the nurse) by asking patients who make these sorts of requests whether they include/exclude transgender people in those requests. Don't hospitals have a duty of care toward their staff as well as their patients? Or do they think society has evolved beyond gender issues just because of a change in the law? Such a simple measure would have avoided much controversy, it would've denied the newspapers a story and it would have protected the nurse herself without outing them.



This particular case, even as outlined in the shitty press outlets that are gleefully reporting it and whose bias I do not trust, does smack of a hospital-level fuck-up that could and should have been avoided.

The nurse in question had not legally changed gender, I believe, so the hospital was legally free to act as it saw fit. There is a clash of interests here where people wish to be allowed to legally change their gender and to have that fact protected to the extent that discrimination laws apply for them in their new gender. Allowing people to choose not to use a transgender person who has legally changed gender does prevent that transgender person from fully living with the law applying to their new gender only - a vestige of their past follows them.

The law is often too blunt an instrument to accommodate every eventuality, which is where a level of benign hypocrisy can come in, in medicine above all, as it does for instance with euthanasia. I don't know if some level of benign hypocrisy might help here. The current law doesn't even mention this kind of situation, and I'm not quite sure how it could. What kinds of compromises might we reasonably expect people to make?

It also doesn't help that the law currently conflates gender with sex in a messy, inconsistent way.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 2, 2018)

We usually learn from making mistakes. Most law and policy that you'll learn about as a health care worker will have been developed following a mistake (and often very serious systemic level fuck ups)


----------



## smokedout (Jan 2, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Looking at the current law, if the nurse in question had legally changed gender, as it stands now, it appears that the hospital would have been prevented from acting. Exception is made for religious marriages and competing in sport, but there's nothing else in there, and indeed an employer even revealing that a person has changed gender is in most cases illegal. Reading the act, the issue doesn't appear to have been considered at all.



The relevant law comes under the Equalities Act which permits discrimination if it is proprtionate to meet a legitimate aim, which in this case almost certainly would be.

Having a gender recognition certificate makes no difference to discrimination laws which are based on whether someone is perceived or known to be, or to have undertaken gender transition. 

Self declaration would not affect this, the whole man could just fill in a form and demand to access womens spaces thing was a lie.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 2, 2018)

smokedout said:


> The relevant law comes under the Equalities Act which permits discrimination if it is proprtionate to meet a legitimate aim, which in this case almost certainly would be.
> 
> Having a gender recognition certificate makes no difference to discrimination laws which are based on whether someone is perceived or known to be, or to have undertaken gender transition.
> 
> Self declaration would not affect this, the whole man could just fill in a form and demand to access womens spaces thing was a lie.



It still seems mixed up and unclear to me. It doesn't help that the law currently doesn't make a clear distinction between sex and gender. So the nine protected characteristics currently include 'sex' and 'gender reassignment'. 

There is this, Schedule 22: protection of women. This paragraph, perhaps:



> The references to the protection of women are references to protecting women in relation to—
> 
> (a)pregnancy or maternity, or
> 
> (b)any other circumstances giving rise to risks specifically affecting women.



There is potential for a clash between the protected characteristics of sex and gender reassignment, which would then need clarification, I think. I don't think the law is clear at the moment. It's not unique to this situation: there are also other clashes, such as between religious belief and other protected characteristics such as sexual orientation.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 2, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It still seems *mixed up and unclear* to me. It doesn't help that the law *currently doesn't make a clear distinction* between sex and gender. So the nine protected characteristics currently include 'sex' and 'gender reassignment'.
> 
> There is this, Schedule 22: protection of women. This paragraph, perhaps:
> 
> ...


so much repetition in such a short post


----------



## TopCat (Jan 2, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> I think much distress would have been avoided both to patient and nurse (I can't think the situation as outlined was easy on the nurse) by asking patients who make these sorts of requests whether they include/exclude transgender people in those requests. Don't hospitals have a duty of care toward their staff as well as their patients? Or do they think society has evolved beyond gender issues just because of a change in the law? Such a simple measure would have avoided much controversy, it would've denied the newspapers a story and it would have protected the nurse herself without outing them.


Do people think it appropriate to refuse a nurse because they are trans?


----------



## bimble (Jan 2, 2018)

TopCat said:


> Do people think it appropriate to refuse a nurse because they are trans?


I don't know about 'people' but I think yes on balance that should be a thing you are allowed to choose, that when you said you want a female nurse for something like this procedure you should be able to state whether you did (or didn't) mean a biological female. As littlebabyjesus says though there are two competing 'rights' in play so its not a simple question.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 2, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It still seems mixed up and unclear to me. It doesn't help that the law currently doesn't make a clear distinction between sex and gender. So the nine protected characteristics currently include 'sex' and 'gender reassignment'.
> 
> There is this, Schedule 22: protection of women. This paragraph, perhaps:
> 
> ...



One of the reasons that the Equalities Committee recommended reform of the GRA is that there has been literally no case law since it was enacted, so many things remain untested.  Something which undermines the claim that giving trans people rights will lead to a flood of legal challenges from men demanding access to womens spaces.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jan 2, 2018)

hot air baboon said:


> Junior doctors used to boast about how many "Tubes" they had done. The initials stood for Totally Unnecessary Breast Examinations.
> 
> Health: Hands off my chest, doctor


 I suffered that as a younger woman with asthma - as a 16 yoear old I wondered how many doctors needed to listen to my chest, but now I'm older there wouldn't be such a queue. 

When it comes to internal examinations I've had a few bad experiences with male NHS like 'it shouldn't hurt, the cervix has very few nerve endings' ooww! But then I've had a couple of bad experiences with (I presume straight cis) female staff like having to come out about my sexuality then having convince a nurse that yes lesbians do need smear tests. I could do without any gender of staff being over friendly and trying to chat while they have their hand inside you. I wish I'd spoken out and requested a different member of staff back then, instead of swallowing my embarassment.

Its improved over the years and I presume that is down to improved staff awareness and training. All invasive proceedures need fully trained staff, proper introductions and routinely offering a chaperone service if its wanted.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 2, 2018)

TopCat said:


> Do people think it appropriate to refuse a nurse because they are trans?



I think it's useful to ask yourself/ourselves the questions we ask of others...

Are there any procedures that you would absolutely prefer a male medical practitioner performed on you?

If so...walk yourself through a scenario where you are attending a clinic to have that done...you will be feeling anxious/worried/uncomfortable <------that's how I feel about smear tests because of the fucking victorian anti-female apparatus that is still used 

I prefer a female nurse, it just makes me hope that they will understand and be more gentle (wishful thinking sometimes, I know)...I have had smears performed by male nurses and tbh it just made me more tense, which in the case of smears equals more pain...'Just relax, let your legs flop. Millions of these are done every day.'..MANFUCKINGSPLAINING...no lie  Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, no, I can't, male or female, this actually hurts!

So I asked myself the same question and wondered if I would have refused the smear if my most recent nurse had been trans and looked more male/masculine to me... I think I would have at least questioned/asked.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 2, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> I think it's useful to ask yourself/ourselves the questions we ask of others...
> 
> Are there any procedures that you would absolutely prefer a male medical practitioner performed on you?
> 
> ...


I haven't thus far ever requested a male medical practitioner and have never been presented with a choice either.
I dont think men get offered as a rule to express a preference. 
I'm usually just hoping for a bit of empathy and clear communication from anyone who treats me. 
I would not want women having this choice removed for gynocological issues. But outside of such intimate procedures, expressing a preference of no trans doctors is going to whiff of bigotry.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 2, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> I think it's useful to ask yourself/ourselves the questions we ask of others...


I agree that it's useful, but we need to be careful with it. There is no situation where I'd care either way, but I need not to use that as a way of judging the sensitivities of others, because I know full well that others are not like me over this.  

That said, FOD makes a good point - a person who also has the thing they're examining is going to know what it feels like and perhaps be a bit more gentle. I'm reminded of a woman who visited our office a couple of years ago. The office labrador was lying on his back, displaying himself as usual, and she went 'oo, look at his big balls' and flicked them with her finger. Every man in the office flinched involuntarily.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 2, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I agree that it's useful, but we need to be careful with it. There is no situation where I'd care either way, but I need not to use that as a way of judging the sensitivities of others, because I know full well that others are not like me over this.


 The point of asking ourselves is to seriously ponder what our own associations, preferences and experiences are. Yes be careful but my request is more about being real and honest. You need to be real and honest about the fact you don't have smear tests so I have found a situation where I do care either way and you haven't...that is a useful acknowledgement for you I think.



> That said, FOD makes a good point - a person who also has the thing they're examining is going to know what it feels like and perhaps be a bit more gentle.


I made the same point. Thanks.


----------



## Athos (Jan 2, 2018)

smokedout said:


> No I haven't, but I'm not interested in getting into petty point scoring over things you think I've said.


Ok. But maybe you could confirm what you do now think. Does cis just mean not trans? Or is it possible to be neither?


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 2, 2018)

TopCat said:


> Do people think it appropriate to refuse a nurse because they are trans?



You'd be surprised at my wishlist. I'd spent my childhood/adolescence with a slight fear of needles but, my mum being one of the main community nurse in charge of vaccinations and drawing bloods and stuff I'd more or less come to terms, "Okay! So it's a needle. It's never as bad as all of that." Until I left my home town. My experience of white people trying to find my swollen bloody veins is terrifying to think of, culminating the time when my hand was perforated 21 times (you read correctly, twenty one) as they tried to give me the amoxicilin intravenously. Then they called the anesthetist to numb my hand before they could carry on pricking me some more. The worst about that particular experience, is that my mum was on hand and I could see it in her eyes that she knew exactly where the vein was and so I started begging her to do it herself (anyone who knows about my relationship with my mum at that point knows that I must have been on my knees to ask her anything). She had come especially so the whole "White people suck at finding black people's veins" as gone into the epic retelling of my son's birth. :-D Anyhoo... shift change or something and enter black midwife, and a minute later amoxicilin is flowing as the doc ordered. Of course, by then, I'm screaming for the epidural I had previously decided not to undergo " I JUST WANT ALL THIS PAIN TO STOP!"... and it's too late for it. 
In all seriousness, If I didn't feel embarrassed to ask (I curse my fucking conscience every fucking time), I'd never let a white person near my veins. As it is, I keep putting off blood analysis (I have a sometimes bad case of anaemia, that needs monitoring), until my GP (who has no idea why we always go through the rigmarole) tells me off for it.



Rutita1 said:


> I think I would have at least questioned/asked.



Hell fucking yeah! Me too.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 2, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> You'd be surprised at my wishlist. I'd spent my childhood/adolescence with a slight fear of needles but, my mum being one of the main community nurse in charge of vaccinations and drawing bloods and stuff I'd more or less come to terms, "Okay! So it's a needle. It's never as bad as all of that." Until I left my home town. My experience of white people trying to find my swollen bloody veins is terrifying to think of, culminating the time when my hand was perforated 21 times (you read correctly, twenty one) as they tried to give me the amoxicilin intravenously. Then they called the anesthetist to numb my hand before they could carry on pricking me some more. The worst about that particular experience, is that my mum was on hand and I could see it in her eyes that she knew exactly where the vein was and so I started begging her to do it herself (anyone who knows about my relationship with my mum at that point knows that I must have been on my knees to ask her anything). She had come especially so the whole "White people suck at finding black people's veins" as gone into the epic retelling of my son's birth. :-D Anyhoo... shift change or something and enter black midwife, and a minute later amoxicilin is flowing as the doc ordered. Of course, by then, I'm screaming for the epidural I had previously decided not to undergo " I JUST WANT ALL THIS PAIN TO STOP!"... and it's too late for it.
> In all seriousness, If I didn't feel embarrassed to ask (I curse my fucking conscience every fucking time), I'd never let a white person near my veins. As it is, I keep putting off blood analysis (I have a sometimes bad case of anaemia, that needs monitoring), until my GP (who has no idea why we always go through the rigmarole) tells me off for it.
> 
> Hell fucking yeah! Me too.



Mrs Frank had a similar experience before christmas, staff unable to find a vein to administer general anaesthetic. 

When she came round afterwards to find a black nurse attending to her, her first slurred words were, 'oh thank god you're not white'


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 2, 2018)

I'm not white. I have to direct nurses to my hands every time I have to have blood taken. Some argue and proceed to prick and miss a few times insisting that they are the champion blood takers before conceding that perhaps, I actually do know what I am talking about, from experience. Imagine that. 

My ethnicity has never been listed as a reason and to be honest I have never concluded it's because I'm not White.  We can see my veins in my arms, inner arm, fairly light brown skin etc,  but they refuse to give any fucker blood..._small, thin  and deep_ are the words i've heard used to describe my veins on the inside of my arms.  Yeah I know, take the fucking blood from the back of my hand please, like I said before


----------



## Athos (Jan 2, 2018)

smokedout said:


> The relevant law comes under the Equalities Act which permits discrimination if it is proprtionate to meet a legitimate aim, which in this case almost certainly would be.



Though the committee whose views you seem to endorse recommends doing away with those protections.  Is that something with which you agree?


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 2, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> I'm not white. I have to direct nurses to my hands every time I have to have blood taken. Some argue and proceed to prick and miss a few times insisting that they are the champion blood takers before conceding that perhaps, I actually do know what I am talking about, from experience. Imagine that.
> 
> My ethnicity has never been listed as a reason and to be honest I have never concluded it's because I'm not White.  We can see my veins in my arms, inner arm, fairly light brown skin etc,  but they refuse to give any fucker blood..._small, thin  and deep_ are the words i've heard used to describe my veins on the inside of my arms.  Yeah I know, take the fucking blood from the back of my hand please, like I said before



I'm fairly dark skinned. My ethnicity has never been mentioned let alone listed. But my experience is that, hand or arm, black nurses find them on their first go. White nurses it's very much more [repeatedly] miss than hit. It doesn't change with country either. Mrs Frank sigh of relief on sighting of a black nurse is one I know only too well both here and in Portugal (where I was raised).


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 2, 2018)

Red Cat said:


> We usually learn from making mistakes. Most law and policy that you'll learn about as a health care worker will have been developed following a mistake (and often very serious systemic level fuck ups)



Fuck ups are hardly going to be prevented if some people are being dismissed as bigots as they speak up especially if those instances turn yet other people off the debates altogether.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 2, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Fuck ups are hardly going to be prevented if some people are being dismissed as bigots as they speak up especially if those instances turn yet other people off the debates altogether.



Mistakes in the NHS can't be prevented 100% of the time, and the idea that this or that shouldn't have happened takes us away from learning from what actually did happen.

I agree that mistakes are more likely to be repeated if people feel judged, dismissed or silenced.


----------



## Athos (Jan 3, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Having a gender recognition certificate makes no difference to discrimination laws which are based on whether someone is perceived or known to be, or to have undertaken gender transition.
> 
> Self declaration would not affect this, the whole man could just fill in a form and demand to access womens spaces thing was a lie.



This is inaccurate. What the act actually says is the following:

'_A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes.'
_
The significance of a Gender Recognition Certificate is that is evidence of such a process, such that the bearer becomes a member of the protected class i.e. it becomes impossible for the service provider to lawfully refuse them access except for the very limited excemptions.  (In any event, many, including the Committee to which you refer, seek to abolish those protections; you've declined to say whether or not you favour their abolition.)

If obtaining a certificate becomes a simple matter of self-identification, it becomes much easier to get one (that's the point of the proposed change).

It follows that it becomes much easier for people to claim access to women's spaces; claims it would be unlawful to deny.

In principle, any man could fill in a form saying he identifies as a woman, get a certificate in the post, and walk into a communal female changing room (looking and dressing like a man). If challanged, he could produce the certificate, and it would be unlawful to deny him.

In reality, I think this is extremely unlikely not least of all because of the evidence from other countries.

But, you ought not to mislead people about the legal effect of what's proposed.

Also, it's dishonest to look at individual changes in isolation. It's clearly an incremental process, and the effect of the sum of the changes that many are calling for are far greater than the individual parts e.g. you've made no reference to what the impact would be if 'gender identity' rather than 'gender reassignment' became the protected characteristic (a change you favour).


----------



## 8ball (Jan 3, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> I'm fairly dark skinned. My ethnicity has never been mentioned let alone listed. But my experience is that, hand or arm, black nurses find them on their first go. White nurses it's very much more [repeatedly] miss than hit. It doesn't change with country either. Mrs Frank sigh of relief on sighting of a black nurse is one I know only too well both here and in Portugal (where I was raised).



Never heard of that.  When I'm getting cannulated I just tend to say "right ACF" which is always reliable, and has been done so many times the nerves are shot out, so I don't really feel it.

Would it be because white people are looking for the colour of the veins rather than feeling for them properly?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 3, 2018)

Athos said:


> This is inaccurate. What the act actually says is the following:
> 
> '_A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes.'
> _
> ...



Give it a fucking rest.  You are wrong,  A Gender Recognition Certificate has no bearing on discrimination laws.  You do not need to have one to file a claim of discrimination and in most cases it would be illegal to even ask if you had one.  However there are limited exemptions which permit discrimination on the grounds of gender transition whether or not someone has a Gender Recognition Certificate, which includes women only services, as both Women's Aid and Rape Crisis explain in their evidence to the Women's and Equalities Committee.

The committee recommended the exemption be lifted for people who had been granted a Gender Recognition Certificate under the 2004 act which requires someone to have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, to have lived in their aquired gender for two years and usually to be undergoing medical transition.  They did not comment on what should happen should self-certification become law.  In any event the Government rejected this proposal as you well know.

And moving to gender identity rather than gender transition would have no bearing on women only spaces.  Transwomen have the protections I outlined above.  This move was recommended to stop discrimination against non-binary people, who would not necessarily be seen as women under the law, they would be non-binary, and who would also be subject to the exemptions I mentioned above.  And yes I support this.  I don't think a man who cross dresses at weekends, or a radical feminist who openly rejects the gender binary, should be sacked or evicted for their gender identity or lack of gender identity.  Unfortunately the Government also rejected this proposal.  I know you pretend that didn't happen but the committee themselves were quite clear what they thought: 





> The response regrettably rejects one of the Committee's main recommendations – that the protected characteristic in the Equality Act 2010 regarding trans people should be changed to "gender identity."



I'm not going to get into what other changes I do or do not support because there are so many possible permeations of any legal changes which were recommended by a cross party committee two years ago and in many cases rejected by the Government.  I think the Gender Recognition Act is currently unfit for purpose and needs updating, I broadly support self-identification, and I think an open consultation, as limited as that is, is probably the best parliamentary solution right now.  Unfortunately there is a small group of people, cheered on by you, who are fighting tooth and nail to stop that happening.

Now feel free to rant on and on obsessively.  I have replied because these changes have been grossly misrepresented by you alongside others with a clear anti-trans political agenda.  I will not be replying to any more demands from you on this subject.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 3, 2018)

8ball said:


> Never heard of that.  When I'm getting cannulated I just tend to say "right ACF" which is always reliable, and has been done so many times the nerves are shot out, so I don't really feel it.
> 
> Would it be because white people are looking for the colour of the veins rather than feeling for them properly?



I have no idea. It's just something I've noticed over the years to the point of becoming extremely sensitive to the idea of getting blood drawn. Never asked them either but that's because it could well be that I've been extremely unlucky and why would I needlessly get in a nurses's bad books when I know I may have to face them again?


----------



## Athos (Jan 3, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Give it a fucking rest.  You are wrong,  A Gender Recognition Certificate has no bearing on discrimination laws.  You do not need to have one to file a claim of discrimination and in most cases it would be illegal to even ask if you had one.  However there are limited exemptions which permit discrimination on the grounds of gender transition whether or not someone has a Gender Recognition Certificate, which includes women only services, as both Women's Aid and Rape Crisis explain in their evidence to the Women's and Equalities Committee.
> 
> The committee recommended the exemption be lifted for people who had been granted a Gender Recognition Certificate under the 2004 act which requires someone to have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, to have lived in their aquired gender for two years and usually to be undergoing medical transition.  They did not comment on what should happen should self-certification become law.  In any event the Government rejected this proposal as you well know.
> 
> ...



I'm sorry but you have the law wrong on this (or you're being deliberately misreading). It's nonsense to suggest that a GRC has no significance to the discrimination legislation.  It is one mechanism by which anyone can evidence the protected characteristic.  Making it easier for anyone to get a certificate makes it easier for anyone (genuine or not) to claim those protections.  (I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing, but let's be truthful about it.)

There are a limited number of exemptions for now, but these are also under attack.  Disingenuously, you won't confirm your own position on this aspect (and others). I suspect that's because you'd then be forced to concede the practical and legal consequences of the changes you and other TRAs are really aiming for.

Equally dishonest is your attempt to read the parts of the committee report in isolation (as you do with other proposed changes).

Again, you are wilfully misrepresenting the significance of one of the changes you admit to seeking - making 'gender identity' (as opposed to 'gender reassignment') the protected characteristic.  It would make it practically impossible to distinguish between genuine trans women and men who would abuse the system for other sinister purposes. (As I've said, I don't think the latter is likely to amount to significant risk, but, again, let's be honest about what's being suggested.)

Your attempted smear of me is misplaced. I've not argued against changes to the GRA. I think it's unfit for purpose, and I'd welcome some well-thought-through changes to make trans people's lives easier (I'm in no way anti-trans, as you claim). However, I'd like that to be after an honest and open discussion, and in a way that accommodates women's rights, too.

Whereas, you seem keen to mislead or silence the discussion, and have clearly prioritised trans rights above all else, particularly the concerns of very many women.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 3, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> I have no idea. It's just something I've noticed over the years to the point of becoming extremely sensitive to the idea of getting blood drawn. Never asked them either but that's because it could well be that I've been extremely unlucky and why would I needlessly get in a nurses's bad books when I know I may have to face them again?


Sounds like something that should be highlighted, tbh. I would think it's a problem that could be solved with a little bit of extra training.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 3, 2018)

One final point on gender recognition certificates since the waters have been muddied again.

In a discrimination case brought under the Equalities Act, it would be necessary to prove evidence of gender transition and of course a gender recognition certificate could be part of that.  Equally important however would be to prove whoever did the discriminating did so because they believed a person was undergoing gender transition.  Otherwise no discrimination has taken place.  So the only time a gender recognition certificate might be relevent is if someone was discriminated against on the basis of possessing a certificate and nothing else ie not presentation or anything they said.  It is hard to imagine how this would ever happen, in almost all cases the person doing the discriminating would not know whether the individual had a gender recognition certificate - and if they asked (which would presume they suspected gender transition for some other reason) then the potential litigant would be under no legal obligation to tell them and asking  in itself would be grounds for a discrimination case.


----------



## Athos (Jan 3, 2018)

smokedout said:


> One final point on gender recognition certificates since the waters have been muddied again.
> 
> In a discrimination case brought under the Equalities Act, it would be necessary to prove evidence of gender transition and of course a gender recognition certificate could be part of that.  Equally important however would be to prove whoever did the discriminating did so because they believed a person was undergoing gender transition.  Otherwise no discrimination has taken place.  So the only time a gender recognition certificate might be relevent is if someone was discriminated against on the basis of possessing a certificate and nothing else ie not presentation or anything they said.  It is hard to imagine how this would ever happen, in almost all cases the person doing the discriminating would not know whether the individual had a gender recognition certificate - and if they asked (which would presume they suspected gender transition for some other reason) then the potential litigant would be under no legal obligation to tell them and asking  in itself would be grounds for a discrimination case.



It's the Equality Act 2010, not they Equalities Act.  And you clearly don't understand how it operates.

Though I note you now say "a discrimination case brought under the Equalities Act, it would be necessary to prove evidence of gender transition and of course a gender recognition certificate could be part of that", which isn't what you claimed before:  "A Gender Recognition Certificate has no bearing on discrimination laws".

As things stand, if someone who was born male and looks like a man* (e.g. dressed in stereotypically male clothes and with a full beard) tried to enter a women's changing room, a service provider wouldn't be prosecuted for refusing him, because the 'discrimination' wouldn't be based on the protected characteristic i.e. gender reassignment - it'd be a reasonable exemption for sex discrimination.

Once the same man can get a certificate on nothing more than his say so, then, if he produced it when challanged, any continued or subsequent refusal of access could only be deemed based on the protected characteristic i.e. the reassignment, because that'd be the only difference between him and any other woman in the eyes of the law, and I'd be surprised if a court decided that the exemptions would apply then (and service providers are unlikely to take the risk).  (And that's quite apart from the fact that many want to do away with them, including yourself I suspect, but you won't give a straight answer on that.)

It's fundamentally dishonest to keep suggesting that a move towards issuing GRCs on the basis of self-identification couldn't impact on the application of the Equality Act 2010 (even putting aside the fact it's clearly intended by many as a towards 'gender identity' (rather than 'gender reassignment') becoming the protected characteristic).

Again, none of which is necessarily a compelling reason not to make these changes, since they would have the advantage of making life easier for trans people.  But we need to be honest about what such changes might mean, and have a sensible discussion, rather than lie to women, and forcing the changes on them.

* In case it's not obvious, I'm talking about a man with sinister intentions, not a trans woman.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 3, 2018)

Athos said:


> It's the Equality Act 2010, not they Equalities Act.  And you clearly don't understand how it operates.
> 
> Though I note you now say "a discrimination case brought under the Equalities Act, it would be necessary to prove evidence of gender transition and of course a gender recognition certificate could be part of that", which isn't what you claimed before:  "A Gender Recognition Certificate has no bearing on discrimination laws".
> 
> ...



Given that the exemptiom can be, and currently is used to discriminate against actual transwomen then why on earth do think it wouldn't apply in this case?


----------



## Athos (Jan 3, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Given that the exemptiom can be, and currently is used to discriminate against actual transwomen then why on earth do think it wouldn't apply in this case?



First, because I'm not aware that the exemption is routinely used against trans women in scenarios analogous to the one I mentioned. Secondly, because the legislature would have signalled a clear change in the direction of the law towards self- identification (by allowing GRCs on that basis), which would tend to suggest that the courts would interpret the exemptions more strictly - they would need to be even more compelling than it is at present. And, thirdly, because I suspect that it'd only be a matter of time before the protections provided by those exemptions are also eroded. They're already under attack. Where do you stand on that? Should the exemptions stay or go?

Also, I'd edited before you quoted, to point out that service providers would be less likely to take the risk of following a course of action which might subsequently be declared unlawful when confronted with a valid GRC.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 3, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Just for reference there's info on how to apply for a gender recongition certificate at: Obtaining Your Gender Recognition Certificate – Gender Identity Research & Education Society
> 
> It is hugely bureacratic, especially given all the other things that need to happen like changing your name and then details with banks, tax, benefits etc.  It is also potentially quite expensive.  Would it really have been such a disaster to make this a bit easier?


fairer, transparent, accountable and affordable too would be nice and without the actually homophobic spousal veto that hardly anyone wants to talk about that keeps some us as second class citizens at the whim of an abusive ex spouse. Heaven forbid that someone ends up in a "gay" marriage without their consent, because obviously being gay is awful/ sarcasm

The absurdity of course is that they accept us as our gender when it comes to something like justifying the homophobia of the spousal veto but then require a special committee to sit and (sometimes arbitrarily) decide if we conform enough to the gender binary norms that we can have the rights and protections that come with being one gender and not somewhere in between.

I'll be fucked if I play that game just so a bunch of cis people can decide if I meet their standard of what a woman is. And I can't believe that so many people on the left expect me to play that game too.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 3, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> fairer, transparent, accountable and affordable too would be nice and without the actually homophobic spousal veto that hardly anyone wants to talk about that keeps some us as second class citizens at the whim of an abusive ex spouse. Heaven forbid that someone ends up in a "gay" marriage without their consent, because obviously being gay is awful/ sarcasm
> 
> The absurdity of course is that they accept us as our gender when it comes to something like justifying the homophobia of the spousal veto but then require a special committee to sit and (sometimes arbitrarily) decide if we conform enough to the gender binary norms that we can have the rights and protections that come with being one gender and not somewhere in between.
> 
> I'll be fucked if I play that game just so a bunch of cis people can decide if I meet their standard of what a woman is. And I can't believe that so many people on the left expect me to play that game too.


I was flicking through this book Keywords by Ian Parker yesterday. He suggests that rejecting the term cis is akin to racism. He suggests it's most like anti-semitism. He then goes on to explain that CIS people are what's behind the ongoing donbass stuff. He goes on to call israel a -cis-state.

To who is this a term of use?


----------



## Athos (Jan 3, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Heaven forbid that someone ends up in a "gay" marriage without their consent, because obviously being gay is awful/ sarcasm



As I'm sure you know, it can be distressing to be labelled as something you don't consder yourself to be.  A straight woman might not want to be effectivly labelled a lesbian by the state, just as a trans woman might not want to be labelled a man.  Those positions don't imply there's anthing wrong with being gay or a man, though.


----------



## bimble (Jan 3, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> He suggests it's most like anti-semitism. He then goes on to explain that CIS people are what's behind the ongoing donbass stuff. He goes on to call israel a -cis-state.



Sounds like maybe the author has lost it a bit, in his enthusiasm?


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 3, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> To who is this a term of use?



The more I read explanations of "cis" the less convinced I am *especially* as I see it hurled at people as a term of abuse or just before the abuse comes. I also feel myself becoming inured to accusations of transphobia and/or TERFdom as I notice the frequency with which non acceptance of a woman/man's claim to be man/woman is conflated with not caring/being against trans people's human rights.

That one seems conspiraloon but such ideas usually sell well.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 3, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> I was flicking through this book Keywords by Ian Parker yesterday. He suggests that rejecting the term cis is akin to racism. He suggests it's most like anti-semitism. He then goes on to explain that CIS people are what's behind the ongoing donbass stuff. He goes on to call israel a -cis-state.
> 
> To who is this a term of use?



Looks like he's doing some Lacanian fucking about with words thing.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 4, 2018)

smokedout said:


> It appears some gender critical feminists are quite happy to accept a theory underpinned by gender essentialism as long as it gives them a chance to smear transwomen as male perverts.



I don't think you understand what is meant by 'essentialist'.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 4, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I don't think you understand what is meant by 'essentialist'.



The standard definition seems to work fine in that quote you posted..


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 4, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Can you give an example of one trans activist organisation, or any high profile trans-activist, claiming that lesbians who don't want to sleep with transwomen who've retained their penis are transphobic?



Sure, this is high-profile transgender activist Roz Kaveney:

_So, in the end, my substantive point is this - the cotton ceiling exists and it's an issue for all trans people, women, men and non-binary. It's a matter of transpobia, including internalized transphobia. Given the fact that access to surgery or even HRT is already in the US, and may become in the UK, an economic issue and quite often a racial one too. 

To pretend the cotton ceiling does not exist is to deny an important component in transphobia. To pretend that it is only a problem for lesbian trans women is to breach solidarity, to give hostages stupidly to the likes of the horrid GallusMag who is already ranting about it. 
_
In a later piece, he makes this staggeringly dreadful argument:

_How would you feel about a woman who said she would only sleep with women of her own race or religion?
_
Of course, the Cotton Ceiling is linked to autogynephilia.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 4, 2018)

8ball said:


> The standard definition seems to work fine in that quote you posted..



Not really.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 4, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Not really.


go on then, i'll bite. 

how would you say the standard definition, below, falls short in this instance?


oh: i'm assuming you're not on about nonjurors


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 4, 2018)

I'd never encountered the theory of Autogynephilia before this thread, personally to me it has the appalling stench of 70's (I know it is an 80's theory) frontier psychiatry.  I'd be really cautious of anyone hanging their hat on it as a plausible theory.  All very dodgy.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 4, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> I'd never encountered the theory of Autogynephilia before this thread, personally to me it has the appalling stench of 70's (I know it is an 80's theory) frontier psychiatry.  I'd be really cautious of anyone hanging their hat on it as a plausible theory.  All very dodgy.



It certainly looks at a first glance like circular-logic based bollocks used as a crutch to justify bigotry.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 4, 2018)

8ball said:


> It certainly looks at a first glance like circular-logic based bollocks used as a crutch to justify bigotry.


not sure it's much better at second or third glance


----------



## elbows (Jan 4, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> In a later piece, he makes this staggeringly dreadful argument



Roz wasnt referred to as 'he' when she appeared on After Dark in 1988, but its already fairly clear that misgendering them is part of your own stance and politics on these issues. 

I think you are a disgrace and a shit gatekeeper.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 4, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> go on then, i'll bite.
> 
> how would you say the standard definition, below, falls short in this instance?
> that
> ...



The OP was (essentially) arguing that the two-type typology suggests an authenticity for HSTS over AGPTS, and the concept of the AGPTS invalidates the 'transgender lesbian' on a similarly essentialist basis.

On authenticity: HSTS and AGPTS have equally invalid claims to being women, as both are males subject to male socialisation. That a 'woman' is an adult human female is not essentialist, it just is how we define one of the two sex classes our species exhibits. _It is not essentialist_ to suggest someone with a female reproductive system is female, but _it is essentialist_ to suggest that someone with a female reproductive system has particular personality traits or dispositions. The key point to take from Blanchard's typology (which builds on ideas that have been around for a long time, see for example Hirschfeld's 1918 examination of automonosexualism in cross-dressing males) is that the population of transsexuals (as he originally defined the typology, but would apply equally to transgender) falls into two general groups: homosexual and non-homosexual. This observation often gets lost in the noise.

Regarding the point the OP makes about femininity, we can assess the observation that HSTS would tend to be more feminine than AGPTS in the context of the HSTS being a manifestation of homosexual male sexuality and AGPTS being a manifestation of heterosexual male sexuality. Again, the argument being made is not essentialist as a particular type of behaviour is not being imputed on males generally, rather we are saying 'males who are *sexual exhibit the following traits...'. 

To suggest this was essentialist would be like (for example) saying 'it is essentialist for heterosexual men to be sexually and romantically attracted to women' which is clearly nonsense: it would be essentialist to suggest the general case that 'men are attracted to women', see what I am getting at? 

Likewise, it is not essentialist to say 'lesbians are females who are sexually and romantically attracted to other females', it's just a defining characteristic of what it is to be a homosexual female. An essentialist counterpart would be to suggest 'all lesbians are masculine women with buzzcuts who wear khaki and smoke cigars', the imputed trait is not part of the defining characteristic.

I hope this is of help!


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 4, 2018)

8ball said:


> It certainly looks at a first glance like circular-logic based bollocks used as a crutch to justify bigotry.



Can you please explain what you mean, what 'bigotry' is being excused?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 4, 2018)

elbows said:


> Roz wasnt referred to as 'he' when she appeared on After Dark in 1988, but its already fairly clear that misgendering them is part of your own stance and politics on these issues.
> 
> I think you are a disgrace and a shit gatekeeper.



I'm not sure what it is I am supposed to be a 'gatekeeper' for. It's not my rule that means that men cannot be women (or males female).


----------



## elbows (Jan 4, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I'm not sure what it is I am supposed to be a 'gatekeeper' for. It's not my rule that means that men cannot be women (or males female).



Its not a rule, its a belief system, a way of interpreting the world and the people in it. Of which you have your own special extreme version which succeeds in making my blood boil.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 4, 2018)

Is this one of those games where you say something, then pretend you didn't say it, and rinse and repeat in the hope that some fool thinks there is a cogent argument backing up their prejudices?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 4, 2018)

elbows said:


> Its not a rule, its a belief system, a way of interpreting the world and the people in it. Of which you have your own special extreme version which succeeds in making my blood boil.



Sure, find me a single instance of a male who produced an egg which was fertilised which he then gestated.

It's not bigotry, prejudiced or hateful to recognise facts.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 4, 2018)

8ball said:


> Is this one of those games where you say something, then pretend you didn't say it, and rinse and repeat in the hope that some fool thinks there is a cogent argument backing up their prejudices?



Was this aimed at me? If so, what in particular are you referring to?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 4, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Was this aimed at me? If so, what in particular are you referring to?



This would be the "pretending you didn't say it" phase.
For CBA reasons I'll just wait til you reach the other side of the circle and point it out then.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 4, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Sure, find me a single instance of a male who produced an egg which was fertilised which he then gestated.
> 
> It's not bigotry, prejudiced or hateful to recognise facts.


----------



## elbows (Jan 4, 2018)

Oh yeah, facts are fun.

Facts like you being such a fuckwit, with such crude methods, that from time to time you've ended up called cis women men on twitter, because you decided they were trans and were wrong. The useless depths to which your beliefs lead you.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 4, 2018)

8ball said:


> This would be the "pretending you didn't say it" phase.
> For CBA reasons I'll just wait til you reach the other side of the circle and point it out then.



What you really mean is 'I don't like what you say but I can't explain why because I don't have a substantive argument'.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 4, 2018)

elbows said:


> Facts like you being such a fuckwit



Funny how you descend so quickly into outright abuse.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 4, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> What you really mean is 'I don't like what you say but I can't explain why because I don't have a substantive argument'.



<taps watch...>


----------



## elbows (Jan 4, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Funny how you descend so quickly into outright abuse.



Quickly? I've been in this debate for a very long time and the level of disrespect you've shown to many people and the reputation you've built for yourself as a result is your fault, not mine.

But I will provide a specific example of why I regard you as a fuckwit.



The left wing press has many flaws but if you are too fucking stupid to understand why the papers you mention are the ones that have loudly taken a side you approve of in this matter, then I consider you a fuckwit.


----------



## 19force8 (Jan 4, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I'm not sure what it is I am supposed to be a 'gatekeeper' for. It's not my rule that means that men cannot be women (or males female).


Hang on, I think I know this one.

Is it Internet Rule 37?


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 4, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Sure, find me a single instance of a male who produced an egg which was fertilised which he then gestated.
> 
> It's not bigotry, prejudiced or hateful to recognise facts.



Facts?  You've been bandying around some very dodgy looking psychiatry without question yet you now start talking about facts.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 4, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Regarding the point the OP makes about femininity, we can assess the observation that HSTS would tend to be more feminine than AGPTS in the context of the HSTS being a manifestation of homosexual male sexuality and AGPTS being a manifestation of heterosexual male sexuality. Again, the argument being made is not essentialist as a particular type of behaviour is not being imputed on males generally, rather we are saying 'males who are *sexual exhibit the following traits...'.
> 
> To suggest this was essentialist would be like (for example) saying 'it is essentialist for heterosexual men to be sexually and romantically attracted to women' which is clearly nonsense: it would be essentialist to suggest the general case that 'men are attracted to women', see what I am getting at?
> 
> Likewise, it is not essentialist to say 'lesbians are females who are sexually and romantically attracted to other females', it's just a defining characteristic of what it is to be a homosexual female. An essentialist counterpart would be to suggest 'all lesbians are masculine women with buzzcuts who wear khaki and smoke cigars', the imputed trait is not part of the defining characteristic.



But it is essentialist to say 'extreme homosexuals' possess an innate femininity (which Lawrence argues can be observed in brain structures).  The argument states quite clearly that transwomen who are attracted to men naturally possess typical feminine behaviours, a feminine essence if you will, whereas it is near impossible for transwomen attracted to women to possess this because they have a masculine essence. 

In other words there is an authentic transsexual type, who is authentically feminine because she likes men and has a feminine brain, and an unauthentic sexual fetishist type who is naturally masculine and as such attracted to women.  It is naked essentialism, and interesting that the tiny number of trans proponents of this theory, like you, just happen to fall into the authentic camp.


> Androphilic MtF transsexuals were extremely feminine androphilic men whose cross-gender identities derived from their female-typical attitudes, behaviors, and sexual preferences. Nonandrophilic MtF transsexuals, in contrast, were conventionally masculine, fundamentally gynephilic men who resembled transvestites in that they experienced paraphilic arousal from the fantasy of being women (autogynephilia); their cross-gender identities derived from their autogynephilic sexual orientations.



Autogynephilia and the Typology of Male-to-Female Transsexualism:  Concepts and Controversies


----------



## 8ball (Jan 4, 2018)

smokedout said:


> But it is essentialist to say 'extreme homosexuals' possess an innate femininity (which Lawrence argues can be observed in brain structures).  The argument states quite clearly that transwomen who are attracted to men naturally possess typical feminine behaviours, a feminine essence if you will, whereas it is near impossible for transwomen attracted to women to possess this because they have a masculine essence.
> 
> In other words there is an authentic transsexual type, who is authentically feminine because she likes men and has a feminine brain, and an unauthentic sexual fetishist type who is naturally masculine and as such attracted to women.  It is naked essentialism, and interesting that the tiny number of trans proponents of this theory, like you, just happen to fall into the authentic camp.



Cheers for unpacking that - the post-Christmas CBA is too strong in me atm.


----------



## elbows (Jan 4, 2018)

Even Miranda Yardleys beliefs and choice of words are not enough to satisfy everyone on that side.



I can appreciate where fears of 'erasure of women' and the struggle for rights, a voice, power feed into this. But when it reaches this level of misguided extreme I'm bound to think that what will actually end up marginalising these women more is the extreme nature of their beliefs and, crucially, the implications of their beliefs on the lives of others. Huge numbers of people arent going to stomach that shit in 2018, wherever discussions about eggs and choice of language lead.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 4, 2018)

elbows said:


> Quickly? I've been in this debate for a very long time and the level of disrespect you've shown to many people and the reputation you've built for yourself as a result is your fault, not mine.



We had a couple of interactions on here and you became abusive instead of making a coherent argument. If you've been in this debate for so long, if you can actually argue the point, please go ahead, I'm all ears, I'd love to be shown to be wrong...



elbows said:


> The left wing press has many flaws but if you are too fucking stupid to understand why the papers you mention are the ones that have loudly taken a side you approve of in this matter, then I consider you a fuckwit.



Well, in fairness The Mirror also picked up the story:

Woman is punched in face as transgender group and feminists clash at Hyde Park

And my criticism is that the left-wing press have failed to act, rather than my saying what a jolly good bunch the other newspapers are.

I was glad The Grauniad (my own paper of choice) published this letter:

Violence has no place in transgender debate | Letters

Do you consider that 'transgender women' can legitimately commit acts of physical violence against women they disagree with?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 4, 2018)

This 'erasure of women' thing seems odd.  It looks like the kind of language that aggrieved white supremacists use.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 4, 2018)

elbows said:


> Even Miranda Yardleys beliefs and choice of words are not enough to satisfy everyone on that side.




I have absolutely no control over what other people call me or say about me. I have, however, made my own position very clear on many occasions.

*I encourage and support anyone in the act of refusing to use ‘preferred pronouns’, ‘transwoman’ or ‘transwoman’, and refuses as an act of political disobedience to refer to males as women, females or she/her. And to be clear, within this I include myself.*

Why I Disavow ‘Woman’ And Am No Longer ‘Gender Critical’


----------



## 8ball (Jan 4, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Do you consider that 'transgender women' can legitimately commit acts of physical violence against women they disagree with?



This is quite a stretch.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 4, 2018)

8ball said:


> This 'erasure of women' thing seems odd.  It looks like the kind of language that aggrieved white supremacists use.



That's an absurd statement. 

Laurel Hubbard is a man competing in women's sports:

Trans weightlifter Laurel Hubbard wins silver at World Championship

Fallon Fox is a man who fights women:

After Being TKO'd by Fallon Fox, Tamikka Brents Says Transgender Fighters in MMA 'Just Isn't Fair' - Cagepotato

Hannah Mouncey is a man who wants to compete against women in women's sports:

Hannah Mouncey: AFLW block transgender athlete from 2018 draft

Lauren Jeska is a man who held women's fell-running titles, who attempted to kill UK Athletic's point of contact for 'gender issues' because he felt he was going to lose the women's titles he'd won in 2010, 2011 and 2012.

Jailed fell runner thought UK Athletics was 'trying to kill her'

These are all acts of female erasure.


----------



## elbows (Jan 4, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Do you consider that 'transgender women' can legitimately commit acts of physical violence against women they disagree with?



No I do not.

Bt nor do I think that it is possible to separate coverage of such events from the various broader contexts and agendas in play at the time. Nor do I believe that when 'unusual allies' turn up, especially media ones, they should be embraced without question. Or their participation simply described as 'amazing' without pondering how their own agendas interest in the story might illuminate some tricky ground you are standing on.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 4, 2018)

8ball said:


> This is quite a stretch.



It was a question.





etc etc etc


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 4, 2018)

elbows said:


> No I do not.
> 
> Bt nor do I think that it is possible to separate coverage of such events from the various broader contexts and agendas in play at the time.



So you think that the violence committed by at least two trans-identified males is justifiable? I mean, in this video one of these trans-identified males is squaring up to and threatening a woman who was part of his own group!


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 4, 2018)

elbows said:


> Oh yeah, facts are fun.
> 
> Facts like you being such a fuckwit, with such crude methods, that from time to time you've ended up called cis women men on twitter, because you decided they were trans and were wrong. The useless depths to which your beliefs lead you.


I see this regularly on Twitter tbh - not just Miranda but among TERFs generally. Quite a few of my cis female allies have come to me to tell me how they were told they were a man. and if that fails - I saw one of my cis friends the other day saying she'd been called "a traitor against women" for supporting trans women.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 4, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> The key point to take from Blanchard's typology (which builds on ideas that have been around for a long time, see for example Hirschfeld's 1918 examination of automonosexualism in cross-dressing males) is that the population of transsexuals (as he originally defined the typology, but would apply equally to transgender) falls into two general groups: homosexual and non-homosexual. This observation often gets lost in the noise.


That observation is simply a description with assumptions (it also follows the highly dodgy reasoning that there is no such thing as bisexuality, which appears to be a favourite theme of some of Blanchard's associates, despite the self-evident truth that it's nonsense, and arbitrary nonsense at that, like most of this stuff). Transsexuals may be attracted to one sex or the other or both or neither. There you go, four groups into which all transsexuals (and all people) fall.

So he makes a statement that applies equally to any other group. It is essentially arbitrary to build a theory from these categories rather than others, but that's what he does, he builds his entire nonsense edifice from there, and bends the evidence in a pretty shocking manner in order to make it fit around his assumptions. It's archetypal nonsense on stilts, the stilts in this case being his arbitrary typology.

In a trawl around the murks of Twitter after reading this thread, I noticed autogynephilia looming large. It is the pet theory of many fellow travellers of the likes of Dr RadFem, and it is invariably invoked in order to diminish and dismiss trans people.


----------



## elbows (Jan 4, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> So you think that the violence committed by at least two trans-identified males is justifiable? I mean, in this video one of these trans-identified males is squaring up to and threatening a woman who was part of his own group!



There you go, giving me more reasons to consider you a fuckwit. I'm not going to waste my time seeing how many different ways I'm supposed to say that I dont think the violence is acceptable. Because apparently a clear and simple reply is not enough for you, at least when I go on to follow it with a further point about people using this stuff to further their own agendas. 

For the avoidance of doubt, since it seems to be slippery in your world, I was talking about coverage. And I certainly dont mean that such violent acts should not receive coverage just because some of those doing the covering are using it for their own purposes. I'm not interested in shying away from events which are not good for causes I suppose. But coverage of how people use these events is important too.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 4, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> It was a question.



elbows clearly implied nothing of the kind.

It was about the motives of those newspapers in "rushing to your aid" that looks very naïve.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 4, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> I see this regularly on Twitter tbh - not just Miranda but among TERFs generally. Quite a few of my cis female allies have come to me to tell me how they were told they were a man. and if that fails - I saw one of my cis friends the other day saying she'd been called "a traitor against women" for supporting trans women.



Ah, good. I'm glad you've shown up.



Sea Star said:


> All he did was approach the owners of the venue and told them about what MY was all about - the doxing, the abuse and the constant lies.
> 
> It was MY who put up a website - when I stood for parliament - implying that I was a sexual abuser of children. It was actionable but I can't afford that sort of legal action so I just had to ignore it.



Please substantiate your claims, viz:

that I have ever doxed anyone;
that I am abusive;
that I am a source of 'constant lies'.
Please also substantiate you claim that I 'put up a website - when I stood for parliament - implying that I was a sexual abuser of children'. This statement is I have been told, actionable and I would please ask you kindly to either substantiate it or retract it and apologise.

Thank you.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 4, 2018)

elbows said:


> There you go, giving me more reasons to consider you a fuckwit. I'm not going to waste my time seeing how many different ways I'm supposed to say that I dont think the violence is acceptable. Because apparently a clear and simple reply is not enough for you, at least when I go on to follow it with a further point about people using this stuff to further their own agendas.
> 
> For the avoidance of doubt, since it seems to be slippery in your world, I was talking about coverage. And I certainly dont mean that such violent acts should not receive coverage just because some of those doing the covering are using it for their own purposes. I'm not interested in shying away from events which are not good for causes I suppose. But coverage of how people use these events is important too.



Why are you so incapable of condemning acts of male violence without qualification? It's okay for people to disagree on things, but the way to resolve it is through discussion and debate, not raising fists.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 4, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> These are all acts of female erasure.



These are nothing to do with erasure.  They are issues of categorization.


----------



## elbows (Jan 4, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Why are you so incapable of condemning acts of male violence without qualification? It's okay for people to disagree on things, but the way to resolve it is through discussion and debate, not raising fists.



I condemn the acts of violence without qualification. The media coverage point is an entirely different thing that has zero bearing on my attitude towards those committing the violence. It is not a qualification that justifies any violent act.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 4, 2018)

8ball said:


> elbows clearly implied nothing of the kind.
> 
> It was about the motives of those newspapers in "rushing to your aid" that looks very naïve.



Again my point was more the failure of the left rather than these taking a particular side. I'm all for transgender people having rights, but that does not extend to being allowed to commit acts of physical or rhetorical violence.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 4, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Do you consider that 'transgender women' can legitimately commit acts of physical violence against women they disagree with?



Grow up, there has been nasty shit on both sides, but violence has been incredibly rare.  I've yet to see you condemn some of the more extreme acts and behaviours of your comrades.


----------



## elbows (Jan 4, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Again my point was more the failure of the left rather than these taking a particular side. I'm all for transgender people having rights, but that does not extend to physical or rhetorical violence.



Or the right to be referred to by the gender pronoun of choice, you horrible shit.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 4, 2018)

elbows said:


> I condemn the acts of violence without qualification. The media coverage point is an entirely different thing that has zero bearing on my attitude towards those committing the violence. It is not a qualification that justifies any violent act.



Again my point about the media coverage was more the failure of the left rather than any particular political agreement or disagreement.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 4, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Grow up, there has been nasty shit on both sides, but violence has been incredibly rare.  I've yet to see you condemn some of the more extreme acts and behaviours of your comrades.



What 'comrades'? And what 'acts'?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 4, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Again my point was more the failure of the left rather than these taking a particular side. I'm all for transgender people having rights, but that does not extend to being allowed to commit acts of physical or rhetorical violence.



Fair enough.  I'd agree on the 'failure of the left' part.  But the willingness of certain other sections of the press to report on it doesn't make it _selectively_ a failure of the left, if you see what I mean.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 4, 2018)

elbows said:


> Or the right to be referred to by the gender pronoun of choice, you horrible shit.



Nobody anywhere has the right to compel other people to acknowledge their inner identities as real where these contradict material reality. That said, transgender people should be treated fairly and with compassion. Lying to people is neither fair nor compassionate. Rather, it is cruel.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 4, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I have absolutely no control over what other people call me or say about me. I have, however, made my own position very clear on many occasions.
> 
> *I encourage and support anyone in the act of refusing to use ‘preferred pronouns’, ‘transwoman’ or ‘transwoman’, and refuses as an act of political disobedience to refer to males as women, females or she/her. And to be clear, within this I include myself.*
> 
> Why I Disavow ‘Woman’ And Am No Longer ‘Gender Critical’


I've thought a fair bit about this wrt the two trans friends I have irl, one a trans woman the other a trans man. If someone I knew refused to refer to either of them by the pronoun of their choice and continued refusing on principle after being asked not to, that person would quickly cease to be a person I knew. There is no dressing up of that attitude as anything other than being a total fucking shit.

I train in martial arts with one of them. I'd kick a person out of my dojo if they persisted with shit like this. While you would 'encourage and support' it. How the fuck have you gone so wrong?


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 4, 2018)

2/10. boring.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 4, 2018)

8ball said:


> Fair enough.  I'd agree the 'failure of the left' part.  But the willingness of certain other sections of the press to report on it doesn't make it _selectively_ a failure of the left, if you see what I mean.



It's a failure of the left to do this. I've said many times how damaging it is to trans people to allow the right to be the only host of debate on the trans issue. This is not controlling debate (which is the intention, if you read the 'Trans Media Watch' guidelines), it is giving away the right to contribute to the debate.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 4, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I've thought a fair bit about this wrt the two trans friends I have irl, one a trans woman the other a trans man. If someone I knew refused to refer to either of them by the pronoun of their choice and continued refusing on principle after being asked not to, that person would quickly cease to be a person I knew. There is no dressing up of that attitude as anything other than being a total fucking shit.
> 
> I train in martial arts with one of them. I'd kick a person out of my dojo if they persisted with shit like this. While you would 'encourage and support' it. How the fuck have you gone so wrong?



Germaine Greer would use preferred names and pronouns!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 4, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Germaine Greer would use preferred names and pronouns!


Which proves what exactly, except that your associates are even worse than Greer on this matter?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 4, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I train in martial arts with one of them. I'd kick a person out of my dojo if they persisted with shit like this. While you would 'encourage and support' it. How the fuck have you gone so wrong?



"I support the rights and opinions of trans people, except you."


----------



## elbows (Jan 4, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Nobody anywhere has the right to compel other people to acknowledge their inner identities as real where these contradict material reality. That said, transgender people should be treated fairly and with compassion. Lying to people is neither fair nor compassionate. Rather, it is cruel.



I'm sure very few will accuse you of compassion towards those you misgender with relish. 

Because acts that qualify as compassionate only by virtue of your beliefs are not likely to meet general standards of compassionate behaviour and communication. Your particular form of 'being cruel to be kind' is laughable and whilst it is clear you have a self-justification and internal logic for it, dont expect it to wash more broadly.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 4, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Nobody anywhere has the right to compel other people to acknowledge their inner identities as real where these contradict material reality. That said, transgender people should be treated fairly and with compassion. Lying to people is neither fair nor compassionate. Rather, it is cruel.



All it means is a minor caveat clause being appended to particular pronouns (those pronouns always having been occasionally problematic in any case).
The alternative is a combative simplistic absolutism.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 4, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Which proves what exactly, except that your associates are even worse than Greer on this matter?



What in this interview does Greer say that you object to?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 4, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> "I support the rights and opinions of trans people, except you."


Nope. It doesn't hurt you to do a simple thing such as use the preferred pronoun. It does hurt the person you're misgendering when you do so. There is no equivalence here.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 4, 2018)

elbows said:


> I'm sure very few will accuse you of compassion towards those you misgender with relish.
> 
> Because acts that qualify as compassionate only by virtue of your beliefs are not likely to meet general standards of compassionate behaviour and communication. Your particular form of 'being cruel to be kind' is laughable and whilst it is clear you have a self-justification and internal logic for it, dont expect it to wash more broadly.



Interesting, 'misgendering' is always to be condemned, but physical and rhetorical violence by males against females can be justified...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 4, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> What in this interview does Greer say that you object to?


Thread about that Greer interview that way >>>>>>>>


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 4, 2018)

8ball said:


> All it means is a minor caveat clause being appended to particular pronouns (those pronouns always having been occasionally problematic in any case).
> The alternative is a combative simplistic absolutism.



You realise female pronouns are a fairly recent invention?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 4, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Thread about that Greer interview that way >>>>>>>>



I was asking you, not asking for you to direct me to someone else's opinions.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 4, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I was asking you, not asking for you to direct me to someone else's opinions.


You will find my opinions in that thread. Can't be arsed watching the interview again.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 4, 2018)

Having suffered both male and female violence throughout my life, and having no preference between the two, I'd like to go on the record as condemning both. FWIW.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 4, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nope. It doesn't hurt you to do a simple thing such as use the preferred pronoun. It does hurt the person you're misgendering when you do so. There is no equivalence here.



Well, yes it does: compelling everyone to use language that conforms to individual's subjective personal identities instead of the conventional language, is an attack on free speech and personal liberty. It is exactly what Orwell wrote about in 1946's 'Politics and the English Language'. (Whatever political disagreement we may have, I'd wholeheartedly recommend you read this essay, it's completely bloody brilliant).


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 4, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You will find my opinions in that thread. Can't be arsed watching the interview again.



Was that a pout?


----------



## elbows (Jan 4, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Interesting, 'misgendering' is always to be condemned, but physical and rhetorical violence by males against females can be justified...



I wonder how I was able to predict from the start that you would persist with this utter bullshit. I never justified any such thing, nor came anywhere even vaguely close. Dull.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 4, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Well, yes it does: compelling everyone to use language that conforms to individual's subjective personal identities instead of the conventional language, is an attack on free speech and personal liberty. It is exactly what Orwell wrote about in 1946's 'Politics and the English Language'. (Whatever political disagreement we may have, I'd wholeheartedly recommend you read this essay, it's completely bloody brilliant).


Aside from on the internet, I've yet to meet anyone who has taken such a stand. People generally act in a way that tries, however clumsily, to respect the wishes and feelings of the trans person in question. The idea that expecting people to respect those wishes is an attack on free speech and personal liberty is absurd. You are making absurd arguments now.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 4, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Was that a pout?


No, just don't want to watch Greer dribbling on again. Once was enough.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 4, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Aside from on the internet, I've yet to meet anyone who has taken such a stand. People generally act in a way that tries, however clumsily, to respect the wishes and feelings of the trans person in question. The idea that expecting people to respect those wishes is an attack on free speech and personal liberty is absurd. You are making absurd arguments now.



No, it's far from absurd. Here are four concrete examples:



Miranda Yardley said:


> Trans weightlifter Laurel Hubbard wins silver at World Championship
> 
> After Being TKO'd by Fallon Fox, Tamikka Brents Says Transgender Fighters in MMA 'Just Isn't Fair' - Cagepotato
> 
> ...


----------



## 8ball (Jan 4, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> You realise female pronouns are a fairly recent invention?



This really doesn’t aid your argument in any way.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 4, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> What 'comrades'? And what 'acts'?



Well for a start the repeated and deliberate misuse of scientific research to claim that transwomen retain male patterns of criminality.  The transcrime website used to whip up hatred against transwomen.  Venice Allan's weird stalky behaviour around Lily Madigan and the attempts to smear her over something she might have said as a child, the deliberate misrepresentaion of upcoming legal changes to the law on the leaflet which was handed out at the anarchist bookfair, the cosying up to the right wing press and jublience when they whip up online hate mobs to attack Madigan, the Top Shop toilet person and many more, the outing and bullying of transwomen that has gone on on websites like twansphobic, the mockery and vindictiveness of some of the stuff Burchill and Bindel have come out with in the national press, Shiela Jeffries calls for transgender healthcare to be declared a human rights abuse, and of course the far more violent attacks than what is alleged to have happened at Hyde Park committed against transwomen by some rad fems in the 70s.   

All of these things are intended to promote hatred of an already marginalised group which is already disproportionately affected by violence.  That has real world effects in society, and I would suggest it is intended to.  I'm aware that academics and magazine editors do not fight their battles with silly online threats (by and large) and shouty protests, but their voice is much louder, their intentions very precise, and the result of their actions, ultimately, is a society where transwomen are more at risk of violence and abuse.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 4, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> No, it's far from absurd. Here are four concrete examples:



These all happened when someone used a pronoun choice you dislike?

Wow!


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 4, 2018)

8ball said:


> These all happened when someone used a pronoun choice you dislike?



No, these are men demanding to be seen and treated as women, with real-world consequences.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 4, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> You realise female pronouns are a fairly recent invention?


are they really?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 4, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> No, it's far from absurd. Here are four concrete examples:


The issue of transgender people (and intersex people) competing in sport is a very thorny one (and is an issue for which an exception was made in the UK's 2004 legislation, as I'm sure you know). I'd be happy to discuss it with you and you might find I agree with you about much of it, but that has nothing to do with deliberately misgendering a person when you talk to or about them, which is the issue at point here.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 4, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Aside from on the internet, I've yet to meet anyone who has taken such a stand. People generally act in a way that tries, however clumsily, to respect the wishes and feelings of the trans person in question.



I agree with this and do the same. However it seems somewhat one sided when we use gender pronouns of people’s choice out of respect whilst having words like cis foisted on others who have objected to it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 4, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I agree with this and do the same. However it seems somewhat one sided when we use gender pronouns of people’s choice out of respect whilst having words like cis foisted on people who have objected to it.


I've never heard anyone being called 'cis' irl, while it is hard to go through a whole day without someone using a pronoun to represent you.  Doesn't seem much of an equivalence to me.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 4, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Well for a start the repeated and deliberate misuse of scientific research to claim that transwomen retain male patterns of criminality.



This is a direct quote from 'Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden' which you can read here: Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden

*Second, regarding any crime, male-to-females had a significantly increased risk for crime compared to female controls (aHR 6.6; 95% CI 4.1–10.8) but not compared to males (aHR 0.8; 95% CI 0.5–1.2). This indicates that they retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was true regarding violent crime. By contrast, female-to-males had higher crime rates than female controls (aHR 4.1; 95% CI 2.5–6.9) but did not differ from male controls. This indicates a shift to a male pattern regarding criminality and that sex reassignment is coupled to increased crime rate in female-to-males.*​


> The transcrime website used to whip up hatred against transwomen. etc



I think if crimes by males are being reported and categorised as crimes by females, we need to know the truth. That said, the site is nothing to do with me, and it's is the government's responsibility to not report misleading statistics.

I'm not responsible for other people's actions, and I have gone out of my way to, for example, deal with misinformation spread about things like the Gender Recognition Act, which is well-meaning but badly drafted law with unintended consequences like supporting negative discrimination against homosexuals. I have also pointed out it negatively discriminates against all trans* individuals who do not want their birth certificate to be reissued, we cannot benefit from the Act outside of its effect on the Equality Act.



> All of these things are intended to promote hatred of an already marginalised group which is already disproportionately affected by violence.



You mean this 'marginalised group which is already disproportionately affected by violence'?

coming for your throats terfs - Twitter Search



> That has real world effects in society, and I would suggest it is intended to.  I'm aware that academics and magazine editors do not fight their battles with silly online threats (by and large) and shouty protests, but their voice is much louder, their intentions very precise, and the result of their actions, ultimately, is a society where transwomen are more at risk of violence and abuse.



You are aware that, for example, the murder rate of trans people is no different to that of the general population?

life is good, make it better: the appropriation of black and hispanic trans deaths by white trans women and political opportunists

(Written by a transgender activist I disagree with on many points!)


----------



## 8ball (Jan 4, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> No, these are men demanding to be seen and treated as women, with real-world consequences.



So not relevant to what I said, then.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 4, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The issue of transgender people (and intersex people) competing in sport is a very thorny one (and is an issue for which an exception was made in the UK's 2004 legislation, as I'm sure you know). I'd be happy to discuss it with you and you might find I agree with you about much of it, but that has nothing to do with deliberately misgendering a person when you talk to or about them, which is the issue at point here.



I am happy to discuss this, and I think like with most people we may agree on more than we disagree.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 4, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I've never heard anyone being called 'cis' irl, while it is hard to go through a whole day without someone using a pronoun to represent you.  Doesn't seem much of an equivalence to me.


won't be long before people's behaviour will be described as cissy


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 4, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I've never heard anyone being called 'cis' irl, while it is hard to go through a whole day without someone using a pronoun to represent you.  Doesn't seem much of an equivalence to me.



True, in my experience it’s usually spat at me followed by some denunciation but online rather than in the pub.


----------



## bimble (Jan 4, 2018)

Jesus what a mess. Miranda's reappearance brings all the shouty boys to the yard.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 4, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Ah, good. I'm glad you've shown up.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I retract and I apologise.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 4, 2018)

..


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 4, 2018)

I move that this thread be binned immediately


----------



## smokedout (Jan 4, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> This is a direct quote from 'Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden' which you can read here: Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden
> 
> *Second, regarding any crime, male-to-females had a significantly increased risk for crime compared to female controls (aHR 6.6; 95% CI 4.1–10.8) but not compared to males (aHR 0.8; 95% CI 0.5–1.2). This indicates that they retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was true regarding violent crime. By contrast, female-to-males had higher crime rates than female controls (aHR 4.1; 95% CI 2.5–6.9) but did not differ from male controls. This indicates a shift to a male pattern regarding criminality and that sex reassignment is coupled to increased crime rate in female-to-males.*​


​
And here's what the author of that study says about how the findings have been misreported: Fact check: study shows transition makes trans people suicidal – The TransAdvocate


> I think if crimes by males are being reported and categorised as crimes by females, we need to know the truth. That said, the site is nothing to do with me, and it's is the government's responsibility to not report misleading statistics.



That website has nothing to do with statistics.  It lists driving offences for fucks sake.  It exists purely to whip up fear and hatred of transpeople.  Do you condemn it?



> I'm not responsible for other people's actions, and I have gone out of my way to, for example, deal with misinformation spread about things like the Gender Recognition Act, which is well-meaning but badly drafted law with unintended consequences like supporting negative discrimination against homosexuals. I have also pointed out it negatively discriminates against all trans* individuals who do not want their birth certificate to be reissued, we cannot benefit from the Act outside of its effect on the Equality Act.



Good, have you spoken out against the misrepresentation of the proposed changes, such as claiming cross party recommendations are 'proposed tory laws'?



> You mean this 'marginalised group which is already disproportionately affected by violence'?
> 
> coming for your throats terfs - Twitter Search



Would you diminish racially motivated violence by posting a handful of tweets from a few people who came from the group under attack?  Pretty shameful this.


> You are aware that, for example, the murder rate of trans people is no different to that of the general population?
> 
> life is good, make it better: the appropriation of black and hispanic trans deaths by white trans women and political opportunists
> 
> (Written by a transgender activist I disagree with on many points!



You are aware that there were 1,248 recorded hate crimes against trans people in the most recent year and that those crimes were disproportionately more likely to involve violence?


----------



## bimble (Jan 4, 2018)

How have you been gagged Sea Star ?


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 4, 2018)

bimble said:


> Jesus what a mess. Miranda's reappearance brings all the shouty boys to the yard.


I note that you in no way consider me to be a woman.


----------



## elbows (Jan 4, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> I move that this thread be binned immediately



Why? If its gone wrong for you thats one thing, but this thread is about far more than that and I dont see why we should be expected to junk the entire conversation.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 4, 2018)

elbows said:


> Why? If its gone wrong for you thats one thing, but this thread is about far more than that and I dont see why we should be expected to junk the entire conversation.


This thread is 100% bullshit. If no trans person is able to contribute meaningfully it's just cis people spouting hot air.


----------



## bimble (Jan 4, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> I note that you in no way consider me to be a woman.


Not everything is about you.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 4, 2018)

bimble said:


> Not everything is about you.


Everything is about cis people I know that


----------



## Athos (Jan 4, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> This thread is 100% bullshit. If no trans person is able to contribute meaningfully it's just cis people spouting hot air.



Nobody is stopping you contributing.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 4, 2018)

After that I think I'm going to leave for a while. If anyone needs to contact me they won't be able to do it via this thread.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 4, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> I move that this thread be binned immediately


propose that to editor then. rather than frothing about it.

i am sure he will give your suggestion the attention it merits.


----------



## bimble (Jan 4, 2018)

Sea Star you were asked politely to substantiate accusations you’d made against someone or else to retract them. You chose retract and then say the whole thread should be binned. Seems a bit extreme.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 4, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> I note that you in no way consider me to be a woman.


And still you wonder why people don’t want to engage with you.


----------



## spanglechick (Jan 4, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Sure, find me a single instance of a male who produced an egg which was fertilised which he then gestated.
> 
> It's not bigotry, prejudiced or hateful to recognise facts.



If that's your definition of a woman, what the fuck am I, as a cis woman with no kids?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 4, 2018)

smokedout said:


> ​
> And here's what the author of that study says about how the findings have been misreported: Fact check: study shows transition makes trans people suicidal – The TransAdvocate


That study is a bit frustrating. In the interview, she says:



> The study as a whole covers the period between 1973 and 2003. If one divides the cohort into two groups, 1973 to 1988 and 1989 to 2003, one observes that for the latter group (1989 – 2003), differences in mortality, suicide attempts and crime disappear. This means that for the 1989 to 2003 group, we did not find a male pattern of criminality.



But this bit's not in the study. I've no idea why not. It's crucial, as it turns the conclusion the study's been used to support on its head. I guess the authors were focussed on the need to provide data to help better care and little else, but it's still an unfortunate omission of a very interesting finding. It's tucked away here, but not fully explained. 



> Transsexual individuals were at increased risk of being convicted for any crime or violent crime after sex reassignment (Table 2); this was, however, only significant in the group who underwent sex reassignment before 1989.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 4, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> This thread is 100% bullshit. If no trans person is able to contribute meaningfully it's just cis people spouting hot air.



I'm trans (I've been 'out' for three decades) and I am able to have meaningful conversations here with a number of people who disagree with me, and this is okay. Why spoil the fun for all of us? Why not engage, I mean who knows you may find you and I can agree on some things.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 4, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That study is a bit frustrating. In the interview, she says:
> 
> 
> 
> But this bit's not in the study. I've no idea why not. It's crucial, as it turns the conclusion the study's been used to support on its head. I guess the authors were focussed on the need to provide data to help better care and little else, but it's still an unfortunate omission of a very interesting finding. It's tucked away here, but not fully explained.



Something that is overlooked by EVERYONE who comments on this study is that the study was commissioned to justify the continuation of a program of pre- and post-operative care for transsexuals in Sweden. The second cohort reflected better pre- and post-surgery psychological and somatic care, and lent weight to this treatment protocol. It is a tragedy this type of care for transsexuals is not taken seriously in the UK, or the USA, as we only stand to benefit from this.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 4, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> If that's your definition of a woman, what the fuck am I, as a cis woman with no kids?



A 'cis woman' with no kids who is attempting to derail. HTH.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 4, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> After that I think I'm going to leave for a while. If anyone needs to contact me they won't be able to do it via this thread.



Is this thread going to become one of those legendary 'flounce' threads?


----------



## elbows (Jan 4, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> We had a couple of interactions on here and you became abusive instead of making a coherent argument. If you've been in this debate for so long, if you can actually argue the point, please go ahead, I'm all ears, I'd love to be shown to be wrong...



There are many points, and I've read all of yours in this thread, picked on a few, watched other people getting their teeth into the others. In many cases I've nothing to add or hope for far more voices to listen to that arent mine or yours.

Also if we are doing recent forum thread history lessons, I will point out that one of the reasons I've been especially abrupt with you today is that you misgendered Roz. And I posted the following tweet by Roz in this thread many pages ago, sometime in November I think. I find the phenomenon very depressing and your justifications for your actions dont help me think any differently about that. Thats the real problem I have with your stance, it works for you but it cant even offer the modern basic standard of politeness towards trans people, let alone better lives for people. So its shit in my book.



If I were more concerned with trans rights than womens rights, then I'm not convinced I'd even be interested in this thread in recent months. But I am exceptionally interested in both. All sorts of food for thought and interesting points have been raised and although sometimes the complex realities can be overwhelmed with extreme positions and even acts of violence, I do feel I understand better some of the risks people are concerned with. I'm pretty disgusted with the rate of progress in terms of womens rights, equality, safety, freedom from sexual violence, coercion and abuse, and the same for every other sort of human that ends up a victim. It's very difficult when one groups rights are seen to clash with anothers, its important to look at the details of this stuff but also to consider the myraid ways humans are drawn towards seeing things in terms of differences rather than similarities, conflict and competition, dogma and baggage.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 4, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Something that is overlooked by EVERYONE who comments on this study  ...



See you knew that study didn't support the claim you were trying to make but you posted it anyway.  Did you hope no-one would notice?  It's this kind of dishonesty - dishonesty intended to portray transwomen as violent men - that undermines any claims to want to support trans rights, to be opposed to abuse of transpeople or the ever innocent 'just asking questions and raising concerns'.  It's nasty shit, and I hope people can see that.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 4, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Everything is about cis people I know that



Although the interaction that caused you to want to leave is with another trans person.

E2a: I see that’s already been pointed out.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 4, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> A 'cis woman' with no kids who is attempting to derail. HTH.



You what? You've defined womanhood as the ability to produce eggs that can be fertilised and gestated. Perhaps you can have a little think about why that is a really limiting definition and how fucking offensive your accusation of derailing is considering the fact that some women can't have children.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 4, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> You are aware that, for example, the murder rate of trans people is no different to that of the general population?
> 
> life is good, make it better: the appropriation of black and hispanic trans deaths by white trans women and political opportunists
> 
> (Written by a transgender activist I disagree with on many points!)



I'd caution any attempts to analyse the murder rates of transpeople in the UK because no-one knows how many trans people there are.  The GIRES estimate of 3-500,000 includes anyone who is gender variant to some degree.  Using this figure then trans murder rates look lower than amongst the general population.  Using the number of people who have ever accessed treatment for gender dysphoria, currently about 12,000 I believe, and the trans murder rate looks staggeringly high.  The truth is no-one knows.

The hate crime statistics speak for themselves however.  These people were victims of crime because they were trans, and there were 1,248 hate crimes recorded against trans people last year.  A recent Stonewall survey found 41% of transpeople experienced a hate crime or incident because of their gender identity in the last 12 months, double the percentage for LGBT people overall.  Until better data comes along on how many trans people exist then perhaps this is where people should be looking.


----------



## spanglechick (Jan 4, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> A 'cis woman' with no kids who is attempting to derail. HTH.


How is responding to the point you raised, a derail? Aren’t cis women entitled to contribute to the debate about what makes someone a woman?


----------



## spanglechick (Jan 4, 2018)

And thanks, Rutita1 - there’s something pretty irritating about being dismissed when there are currently so few women posters (Trans, cis or otherwise) involved in the discussion.

My point was a direct challenge to the entire substantive point Miranda Yardley had made in the post I quoted.  Quite how they get to frame that as a derail is mid-boggling.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 4, 2018)

smokedout said:


> See you knew that study didn't support the claim you were trying to make but you posted it anyway.  Did you hope no-one would notice?  It's this kind of dishonesty - dishonesty intended to portray transwomen as violent men - that undermines any claims to want to support trans rights, to be opposed to abuse of transpeople or the ever innocent 'just asking questions and raising concerns'.  It's nasty shit, and I hope people can see that.


transadvocate.com is a very good website, btw. Ta for that. There are a few excellent resources out there showing the results of serious hard graft by trans advocates. Committed trans activists of the kind that seem to be strangely ignored by some in favour of retweeting ranty teenagers.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 4, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> A 'cis woman' with no kids who is attempting to derail. HTH.




that is fucking low.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 4, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> How is responding to the point you raised, a derail? Aren’t cis women entitled to contribute to the debate about what makes someone a woman?



I think it was to do with relating the definition of ‘woman’ to male vs female sex at birth, and the socialisation that usually comes with it, as opposed to some kind of elevation of reproductive characteristics.

It was clumsy, though (the formulation, I mean) and the response to you wasn’t warranted at all.


----------



## editor (Jan 5, 2018)

For the various reasons, I'm putting Miranda Yardley and Sea Star on mutual ignore.

This means that neither poster may respond to, or reference, the other.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> How is responding to the point you raised, a derail? Aren’t cis women entitled to contribute to the debate about what makes someone a woman?


miranda yardley's approval apparently


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 5, 2018)

elbows said:


>




After that tweet she tweeted this one 

... and later still this one 


In love and [TERF] war...


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> A 'cis woman' with no kids who is attempting to derail. HTH.



Just who the fuck do you think you are, rocking up here and spreading shit like this?

 I'm sure your whole crowd make you feel very special. As the TERFs' token trans friend you're a vital resource to them. This seems to have given you a profoundly distorted idea of how much of your hateful bullshit the world at large is willing to put up with.

You're not a fucking celebrity here. You don't have a free pass.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 5, 2018)

What's baffling is just how conservative and archaic that kind of definition is...like decades of feminist struggle/activity hasn't happened


----------



## bemused (Jan 5, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> that is fucking low.



And astonishingly sexist.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 5, 2018)

bemused said:


> And astonishingly sexist.


Yay, patriarchy!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 5, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> What's baffling is just how conservative and archaic that kind of definition is...like decades of feminist struggle/activity hasn't happened



Doesn't surprise me that much in the context of everything else they've said tbh. TERFdom is inherently backwards-facing, conservative and authoritarian; so of course they fall back on some Victorian rubbish about women as baby production devices.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That study is a bit frustrating. In the interview, she says:
> *
> The study as a whole covers the period between 1973 and 2003. If one divides the cohort into two groups, 1973 to 1988 and 1989 to 2003, one observes that for the latter group (1989 – 2003), differences in mortality, suicide attempts and crime disappear. This means that for the 1989 to 2003 group, we did not find a male pattern of criminality.*
> 
> But this bit's not in the study. I've no idea why not. It's crucial, as it turns the conclusion the study's been used to support on its head. I guess the authors were focussed on the need to provide data to help better care and little else, but it's still an unfortunate omission of a very interesting finding. It's tucked away here, but not fully explained.



What the study actually says is as follows:

*"Second, regarding any crime, male-to-females had a significantly increased risk for crime compared to female controls (aHR 6.6; 95% CI 4.1–10.8) but not compared to males (aHR 0.8; 95% CI 0.5–1.2). This indicates that they retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was true regarding violent crime. By contrast, female-to-males had higher crime rates than female controls (aHR 4.1; 95% CI 2.5–6.9) but did not differ from male controls. This indicates a shift to a male pattern regarding criminality and that sex reassignment is coupled to increased crime rate in female-to-males.*"​
*"Transsexual individuals were at increased risk of being convicted for any crime or violent crime after sex reassignment (Table 2); this was, however, only significant in the group who underwent sex reassignment before 1989."*​
What she says in the interview contradicts the findings of the study, both in the statistics and reported and the interpretation of these statistics. Dhejne is the lead (of six) authors to the study and there has been no retraction of this paper or 'correction' issued through official channels. I don't think it does anyone any favours, *particularly trans people*, to muddy the water when what we need is good quality, evidence-based science, and it certainly doesn't help where Dhejne makes statements that directly contradict work she published half a decade earlier.

Some observations:

the study looks at transsexuals who have undertaken 'sex reassignment' surgery. This is not the same as 'post transition', which generally tends to be more social in nature, and so does not apply to the majority of individuals who would describe themselves as being 'transgender', which is more about cross-gender identity than surgical/medical transition. We can only apply the study's conclusions to the population of trans individuals post-surgery, and any conclusions drawn or claimed by the study relate only to that population.
the care regime which appears to have conferred significant benefit on the second cohort is not replicated in most other countries care protocols and certainly not within the WPATH guidelines. In my opinion, the pre- and post-surgical care presently given is inadequate and if we want better outcomes for transsexuals, we need to address this; funding this care yourself is very expensive.
current care protocols focus on a path towards surgery, and do not speak to those who do not wish to have such surgery, or even transition. I think this is incredibly short-sighted, as it ignores a large group of people whose lives may contain significant distress, and recent moves to label any therapy that is not 'gender affirming' as 'conversion therapy' is anti-scientific and dangerous: what this does is it takes the huge number of personal identities that exist under the transgender umbrella and says there is only one valid treatment protocol (affirmation) suitable for a very diverse group of people. Again this doesn't do anyone any favours.
There is a dearth of good quality, evidence-based research and there is a lot of political manipulation of what work is actually being done. Again, this is not good for trans people. I hope it's clear that Dhejne's study is in need of follow-up.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> the TERFs' token trans friend... your hateful bullshit



Please show me anything I have ever said that is hateful.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> ...some Victorian rubbish about women as baby production devices.



Who said that?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Please show me anything I have ever said that is hateful.





Miranda Yardley said:


> Who said that?



You should get a job in the White House with Trump, you’d fit right in.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 5, 2018)

I thought MY was using the definition of a woman as a female, a human with a female reproductive system. Makes no difference if you have children or not.


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> What's baffling is just how conservative and archaic that kind of definition is...like decades of feminist struggle/activity hasn't happened



I don't accept your implied premise that Miranda Yardley attempted to define any individual's womanhood with reference to their reproductive capacity; it was a (clumsily expressed) attempt to make the point that it's ridiculous to deny biology.  (And I think the dismissal of spanglechick's question was out of order.)

However, much of feminism recognises that the basis of the unequal treatment of women *as a group* is their *general* characteristic of child-bearing (and men's desire to control the same), regardless of *specific* exceptions amongst *individuals* within the group.

Recognising the material reality of female biology isn't at odds with feminism _per se_.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 5, 2018)

Athos said:


> However, much of feminism recognises that the basis of the unequal treatment of women *as a group* is their *general* characteristic of child-bearing (and men's desire to control the same), regardless of *specific* exceptions amongst *individuals* within the group.



Miranda Yardley 's remark was not directed at women in general though was it? It was a personal dig, and one which explicitly reinforced the notion of womanhood as a reproductive class.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

elbows said:


> There are many points, and I've read all of yours in this thread, picked on a few, watched other people getting their teeth into the others. In many cases I've nothing to add or hope for far more voices to listen to that arent mine or yours.
> 
> Also if we are doing recent forum thread history lessons, I will point out that one of the reasons I've been especially abrupt with you today is that you misgendered Roz. And I posted the following tweet by Roz in this thread many pages ago, sometime in November I think. I find the phenomenon very depressing and your justifications for your actions dont help me think any differently about that. Thats the real problem I have with your stance, it works for you but it cant even offer the modern basic standard of politeness towards trans people, let alone better lives for people. So its shit in my book.
> 
> If I were more concerned with trans rights than womens rights, then I'm not convinced I'd even be interested in this thread in recent months. But I am exceptionally interested in both. All sorts of food for thought and interesting points have been raised and although sometimes the complex realities can be overwhelmed with extreme positions and even acts of violence, I do feel I understand better some of the risks people are concerned with. I'm pretty disgusted with the rate of progress in terms of womens rights, equality, safety, freedom from sexual violence, coercion and abuse, and the same for every other sort of human that ends up a victim. It's very difficult when one groups rights are seen to clash with anothers, its important to look at the details of this stuff but also to consider the myraid ways humans are drawn towards seeing things in terms of differences rather than similarities, conflict and competition, dogma and baggage.



Thanks for taking the time to reply. It seems to me much of the objections are around pronouns, yet the real-world effect of there being a rights conflict between women and 'trans women' (males who are claiming rights _as women_) is not just overlooked but we are told there is no such rights conflict. This really is the fundamental problem of the moment: at what point does a 'trans woman' accrue rights 'as a woman', if at all? And how broad and deep do those rights apply?

If the observance of personal pronouns is an obligation, again how far does this go? Are we telling women that no matter what, anyone who self-defines as a woman is part of their group? Does it apply to this person?

This Trans Woman Kept Her Beard And Couldn't Be Happier

I'm sorry that you don't like my stance on pronouns. Personally, I find it rather strange that it has now become an act of political rebellion to refer to an adult human male as a man. If trans people find pronouns distressing and triggering, goodness knows how they'll cope with the brutality of surgery and regular dilation.


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Miranda Yardley 's remark was not directed at women in general though was it? It was a personal dig, and one which explicitly reinforced the notion of womanhood as a reproductive class.



Which remark? The original one, or the response to spanglechick? My post you've quoted was addressing what appears to be Rutita1's interpretation of the former; I've already said the latter was out of order.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

Athos said:


> Recognising the material reality of female biology isn't at odds with feminism _per se_.



The recognition of the importance of female biology is something a lot of feminists are fighting for, because much of the vector of transgender culture seeks to erase this. Feminists view the way female biology is instrumentalised against women as the basis of women's oppression.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Personally, I find it rather strange that it has now become an act of political rebellion to refer to an adult human male as a man.



And if you say you're English, you'll be arrested and thrown in jail.


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> The recognition of the importance of female biology is something a lot of feminists are fighting for, because much of the vector of transgender culture seeks to erase this. Feminists view the way female biology is instrumentalised against women as the basis of women's oppression.



That's certainly one school of thought within feminism, though there are others.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Feminists view the way female biology is instrumentalised against women as the basis of women's oppression.



All feminists? Or just your shower?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

Athos said:


> That's certainly one school of thought within feminism, though there are others.



Like what?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> The recognition of the importance of female biology is something a lot of feminists are fighting for, because much of the vector of transgender culture seeks to erase this. Feminists view the way female biology is instrumentalised against women as the basis of women's oppression.



...and how would you position your dismissal and accusation of derailing to spanglechick within _feminist_ struggles against oppression?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> All feminists? Or just your shower?



I'm not part of any 'shower' or group. I speak for myself.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> The recognition of the importance of female biology is something a lot of feminists are fighting for, because much of the vector of transgender culture seeks to erase this.


yeh. and the other feminists who aren't fighting for this, how do they view the issue?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I'm not part of any 'shower' or group. I speak for myself.



That's odd, a minute ago you were speaking for all the feminists in the world.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> ...and how would you position your dismissal and accusation of trolling to spanglechick within feminist struggles against oppression?



It was a derail, a position was attributed to me which I did not claim.

It's interesting that the overall message I'm getting from people here is "listen to and support trans people... but not Miranda Yardley".


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. and the other feminists who aren't fighting for this, how do they view the issue?



I think you'll find across the board that feminists fight for bodily autonomy and reproductive rights, including but not limited to access to birth control, abortion and protection from sexual violence.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I think you'll find across the board that feminists fight for bodily autonomy and reproductive rights, including but not limited to access to birth control, abortion and protection from sexual violence.


i'm not interested in what you think i'll find.

i'm interested in what the feminists who aren't in your 'a lot' think.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> That's odd, a minute ago you were speaking for all the feminists in the world.



No, I certainly did not. And please, you accused me of being 'hateful', please link to anything I have ever said that is hateful.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm not interested in what you think i'll find.



Was that another pout?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Was that another pout?


no.

next.


----------



## bimble (Jan 5, 2018)

It seems like because you don't lay claim to being a woman Miranda Yardley some people see you as not authentically trans. 
I'm curious did you always see things this way or did you at some point over the last 3 decades change your view and decide to reject the claim to female pronouns etc?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> It was a derail, a position was attributed to me which I did not claim.


 No it wasn't, it was a challenge/interrogation of your clumsy defining of 'womanhood'. You didn't think it through it seems and then offensively dismissed spanglechick when you could have simply taken her point on board and acknowledged it.



> It's interesting that the overall message I'm getting from people here is "listen to and support trans people... but not Miranda Yardley".



You are not the only trans person on this thread. Do you agree with all other trans people? Is it imperative that everyone agrees with you about everything?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> It's interesting that the overall message I'm getting from people here is "listen to and support trans people... but not Miranda Yardley".



We have listened to you. That's the problem.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 5, 2018)

bimble said:


> It seems like because you don't lay claim to being a woman Miranda Yardley some people see you as not authentically trans.
> ?


 Eh? Who? Name names if you are going to make such a subjective accusation about what people are or are not thinking. What evidence is there of this?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> No it wasn't, it was a challenge/interrogation of your clumsy defining of 'womanhood'. You didn't think it through it seems and then offensively dismissed spanglechick when you could have simply taken her point on board and acknowledged it.



I did not define womanhood.



Rutita1 said:


> You are not the only trans person on this thread. Do you agree with all other trans people? Is it imperative that everyone agrees with you about everything?



from:@terrorizermir disagreement is good - Twitter Search


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 5, 2018)

bimble said:


> It seems like because you don't lay claim to being a woman Miranda Yardley some people see you as not authentically trans.
> I'm curious did you always see things this way or did you at some point over the last 3 decades change your view and decide to reject the claim to female pronouns etc?



I for one have no interest in telling anyone whether they're trans or not. To do so would seem incompatible with supporting people's rights to express their gender identities as they see fit.


----------



## elbows (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> yet the real-world effect of there being a rights conflict between women and 'trans women' (males who are claiming rights _as women_) is not just overlooked but we are told there is no such rights conflict. This really is the fundamental problem of the moment: at what point does a 'trans woman' accrue rights 'as a woman', if at all? And how broad and deep do those rights apply?



Well I am not in the camp that instantly dismisses the idea of any rights conflict. There are some complex issues that could be made worse by oversimplifying things, and I certainly dont want womens rights or safety to be endangered.

However I still find the focus on conflict and competing rights to be alarming, and often conducted in a manner that seems quite far away from the spirit of human rights, safety and dignity in general. And certainly not conducive to gaining or preserving rights for any particular group or the whole.



> If the observance of personal pronouns is an obligation, again how far does this go? Are we telling women that no matter what, anyone who self-defines as a woman is part of their group? Does it apply to this person?
> 
> This Trans Woman Kept Her Beard And Couldn't Be Happier
> 
> I'm sorry that you don't like my stance on pronouns. Personally, I find it rather strange that it has now become an act of political rebellion to refer to an adult human male as a man. If trans people find pronouns distressing and triggering, goodness knows how they'll cope with the brutality of surgery and regular dilation.



I dont think its an obligation, but I do think it involves issues of basic decency and respect, and without it there is no foundation to actually discuss things sensibly. Especially with people like you that often give the impression that this aspect is a crude tool used to ram your politics down their throats, gain points with your favoured group, and never mind the feelings of those who get caught up in this. Or worse, contrast their likely feelings in the wake of this stuff with all the other shit they will have to go through such as surgery, and make simply awful suggestions about their ability to cope with these other things if they cant put up with you being a shit troll. This is beyond rude, its pathetic and despicable.

Identity and a sense of group belonging is complicated, I get that. I can see why this poses issues for people who have a strong sense of belonging to a particular group, and a strong sense of what qualifies someone to be considered a member of that group. I also get that it isnt trans or feminists fault that this stuff exists or that humans get caught up in these areas. That doesnt mean I am going to cheer those who exploit this territory, or sit quietly whilst they dig trenches and fantasise about their role on the frontier.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

bimble said:


> It seems like because you don't lay claim to being a woman Miranda Yardley some people see you as not authentically trans.
> I'm curious did you always see things this way or did you at some point over the last 3 decades change your view and decide to reject the claim to female pronouns etc?



I've never worried about pronouns, the whole centring of debate around these is a fairly recent thing, and this claim to language has now moved from pronouns, to 'woman' and now even 'female': we are now expected to refer to transgender males as 'female'. See, for example, India Willoughby in the current incarnation of Celebrity Big Brother.

Some thoughts: Why I Disavow ‘Woman’ And Am No Longer ‘Gender Critical’


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2018)

bimble said:


> It seems like because you don't lay claim to being a woman Miranda Yardley some people see you as not authentically trans.


Not sure where you've got that from. Mostly, I see MY posting up a variety of claims, backed by various sources, and other posters taking issue with those claims, and on occasion with the dodgy nature of the sources. My engagement with MY has been purely on this level, as has that of many others.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> I for one have no interest in telling anyone whether they're trans or not. To do so would seem incompatible with supporting people's rights to express their gender identities as they see fit.



Please define 'gender identity' and explain how this may be verified objectively.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 5, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not sure where you've got that from. Mostly, I see MY posting up a variety of claims, backed by various sources, and other posters taking issue with those claims, and on occasion with the dodgy nature of the sources. My engagement with MY has been purely on this level, as has that of many others.



Has anyone actually said that they don't take MY seriously because of their chosen pronouns/not laying claim to womanhood? Have I missed this? If not that accusation is all levels of shit-stirring bullshit.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Please define 'gender identity' and explain how this may be verified objectively.


pls explain the benefit you anticipate from any answer you receive


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Please define 'gender identity' and explain how this may be verified objectively.



It can't be verified objectively. That being the case, the only fair thing to do is support people's right to define it for themselves. The alternative is allowing arbitrary external forces decide who is what, and what that means.


----------



## bimble (Jan 5, 2018)

My comment about MY's liminal status being seen as not a 'real' trans person wasn't supposed to be an accusation aimed at any posters here on this thread, I should've been clearer (or not said it that way at all) but its not for nothing that her twitter byline is 'blocked by millions, between a rock and a hard place' - like Kristina Harrison the hate comes at MY from both 'sides', being seen as traitors to the cause and disavowed by many who see 'trans women are women' as the bedrock of the movement for trans right now.


----------



## elbows (Jan 5, 2018)

bimble said:


> It seems like because you don't lay claim to being a woman Miranda Yardley some people see you as not authentically trans.



Who are these people? Not me for a start, I do not question the authenticity of Miranda Yardley on any front. I question many of their opinions and the way those beliefs influence the way they interact with others.

Nor would I engage with any related phenomenon such as some people considering Yardley a traitor to the cause. For multiple reasons, including me not believing that aspects of a persons identity must automatically wed them to a particular cause, cause them to take a particular stance, etc.

Nor do I question the sincerity of Miranda Yardley.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 5, 2018)

So do the class of people who have the biological potential, (potential not meaning ability or willingness) to reproduce through large gametes, observed as such by basically anyone with eyes, and born with the bodies in accordance with that potential *get* a name then?

JFC. I'm so sick of the Liberal bullshit on this passing as left wing analysis. And crappy "gotchas".

"Women are female, so while men are free to perform femininity they can't really be part of the reproductive class born female"

"Yeah but not *all* females have the ability to reproduce"?

"Well HOLY SHIT! YOU ARE RIGHT! You just made me understand Marx a bit better too!

Not all the working classes work or have the ability to work. I guess that means they're not working class at all. Right?

In fact, because not all the working classes work what's the point of having a working class at all? Surely a labourer is someone who labours, so those who don't labour aren't working class.  Some labourers don't even want to be working class, they hate it! They *must* be able to opt out! 

I know! Let's get them to *aspire* their way out of being working class! All people assigned working class at birth should be free to live the life of the bourgeoisie! And if Little Owen and Laurie really don't feel like they are born into the class they were and want to be working class, then, who are we to question them? 

Non-bourgoise people must be included everywhere - including those who identify as non-bourgoise but weren't assigned that way! It must be up the individual because as Marx said "all individuals exist in a vaccum".

I mean, if I can just make it so you can aspire your way into or out out of class, buy all the shit associated with that class, then class will just disappear altogether guys!  Right? Right?

Hey guys, I think I just worked out what Marx really said about class! It's all a figment in our brains and all we need to do is imagine our way out of it all! And if YOU feel comfortable being working class, then I guess we were just born to be that way! So YOU carry on labouring! We'll call you people! Labour doesn't even exist!  It's just a social construct with no meaning and totally performed! 

I've solved it guys, We can all go home.







/snarky post ends here.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

elbows said:


> Well I am not in the camp that instantly dismisses the idea of any rights conflict. There are some complex issues that could be made worse by oversimplifying things, and I certainly dont want womens rights or safety to be endangered.
> 
> However I still find the focus on conflict and competing rights to be alarming, and often conducted in a manner that seems quite far away from the spirit of human rights, safety and dignity in general. And certainly not conducive to gaining or preserving rights for any particular group or the whole.



Thanks again for replying with some more substantive points. I appreciate your doing this.

I think it's difficult to analyse the concept of 'transgender rights', whatever these may be, without recognising there is a competing right between females and males who wish to claim rights as females. Potentially, this is not a zero-sum game, both groups can co-exists and work together to support and further the rights of the other group, and I think this potential is often overlooked because what we are being presented with *is* a zero-sum game: the mantra is 'trans women are women no debate' which as a statement is the worst kind of dogma. I wrote about this and how it's an obstacle to making any progress here:

Finding Middle Ground Between Women’s Rights and Transgender Rights



elbows said:


> I dont think its an obligation, but I do think it involves issues of basic decency and respect, and without it there is no foundation to actually discuss things sensibly. Especially with people like you that often give the impression that this aspect is a crude tool used to ram your politics down their throats, gain points with your favoured group, and never mind the feelings of those who get caught up in this. Or worse, contrast their likely feelings in the wake of this stuff with all the other shit they will have to go through such as surgery, and make simply awful suggestions about their ability to cope with these other things if they cant put up with you being a shit troll. This is beyond rude, its pathetic and despicable.



I think you completely misunderstand my motivations. How is it respectful to women to demand that they accept and treat males as females, and share their language, culture and spaces? I'm not trying to force my beliefs on anyone, rather I am trying to explain to people like you and others why it is that I say the things I do. I think there is a way for trans people to avoid much of the existing, escalating conflict with women's rights and I think this can be done fairly for both groups.



> Identity and a sense of group belonging is complicated, I get that. I can see why this poses issues for people who have a strong sense of belonging to a particular group, and a strong sense of what qualifies someone to be considered a member of that group. I also get that it isnt trans or feminists fault that this stuff exists or that humans get caught up in these areas. That doesnt mean I am going to cheer those who exploit this territory, or sit quietly whilst they dig trenches and fantasise about their role on the frontier.



Debate is important, the lack of public debate around trans issues means we have a public who largely have not got the first idea about what it is, or means, to be trans. I see myths being propagated and exploited, and the groups which suffer this are both women and trans people. The lack of meaningful public debate is largely the fault of the trans movement, which actively dissuades trans people from participating in public debate.


----------



## elbows (Jan 5, 2018)

bimble said:


> My comment about MY's liminal status being seen as not a 'real' trans person wasn't supposed to be an accusation aimed at any posters here on this thread, I should've been clearer (or not said it that way at all) but its not for nothing that her twitter byline is 'blocked by millions, between a rock and a hard place' - like Kristina Harrison the hate comes at MY from both 'sides', being seen as traitors to the cause and disavowed by many who see 'trans women are women' as the bedrock of the movement for trans right now.



Sometimes people learn to embrace being 'between a rock and a hard place' just as some people come to enjoy taking contrarian stances or feeling like its them vs the world. 

Being positioned in such a space can offer the opportunity to touch on subjects that are almost taboo elsewhere. But there are downsides too, especially when it comes to combative tones and any mutual trust and respect flowing between different groups.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Hey guys, I think I just worked out what Marx really said about class! It's all a figment in our brains and all we need to do is imagine our way out of it all! And if we feel comfortable being working class, then I guess you were just born to be that way! So you carry on labouring! We'll call you people! Labour doesn't even exist!  It's just a social construct with no meaning and totally performed!



from:@terrorizermir marx and engels - Twitter Search


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> the dodgy nature of the sources



Eh what?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Has anyone actually said that they don't take MY seriously because of their chosen pronouns/not laying claim to womanhood? Have I missed this? If not that accusation is all levels of shit-stirring bullshit.



Actually, this happens all the time. Sometimes I wonder if changing pronouns is sincerely held to be the most fundamental aspect to being trans, because people seem to focus on this more than anything else.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> It can't be verified objectively. That being the case, the only fair thing to do is support people's right to define it for themselves. The alternative is allowing arbitrary external forces decide who is what, and what that means.



Please define it?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Actually, this happens all the time. Sometimes I wonder if changing pronouns is sincerely held to be the most fundamental aspect to being trans, because people seem to focus on this more than anything else.



That's just because most people don't discuss trans issues very much, they just run into a trans person on the odd occasion and want to know the rules around avoiding offence.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 5, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> *World record attempt at trotskyist virtue signalling by saying the word class as many times as possible*



Yes, fascinating. Is it helpful to conflate gender with economic class to the point where you forget about the former entirely and just bleat on about the latter? And is this really the time or place for a dig at Owen Jones or are we discussing something else?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

8ball said:


> That's just because most people don't discuss trans issues very much, they just run into a trans person on the odd occasion and want to know the rules around avoiding offence.



That's not my experience, unsurprising really because I'm not the type that has people walking on eggshells...


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Please define it?



Please learn to read what has already been posted.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> That's not my experience, unsurprising really because I'm not the type that has people walking on eggshells...



Well, you also get the people who are affronted at the suggestion they use particular pronouns out of courtesy...


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Yes, fascinating. Is it helpful to conflate gender with economic class to the point where you forget about the former entirely and just bleat on about the latter? And is this really the time or place for a dig at Owen Jones or are we discussing something else?



Gender, as cultural behavioural stereotypes, creates a class system where men have power over women, and heterosexuals power over homosexuals.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 5, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Yes, fascinating. Is it helpful to conflate gender with economic class to the point where you forget about the former entirely and just bleat on about the latter? And is this really the time or place for a dig at Owen Jones or are we discussing something else?



Lol. I'm conflating SEX with economic class.

Not gender.

Because females do the reproductive labour as the working class do the economic one (apart from the ones who don't or refuse to Labour. They are not part of the labouring classes OBVIOUSLY. Or are they? What is labour anyway?).

And yes, it is always adequate to bring OJ into things because the guy is such a shit show.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Please learn to read what has already been posted.



You haven't defined 'gender identity'. What you said was:

*It can't be verified objectively. That being the case, the only fair thing to do is support people's right to define it for themselves.*​
Which appears to be meaningless?


----------



## weepiper (Jan 5, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Yes, fascinating. Is it helpful to conflate gender with economic class to the point where you forget about the former entirely and just bleat on about the latter? And is this really the time or place for a dig at Owen Jones or are we discussing something else?


Sex, not gender. Way to miss the whole entire point.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Gender, as cultural behavioural stereotypes, creates a class system where men have power over women, and heterosexuals power over homosexuals.



Yes. That does not however mean that economic class and gender identity are equivalent to the point where all arguments about one can be applied seamlessly the other.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 5, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Or just your shower?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Eh what?


Blanchard's a dodgy source. Fucking bigot, whose theories should be consigned to the dustbin.

And the claim regarding 'male-pattern criminality' was not so much a dodgy source as a dodgy use of a source by you. I share smokedout's problem with the way you used that source, which repeated the way it has been misused elsewhere in an attempt to show that trans women are really men because they commit crime like men do, something that isn't borne out by the evidence in the way it is claimed.

And that's pretty important, imo. In reality, 'male-pattern criminality' is probably mostly explained by the simple answer 'more testosterone', so if you take that away, the pattern disappears, and if you add it, it perhaps starts to appear. That is a theory that is supported by the evidence of the study, but it doesn't quite fit with the idea that this is an example of maleness as something almost mystically essential to an unchangeable male identity, rather than something that can be altered rather simply.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 5, 2018)

weepiper said:


> Sex, not gender. Way to miss the whole entire point.



Ok so sex and economic class are entirely equivalent then?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In reality, 'male-pattern criminality' is probably mostly explained by the simple answer 'more testosterone'...


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Like what?


Like those trans inclusive trends which de-emphasise biology, even at a class level.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 5, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And that's pretty important, imo. In reality, 'male-pattern criminality' is probably mostly explained by the simple answer 'more testosterone',




You should read Testosterone Rex. It is good. And the Royal Society's book of the year.

Testosterone Rex triumphs as Royal Society science book of the year


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2018)

8ball said:


>


That's my hunch, yes, looking at how the pattern can appear or disappear. I might be wrong, but it doesn't matter either way regarding the point, which is that such things are being looked for in order to point the finger and shout 'look, they're still men!'.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Yes. That does not however mean that economic class and gender identity are equivalent to the point where all arguments about one can be applied seamlessly the other.



What is 'gender identity'?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> You should read Testosterone Rex. It is good. And the Royal Society's book of the year.
> 
> Testosterone Rex triumphs as Royal Society science book of the year


I've read the excellent Gender Delusion by Fine, which demolishes a lot of the nonsense about male brains and female brains. Will also put that on the list.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's my hunch, yes, looking at how the pattern can appear or disappear. I might be wrong, but it doesn't matter either way regarding the point, which is that such things are being looked for in order to point the finger and shout 'look, they're still men!'.



I think it's a complex picture but agree with you about the motivation.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 5, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> To do so would seem incompatible with supporting people's rights to express their gender identities as they see fit.



It's sad that their opinions seem to be of less value than their gender identities. If they express similar ideas as the opposite camp as yours they become "tokens" of the other camp. I think the debate is toxic enough without people always needing to pay whatever perceived injury back in the same coin.


----------



## elbows (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Actually, this happens all the time. Sometimes I wonder if changing pronouns is sincerely held to be the most fundamental aspect to being trans, because people seem to focus on this more than anything else.



Its not the fundamental aspect, but its stuff that ties closely to identity and its obvious why this aspect is on the front line.

Take just one scenario, the parent trying to adapt and do the right thing by their offspring that has decided to transition. For this scenario lets say the offspring has reached adult age so we can avoid a different can of worms for just this moment.

Would you expect the parent to try to support their child by referring to them in the manner desired? Or lecture them about how a lack of eggs makes that pronoun technically incorrect in your opinion, so sorry you'll just have to deal with it without this support? 

Basic decency comes first, and I find there is little excuse for being cruel by insisting on retaining adherence to all manner of gender, language and other constructs. Its mostly all baggage anyway, there by accident of historical human beliefs, power structures and behaviours, rather than pure merit, factual accuracy etc.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Blanchard's a dodgy source. Fucking bigot, whose theories should be consigned to the dustbin.



Interesting use of the word 'bigot'. Like it or not, Blanchard's typology reflects reality more than any other theory about transsexualism or transgender identity.



> And the claim regarding 'male-pattern criminality' was not so much a dodgy source as a dodgy use of a source by you. I share smokedout's problem with the way you used that source, which repeated the way it has been misused elsewhere in an attempt to show that trans women are really men because they commit crime like men do, something that isn't borne out by the evidence in the way it is claimed.



This is a DIRECT QUOTE from the study. It's neither taken out of context nor cherry-picked.
*
Second, regarding any crime, male-to-females had a significantly increased risk for crime compared to female controls (aHR 6.6; 95% CI 4.1–10.8) but not compared to males (aHR 0.8; 95% CI 0.5–1.2). This indicates that they retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was true regarding violent crime.*​


> it doesn't quite fit with the idea that this is an example of maleness as something almost mystically essential to an unchangeable male identity, rather than something that can be altered rather simply.



Who is claiming this is essential to male identity? Do you have something against males?


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 5, 2018)

bimble said:


> My comment about MY's liminal status being seen as not a 'real' trans person wasn't supposed to be an accusation aimed at any posters here on this thread, I should've been clearer (or not said it that way at all) but its not for nothing that her twitter byline is 'blocked by millions, between a rock and a hard place' - like Kristina Harrison the hate comes at MY from both 'sides', being seen as traitors to the cause and disavowed by many who see 'trans women are women' as the bedrock of the movement for trans right now.



Well said. It's as if some trans opinions were more valuable than others.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

Athos said:


> Like those trans inclusive trends which de-emphasise biology, even at a class level.



Ah, I see where you're coming from. Are you familiar with Butler's ideas on this?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Well said. It's as if some trans opinions were more valuable than others.



That happens to pretty much anyone who questions a general (or local) orthodoxy.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Interesting use of the word 'bigot'. Like it or not, Blanchard's typology reflects reality more than any other theory about transsexualism or transgender identity.


I reject that. He bends the evidence to make it fit. 

And yes, someone who considers homosexuality to be some kind of evolutionary mistake is a bigot, as well as a person who doesn't understand evolution.


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Ah, I see where you're coming from. Are you familiar with Butler's ideas on this?



Her performativity stuff, you mean?  Yes, reasonably familiar.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

elbows said:


> Or lecture them about how a lack of eggs makes that pronoun technically incorrect in your opinion, so sorry you'll just have to deal with it without this support?
> 
> Basic decency comes first, and I find there is little excuse for being cruel by insisting on retaining adherence to all manner of gender, language and other constructs. Its mostly all baggage anyway, there by accident of historical human beliefs, power structures and behaviours, rather than pure merit, factual accuracy etc.



Families are always messy. Do you think it's cruel to lie to people?


----------



## TopCat (Jan 5, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> I move that this thread be binned immediately


Why?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I reject that. He bends the evidence to make it fit.
> 
> And yes, someone who considers homosexuality to be some kind of evolutionary mistake is a bigot, as well as a person who doesn't understand evolution.



Please link to anything peer-reviewed which supports your claim he 'bends the evidence'. Please also explain to me how autogynephilia is not a thing when this behaviour is so clearly fundamental to the transition of the males I quote in this piece:

Pornography And Autogynephilia In The Narratives Of Adult Transgender Males


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> What is 'gender identity'?



What is the point you think you're making with this?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

Athos said:


> Her performativity stuff, you mean?  Yes, reasonably familiar.



It's more her idea that it is the social category that is oppressed, which makes sex class identity based. So people can opt in and out of sex-based oppression, if you get me.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> What is the point you think you're making with this?



I asked you to define something that is fundamental to your argument, and our apparent disagreement. Yet you cannot define it?


----------



## TopCat (Jan 5, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> How is responding to the point you raised, a derail? Aren’t cis women entitled to contribute to the debate about what makes someone a woman?


What makes someone a woman would be a fascinating thread but this thread is not about that.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 5, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Well said. It's as if some trans opinions were more valuable than others.



We are talking about a trans person who has repeatedly invalidated the experiences and choices of other trans people tbf.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> This is a DIRECT QUOTE from the study. It's neither taken out of context nor cherry-picked.


all quotes are cherry-picked, miranda


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> We are talking about a trans person who has repeatedly invalidated the experiences and choices of other trans people tbf.



Saying men cannot become women is not invalidating anyone's experience, because this hasn't happened.

I'm still waiting on you to:

substantiate your claim I have ever said anything hateful; and
define 'gender identity'. 
Thanks!


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> all quotes are cherry-picked, miranda



Here's the full section, with the part I extracted in bold. How have I got this wrong?

Gender differences
Tables S1 and S2). However, violence against self (suicidal behaviour) and others ([violent] crime) constituted important exceptions. First, male-to-females had significantly increased risks for suicide attempts compared to both female (aHR 9.3; 95% CI 4.4–19.9) and male (aHR 10.4; 95% CI 4.9–22.1) controls. By contrast, female-to-males had significantly increased risk of suicide attempts only compared to male controls (aHR 6.8; 95% CI 2.1–21.6) but not compared to female controls (aHR 1.9; 95% CI 0.7–4.8). This suggests that male-to-females are at higher risk for suicide attempts after sex reassignment, whereas female-to-males maintain a female pattern of suicide attempts after sex reassignment (Tables S1 and S2).

*Second, regarding any crime, male-to-females had a significantly increased risk for crime compared to female controls (aHR 6.6; 95% CI 4.1–10.8) but not compared to males (aHR 0.8; 95% CI 0.5–1.2). This indicates that they retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was true regarding violent crime.* By contrast, female-to-males had higher crime rates than female controls (aHR 4.1; 95% CI 2.5–6.9) but did not differ from male controls. This indicates a shift to a male pattern regarding criminality and that sex reassignment is coupled to increased crime rate in female-to-males. The same was true regarding violent crime.​


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I asked you to define something that is fundamental to your argument, and our apparent disagreement. Yet you cannot define it?



My point was that 'gender identity' has no objective definition. You can't accuse me of saying something I said openly, that's not how an accusation works.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 5, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> All feminists? Or just your shower?


This is a pretty long established feminist view. See Simone De Beuvois etc.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> My point was that 'gender identity' has no objective definition. You can't accuse me of saying something I said openly, that's not how an accusation works.



If we cannot define 'gender identity' how can we protect it in law?

Have you read this?

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10481889909539349?journalCode=hpsd20


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Here's the full section, with the part I extracted in bold. How have I got this wrong?
> 
> Gender differences
> Tables S1 and S2). However, violence against self (suicidal behaviour) and others ([violent] crime) constituted important exceptions. First, male-to-females had significantly increased risks for suicide attempts compared to both female (aHR 9.3; 95% CI 4.4–19.9) and male (aHR 10.4; 95% CI 4.9–22.1) controls. By contrast, female-to-males had significantly increased risk of suicide attempts only compared to male controls (aHR 6.8; 95% CI 2.1–21.6) but not compared to female controls (aHR 1.9; 95% CI 0.7–4.8). This suggests that male-to-females are at higher risk for suicide attempts after sex reassignment, whereas female-to-males maintain a female pattern of suicide attempts after sex reassignment (Tables S1 and S2).
> ...




all quotes are by their very nature cherry-picked. do you really not see that? a person selects a small portion of a document or of someone's spoken words and uses that for their own ends, generally to illustrate or support a point. 

there are none so blind as those who will not see
--john heywood


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Saying men cannot become women is not invalidating anyone's experience, because this hasn't happened.



You're invalidating people's experiences on a two-for-one special here. Firstly by denying that gender transition is real and also by implying that people who transition and become 'officially' female weren't, in truth, female all along.


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> It's more her idea that it is the social category that is oppressed, which makes sex class identity based. So people can opt in and out of sex-based oppression, if you get me.


I'm not sure that's what she's saying at all.


----------



## elbows (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Families are always messy. Do you think it's cruel to lie to people?



I believe there is a difference between not lying to people and insisting that the rigidity of your own ideas is the most important thing.

I believe there are plenty of objective facts in the world. But there is also a huge area that is just about how people perceive the world, themselves, others. Treating the latter as the former and applying your own beliefs to the latter with a high degree of inflexibility towards others is incompatible with a range of human rights in my book.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> all quotes are by their very nature cherry-picked. do you really not see that? a person selects a small portion of a document or of someone's spoken words and uses that for their own ends, generally to illustrate or support a point.



Please explain where I have got this wrong.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> If we cannot define 'gender identity' how can we protect it in law?



The answer to that, at least in present-day UK law, is apparently, 'by making it needlessly difficult for people to change their legally recognised gender'.

The process for which, as noted elsewhere, is dependant upon the entirely subjective judgements of entirely subjective humans based on an entirely arbitrary set of characteristics for 'male' and 'female'.


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> You're invalidating people's experiences on a two-for-one special here. Firstly by denying that gender transition is real and also by implying that people who transition and become 'officially' female weren't, in truth, female all along.



 What does "invalidating people's experiences" actually mean? Is it just an IDpol way of saying disagreeing with someone? Am I 'invalidating a christian's experience' by saying I don't believe in God?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> You're invalidating people's experiences on a two-for-one special here. Firstly by denying that gender transition is real



Not really. I did a video debate with Rya Jones on whether gender transition could be achieved, my point was that males attain only a thin understanding of women's culture and it's the thick cultural ideas that shape what it is to be a woman. Much of the transgender argument is less about what it is to be a woman, and more about what it is to be a man.



> and also by implying that people who transition and become 'officially' female weren't, in truth, female all along.



Well, clearly they were not! Unless you're going to argue that, for example, Kellie Maloney and Caitlyn Jenner were female while they were fathering their children...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Please explain where I have got this wrong.


i can explain it to you but i cannot understand it for you


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Not really. I did a video debate with Rya Jones on whether gender transition could be achieved, my point was that males attain only a thin understanding of women's culture and it's the thick cultural ideas that shape what it is to be a woman. Much of the transgender argument is less about what it is to be a woman, and more about what it is to be a man.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, clearly they were not! Unless you're going to argue that, for example, Kellie Maloney and Caitlyn Jenner were female while they were fathering their children...



Well I don't know. You'd have to ask someone who has experienced transition. And when you do, maybe don't open by telling them that you've already decided that they're full of shit.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> The answer to that, at least in present-day UK law, is apparently, 'by making it needlessly difficult for people to change their legally recognised gender'.



It's not difficult at all. Are you actually familiar with this process???



> The process for which, as noted elsewhere, is dependant upon the entirely subjective judgements of entirely subjective humans based on an entirely arbitrary set of characteristics for 'male' and 'female'.



Reproductive class makes females distinguishable from males. How is it arbitrary to classify humans or other mammals in this way?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> i can explain it to you but i cannot understand it for you



Go ahead, please explain. I think you're bluffing.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Well I don't know. You'd have to ask someone who has experienced transition. And when you do, maybe don't open by telling them that you've already decided that they're full of shit.



I've experienced transition first hand, and know and have known many many people who have done the same.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Interesting use of the word 'bigot'. Like it or not, Blanchard's typology reflects reality more than any other theory about transsexualism or transgender identity.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Self hating liberal man.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 5, 2018)

Athos said:


> What does "invalidating people's experiences" actually mean? Is it just an IDpol way of saying disagreeing with someone? Am I 'invalidating a christian's experience' by saying I don't believe in God?



It's not just a disagreement. Telling people that they're not who they say they are is invalidating them as people, and it has nothing to do with their beliefs or opinions or actions. I disagree with Miranda Yardley on possibly 80% of all known fields of human understanding, but I have not suggested that Miranda Yardley is anything other than Miranda Yardley, or that Miranda Yardley's beliefs as expressed here are not genuine.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Go ahead, please explain. I think you're bluffing.


i have explained it.

every quote is by definition selective -> cherry-picked. this isn't rocket science, it's not even fucking arithmetick, but it's beyond you.


----------



## bimble (Jan 5, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> ..implying that people who transition and become 'officially' female weren't, in truth, female all along.


What does this bit mean ? Are you saying that someone who transitions and now identifies as female was in fact female from the moment they were born? That seems ..quite extreme. There's a bit in the netflix show 'transparent' where the main character (MtF who transitions in later life) sends all their childhood photographs off to be re-gendered so that they get a whole album of pictures showing a parallel childhood, an alternate reality where they got to grow up as a girl with long hair etc. That's fiction though.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I've experienced transition first hand, and know and have known many many people who have done the same.



But you just said transition isn't a real thing. So what was it you and your friends experienced?


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> If we cannot define 'gender identity' how can we protect it in law?
> 
> Have you read this?
> 
> http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10481889909539349?journalCode=hpsd20



Why post a link to an abstract in a journal of a specialist discipline?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> i have explained it.
> 
> every quote is by definition selective. this isn't rocket science, it's not even fucking arithmetick, but it's beyond you.



Rocket science is easy, it's just Newtonian mechanics. You up for a discussion on general relativity? How's your tensor calculus?

Thank you for showing clearly that you have no substantive argument against the point I was making as supported by the source, which you appear to be unable to repudiate.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Rocket science is easy, it's just Newtonian mechanics. You up for a discussion on general relativity? How's your tensor calculus?
> 
> Thank you for showing clearly that you have no substantive argument against the point I was making as supported by the source, which you appear to be unable to repudiate.


oh, i haven't tried to repudiate it you stupid stupid cunt.

i was taking issue with your claim that your quote wasn't cherry-picked. as i've said three or four times now.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> But you just said transition isn't a real thing. So what was it you and your friends experienced?



We undergo a medical and social transition, both have limitations. This may help you understand my position more:

‘Transwomen’ are not Women


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> What is 'gender identity'?



It's that "feeling" men and women like me don't have in our heads (or can't find it), and which, said lack, I mean, in theory, should categorize us as "asexual". Because, I and others, have come to terms with being thrown into the "woman condition" actually makes us "cis". Whether I want it or not, whether I believe it or not.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> you stupid stupid cunt.



Wow. What a charmer!


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

Red Cat said:


> Why post a link to an abstract in a journal of a specialist discipline?



It is pertinent to the conversation, it looks at Stoller's definitions of 'gender identity' and references trans individuals.


----------



## bimble (Jan 5, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> you stupid stupid cunt.


How's your new years resolution going?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> It's that "feeling" men and women like me don't have in our heads (or can't find it), and which, said lack, I mean, in theory, should categorize us as "asexual". Because, I and others, have come to terms with being thrown into the "woman condition" actually makes us "cis". Whether I want it or not, whether I believe it or not.



I see what many describe as 'gender identity' as just old-fashioned sexism.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> It is pertinent to the conversation, it looks at Stoller's definitions of 'gender identity' and references trans individuals.


and the full text, can you supply that?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2018)

bimble said:


> How's your new years resolution going?


don't do the cross-thread thing, bimble.


----------



## elbows (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Wow. What a charmer!



I'm sure that to be a charmer requires at times either 'lying' or at least moderating your own beliefs so they dont kill the charm for others.

As such I am surprised the concept of charm even shows up on your radar.


----------



## bimble (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I see what many describe as 'gender identity' as just old-fashioned sexism.


Me too. The message I'm getting lately is that if I see things this way then I should simply self identify as 'agender', job done.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> It is pertinent to the conversation, it looks at Stoller's definitions of 'gender identity' and references trans individuals.



I can see that, but I can't access it, and most other people won't be able to either. I can also see it's a specialist journal publishing American psychoanalytic ideas that have their own history/political context and require some background. If I can get access I'll read it but if you could summarise what you find interesting I'd like to hear that.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> and the full text, can you supply that?



http://sci-hub.la/http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10481889909539349?journalCode=hpsd20

See, I'm nice to you, even though you mostly sound like a sociopath.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

Red Cat said:


> I can see that, but I can't access it, and most other people won't be able to either. I can also see it's a specialist journal publishing American psychoanalytic ideas that have their own history/political context and require some background. If I can get access I'll read it but if you could summarise what you find interesting I'd like to hear that.



Published a link below.


----------



## elbows (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I see what many describe as 'gender identity' as just old-fashioned sexism.



Much better to fight against old-fashioned sexism using a range of wacky ideas that introduce new forms of sexism into the mix eh. Taken as a whole your output is bad comedy.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

elbows said:


> I'm sure that to be a charmer requires at times either 'lying' or at least moderating your own beliefs so they dont kill the charm for others.
> 
> As such I am surprised the concept of charm even shows up on your radar.



Just when we seemed to be getting on too. Please show me anything abusive I have said to anyone here or elsewhere.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

elbows said:


> Much better to fight against old-fashioned sexism using a range of wacky ideas that introduce new forms of sexism into the mix eh. Taken as a whole your output is bad comedy.



Ideas like what?


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Published a link below.



Thanks.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> http://sci-hub.la/http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10481889909539349?journalCode=hpsd20
> 
> See, I'm nice to you, even though you mostly sound like a sociopath.


nice but dim


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> nice but dim



#ironicpostoftheday


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2018)

bimble said:


> Me too. The message I'm getting lately is that if I see things this way then I should simply self identify as 'agender', job done.



That's... new.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> We undergo a medical and social transition, both have limitations. This may help you understand my position more:
> 
> ‘Transwomen’ are not Women



So others who undergo a similar transition and subsequently consider themselves to be women are wrong? It must follow from this that both their experiences, and the opinions they have formed as a result of them, are therefore invalid. Not just false, invalid. Based on false premises, a mere fever-dream. Not worthy of rebuttal.

You can win any argument if your opening gambit is to stick your fingers in your ears and scream _la la la you're not real I can't hear you._


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> See, I'm nice to you, even though you mostly sound like a sociopath.



But he's _our _sociopath. You've not served enough time in these parts to get away with the nasty personal digs.


----------



## elbows (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Just when we seemed to be getting on too. Please show me anything abusive I have said to anyone here or elsewhere.



I didnt mention abuse. I just found it funny that someone who thinks their own beliefs are good reason not to refer to people using gender pronouns that they are comfortable with, and that to do otherwise would be cruel lying, has an interest in others being charming.

I dont generally think of my discussions with other people here in terms of how well I am now getting on with someone. The full spectrum from civility to hostility is available at any time depending on whats being said.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> So others who undergo a similar transition and subsequently consider themselves to be women are wrong? It must follow from this that both their experiences, and the opinions they have formed as a result of them, are therefore invalid. Not just false, invalid. Based on false premises, a mere fever-dream. Not worthy of rebuttal.
> 
> You can win any argument if your opening gambit is to stick your fingers in your ears and scream _la la la you're not real I can't hear you._


my's opening gambit is also my's closing gambit


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> So others who undergo a similar transition and subsequently consider themselves to be women are wrong? It must follow from this that both their experiences, and the opinions they have formed as a result of them, are therefore invalid. Not just false, invalid. Based on false premises, a mere fever-dream. Not worthy of rebuttal.
> 
> You can win any argument if your opening gambit is to stick your fingers in your ears and scream _la la la you're not real I can't hear you._



They can consider themselves to be women, but they are not women in the same way as women born and raised. There's benefit to be gained by trans people if they can recognise this.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> But he's _our _sociopath. You've not served enough time in these parts to get away with the nasty personal digs.



Was there a time before the nasty personal digs?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> They can consider themselves to be women, but they are not women in the same way as women born and raised. There's benefit to be gained by trans people if they can recognise this.



I'm not sure the orthodoxy is to completely deny that - we have the term "transwomen" for a reason.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 5, 2018)

bimble said:


> Me too. The message I'm getting lately is that if I see things this way then I should simply self identify as 'agender', job done.



Aargh, yes, I meant agender in my previous post too, rather than asexual


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

elbows said:


> I didnt mention abuse. I just found it funny that someone who thinks their own beliefs are good reason not to refer to people using gender pronouns that they are comfortable with, and that to do otherwise would be cruel lying, has an interest in others being charming.
> 
> I dont generally think of my discussions with other people here in terms of how well I am now getting on with someone. The full spectrum from civility to hostility is available at any time depending on whats being said.



Back to pronouns again! Whatever political disagreement I have with others, I am always courteous and polite and reason my points. Can the same be said elsewhere?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 5, 2018)

bimble said:


> What does this bit mean ? Are you saying that someone who transitions and now identifies as female was in fact female from the moment they were born? That seems ..quite extreme. There's a bit in the netflix show 'transparent' where the main character (MtF who transitions in later life) sends all their childhood photographs off to be re-gendered so that they get a whole album of pictures showing a parallel childhood, an alternate reality where they got to grow up as a girl with long hair etc. That's fiction though.



As I understand it people become aware of not being/not feeling like the gender they have been assigned before they transition. 'From birth' is pushing it, as nobody has any kind of subjective identity when they're born.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 5, 2018)

8ball said:


> I'm not sure the orthodoxy is to completely deny that - we have the term "transwomen" for a reason.


Who "are women", remember.  That's an equivalence relation.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 5, 2018)

8ball said:


> Was there a time before the nasty personal digs?



There must have been a point, however brief, when there was only one member?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

8ball said:


> I'm not sure the orthodoxy is to completely deny that - we have the term "transwomen" for a reason.



WELL. You should be aware that transgender culture demands 'trans women' with a space, which suggests 'trans women' are a subset of women.

The dominant claim is that 'trans women are women':

"trans women are women" - Twitter Search

and this is now moving to 'trans women are female':

"trans women are female" - Twitter Search


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> There must have been a point, however brief, when there was only one member?



I mean from PM.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 5, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Who "are women", remember.  That's an equivalence relation.



Not just "women". Female too.

ETA: Miranda Yardley got there first


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> They can consider themselves to be women, but they are not women in the same way as women born and raised. There's benefit to be gained by trans people if they can recognise this.



Why does 'different from' have to be 'less than'?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 5, 2018)

8ball said:


> I mean from PM.



Oh yeah right. Answer's probably no in that case.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

8ball said:


> I'm not sure the orthodoxy is to completely deny that - we have the term "transwomen" for a reason.



Also, see this from 2014:

*"Kellie Maloney has always been female*
*Kellie Maloney has always been a woman. She isn’t becoming a woman or pretending to be one. She doesn’t “think” she is a woman. Nor is she magically transforming into a woman via some alchemical trickery."*

Kellie Maloney has always been female


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's not just a disagreement. Telling people that they're not who they say they are is invalidating them as people, and it has nothing to do with their beliefs or opinions or actions. I disagree with Miranda Yardley on possibly 80% of all known fields of human understanding, but I have not suggested that Miranda Yardley is anything other than Miranda Yardley, or that Miranda Yardley's beliefs as expressed here are not genuine.



Not believing something about someone that they believe about themselves doesn't 'invalidate them as a person' (whatever that's supposed to mean).

I work with a bloke who thinks he's funny; I don't think he's funny.  I know a woman who says she's clever;  she's not.  I walk past a homeless bloke who claims he's part of the royal family; I disagree.  I'm not saying they don't honestly believe those things, and I wouldn't try to force them to conceive of themselves otherwise.

Whilst it's incumbent on me to treat them courteously, there can be no moral imperative for me to adopt their beliefs.  That way lies madness!


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> But he's _our _sociopath. You've not served enough time in these parts to get away with the nasty personal digs.



He called me a 'stupid stupid cunt'. I note you think it's okay for language like that to be used against transsexuals you disagree with.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Who "are women", remember.  That's an equivalence relation.



It's not a relation of total equivalence.  
If it was, not only would all transwomen be women, but all women would be transwomen.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Also, see this from 2014:
> 
> *"Kellie Maloney has always been female*
> *Kellie Maloney has always been a woman. She isn’t becoming a woman or pretending to be one. She doesn’t “think” she is a woman. Nor is she magically transforming into a woman via some alchemical trickery."*
> ...



I don't know who Kellie Maloney is but as a matter of principal I ignore anything shouted at me in giant font.


----------



## elbows (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Back to pronouns again! Whatever political disagreement I have with others, I am always courteous and polite and reason my points. Can the same be said elsewhere?



I'm not actually pronoun obsessed, but yes we are going to keep going back to it for reasons that should be obvious.

eg when I've mentioned it in the past you've often responded with a point about lying and cruelty. But we all know that lying, leaving some things unsaid, moderating yourself, etc, are things that may need to be employed when it comes to standard everyday courtesy and politeness in various situations. I cant remove gender pronouns from this picture.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> He called me a 'stupid stupid cunt'. I note you think it's okay for language like that to be used against transsexuals you disagree with.


Just put him on ignore.  It's what half of urban does.  The other half spend their time going down increasingly pointless rabbit holes of pedantry with him that require considerable scrolling past on the part of the ones sensible enough to be in the first half.  He's not called "Pickman" for nothing.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> He called me a 'stupid stupid cunt'. I note you think it's okay for language like that to be used against transsexuals you disagree with.



I'd rather be called a cunt than be told my identity is a lie.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> As I understand it people become aware of not being/not feeling like the gender they have been assigned before they transition. 'From birth' is pushing it, as nobody has any kind of subjective identity when they're born.



Again, you don't understand the position you are defending. Transgender culture argues that 'gender identity' is innate and this is foundational to many claims made.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Just put him on ignore.  It's what half of urban does.  The other half spend their time going down increasingly pointless rabbit holes of pedantry with him that require considerable scrolling past on the part of the ones sensible enough to be in the first half.  He's not called "Pickman" for nothing.



Yeah I get that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> It is pertinent to the conversation, it looks at Stoller's definitions of 'gender identity' and references trans individuals.


I've had a bit of a skim of that, and it considers Stoller's first notion that gender identity starts with gender assignment and then builds through myriad interactions with parents. The article likes that idea. It then considers Stoller's idea of symbiosis with the mother and 'protofeminity', which sounds like utter bollocks to me and the article also does not like. 

The article references ideas of a 'male brain' :



> First, the case of a boy's sex reassignment, which was central in establishing the view that sex ascription at birth and subsequent
> rearing are basic to gender identity, has recently been reexamined in the context of the boy's later development. This case has been widely
> reported as undercutting the view of gender identity's social origins and supporting the conception of a "male brain"—the idea that gender
> identity is rooted in the brain and is independent of environmental factors. An examination of available data suggests that these new data
> offer no support for either the biological or the social view.



Here, I think we reach an old problem - trying to disentangle nature from nurture, turning it into an either/or question, which is not possible as nurture acts on nature. 

I might have missed the important bit in my skim - what is it in there that you think relates to this discussion?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> He called me a 'stupid stupid cunt'. I note you think it's okay for language like that to be used against transsexuals you disagree with.


yeh it's always much better to medicalise things instead.

i called you a stupid stupid cunt in a moment of frustration at your inability to comprehend a very simple point. i have called natal men and women cunts for less. what makes you think you're superior to other people?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> He called me a 'stupid stupid cunt'. I note you think it's okay for language like that to be used against transsexuals you disagree with.



The urbiverse has its own rules.
Another one of them is that you are not allowed to openly state that the urbiverse has its own rules.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 5, 2018)

8ball said:


> It's not a relation of total equivalence.
> If it was, not only would all transwomen be women, but all women would be transwomen.


Alright, a non-surjective, injective relation then.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> I'd rather be called a cunt than be told my identity is a lie.



If your best friend turned to you and said he was a tiger, would you believe him?

I guess you're unaware 'cunt' is an incredibly misogynistic word.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> He called me a 'stupid stupid cunt'. I note you think it's okay for language like that to be used against transsexuals you disagree with.


Everyone gets called a cunt on here, fwiw.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 5, 2018)

Athos said:


> Whilst it's incumbent on me to treat them courteously, there can be no moral imperative for me to adopt their beliefs. That way lies madness!



Wait until "misgendering" becomes part of a claim of discrimination lawsuit. We'll fully be in Oceania.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Alright, a non-surjective, injective relation then.



Music to my ears.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Transgender culture argues that 'gender identity' is innate and this is foundational to many claims made.



A culture is an ethereal concept and so it cannot make an argument.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Everyone gets called a cunt on here, fwiw.



There's some irony here that calling a transsexual a 'cunt' is acceptable but referring to a man who identifies as a woman with masculine pronouns is an act of hate. The priorities here are all topsy-turvy.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> The priorities here are all topsy-turvy.


To be fair, you've come to that conclusion slower than some but faster than most.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> A culture is an ethereal concept and so it cannot make an argument.



Transgenderists argue gender identity is innate. Are you denying them this?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> If your best friend turned to you and said he was a tiger, would you believe him?



Can't tell if you're conflating trans folk with outright bulshitters or with the clinically insane but either way, not a great look.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

kabbes said:


> To be fair, you've come to that conclusion slower than some but faster than most.



I'm still dizzy from your using the words 'surjective' and 'injective'.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I'm still dizzy from your using the words 'surjective' and 'injective'.


You can take the man out of the maths, but you'll never take the maths out of the man.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Transgenderists argue gender identity is innate. Are you denying them this?



Transgenderists? I lost interest after those first few EPs they did. They've gone a bit too commercial now.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> If your best friend turned to you and said he was a tiger, would you believe him?
> 
> I guess you're unaware 'cunt' is an incredibly misogynistic word.


do you know, no one's ever suggested that here before 

https://www.urban75.net/forums/thre...-make-you-a-misogynist-this-is-a-poll.272872/


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Can't tell if you're conflating trans folk with outright bulshitters or with the clinically insane but either way, not a great look.



Not really, it amounts to the same thing. Do you think Rachel Dolezal has a legitimate claim to being transracial? Why? How is this different from transgender?

Rachel Dolezal’s pick-your-race policy works brilliantly – as long as you’re white | Claire Hynes


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Transgenderists? I lost interest after those first few EPs they did. They've gone a bit too commercial now.


supported ruddy yurts at the pied bull in november '88


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Alright, a non-surjective, injective relation then.



We must be rigorous!!


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

kabbes said:


> You can take the man out of the maths, but you'll never take the maths out of the man.



I love maths, it's my hobby.


----------



## bimble (Jan 5, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Alright, a non-surjective, injective relation then.


This is hours of googling and a bit scary. Any chance of a layperson's translation of how these ideas map onto what you're saying about how the two sets (?) of women & transwomen relate to eachother?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2018)

bimble said:


> This is hours of googling and a bit scary. Any chance of a layperson's translation of how these ideas map onto what you're saying about how the two sets (?) of women & transwomen relate to eachother?


no.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I love maths, it's my hobby.


Ironically, my hobby is social psychology.


----------



## LDC (Jan 5, 2018)

Edited, can't be bothered.


----------



## elbows (Jan 5, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> supported ruddy yurts at the pied bull in november '88



Not been the same since the drummer left to form Bob Slob and the Knob Sobs.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Edited, can't be bothered.


pity, good question


----------



## kabbes (Jan 5, 2018)

bimble said:


> This is hours of googling and a bit scary. Any chance of a layperson's translation of how these ideas map onto what you're saying about how the two sets (?) of women & transwomen relate to eachother?


Imagine two sets of things, set A and set B.
An injection means that everything in set A can be associated with something in set B.  (But some things in set B might not have anything from set A that relate to it, so it is known as "many-to-one").
A surjection means that for everything in set B, there is something in set A that can be related to it (but not necessarily uniquely, so it is known as "one-to-many").

If all transwomen are women then the set of features that define transwomen must all be associated with a feature that define women, which means that transwomen:->women is an injection.
If not all women are transwomen, however, then there must be some features that define women that are not shared by transwomen, which means that transwomen:->women is not a surjection.

My original comment about equivalence was based around the use of the word "are" in the motto "transwomen are women".  To say something "is" something else is normally interpreted as an equivalence (i.e. each element of one set maps precisely to one member of the other set -- also known as a bijection).  In this strictly mathematical interpretation of "is", you could not say "Set A is Set B" unless this was so.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Transgenderists argue gender identity is innate. Are you denying them this?


Isn't the most honest answer that we don't have all the answers regarding gender identity and how it develops? A long time ago on a different thread, I said as much to someone who was arguing that gender is innate, and that imo it was important that they should not hang their sense of themselves and their potential rights on that particular hook.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Isn't the most honest answer that we don't have all the answers regarding gender identity and how it develops? A long time ago on a different thread, I said as much to someone who was arguing that gender is innate, and that imo it was important that they should not hang their sense of themselves and their potential rights on that particular hook.


isn't it perhaps that some people feel their gender is innate while other people might feel that their gender changes over time?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Not really, it amounts to the same thing. Do you think Rachel Dolezal has a legitimate claim to being transracial? Why? How is this different from transgender?
> 
> Rachel Dolezal’s pick-your-race policy works brilliantly – as long as you’re white | Claire Hynes



We've got a whole thread on that.  All known relevant points covered.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Isn't the most honest answer that we don't have all the answers regarding gender identity and how it develops? A long time ago on a different thread, I said as much to someone who was arguing that gender is innate, and that imo it was important that they should not hang their sense of themselves and their potential rights on that particular hook.



It does appear to be a dominant idea within transgender ideology, hence why we see arguments for concepts like the 'somatic body map'. But, I agree, I think 'gender identity' is a bad argument for rights or protections, as it's just thoughts and feelings. (This is one of the reasons why I have argued against the proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act).


----------



## Santino (Jan 5, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> I'd rather be called a cunt than be told my identity is a lie.


Would you rather read a false dichotomy or be stabbed?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

8ball said:


> We've got a whole thread on that.  All known relevant points covered.



I was asking you, not the whole forum. Feel free to make a coherent argument though.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 5, 2018)

8ball said:


> We've got a whole thread on that.  All known relevant points covered.


We have.  And one of the points repeatedly argued on that thread (and subsequently brought onto this one) is that it is tough to draw clear boundaries between Rachel Dolezal's views and transgenderism.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 5, 2018)

Santino said:


> Would you rather read a false dichotomy or be stabbed?



I'd rather be patronised.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 5, 2018)

kabbes said:


> We have.  And one of the points repeatedly argued on that thread (and subsequently brought onto this one) is that it is tough to draw clear boundaries between Rachel Dolezal's views and transgenderism.



Although it is of course a fallacy to conflate a lack of clear boundaries with equivalency. Hence why 'gender is not a dichotomy' is a different statment from 'gender does not exist'.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2018)

kabbes said:


> We have.  And one of the points repeatedly argued on that thread (and subsequently brought onto this one) is that it is tough to draw clear boundaries between Rachel Dolezal's views and transgenderism.



Though easy enough to identify mendacious attention-seeking by someone who has been caught out.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I was asking you, not the whole forum. Feel free to make a coherent argument though.



My opinions on the matter are all on that thread.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> There's some irony here that calling a transsexual a 'cunt' is acceptable but referring to a man who identifies as a woman with masculine pronouns is an act of hate. The priorities here are all topsy-turvy.



For fucks sake.  Everyone gets called a cunt on here.  Being a transsexual doesn't protect you from that.  Or do you think it should?


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Not really, it amounts to the same thing. Do you think Rachel Dolezal has a legitimate claim to being transracial? Why? How is this different from transgender?
> 
> Rachel Dolezal’s pick-your-race policy works brilliantly – as long as you’re white | Claire Hynes



Aargh... not that again.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

8ball said:


> My opinions on the matter are all on that thread.



LOL.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> isn't it perhaps that some people feel their gender is innate while other people might feel that their gender changes over time?


Maybe. But I think it's quite a fundamental point that trans rights should not be built around this issue, whatever its answer. In an analogous way, gay rights also should not be built on questions to do with nature/nurture. Even if such a thing as a 'gay genetic code' could be identified, it needs not to matter either way: it needs to be entirely irrelevant to the structure of gay rights.  And indeed it does appear that obsessions with the answer to such questions wrt homosexuality, from members of the generation of psychiatrists to which Blanchard et all belong, who considered homosexuality to be a disease, are now fading.


----------



## bimble (Jan 5, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Although it is of course a fallacy to conflate a lack of clear boundaries with equivalency. Hence why 'gender is not a dichotomy' is a different statment from 'gender does not exist'.


I don't think anyone has said that gender doesn't exist, just offered their very different opinions on what it actually is, what its made of.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2018)

8ball said:


> My opinions on the matter are all on that thread.


stop channelling ou


----------



## Santino (Jan 5, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> I'd rather be patronised.


'Patronising' means talking down to someone.


----------



## JimW (Jan 5, 2018)

I can't get my head around the idea that a social construct, as I understand gender to be, is innate. How is that different from "human nature" arguments about social hierarchy, for example: I.e. back-projecting a complex social phenomenon on to certain tendencies. I've followed the thread so ought to have spotted competing definitions of gender but still not a clue.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 5, 2018)

Santino said:


> 'Patronising' means talking down to someone.



And what does 'irony' mean?


----------



## kabbes (Jan 5, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Although it is of course a fallacy to conflate a lack of clear boundaries with equivalency.


Maybe it is a surjection though.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 5, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> And what does 'irony' mean?


"Something SpookyFrank has apparently missed"?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> LOL.



I'm your messenger boy now?  

Exactly how long is the history of "transracialism"?  And does the reality of "race" have the same status of the reality of biological sex, or the reality of gender in your mind?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 5, 2018)

bimble said:


> I don't think anyone has said that gender doesn't exist, just offered their very different opinions on what it actually is, what its made of.



I was giving an example to illustrate a point. I chose the example because it contained an absurd proposition that nobody would actually make.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

JimW said:


> I can't get my head around the idea that a social construct, as I understand gender to be, is innate. How is that different from "human nature" arguments about social hierarchy, for example: I.e. back-projecting a complex social phenomenon on to certain tendencies. I've followed the thread so ought to have spotted competing definitions of gender but still not a clue.



What they actually mean is that their 'inner sense of what it feels like to be a man or a woman' is innate.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

8ball said:


> I'm your messenger boy now?
> 
> Exactly how long is the history of "transracialism"?  And does the reality of "race" have the same status of the reality of biological sex, or the reality of gender in your mind?



Interesting. You don't answer my question but expect me to answer two of yours!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 5, 2018)

kabbes said:


> "Something SpookyFrank has apparently missed"?



OK this is now officially too meta for me, I'm out.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> And what does 'irony' mean?


A bit like iron?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 5, 2018)

JimW said:


> I can't get my head around the idea that a social construct, as I understand gender to be, is innate. How is that different from "human nature" arguments about social hierarchy, for example: I.e. back-projecting a complex social phenomenon on to certain tendencies. I've followed the thread so ought to have spotted competing definitions of gender but still not a clue.



Is something 'innate' also necessarily timeless and permanent? Or can it mean simply, originating from within the self?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Interesting. You don't answer my question but expect me to answer two of yours!



I implied my opinions on the matter well enough, I think.
Which is that conflating the case of one fantasist with a much more complex issue is a bit insulating


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 5, 2018)

I still have no idea what qualities this "inner sense of man or woman" is supposed to have.

None at all. I have zero fucking idea. And no one can explain it. It's SO FRUSTRATING. If one is going to say that some has a particular quality, then one should fucking be able to state what that quality fucking is.

It's all smoke and mirrors, afaics because until someone can quantify it we might as well be talking about nothing.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Is something 'innate' also necessarily timeless and permanent? Or can it mean simply, originating from within the self?



Usually it is considered the former.  Though you can have an innate tendency towards something, which later develops given the right triggers.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

8ball said:


> I implied my opinions on the matter well enough, I think.
> Which is that conflating the case of one fantasist with a much more complex issue is a bit insulating



That doesn't explain why its different.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 5, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Is something 'innate' also necessarily timeless and permanent? Or can it mean simply, originating from within the self?


What is the self?  Where does it come from?  How do feelings originate from it?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 5, 2018)

kabbes said:


> What is the self?  Where does it come from?  How do feelings originate from it?



Doesn't really matter does it? As long as we accept that it feels like we have a self and it feels like that self feels things.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> It's all smoke and mirrors, afaics because until someone can quantify it we might as well be talking about nothing.



Yes, it's nothing more substantial than thoughts and feelings. Have you read this? What Is it Like to Be a Bat? - Wikipedia


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> LOL.


Thing is, the article you linked to on the last page answers this. I presume you agree with the authors that the explanation of gender identity is that it is something that begins with gender assignment and then develops with each of a myriad interactions from that point on, to cristallise as 'I girl' or 'I boy' at some point between 18 months and 3 years old? And that there follows a period of working out exactly what that means. 

None of the above applies to race. We are not assigned a race at birth that is then reinforced by each interaction. Children can remain blissfully unaware of race for a very long time as long as it is not pointed out to them. Whatever your view on the development of gender, it is an entirely different beast.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I still have no idea what qualities this "inner sense of man or woman" is supposed to have.
> 
> None at all. I have zero fucking idea. And no one can explain it. It's SO FRUSTRATING. If one is going to say that some has a particular quality, then one should fucking be able to state what that quality fucking is.
> 
> It's all smoke and mirrors, afaics because until someone can quantify it we might as well be talking about nothing.



It's tricky, but we all have senses of things that are hard to accurately describe.
The lack of concrete understanding was exactly the thing that Rachel Dolezal tried to exploit in order to get herself off the hook.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> That doesn't explain why its different.



Actually it pretty definitively does.


----------



## JimW (Jan 5, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Is something 'innate' also necessarily timeless and permanent? Or can it mean simply, originating from within the self?


Innate means inborn, same root as natal etc, so assumed that was the claim


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Yes, it's nothing more substantial than thoughts and feelings. Have you read this? What Is it Like to Be a Bat? - Wikipedia



Those people who say they can cure gay people use similar arguments to this.


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2018)

8ball said:


> I'm your messenger boy now?
> 
> Exactly how long is the history of "transracialism"?  And does the reality of "race" have the same status of the reality of biological sex, or the reality of gender in your mind?



Have you read 'In Defence of Transracialism' by Rachel Tuvel?  It makes a case by analogy, whilst explicitly rejecting the idea that race and sex are equivalent, or socially constructed in identical ways.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 5, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Doesn't really matter does it? As long as we accept that it feels like we have a self and it feels like that self feels things.


It matters hugely if you are invoking it as an explanation for the origin of an identity.  It's a metaphysical explanation that just shifts things back one step.  "Where does it come from?"  "It comes from the self."  "OK, well then where does the self come from?"  "It just is".  You are essentially postulating an atheist version of God.

I would say that the self is formed as a socialised construction, which is put together via a set of identity elements, modelled behaviour and other pieces of psychological creation.  Elements that derive from the self are therefore derived in truth as a result of these "self"-forming socialisations.  There is no such thing as "innate", only the consequences of environment acting on chemicals.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Thing is, the article you linked to on the last page answers this. I presume you agree with the authors that the explanation of gender identity is that it is something that begins with gender assignment and then develops with each of a myriad interactions from that point on, to cristallise as 'I girl' or 'I boy' at some point between 18 months and 3 years old? And that there follows a period of working out exactly what that means.
> 
> None of the above applies to race. We are not assigned a race at birth that is then reinforced by each interaction. Children can remain blissfully unaware of race for a very long time as long as it is not pointed out to them. Whatever your view on the development of gender, it is an entirely different beast.



I offered that paper as background to someone who was incapable of offering a definition of gender identity. As I explain above, what transgenderists mean by 'gender identity' is slightly different, that they 'feel' they have an 'inner sense' of being a woman or a man. I think what the author describes in that piece as 'gender identity' has more in common with concepts of female or male socialisation than what transgenderists mean by 'gender identity'. 

Note the definition in the Yogyakarta Principles is circular and in part based on stereotypes http://yogyakartaprinciples.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/principles_en.pdf:
*
Gender identity is understood to refer to each person’s deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex assigned at birth, including the personal sense of the body (which may involve, if freely chosen, modification of bodily appearance or function by medical, surgical or other means) and other expressions of gender, including dress, speech and mannerisms.*​


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 5, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Is something 'innate' also necessarily timeless and permanent? Or can it mean simply, originating from within the self?



Beauvoir said "One becomes woman". I see it more as one comes to terms with being [seen, treated as, compelled to act as] as woman. Little things, big things, bigger things that shout at one "lesser", "confined to", "not allowed", "liable to", "unable to", etc, etc, not including periods and the pains that accompany them, worry about pregnancy, fear of infertility, motherhood, etc, etc, etc. Whereas before my conversation with my friend (which I have described here earlier) I welcomed the whole spanner in the works of patriarchy that the very existence of transgender people represent, I'm not so sure now. Now I fear, the very principles behind being a transgender woman, passing as woman, are a threat to an awful lot of the gains so many before me struggled for me to, today, be able to say I have come to terms with being woman within and in spite of the patriarchal world I find myself in. Not by virtue of them being transgender women. By virtue of the claims on gender they make.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

8ball said:


> Those people who say they can cure gay people use similar arguments to this.



Really, no.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2018)

Athos said:


> Have you read 'In Defence of Transracialism' by Rachel Tuvel?  It makes a case by analogy, whilst explicitly rejecting the idea that race and sex are equivalent, or socially constructed in identical ways.



No, sounds like a bit of a "compare and contrast"...


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

Athos said:


> Have you read 'In Defence of Transracialism' by Rachel Tuvel?  It makes a case by analogy, whilst explicitly rejecting the idea that race and sex are equivalent, or socially constructed in identical ways.



That was a great piece of writing by Tuvel.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

kabbes said:


> It matters hugely if you are invoking it as an explanation for the origin of an identity.  It's a metaphysical explanation that just shifts things back one step.  "Where does it come from?"  "It comes from the self."  "OK, well then where does the self come from?"  You are essentially postulating an atheist version of God.
> 
> I would say that the self is formed as a socialised construction, which is put together via a set of identity elements, modelled behaviour and other pieces of psychological creation.  Elements that derive from the self are therefore derived in truth as a result of these "self"-forming socialisations.  There is no such thing as "innate", only the consequences of environment acting on chemicals.



A lot of claims made in transgender ideology are metaphysical, strangely some of these claims are supported strongest by atheists.


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2018)

8ball said:


> No, sounds like a bit of a "compare and contrast"...



It's worth a read.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I offered that paper as background to someone who was incapable of offering a definition of gender identity. As I explain above, what transgenderists mean by 'gender identity' is slightly different, that they 'feel' they have an 'inner sense' of being a woman or a man. I think what the author describes in that piece as 'gender identity' has more in common with concepts of female or male socialisation than what transgenderists mean by 'gender identity'.
> 
> Note the definition in the Yogyakarta Principles is circular and in part based on stereotypes http://yogyakartaprinciples.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/principles_en.pdf:
> *
> Gender identity is understood to refer to each person’s deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex assigned at birth, including the personal sense of the body (which may involve, if freely chosen, modification of bodily appearance or function by medical, surgical or other means) and other expressions of gender, including dress, speech and mannerisms.*​


Doesn't really change my point re transracialism. I'm guessing that you brought up Dolezal because many people who argue that transwomen should be viewed as women will then also argue that Dolezal is delusional. At which point, I'm guessing, you can go 'aha! inconsistency'. But I reject the idea that there is an equivalence between the two situations, and I suspect that you probably do as well if you're honest about it, given the links you have provided.


----------



## elbows (Jan 5, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Now I fear, the very principles behind being a transgender woman, passing as woman, are a threat to an awful lot of the gains so many before me struggled for me to, today, be able to say I have come to terms with being woman within and in spite of the patriarchal world I find myself in. Not by virtue of them being transgender women. By virtue of the claims on gender they make.



I would like to understand these fears and threats better. I know some of this stuff reaches across quite a range of things already discussed, but I for one still feel quite blind about much of this. All help appreciated, especially if it takes a different angle, uses different examples or different language to stuff thats already well-trodden here.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 5, 2018)

8ball said:


> No, sounds like a bit of a "compare and contrast"...


What is wrong with compare and contrast?  It illuminates an awful lot.


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But I reject the idea that there is an equivalence between the two situations...



On what grounds?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Doesn't really change my point re transracialism. I'm guessing that you brought up Dolezal because many people who argue that transwomen should be viewed as women will then also argue that Dolezal is delusional. At which point, I'm guessing, you can go 'aha! inconsistency'. But I reject the idea that there is an equivalence between the two situations, and I suspect that you probably do as well if you're honest about it, given the links you have provided.



This is piece referenced above by Athos In Defense of Transracialism


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2018)

Athos said:


> On what grounds?


see post 4233

My objection is actually stronger than that, but I'm not going to repeat what I've posted before, some of which is speculation on my part about where gender comes from.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 5, 2018)

8ball said:


> It's tricky, but we all have senses of things that are hard to accurately describe.



"Its REALLY hard to explain/tricky" doesn't and cannot cut it for me. It snacks of the bullshit religious indoctrination they (the school) attempted to put me through in Catholic school. 

Any difficult questions were met with "eee, well it's complicated" and when that didn't cut it "Don't be a doubting Thomas" (a very bad thing). 

This all smells the of same shit. And I can't help smelling it. I really tried to get on the "progressive" band wagon, but the similarities became too overwhelming.. The refusal to answer tricky questions, the dismissal of non belief as something bad, and then the ostricisaion and accusations afterwards if you refuse to lie "YOU HATE GOD. YOU AREN'T TRYING HARD ENOUGH TO FEEL HIM!" 



> The lack of concrete understanding was exactly the thing that Rachel Dolezal tried to exploit in order to get herself off the hook.



And this is something else that niggles... why is one example (Dolezal) exploitation of lack of understanding, but the other (Gender Identity) not when the mechanism is *exactly* the same?

From what I can see one is a result of a kind of knee-jerk progressivism, and the other a result of hierarchical exploitation (racial exploitation) not being around long enough (10,000 years is the estimate of gendered exploitation IfiRC) in human history for the idea of racial identity as innate to be taken as something as given.

Becuase OF COURSE women have womany identities (OBVIOUSLY)  but it's racist to say certain races do (RACIST).


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> see post 4233



I'm on my phone, so posts aren't numbered. Would you mind quoting it, please?


----------



## bimble (Jan 5, 2018)

Athos said:


> On what grounds?


He's repeated it plenty of times. His idea is that the two are different because every child grows up with an awareness of gender roles whilst it is possible to imagine a child growing up with no idea that such a category as race exists at all. I think this is a bit threadbare as an argument tbh but that's it far as I can tell.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> That was a great piece of writing by Tuvel.


what do you think so great about it (on the off-chance you're not being ironic here, given the criticisms levelled at the article)?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2018)

kabbes said:


> What is wrong with compare and contrast?  It illuminates an awful lot.



I wasn't saying there was anything wrong with it.


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2018)

bimble said:


> He's repeated it plenty of times. His idea is that the two are different because every child grows up with an awareness of gender roles whilst it is possible to imagine a child growing up with no idea that such a category as race exists at all. I think this is a bit threadbare as an argument tbh but that's it far as I can tell.



Ah, I see. Though, even if that's true (and I'm sceptical) I don't see how the timing of that consciousness is so significant as to fundamentally undermine any analogy between the two.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2018)

bimble said:


> He's repeated it plenty of times. His idea is that the two are different because every child grows up with an awareness of gender roles whilst it is possible to imagine a child growing up with no idea that such a category as race exists at all. I think this is a bit threadbare as an argument tbh but that's it far as I can tell.


Not really. 'grows up with an awareness of gender roles' is far too weak a way to put it. Rejecting the idea that there may be an innate component to gender identity (which I don't entirely, but for the sake of argument let me do so here), gender is something into which we are socialised from birth. As Shirley Chisholm said, it starts 'from the moment the doctor announces "It's a girl"'.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 5, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Becuase OF COURSE women have womany identities (OBVIOUSLY)



Precisely!


----------



## TopCat (Jan 5, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> But he's _our _sociopath. You've not served enough time in these parts to get away with the nasty personal digs.


I dunno. People have dished it out so have to eat it up too.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 5, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> There must have been a point, however brief, when there was only one member?


Yeah The Editor and he made up rows with himself to promote the site!!


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not really. Rejecting the idea that there may be an innate component to gender identity (which I don't entirely, but for the sake of argument let me do so here), gender is something into which we are socialised from birth. As Shirley Chisholm said, it starts 'from the moment the doctor announces "It's a girl"'.



Why would such a claimed difference in timing undermine the idea of transracialism?  If anything, it should do the opposite i.e. facilitate less fixed ideas racial self-identity, resulting in more fluidity.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2018)

Athos said:


> I'm on my phone, so posts aren't numbered. Would you mind quoting it, please?


if your phone's anything like mine, turn it sideways and you should be able to see post numbers.


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> if your phone's anything like mine, turn it sideways and you should be able to see post numbers.



Wow! I never knew that. Thanks.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> ...



_edit: <because initial response wasn't v nice>_

Will come back to some of that later, but a lot of it is attributing things I don't believe and some of the rest of it is pretty absurd.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2018)

Athos said:


> Why would such a claimed difference in timing undermine the idea of transracialism?  If anything, it should do the opposite i.e. facilitate less fixed ideas racial self-identity, resulting in more fluidity.


Not got time to do this full justice, but wrt Dolezal, transculturalism is probably a better term for it than transracialism. From what I've read by her, her concept of racial identity, including the categories she uses, is firmly embedded in US history and culture and doesn't make much sense when taken out of it.


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not got time to do this full justice, but wrt Dolezal, transculturalism is probably a better term for it than transracialism. From what I've read by her, her concept of racial identity, including the categories she uses, is firmly embedded in US history and culture and doesn't make much sense when taken out of it.



Not convinced. If anything, transracialism ought to be easier elsewhere, given the US's focus on race as a function of ancestry, that's not universal; Tuvel gives the example of Brazil, where ancestry is a less significant component of race.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

Athos said:


> Not convinced. If anything, transracialism ought to be easier elsewhere, given the US's focus on race as a function of ancestry, that's not universal; Tuvel gives the example of Brazil, where ancestry is a less significant component of race.



Did you see this piece by Jesse Singal on the controversy?

This Is What a Modern-Day Witch Hunt Looks Like


----------



## bimble (Jan 5, 2018)

That ^ is very depressing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2018)

bimble said:


> That ^ is very depressing.


very much so, when there's been no attempt to ask any of the hundreds of academics attacked in that piece why they attached their name to the open letter.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 5, 2018)

8ball said:


> _edit: <because initial response wasn't v nice>_
> 
> Will come back to some of that later, but a lot of it is attributing things I don't believe and some of the rest of it is pretty absurd.



Haha! I didn't see your mean response. But yes, I wasn't being shitty with you. If you think some of my train of thought is absurd then I'd be happy to hear it!


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> very much so, when there's been no attempt to ask any of the hundreds of academics attacked in that piece why they attached their name to the open letter.



Their reasons were set out within the open letter itself (and are largely rebutted in the aricle).


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2018)

Athos said:


> Their reasons were set out within the open letter itself (and are largely rebutted in the aricle).


yes. i know. none of those rebutting points seem to have been put to any of the letter's signatories: that's my point. it would have made for a rather more useful and interesting article rather than one which reaches for the moral panic and superficial invocation of witch-hunting.


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> yes. i know. none of those rebutting points seem to have been put to any of the letter's signatories: that's my point. it would have made for a rather more useful and interesting article rather than one which reaches for the moral panic and superficial invocation of witch-hunting.



How do you know they weren't put to each and every one of the signatories?  Even if they weren't, given there's nothng to suggest the criticisms in their open letter were put to Tuvel, it seems a reasonable way to proceed.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 5, 2018)

Athos said:


> Not convinced. If anything, transracialism ought to be easier elsewhere, given the US's focus on race as a function of ancestry, that's not universal; Tuvel gives the example of Brazil, where ancestry is a less significant component of race.



That's semantics. In Brazil, yes, ancestry is not the main component but people's skin hues are graded hierarchically. It's more insidious because it's harder to define.
I can't read the paper. I'm going by the witch-hunt article MY posted. I'd like to know what Tuvel has to say about objections to Dolezal's reinforcing the colour line. As I think I said on the other thread, I object to her presuming to know and define what it means to be black, by her deception and subsequent justifications. Blackness is not culture. You can throw away culture. You cannot get rid of the fact that once you're out the house you cease to be person and become black person *in other people's eyes.*


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Blackness is not culture. You can throw away culture. You cannot get rid of the fact that once you're out the house you cease to be person and become black person *in other people's eyes.*



That *is* culture, though.  Although I'd figured most people don't see black people as non-people.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2018)

Athos said:


> How do you know they weren't put to each and every one of the signatories?  Even if they weren't, given there's nothng to suggest the criticisms in their open letter were put to Tuvel, it seems a reasonable way to proceed.


How do I know? Because the author of that piece would have mentioned if they had


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I offered that paper as background to someone who was incapable of offering a definition of gender identity. As I explain above, what transgenderists mean by 'gender identity' is slightly different, that they 'feel' they have an 'inner sense' of being a woman or a man. I think what the author describes in that piece as 'gender identity' has more in common with concepts of female or male socialisation than what transgenderists mean by 'gender identity'.



The psychoanalytic idea is that we become ourselves through processes of identification: the child is identified (not labelled, but imagined, thought about, consciously and unconsciously) in the mind of parents and the child's own identifications ( I am like mummy, I am like daddy) in an ongoing dynamic relationship. It's quite complex, the child plays a more active role in the development of their sense of who they are compared to what I understand as socialisation which has always appeared very children are done to by adults to me.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 5, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not really. 'grows up with an awareness of gender roles' is far too weak a way to put it. Rejecting the idea that there may be an innate component to gender identity (which I don't entirely, but for the sake of argument let me do so here), gender is something into which we are socialised from birth. As Shirley Chisholm said, it starts 'from the moment the doctor announces "It's a girl"'.



Or the midwife.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2018)

Red Cat said:


> Or the midwife.


Could have been, but the actual quote, which I was repeating from memory is:



> The emotional, sexual, and psychological stereotyping of females begins when the doctor says, '_It's a girl_'


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 5, 2018)

women cant be doctors??

midwives perform caesarians??

wtf is going on here??


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 5, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> women cant be doctors??



Yes. But there is no need for a doctor at an uncomplicated labour. It's not a medical procedure.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2018)

Red Cat said:


> The psychoanalytic idea is that we become ourselves through processes of identification: the child is identified (not labelled, but imagined, thought about, consciously and unconsciously) in the mind of parents and the child's own identifications ( I am like mummy, I am like daddy) in an ongoing dynamic relationship. It's quite complex, the child plays a more active role in the development of their sense of who they are compared to what I understand as socialisation which has always appeared very children are done to by adults to me.


When I use the word socialisation, I use it thinking of it as an active process very much as you describe. And this is where I think an innate component may come into play - in that we are born primed to look for certain kinds of things in the world. That we are primed to look for language and also a sense of morality are relatively uncontroversial ideas; that this might extend to something like a gender identity is seemingly a lot more controversial.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 5, 2018)

this thread makes me want to just die cus i feel so sick reading it lol

Ay, ay, a scratch, a scratch; marry, 'tis enough. Where is my page? Go, villain, fetch a surgeon.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 5, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> this thread makes me want to just die cus i feel so sick reading it lol



Call a doctor.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 5, 2018)

niiiiiiight nuuuurrrrrseeee


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 5, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> That's semantics. In Brazil, yes, ancestry is not the main component but people's skin hues are graded hierarchically. It's more insidious because it's harder to define.
> I can't read the paper. I'm going by the witch-hunt article MY posted. I'd like to know what Tuvel has to say about objections to Dolezal's reinforcing the colour line. As I think I said on the other thread, I object to her presuming to know and define what it means to be black, by her deception and subsequent justifications. Blackness is not culture. You can throw away culture. You cannot get rid of the fact that once you're out the house you cease to be person and become black person *in other people's eyes.*



I need to qualify this because in mixed race families like mine there is a racism insidiousness that does penetrate households. It manifests in things like hair. My hair, that of my siblings and my cousins is graded according to nappiness by my mum, my aunts and other generally older generations. Straighter hair good, nappier hair bad. It seems like small thing but it does signal uneasiness with natural African aesthetics. I see that kind of thing as related to racism. Bad manners, clumsiness and intellectual slowness were associated with tribes people who refused adopt standards of whiteness the Portuguese had brought to Angola. All of those seemingly insignificant things were part of my mum and dad's socialisation which was steeped in apartheid (in case people thought it was only a South African thing).


----------



## elbows (Jan 5, 2018)

I note that the Paris Lees Vogue Suffragette thing lead to a predictable response on twitter, including numerous people having a go at Stella Creasy and accusing her of all the usual betrayals against women.

How I hope this shit is condemned to lurk on the fringes forever more, and people with more care and decency actually bring about both the sensible discussion of the issues, and the protection and gain of rights, freedoms etc.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 5, 2018)

What better way to celebrate women's suffrage and the unshakling of gender chains than that bastion of revolutionary Feminist thought: a VOGUE front cover?

JFC 

I just can't get upset about it.  It's actually pretty fucking funny. Like, it's FUCKING VOGUE. WHY IS EVERYONE UPSET?


----------



## elbows (Jan 5, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> What better way to celebrate women's suffrage and the unshakling of gender chains than that bastion of revolutionary Feminist thought: a VOGUE front cover?
> 
> I just can't get upset about it. It's actually pretty fucking funny.



Oh there are many absurdities to be found there, and I am not being uptight about the whole thing. Just the people using it as an excuse to be shitty towards trans people and allies.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

elbows said:


> I note that the Paris Lees Vogue Suffragette thing lead to a predictable response on twitter, including numerous people having a go at Stella Creasy and accusing her of all the usual betrayals against women.
> 
> How I hope this shit is condemned to lurk on the fringes forever more, and people with more care and decency actually bring about both the sensible discussion of the issues, and the protection and gain of rights, freedoms etc.



Reading like something from a bad 1970s men's magazine, Paris Lees's own words are here The 22 Sexiest Things About Sex :

"She doesn't even preface her list with any real acknowledgment that sex can be great fun, or that women's pleasure is important. It comes across like "women don't really enjoy sex, it's all just so dirty and embarrassing". Way to go, Hannah."

"the sort of women who spend their weekends listening to Kylie and drinking white wine spritzers. The kind of people who bought _Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus_ in the 90s and rabbit dildos in the noughties – but only "for a laugh", because Samantha from _Sex and the City_ had one"

"2 – Socks. When your trusted fuck-buddy stuffs socks inside your mouth and ties your hands behind your back while ramming you like a champ. You people all do that, right?"

"7 – Semen. Is great. I probably like it best when it comes as a surprise (no pun intended) like when you're shagging some guy at a house party and some next dude walks in and you're like "Hey, come join the fun!" but he's so horny as he pulls his dick out he just ends up jizzing over the both of you (seriously, what had we all taken that night?) – or maybe like when you're wanking some stranger off in a dark room and you suddenly feel this warm, wet dripping in-between your legs and down your thighs onto your leather miniskirt. Dude, you didn't tell me you were close! Hot!"

"8 – Your underwear. Call me old-fashioned if you like, but I really don't think you can go wrong slutting it up with lingerie, champagne and copious amounts of you-know-what. It's traditional, innit?"

"11 – Watching yourself be a bad girl in the mirror. I really feel like a spit roast is wasted if the person in the middle doesn't get to see how it looks, 'cause it looks fucking horny."

"12 – Talking dirty. Agreed, it takes some chutzpah and genuine passion to pull it off, but what are you? A mouse? Or a fucker? You're a fucker – so call me a slut and tell me to suck it."

"18 – Doggy style. This is hot when you just want to get fucked like an animal – a dog, say – and it has the added bonus of leaving your hands and mouth free should his friends require simultaneous servicing."


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> What better way to celebrate women's suffrage and the unshakling of gender chains than that bastion of revolutionary Feminist thought: putting a man in the centre of a VOGUE front cover shoot?



Fixed it for you.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 5, 2018)

you jealous they aint asked you to do a cover shoot?

sit the fuck down.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> You envious they ain't asked you to do a cover shoot?
> 
> Sit the fuck down.



LOL! No, to both.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 5, 2018)

why have you edited 'corrected' my post? thats really weird and patronising.

dont change my words.


----------



## bimble (Jan 5, 2018)

This just got published:
Why it’s so unhelpful to talk about the male or female brain | Aeon Essays

The bits about autism I have no clue what to make of but the rest is good - particularly the idea that storytellers over the centuries, even the victorian novelists, grasped non-binaryness better than we do now.

'Perhaps in Victorian society in particular, weighted by illusory trappings from interminable widows’ weeds to age-defying hair dyes for men, these novelists and the people who read their stories were better able to look past the window dressing that defines feminine and masculine, and simply describe – and appreciate – individuals as they were.'


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Reading like something from a bad 1970s men's magazine, Paris Lees's own words are here The 22 Sexiest Things About Sex :
> 
> "She doesn't even preface her list with any real acknowledgment that sex can be great fun, or that women's pleasure is important. It comes across like "women don't really enjoy sex, it's all just so dirty and embarrassing". Way to go, Hannah."
> 
> ...



I don't get your point. Are you saying that this is a list no cis woman could have made? Is that your point? I bet I could find you something similar written by a cis woman.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't get your point. Are you saying that this is a list no cis woman could have made? Is that your point? I bet I could find you something similar written by a cis woman.



Point I am making is this is a man using language that reinforces negative and objectifying language and stereotypes about women. This are not the words of someone who is a social progressive.

Here's another I Love Wolf-Whistles and Catcalls – Am I a Bad Feminist? :

"I get the stuff about "power imbalance" but it just makes me feel sexy."

"Last summer I went to Ibiza, where I was catcalled, sexually objectified and treated like a piece of meat by men the entire week. And it was absolutely awesome."

"I love catcalls. I love car toots. I love random men smiling “Hello beautiful!” like my mere presence just made their day. I like being called "princess" and ignoring them as I giggle inside. I like being eye-fucked on the escalator and wondering if I’ve just made him spring a boner."


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2018)

Ok, giving it a try in the time I have...  I think ALL parties will find plenty to disagree with here:



FabricLiveBaby! said:


> "Its REALLY hard to explain/tricky" doesn't and cannot cut it for me. It snacks of the bullshit religious indoctrination they (the school) attempted to put me through in Catholic school.
> 
> Any difficult questions were met with "eee, well it's complicated" and when that didn't cut it "Don't be a doubting Thomas" (a very bad thing).
> 
> This all smells the of same shit. And I can't help smelling it. I really tried to get on the "progressive" band wagon, but the similarities became too overwhelming.. The refusal to answer tricky questions, the dismissal of non belief as something bad, and then the ostricisaion and accusations afterwards if you refuse to lie "YOU HATE GOD. YOU AREN'T TRYING HARD ENOUGH TO FEEL HIM!"



Homosexuality also has a lot of unexplained elements.  LOADS of things have unexplained elements.  My ideas about where transexuality/transgender fits into things and how it works might not gel with your ideas or those of lots of other people on here, but that's just being in a state of having partial knowledge.  Even if there was only ever the case of there ever being one transexual person who wore clothes of the other gender and wanted to be addressed as such, it would still be the civilised thing to do to accept that in interactions.

HOWEVER:  I fully understand why those in some parts of the feminist movement have misgivings about such people including themselves in feminist circles, and there are several reasons for this, of (in my opinion) varying degrees of validity.

In terms of relating things to your Catholic upbringing, I'm not too sure what in particular you feel I am expecting you to accept with some kind of handwaving.  This struck me as bizarre.  I just meant I don't understand how gender identity works and manifests and I can same about various elements of sexuality and personality that I'm sure you'd accept.



FabricLiveBaby! said:


> And this is something else that niggles... why is one example (Dolezal) exploitation of lack of understanding, but the other (Gender Identity) not when the mechanism is *exactly* the same?



It's not the same mechanism at all.  One is a mendacious person trying to get themselves out of the shit, the others is people trying to find a way of explaining their feelings that is quite culturally filtered.

Take the "Aspies/autistic spectrum" thread, if I was to say I felt like "I have a brain that boots up into the wrong operating system", I wouldn't be called a liar or a fantasist or be told "wtf - you're not a computer, you're talking nonsense, shut up" but I'd expect it to be accepted that defining parts of my experience is crunching the linguistic gears a bit.

I think something similar is going on when a transexual person says they feel like eg. "a woman born into a man's body".  It's the explanation that feels best.



FabricLiveBaby! said:


> From what I can see one is a result of a kind of knee-jerk progressivism, and the other a result of hierarchical exploitation (racial exploitation) not being around long enough (10,000 years is the estimate of gendered exploitation IfiRC) in human history for the idea of racial identity as innate to be taken as something as given.
> 
> Becuase OF COURSE women have womany identities (OBVIOUSLY)  but it's racist to say certain races do (RACIST).



I don't buy this "racial identity" thing in the slightest in terms of relation to gender.
It's just down to a few genes affecting how you look.  There's no "binary" expectation either.  Is a mixed race kid adopted by a monoracial family going to suffer alienation and confusing to a degree similar to that suffered by an intersex child with male hormones who is brought up as a female (this generally didn't end well to my knowledge and is possibly close in many ways to how some transexual people feel)?

For that matter, shouldn't a "mixed race" person feel totally alienated due to being formed from two races (the answer obviously being no because there is for almost all purposes NO DIFFERENCE between people of different races beyond appearance <genetic> and culture <not genetic>)?  

You may deeply feel your race is a part of your identity, but some people are 'meh' about the race thing and identify strongly with, I dunno, fucking cosplay!  That doesn't make it the same as gender, or even sexuality.  If you said homosexuality was "just thoughts and feelings" you'd be labelled homophobic.  Plenty of cases not too long ago of gay men desperately wanting to be able to wish their sexuality away.

Think I've said enough, see y'all later...


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 5, 2018)

could be from any cis womans personal blog tbh, keep reaching like that, you'll fall over


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 5, 2018)

elbows said:


> Oh there are many absurdities to be found there, and I am not being uptight about the whole thing. Just the people using it as an excuse to be shitty towards trans people and allies.



DP


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 5, 2018)

elbows said:


> Oh there are many absurdities to be found there, and I am not being uptight about the whole thing. Just the people using it as an excuse to be shitty towards trans people and allies.



Like the fact Paris Lee would have had the vote 100 years ago type of absurdities?


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 5, 2018)

now you think a poxy vote would have been enough to be a game changer, interesting


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2018)

bimble said:


> This just got published:
> Why it’s so unhelpful to talk about the male or female brain | Aeon Essays
> 
> The bits about autism I have no clue what to make of but the rest is good - particularly the idea that storytellers over the centuries, even the victorian novelists, grasped non-binaryness better than we do now.
> ...


Yeh even those famously monolithic victorian novelists who were of course all m/c cis men


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 5, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> now you think a poxy vote would have been enough to be a game changer, interesting



So you can do disingenuous. Congratulations!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Like the fact Paris Lee would have had the vote 100 years ago type of absurdities?


 Here in the UK, she'd have been locked up for being who she is 100 years ago.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 5, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> So you can do disingenuous. Congratulations!




well done for using the big words?


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> That's semantics. In Brazil, yes, ancestry is not the main component but people's skin hues are graded hierarchically. It's more insidious because it's harder to define.
> I can't read the paper. I'm going by the witch-hunt article MY posted. I'd like to know what Tuvel has to say about objections to Dolezal's reinforcing the colour line. As I think I said on the other thread, I object to her presuming to know and define what it means to be black, by her deception and subsequent justifications. Blackness is not culture. You can throw away culture. You cannot get rid of the fact that once you're out the house you cease to be person and become black person *in other people's eyes.*



Indeed. But they're the same arguments some level at trans people.


----------



## bimble (Jan 5, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't get your point. Are you saying that this is a list no cis woman could have made? Is that your point? I bet I could find you something similar written by a cis woman.


Ye but do you think that person would be on the cover of vogue as an aspirational figure? Like Jenner being Glamour's woman of the year after explaining all about having a female brain that likes nail polish & girly nights in.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 5, 2018)

swear down that shit about jenners nail polish she can finally wear was pure crap, i seen em on the kardashians years ago with chipped nail polish on

sorry but that well aggs me and i dunno why, beauty lies, it was on telly ffs


----------



## bimble (Jan 5, 2018)

She said in an interview that the best thing about being a woman is that you can wear nail polish ALL THE TIME, until it chips off.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 5, 2018)

oh yeah?? well how do you chip polish that bad if it's only on for a brief period, that was a weeks worth of chips cus you know she wasnt doing washing up or manual labour on that show they got staff for that, i dont buy it. as if it was £ shop varnish as well. ridiculous.


----------



## bimble (Jan 5, 2018)

Maybe she likes the chipped distressed look, like the finger version of designer ripped jeans?


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 5, 2018)

bimble said:


> Ye but do you think that person would be on the cover of vogue as an aspirational figure? Like Jenner being Glamour's woman of the year after explaining all about having a female brain that likes nail polish & girly nights in.



It's Vogue. All Vogue wants of women is their dosh.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2018)

bimble said:


> Ye but do you think that person be on the cover of vogue as an aspirational figure? Like Jenner being woman of the year after explaining all about having a female brain that likes nail polish & girly nights in.


Let's not forget that it's _Vogue_ we're talking about here. And I've no idea what _Glamour_ is, but I can guess from its title. Isn't this a little like complaining about a trans woman appearing in a beauty pageant while ignoring the fact that beauty pageants still happen?


----------



## bimble (Jan 5, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> It's Vogue. All Vogue wants of women is their dosh.


Yep, and to sell more & more advertising space full of products to make you more _feminine_.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 5, 2018)

bimble said:


> Maybe she likes the chipped distressed look, like the finger version of designer ripped jeans?






and fuck yous i get all my best looks from Vogue


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> How do I know? Because the author of that piece would have mentioned if they had



An assumption on your part.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 5, 2018)

bimble said:


> Yep, and to sell more & more advertising space full of products to make you more _feminine_.



well we all know who aint using femfresh now init


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 5, 2018)

Athos said:


> Indeed. But they're the same arguments some level at trans people.



On a non-pragmatic level... is she wrong? I don't know. I'm conscious I'm "reacting" to claims on gender against my lived experience. Won't decide until I know more.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2018)

bimble said:


> Yep, and to sell more & more advertising space full of products to make you more _feminine_.


In other words, why pick on the trans woman in the image and not the six cis women?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 5, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> It's Vogue. All Vogue wants of women is their dosh.



And they do that by asserting femininity is integral to womanhood, and making it  impossible to obtain without consumerism.

(s)Lees is rich and can afford to perform it. It's unobtainable for most women (globally)  bogged down with boring stuff like looking after kids, emotionally trying to hold families together, being forced through labour,  and generally being poor, or unable to vote, or *literally* being second class citizens.

Vogue can fuck off, as well as the "feminist heroes" on that cover.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 5, 2018)

I think Vogue is being misrepresented, femininity is integral to womanhood wherre??


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 5, 2018)

bimble said:


> Yep, and to sell more & more advertising space full of products to make you more _feminine_.



Well... it seems economically advantageous to start wooing the new pool.


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> On a non-pragmatic level... is she wrong? I don't know. I'm conscious I'm "reacting" to claims on gender against my lived experience. Won't decide until I know more.



Sorry, I don't understand this post.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 5, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> I think Vogue is being misrepresented, femininity is integral to womanhood wherre??



Feminity is not just a look, tho. It's the whole cultural learned set of "clothes and performance over everything else". Brainz don't count.

"New season LADIES! Stay in fashion! You don't want to look OLD and UNCOOL and BORING. Buy our stuff! Stay relevant AND CHIC (but not fat eww)! And remember to spend LOADSA CASH!"


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 5, 2018)

Athos said:


> Sorry, I don't understand this post.



That's because I put a "she" where it should have be an "it" as in "Is it wrong to attempt philosophical parallels between the two situations? Of course, it became incomprehensible. Sorry about that.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 5, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In other words, why pick on the trans woman in the image and not the six cis women?



Consider the commercial possibilities of the subliminal message "We can make a man look more feminine than you."


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In other words, why pick on the trans woman in the image and not the six cis women?



Because they are women and he's not.


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> That's because I put a "she" where it should have be an "it" as in "Is it wrong to attempt philosophical parallels between the two situations? Of course, it became incomprehensible. Sorry about that.



Ah, I see, now.

I think there are some obvious and significant parallels. And that many of the attempts to deviate don't stand much scrutiny. 

However, I still have a feeling that one (transgender) is 'real and the other (transracial) is not. But I'd like to understand why.


----------



## elbows (Jan 5, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Like the fact Paris Lee would probably have had the vote 100 years ago type of absurdities?



That one certainly didnt escape attention.


littlebabyjesus said:


> In other words, why pick on the trans woman in the image and not the six cis women?



And in my case I brought it up to have a go at those who think the important thing is to accuse cis women in the article of betraying the feminist cause by appearing in something with Paris Lees.

It seems especially stupid to me because I read a whole bunch of shit that stemmed from this that managed to give me absolutely no insight about what anybody who appeared in that article actually said. I did just find an article that gives an idea what Stella Creasy said.

Top Facebooker Stella Creasy brands herself ‘the anti-Sheryl Sandberg’



> Now the Labour MP and self-declared “feminist champion” Stella Creasy has made it very clear where she stands in the debate over the Facebook boss' style of feminism.
> 
> “There’s definitely a Mean Girls-style Burn Book in politics – patriarchy isn’t gendered – but the way we talk about other women is important," Creasy tells Vogue for a piece in the February 2018 issue on seven influential females fighting to empower women in the battle for equality.
> 
> ...



That apparently matters not to some people, who think the priority is to accuse her of betrayal for appearing with someone they'd like to shout man at.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Because they are women and he's not.


Yeh back to the auld duality. Whatever happened to the third way?


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 5, 2018)

Athos said:


> Ah, I see, now.
> 
> I think there are some obvious and significant parallels. And that many of the attempts to deviate don't stand much scrutiny.
> 
> However, I still have a feeling that one (transgender) is 'real and the other (transracial) is not. But I'd like to understand why.



I thought I understood it until the last few days.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Because they are women and he's not.


Ah, you're good at it. I'll give you that. Finding new and pithy ways to slip in the deliberate misgender.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 5, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Feminity is not just a look, tho. It's the whole cultural learned set of "clothes and performance over everything else". Brainz don't count.
> 
> "New season LADIES! Stay in fashion! You don't want to look OLD and UNCOOL and BORING. Buy our stuff! Stay relevant AND CHIC (but not fat eww)! And remember to spend LOADSA CASH!"




and that doesnt sound like over reacting at all


----------



## D'wards (Jan 5, 2018)

There's a transgender woman newsreader in Celebrity Big Brother at the mo, India something. Ann Widdecombe and Rachel Johnson (Boris' sister) have both referred to her as he, despite looking like a woman (the fact she has her tits out needlessly very often should reinforce this to them).
They claim its cos they're "dinosaurs" but i think its cos they're Tory arseholes


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2018)

D'wards said:


> There's a transgender woman newsreader in Celebrity Big Brother at the mo, India something. Ann Widdecombe and Rachel Johnson (Boris' sister) have both referred to her as he, despite looking like a woman (the fact she has her tits out needlessly very often should reinforce this to them).
> They claim its cos they're "dinosaurs" but i think its cos they're Tory arseholes


It's because that's what they're being paid to be there to say.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 5, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> and that doesnt sound like over reacting at all



If anything, it's under reacting (IMHO obvs) cuz there's an awful lot more to culturally unpack. We are imbibed (I love that word) by the culture around us and reflect and reject facets of ourselves due to the culture (some good or bad) that seeks to force itself down our throats dressed as "nature".

It ain't just masculinity and femininity, it's race, capitalism, class. All of it's expectations are written into us *through culture* to reinforce subjugation and domination. Certain peeps are deemed to be better than others. It's how life works. It's reassuring to understand the real-world, material, reasons why that is.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 5, 2018)

D'wards said:


> There's a transgender woman newsreader in Celebrity Big Brother at the mo, India something. Ann Widdecombe and Rachel Johnson (Boris' sister) have both referred to her as he, despite looking like a woman (the fact she has her tits out needlessly very often should reinforce this to them).
> They claim its cos they're "dinosaurs" but i think its cos they're Tory arseholes



Maybe it's because they're women who object to a man like India telling them what to do?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 5, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> If anything, it's under reacting (IMHO obvs) cuz there's an awful lot more to culturally unpack. We are imbibed (I love that word) by the culture around us and reflect and reject facets of ourselves due to the culture (some good or bad) that seeks to force itself down our throats dressed as "nature".
> 
> It ain't just masculinity and femininity, it's race, capitalism, class. All of it's expectations are written into us *through culture* to reinforce subjugation and domination. Certain peeps are deemed to be better than others. It's how life works. It's reassuring to understand the real-world, material, reasons why that is.




I typed all that, a lickle pished, and then realised I was sitting next to this..


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Maybe it's because they're women who object to a man like India telling them what to do?


You appear to take a certain amount of glee in repeatedly doing this. I can see why sea star can't stand you.


----------



## D'wards (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Maybe it's because they're women who object to a man like India telling them what to do?


India is a woman and she's not telling them what to do

I think I need to read back over the thread to unpick this one


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 5, 2018)

My mistake edited out.


----------



## spanglechick (Jan 5, 2018)

bimble said:


> Me too. The message I'm getting lately is that if I see things this way then I should simply self identify as 'agender', job done.



Or gender non-conforming?  I would say, if it came up, that I personally am cis gendered but also gender non-conforming because i have not conformed with the social expectations of my gender.



FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I still have no idea what qualities this "inner sense of man or woman" is supposed to have.
> 
> None at all. I have zero fucking idea. And no one can explain it. It's SO FRUSTRATING. If one is going to say that some has a particular quality, then one should fucking be able to state what that quality fucking is.
> 
> It's all smoke and mirrors, afaics because until someone can quantify it we might as well be talking about nothing.



To reprise what i said a couple of months ago, I do feel like cis is a good word to describe me, and i do feel that I have a gender identity that is separate from socially conditioned gender roles, and biological sex.  That doesn’t mean that i think everyone else does: i imagine that the extent and nature of a person’s perception of gender is part of their psychological sense of self.

I consider myself very strongly cisgendered, while not conforming to a great many social gender roles and being critical of the very existance of those roles.  Because of this, I have not issue reconciling the idea of some people experiencing gender identity with my feminism.

So what is my gender identity?  I’m not sure I think of it in terms of qualities, so I can’t name any non-social-role female qualities.  I just have a very passionate sense that regardless of my inability and unwillingness to fulfill my biological and social functions as a woman, that I am “team female’ - the idea of being a man horrifies and upsets me, not because of any biological or social reason i can identify, but because it would mean I wouldn’t be a woman.

And if i feel like that, it seems reasonable that someone else might have all the same feelings while having different chromosomes and genitals and social expectations.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 5, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> I just have a very passionate sense that regardless of my inability and unwillingness to fulfill my biological and social functions as a woman, that I am “team female’ - the idea of being a man horrifies and upsets me, not because of any biological or social reason i can identify, but because it would mean I wouldn’t be a woman..


Not going to say the poster's name as I don't want to drag them into this thread at this particular juncture, but this sounds strikingly similar to the description by a trans man on these here boards of his experience of identifying as male.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 5, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> When I use the word socialisation, I use it thinking of it as an active process very much as you describe. And this is where I think an innate component may come into play - in that we are born primed to look for certain kinds of things in the world. That we are primed to look for language and also a sense of morality are relatively uncontroversial ideas; that this might extend to something like a gender identity is seemingly a lot more controversial.



I haven't replied because I don't really have anything to say in response but didn't want to give the impression I was ignoring you. I don't find the idea controversial as such, I just don't know what it means outside of the ways we currently have of looking at these things i.e biological sex, development of selves in gendered societies.


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> Or gender non-conforming?  I would say, if it came up, that I personally am cis gendered but also gender non-conforming because i have not conformed with the social expectations of my gender.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Is it the sense of being 'team female' that makes you a woman?


----------



## elbows (Jan 5, 2018)

I found an article about the likes of Yardley that seems like a good place to rest my mind for now.

edit - I was just trying to link to it but its embedded the whole thing so I will put it in spolier tags so it doesnt make my post so physically long.



Spoiler


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 5, 2018)

elbows said:


> That one certainly didnt escape attention.
> 
> 
> And in my case I brought it up to have a go at those who think the important thing is to accuse cis women in the article of betraying the feminist cause by appearing in something with Paris Lees.
> ...



Appearing on Vogue is a bigger betrayal but I take your point. Stella Creasy became objectionable to me when she voted to bomb Syria. I hate "some women are worthier than other others" attitudes


----------



## 8ball (Jan 5, 2018)

Athos said:


> Is it the sense of being 'team female' that makes you a woman?



I’d think you can be on multiple teams at once.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 5, 2018)

I am team weed

if someone notices the bat in me house then i am team basebaal

and I'd love to be on the cover of Vogue twink edition << double spread with jeffree star and manny guttierez. hot.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 5, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> And they do that by asserting femininity is integral to womanhood, and making it  impossible to obtain without consumerism.
> 
> (s)Lees is rich and can afford to perform it. It's unobtainable for most women (globally)  bogged down with boring stuff like looking after kids, emotionally trying to hold families together, being forced through labour,  and generally being poor, or unable to vote, or *literally* being second class citizens.



Lees is a from a working class background, used to be a sex worker and has done time, I'd say she's been bogged down with a fair amoumt of boring shit in her time.



bimble said:


> She said in an interview that the best thing about being a woman is that you can wear nail polish ALL THE TIME, until it chips off.



I'm not going to spend much time defending Caitlyn fucking Jenner, but surely she was using that to explain that the best part of being a woman for her, having kept that part of her life secret, is now being able to be herself and present as she chooses all the time.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 5, 2018)

smokedout said:


> I'm not going to spend much time defending Caitlyn fucking Jenner, but surely she was using that to explain that the best part of being a woman for her, having kept that part of her life secret, is now being able to be herself and present as she chooses all the time.




oh come on i saw chipped polish on those nails indicating at least 5 days wear on the kardashians years before this bullshit, what a pile of shit she couldnt wear nail varnish


----------



## smokedout (Jan 5, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> oh come on i saw chipped polish on those nails indicating at least 5 days wear on the kardashians years before this bullshit, what a pile of shit she couldnt wear nail varnish



Doesn't really change the point though does it, she was still in the closet as far as her adoring public were concerned.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 5, 2018)

oh, yes, I got the point, i aint that thick


----------



## smokedout (Jan 5, 2018)

Sorry I thought you were.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 5, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Lees is a from a working class background, used to be a sex worker and has done time, I'd say she's been bogged down with a fair amoumt of boring shit in her time.



This kind of thing gets to me. Are you saying she's above criticism or of being pointed out as a player in a whole system of oppression because she has been a victim of said system?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 5, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> This kind of thing gets to me. Are you saying she's above criticism or of being pointed out as a player in a whole system of oppression because she has been a victim of said system?



No, just that to portray her as rich, which I doubt she is in the scheme of things, and suggest she has no experience of the boring side of life is not very fair.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 5, 2018)

But she's performing a capitalist role for a capitalist institution in a capitalist system that oppresses all women (including her - I really don't think Vogue has any more interest in her than a marketing commodity). Her previous life outside of the context Fabric was referring to is neither here nor there, is it?


----------



## elbows (Jan 5, 2018)

smokedout said:


> No, just that to portray her as rich, which I doubt she is in the scheme of things, and suggest she has no experience of the boring side of life is not very fair.



Ah yes the boring side of life. Nice choice of words, made me reach for this musical interlude.


----------



## Cloo (Jan 5, 2018)

One thing I have noticed about the quality of online 'debate' is that people who have made transphobic comments are criticised for what they have said; trans women are criticised for who they are. They are referred to as men, have words like 'violent', 'demanding' and 'stomping about' used about them etc; and/or some alleged instance where a transwoman somewhere has threatened a woman is referred to as though it is a common view among trans women and that real feminists defending women are being silenced because trans women are so violent and scary.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 5, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> But she's performing a capitalist role for a capitalist institution in a capitalist system that oppresses all women (including her - I really don't think Vogue has any more interest in her than a marketing commodity).



Like most of the rest of us are unfortunately.  I see what you mean, and possibly slightly misread Fabric's post, but I don;t think it's fair to present Lees as rich, and in a position she's in because she can afford it unlike other women from the boring side of life. 

And to be honest I find it hard to get upset about a working class woman, who's had a pretty tough life, milking it whilst she fucking can.  There's a whole load of people who I'd take aim at first who really are privileged twats with no life experience or substance to justify exploiting the capitalist system for all that it's worth when they get a chance.


----------



## iona (Jan 5, 2018)

bimble said:


> This just got published:
> Why it’s so unhelpful to talk about the male or female brain | Aeon Essays
> 
> The bits about autism I have no clue what to make of but the rest is good - particularly the idea that storytellers over the centuries, even the victorian novelists, grasped non-binaryness better than we do now.
> ...



The "extreme male brain" theory of autism is generally thought to be nonsense afaik.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 5, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Reading like something from a bad 1970s men's magazine, Paris Lees's own words are here The 22 Sexiest Things About Sex :
> 
> "She doesn't even preface her list with any real acknowledgment that sex can be great fun, or that women's pleasure is important. It comes across like "women don't really enjoy sex, it's all just so dirty and embarrassing". Way to go, Hannah."
> 
> ...



Is now a good time to bring up the lyrics of some of the extreme metal bands you help promote in the music magazine you edit?


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 5, 2018)

Cloo said:


> One thing I have noticed about the quality of online 'debate' is that people who have made transphobic comments are criticised for what they have said; trans women are criticised for who they are. They are referred to as men, have words like 'violent', 'demanding' and 'stomping about' used about them etc; and/or some alleged instance where a transwoman somewhere has threatened a woman is referred to as though it is a common view among trans women and that real feminists defending women are being silenced because trans women are so violent and scary.



I think there are different debates. The debate here isn't the same as a twitter fight and I think it's important to differentiate. 

Personally, I'm not interested in what people post elsewhere, the internet is full of uninhibited hatred on any possible issue.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 5, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Like most of the rest of us are unfortunately.  I see what you mean, and possibly slightly misread Fabric's post, but I don;t think it's fair to present Lees as rich, and in a position she's in because she can afford it unlike other women from the boring side of life.
> 
> And to be honest I find it hard to get upset about a working class woman, who's had a pretty tough life, milking it whilst she fucking can.  There's a whole load of people who I'd take aim at first who really are privileged twats with no life experience or substance to justify exploiting the capitalist system for all that it's worth when they get a chance.



I posted this earlier today



MochaSoul said:


> I need to qualify this because in mixed race families like mine there is a racism insidiousness that does penetrate households. It manifests in things like hair. My hair, that of my siblings and my cousins is graded according to nappiness by my mum, my aunts and other generally older generations. Straighter hair good, nappier hair bad. It seems like small thing but it does signal uneasiness with natural African aesthetics. I see that kind of thing as related to racism. Bad manners, clumsiness and intellectual slowness were associated with tribes people who refused adopt standards of whiteness the Portuguese had brought to Angola. All of those seemingly insignificant things were part of my mum and dad's socialisation which was steeped in apartheid (in case people thought it was only a South African thing).



I can get upset about the racism embedded in my formative years (described below) without getting upset about my elders in particular. That absolutely does not mean that I don't recognise what is involved in their actions/attitudes.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 5, 2018)

Apols Cloo for being so dismissive. I find it maddening that this is how things are.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 5, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> I posted this earlier today
> 
> 
> 
> I can get upset about the racism embedded in my formative years (described below) without getting upset about my elders in particular. That absolutely does not mean that I don't recognise what is involved in their actions/attitudes.



I know, it just feels a bit sneery to me, like when people go on about footballers.  And from a political point of view, if her aim is to promote acceptence of transwoman then there are strategic arguments for accepting being named as one of Vogue's 100 top women.  Single issue politics always comes up against stuff like this.

I'd much rather see her attacked for this though, along with the 99 other women, then see her attacked simply for being trans and the other women attacked for appearing alongside her.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 6, 2018)

'The boring side of life'. Yes, all that endless childcare, housework, emotional labour, looking after elderly relatives, cooking and so on does just make us so dull in comparison to beautiful sexy exotic Paris, doesn't it.


----------



## elbows (Jan 6, 2018)

weepiper said:


> 'The boring side of life'. Yes, all that endless childcare, housework, emotional labour, looking after elderly relatives, cooking and so on does just make us so dull in comparison to beautiful sexy exotic Paris, doesn't it.



The song I attached was supposed to go along with my choice of words and hopefully show an intent and meaning that was much clearer than my words alone. Plus I was making use of the use of the term boring as it was used by two other posters in recent posts before mine.

No idea if Im making sense right now due to a migraine just over 2 hours ago.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 6, 2018)

weepiper said:


> 'The boring side of life'. Yes, all that endless childcare, housework, emotional labour, looking after elderly relatives, cooking and so on does just make us so dull in comparison to beautiful sexy exotic Paris, doesn't it.



Boring wasn't my word, and I didn’t make the distinction. 'Exotic' though, are you really comfortable using that word to sexualise her?


----------



## elbows (Jan 6, 2018)

It wouldnt shock me if I used the word in a way totally at odds with my intent, in a way that people might understandably take issue with, since the thought process that went into my post wasnt exactly sophisticated. As soon as I saw boring being used in that context, I just thought of the way it was used in that song, and didnt actually have any useful words of my own to explain what the hell I was doing. I still dont, I'm not that good at trying to explain lyrics at the best of times and right now for my brain this is certainly not the best of times. And maybe my interpretation of the song isnt the same as other peoples, adding further complication. Why am I even staring at a screen right now? The one drawback of ibuprofen preventing the hideous vomit and sleep phase of my migraines is that just a few hours after the migraine aura visual I am tempted to engage in certain activities again despite reduced mental faculties. Please note that this migraine talk is not an attempt to excuse any earlier errors, since that stuff was before the migraine, but rather part of my rambling failure to operate the controls successfully as I attempt to understand and respond to a recent post that made me think I may have made a mistake. Anyway this rambling just gives me another thing to apologise for, I should have waited till tomorrow.


----------



## smmudge (Jan 6, 2018)

kabbes said:


> My original comment about equivalence was based around the use of the word "are" in the motto "transwomen are women".  To say something "is" something else is normally interpreted as an equivalence (i.e. each element of one set maps precisely to one member of the other set -- also known as a bijection).



If by interpreted here you mean day to day, common parlance etc., rather than your fancy schmancy mathematical interpretation, I do not agree at all that "is" is interpreted as equivalence. In fact I think this is rarely the case.
A tree is a plant.
A house is a dwelling.
Cats are mammals.
To say I am a woman, I certainly do not think everything that makes me a woman, I share with every other woman. I think day to day we very rarely use or interpret "is" as an exact equivalence.



FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I still have no idea what qualities this "inner sense of man or woman" is supposed to have.
> 
> None at all. I have zero fucking idea. And no one can explain it. It's SO FRUSTRATING. If one is going to say that some has a particular quality, then one should fucking be able to state what that quality fucking is.
> 
> It's all smoke and mirrors, afaics because until someone can quantify it we might as well be talking about nothing.



To me that is the whole point though. There is no innate essence of being a man or woman. So when someone argues that someone else is not a man or not a woman, when they identify and live as a man or woman, well what gives them that right?


----------



## andysays (Jan 6, 2018)

smmudge said:


> If by interpreted here you mean day to day, common parlance etc., rather than your fancy schmancy mathematical interpretation, I do not agree at all that "is" is interpreted as equivalence. In fact I think this is rarely the case.
> A tree is a plant.
> A house is a dwelling.
> Cats are mammals.
> ...



There's no innate essence of being a tree, a house or a cat, to use your examples. When someone argues that they are a tree, a house or a cat because, they say, they identify and live as such, we contradict them on tbe basis that, according to socially (not individually) constructed language, a human cannot be any of those things, however much they feel they are.

We may, indeed we should, feel some sympathy for anyone who genuinely thinks they're a tree, a house or a cat, but we're not obliged to agree with them and we aren't oppressing them if we openly disagree.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 6, 2018)

On the other hand, if someone were to stand outside for several years, growing moss and not speaking, arms held out trying to photosynthesize, I might be inclined to treat them as a tree out of sympathy, or just to acknowledge the effort they've gone to. Should doctors be obliged to give them chlorophyll pills? What would happen to someone who randomly chopped their legs off? Does calling them _you plank _become hate speech?

I'm being flippant. We all know trees have no legal recourse.


----------



## andysays (Jan 6, 2018)

Sure, I'd want to treat them sympathetically, which might include treating them as a tree in certain situations, but that's quite different to agreeing that they ARE a tree.

And that is effectively what some of those pushing this 'identity trumps all' transideology demand we do


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 6, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> If your best friend turned to you and said he was a tiger, would you believe him?
> 
> .



You object to others claiming you are abusive and demand examples then type this as though it is in anyway a fair way to summarise what is being argued?

On this thread you are dismissive, arrogant, ignorant, aggressive and pretentious.

You have personalised the whole argument and behaved like a political hack from your first involvement in my opinion. 

To constantly refer to trans women as he and men is needlessly confrontational and some have said they find it abusive and or dismissive yet you continue to do so because of your experiences.

I know black people who think it's ok to call mixed race people coolies, coloured and deny that they suffer racism...I have known others to use the term paki to describe me...they use the same "I can say this cos of who I am" logic you use and dress it up in puesdo political/intellectual term as you do but like you they are also arrogant and ignorant.

You have beliefs ... they ain't facts. The point of this thread is to debate and to allow as many as possible to access the debate and to stop shouting down others.

I made a similar point to someone on the thread a few weeks ago who was or seemed to be labellng feminists who disagreed with him a TERF. You are the flip side of the coin... and just as fucking irritating.

You called/accused someone on here of being "a childless women derailing a thread"...the person I have seen derailing the thread the most (by a country mile) is you.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 6, 2018)

elbows said:


> It wouldnt shock me if I used the word in a way totally at odds with my intent, in a way that people might understandably take issue with, since the thought process that went into my post wasnt exactly sophisticated. As soon as I saw boring being used in that context, I just thought of the way it was used in that song, and didnt actually have any useful words of my own to explain what the hell I was doing. I still dont, I'm not that good at trying to explain lyrics at the best of times and right now for my brain this is certainly not the best of times. And maybe my interpretation of the song isnt the same as other peoples, adding further complication. Why am I even staring at a screen right now? The one drawback of ibuprofen preventing the hideous vomit and sleep phase of my migraines is that just a few hours after the migraine aura visual I am tempted to engage in certain activities again despite reduced mental faculties. Please note that this migraine talk is not an attempt to excuse any earlier errors, since that stuff was before the migraine, but rather part of my rambling failure to operate the controls successfully as I attempt to understand and respond to a recent post that made me think I may have made a mistake. Anyway this rambling just gives me another thing to apologise for, I should have waited till tomorrow.



I didn't listen to the song. But you know, we should be able to say something from time to time that someone on here doesn't approve of, it can be discussed can't it?

I get migraines so I sympathise, they can really scramble your brain. I hope you're feeling better.


----------



## Athos (Jan 6, 2018)

8ball said:


> I’d think you can be on multiple teams at once.



Of course. But that wasn't my question to spanglechick. I was asking whether or not, in her experience, it's the feeling of being in 'team female' that makes her a woman. (As opposed to e.g. her being a woman that makes her feel part of 'team female'.)


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 6, 2018)

andysays said:


> Sure, I'd want to treat them sympathetically, which might include treating them as a tree in certain situations, but that's quite different to agreeing that they ARE a tree.
> 
> And that is effectively what some of those pushing this 'identity trumps all' transideology demand we do



This, the question of question of reality, is obviously an issue in CAMHS clinics. It was raised at a seminar a couple of years ago, if it is hoped that psychoanalytic ways of working help someone manage reality better without defences of various kinds getting in the way, is addressing a male as a girl going against that, how we would normally work?


----------



## Athos (Jan 6, 2018)

comrade spurski said:


> To constantly refer to trans women as he and men is needlessly confrontational and some have said they find it abusive and or dismissive yet you continue to do so because of your experiences.



In fairness, their whole point is that trans women are men. There's not really a polite way to package that message.  If MY is to be allowed to hold and express an opinion here, then trying to police their language is a fool's errand. Especially if you believe:



comrade spurski said:


> The point of this thread is to debate and to allow as many as possible to access the debate and to stop shouting down others.



In my opinion, it'd be better to engage with the substance of their arguments e.g. to point out what is wrong with tiger analogy to which you took exception.


----------



## andysays (Jan 6, 2018)

Red Cat said:


> This, the question of question of reality, is obviously an issue in CAMHS clinics. It was raised at a seminar a couple of years ago, if it is hoped that psychoanalytic ways of working help someone manage reality better without defences of various kinds getting in the way, is addressing a male as a girl going against that, how we would normally work?


Can you clarify what those initials stand for please


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 6, 2018)

andysays said:


> Can you clarify what those initials stand for please



Apologies for assuming. Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services.


----------



## Yossarian (Jan 6, 2018)

I have been treating this thread more as an opportunity to read and learn than to contribute and debate, but I'm going to suggest that talking about people who think they're trees marks the moment when it should be killed with fire, or at least split into several different threads. Ffs.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 6, 2018)

It's a question about reality, a tree is an example. Maybe not a very good one. 

There seems to be a lot of ideas about what this thread shouldn't be i.e it shouldn't be what it actually is. What should it be?


----------



## bimble (Jan 6, 2018)

Red Cat Is there a consensus arrived at on this question (the one raised at that seminar you mentioned)? I mean when a child / young person is referred to someone to talk about gender-related issues is there a guideline telling people to address them as they want to be addressed?


----------



## andysays (Jan 6, 2018)

Red Cat said:


> Apologies for assuming. Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services.


Apologies accepted.

In that context, I agree it would be absolutely appropriate to address the person in whatever way they preferred, providing that didn't obstruct the treatment.

But while I recognise that you have a particular interest in MH services etc, the debate here, as framed largely by transideology, seems to have gone way beyond issues of therapeutic approaches to gender disphoria and to insist that we all accept functioning males as not only trans women but also as female, simply on their say-so.

This, to me, is more significant and worth discussing than people's individual psychotherapeutic needs.


----------



## andysays (Jan 6, 2018)

Yossarian said:


> I have been treating this thread more as an opportunity to read and learn than to contribute and debate, but I'm going to suggest that talking about people who think they're trees marks the moment when it should be killed with fire, or at least split into several different threads. Ffs.


Suggestion noted.

I'm going to suggest in turn that you reread and think about how that line of discussion came about, and if you still feel the same way, maybe consider if this thread, or even the whole thing of people discussing things, is really for you.

FFS indeed...


----------



## Athos (Jan 6, 2018)

andysays said:


> Apologies accepted.
> 
> In that context, I agree it would be absolutely appropriate to address the person in whatever way they preferred, providing that didn't obstruct the treatment.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure how easy out is to disentangle the two. I'm sure that many people use trans people's preferred pronouns not because they believe that trans people are the gender they say they are, but because of the effect of trans people's mental health of not doing so.  To validate their self-image (even if if it's not shared) is therapeutic. To me, such an argument based on compassion is more compelling than the philosophical arguments for why trans women are women.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 6, 2018)

andysays said:


> Apologies accepted.
> 
> In that context, I agree it would be absolutely appropriate to address the person in whatever way they preferred, providing that didn't obstruct the treatment.
> 
> ...



I agree also it would be absolutely appropriate to address the person in whatever way they preferred, and to not do so would be a violation. 

I haven't discussed anyone's individual psychotherapeutic needs, I don't understand why you think I have done so.


----------



## Yossarian (Jan 6, 2018)

andysays said:


> Suggestion noted.
> 
> I'm going to suggest in turn that you reread and think about how that line of discussion came about, and if you still feel the same way, maybe consider if this thread, or even the whole thing of people discussing things, is really for you.
> 
> FFS indeed...



The whole thing of discussing things with you isn't for me, that's for sure, I'll leave you to your sophistry.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 6, 2018)

Athos said:


> I'm not sure how easy out is to disentangle the two. I'm sure that many people use trans people's preferred pronouns not because they believe that trans people are the gender they say they are, but because of the effect of trans people's mental health of not doing so.  To validate their self-image (even if if it's not shared) is therapeutic. To me, such an argument based on compassion is more compelling than the philosophical arguments for why trans women are women.



To validate someone's self-image is not therapeutic when they think they're a monster, or fat when they're thin.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 6, 2018)

this thread is a basic fucking embarrassment.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 6, 2018)

bimble said:


> Red Cat Is there a consensus arrived at on this question (the one raised at that seminar you mentioned)? I mean when a child / young person is referred to someone to talk about gender-related issues is there a guideline telling people to address them as they want to be addressed?



NHS policy is that you address people as they want to be addressed.

The issue in the seminar was the person had a worry that they were colluding with something harmful. There wasn't a consensus, it was talked about as something that is becoming more prevalent and that needs to be thought about.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 6, 2018)

Red Cat said:


> To validate someone's self-image is not therapeutic when they think they're a monster, or fat when they're thin.



Indeed, and therapy has as a goal, in large part, the ability to adapt oneself to the environment, rather than relying on attempts to make the environment adapt to oneself


----------



## smokedout (Jan 6, 2018)

andysays said:


> Suggestion noted.
> 
> I'm going to suggest in turn that you reread and think about how that line of discussion came about, and if you still feel the same way, maybe consider if this thread, or even the whole thing of people discussing things, is really for you.
> 
> FFS indeed...



The transgender taxonomy depends on thousands, if not millions of personal testimonies and similar phenomena occurring throughout almost all human cultures.  It is also based on a condition in most cases called gender dysphoria, a persistent feeling that your body, or social role is wrong that can emerge in infanthood and often never goes away unless it is addressed with some form of transition to another way of expressing being a human - not a cat or tree.  This condition has a clear diagnostic framework, a treatment path and if left untreated can destroy lives.  So not like wanting to be a tree at all, and it's a pretty fucking offensive and dismissive comparison.


----------



## bimble (Jan 6, 2018)

smokedout said:


> This condition has a clear diagnostic framework..


So, its an illness? I thought you wanted to get rid of the whole medical approach.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 6, 2018)

Red Cat said:


> To validate someone's self-image is not therapeutic when they think they're a monster, or fat when they're thin.



There were decades of trying to treat transgendrism with talking cures, drugs and therapy, just like there was homosexuality.  It didn't work, what happens now mostly works, or certainly works better.  This isn't something that just happened with no medical or empirical basis.

You can't cure a transsexual, any more than you can cure someone who is gay, and a lot of people were brutally damaged by attempts to do just that.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 6, 2018)

bimble said:


> So, its an illness? I thought you wanted to get rid of the whole medical approach.



It's a condition that's alleviated by allowing people to live as they feel most comfortable.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 6, 2018)

bassiiiiiic.


----------



## andysays (Jan 6, 2018)

smokedout said:


> The transgender taxonomy depends on thousands, if not millions of personal testimonies and similar phenomena occurring throughout almost all human cultures.  It is also based on a condition in most cases called gender dysphoria, a persistent feeling that your body, or social role is wrong that can emerge in infanthood and often never goes away unless it is addressed with some form of transition to another way of expressing being a human - not a cat or tree.  This condition has a clear diagnostic framework, a treatment path and if left untreated can destroy lives.  So not like wanting to be a tree at all, and it's a pretty fucking offensive and dismissive comparison.


Maybe you should take that up with the poster who brought up the  question of trees, houses and cats, and whether they have an innate essence, which wasn't me


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 6, 2018)

smokedout said:


> There were decades of trying to treat transgendrism with talking cures, drugs and therapy, just like there was homosexuality.  It didn't work, what happens now mostly works, or certainly works better.  This isn't something that just happened with no medical or empirical basis.
> 
> You can't cure a transsexual, any more than you can cure someone who is gay, and a lot of people were brutally damaged by attempts to do just that.



Don't put words into my mouth. I didn't say it was a symptom to be treated in the way you describe. 

What does the Tavistock do?


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 6, 2018)

Athos said:


> In fairness, their whole point is that trans women are men. There's not really a polite way to package that message.  If MY is to be allowed to hold and express an opinion here, then trying to police their language is a fool's errand. Especially if you believe:
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion, it'd be better to engage with the substance of their arguments e.g. to point out what is wrong with tiger analogy to which you took exception.



I ain' policing anyone' language...it was MY who complained about Pickfords language.

For you to diminish my post to language policing is either disingenuous, a blatant lie or a complete misunderstanding of my post.

The is a complete lack of honest debate by a select few on this thread which is aimed to intimidate, hector, confuse others and a level of political and intellectual vanity that is frankly pathetic. MY accuses others of rudeness and abusive behaviour yet behaves in a way I see intellectually bankrupt politicos and wanky managers behaving...the passive aggressive mocking and patronising deliberate misrepresenting others views and the constant "you have misunderstood" and "what exactly do you mean by ?" comments are aimed at cheap point scoring.


Using an analogy about the tiger was clearly meant to mock. If some one said they were a tiger it would not be worth taking seriously so equating that to this subject is plainly fucking stupid.

It is possible to express a personally held view that you disagree that transwomen are not the same as non trans women without insisting on calling a trans person a man when they have said they do not wish to be addressed that way.

I do not understand this issue, I am confused about language, the law and rights but I do understand the need for an honest discussion, the need to stop hatred and bigotry, the need to move forward but mostly I understand that MY is offering very little if anything to help in any of these areas in my opinion.


----------



## Athos (Jan 6, 2018)

smokedout said:


> It's a condition that's alleviated by allowing people to live as they feel most comfortable.



I guess the rub come when allowing others to live according to their own beliefs crosses into compelling others to profess those beliefs.  In most cases, it's a matter a courtesy with no real consequence to those from whom it's expected. But it becomes more difficult in the marginal cases e.g. women only rape shelters.

Also, you seem to want to eat your cake and have it, switching between it being a condition that retirees a therapeutic response on the one hand, and a desire to demedicalise it on another.


----------



## Athos (Jan 6, 2018)

comrade spurski said:


> It is possible to express a personally held view that you disagree that transwomen are not the same as non trans women without insisting on calling a trans person a man when they have said they do not wish to be addressed that way.



Their view isn't just that there is a difference between cis and trans women (if it was, that could hardly be controversial). It's that trans women are men.  To ask them to make that point without saying trans women are men (and to decline to engage with the substance of their argument in the meantime) is effectively to ask them not to make the point. It's a slightly longer route to '#nodebate'.  Which I don't think is very useful to anyone.



comrade spurski said:


> I do not understand this issue, I am confused about language, the law and rights but I do understand the need for an honest discussion, the need to stop hatred and bigotry, the need to move forward but mostly I understand that MY is offering very little if anything to help in any of these areas in my opinion.



I think their answers offer the opportunity for rebuttal, to anyone who wants to engage with the content rather than the way they're expressed.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 6, 2018)

smokedout said:


> There were decades of trying to treat transgendrism with talking cures, drugs and therapy, just like there was homosexuality.  It didn't work, what happens now mostly works, or certainly works better.  This isn't something that just happened with no medical or empirical basis.
> 
> You can't cure a transsexual, any more than you can cure someone who is gay, and a lot of people were brutally damaged by attempts to do just that.



I just re-read my post. I was quite specifically taking issue with the idea that telling people what they want to hear is therapeutic. This seems to be a common idea atm.

I honestly don't know what is most helpful for young people with gender dysphoria. The aim of psychoanalytic psychotherapy in the UK (as practised at the Tavi) is to help a young person feel happier in their own skin, regardless of presenting symptoms, so they feel less need to defend themselves in ways that get in the way of their relationships. It's not a symptom focused treatment. But it's not 'supportive' psychotherapy either. Do you know if the Tavi GIDS does more supportive psychotherapy, have they modified their approach?

btw I don't have an agenda. You reply to my posts as though you think I have an agenda.


----------



## Athos (Jan 6, 2018)

Red Cat said:


> To validate someone's self-image is not therapeutic when they think they're a monster, or fat when they're thin.



Yes, but the consensus of medical opinion regarding trans seems to be that there is therapeutic value in effective social transition for trans people.  Social transition requires society to play it's part. To me, the discussion society should be having is not whether, philosophically speaking, trans women are women, but whether the therapeutic benefits of everyone saying they are outweigh the costs of such an approach (e.g. the question of the extent that should be mandated versus free speech, and the potential for harm to women's interests).


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 6, 2018)

Athos said:


> Yes, but the consensus of medical opinion regarding trans seems to be that there is therapeutic value in effective social transition for trans people.  Social transition requires society to play it's part. To me, the discussion society should be having is not whether, philosophically speaking, trans women are women, but whether the therapeutic benefits of everyone saying they are outweigh the costs of such an approach (e.g. the question of the extent that should be mandated versus free speech, and the potential for harm to women's interests).



I'm not sure if it is there is a consenus. I'm not trying to be provocative or undermining of people's needs, but I don't know if this is true.


----------



## Athos (Jan 6, 2018)

Red Cat said:


> I'm not sure if it is there is a consenus. I'm not trying to be provocative or undermining of people's needs, but I don't know if this is true.



I had understood that to be the case for the majority of long-term adult cases at least (accepting there's more controversy regarding children).  But, in fairness, I can't point to any particular sources for that beyond the fact that it's transition is offered I  the NHS, and I'd be surprised if that would happen without some evidence of benefit.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 6, 2018)

Athos said:


> Their view isn't just that there is a difference between cis and trans women (if it was, that could hardly be controversial). It's that trans women are men.  To ask them to make that point without saying trans women are men (and to decline to engage with the substance of their argument in the meantime) is effectively to ask them not to make the point. It's a slightly longer route to '#nodebate'.  Which I don't think is very useful to anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> I think their answers offer the opportunity for rebuttal, to anyone who wants to engage with the content rather than the way they're expressed.



So MY gets to say whatever they want but I am policing language by criticising their arrogance?
Would anyone put this argument to someone using the work paki to me?
Very similar arguments were made when racist language was challenged back in the 1970s and 80s when I was growing up.
There were very similar language arguments when people like me refused to be call half caste and demanded to be called mixed race...people used "can't tell people how to think" and "can't police" type arguments then too.
My response then and in this debate is that I ain't policing language..I am challenging an idea.
And to be honest I find it bizarre that you do not accuse MY of policing others ideas and language yet chose to falsly do so with me.
If you have challenged them then accept my apologies.

I will leave you to have a response but will not continue as I think we will not agree with each other,  and I do not want to derail the thread.
Enjoy your weekend


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 6, 2018)

Athos said:


> I had understood that to be the case for the majority of long-term adult cases at least (accepting there's more controversy regarding children).  But, in fairness, I can't point to any particular sources for that beyond the fact that it's transition is offered I  the NHS, and I'd be surprised if that would happen without some evidence of benefit.



I'm sure it has some benefit for some people, but it's very hard in mental health to say any one thing has benefit for everyone.

I'm not familiar with specialist adult services.


----------



## Jonti (Jan 6, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Yes, it's known as 'cultural appropriation'. It also misses the point in that many 'third gender' categories in indigenous cultures are exist as a way to accommodate homosexual males into society. What we know as 'transgender' is predominantly the domain of heterosexual males.


I don't think this is true at all.  It's just you confidently spraying "alternative facts".  There are transgender people all over the earth, and it's possible that there have been since Homo sapiens first appeared some 300,000 years ago.

And it's not cultural appropriation, quite the reverse in fact, to look to other societies to see the options open to transgender individuals in differing cultures.


----------



## Athos (Jan 6, 2018)

comrade spurski said:


> So MY gets to say whatever they want but I am policing language by criticising their arrogance?
> Would anyone put this argument to someone using the work paki to me?
> Very similar arguments were made when racist language was challenged back in the 1970s and 80s when I was growing up.
> There were very similar language arguments when people like me refused to be call half caste and demanded to be called mixed race...people used "can't tell people how to think" and "can't police" type arguments then too.
> ...



I've said a number of times I disagree with MY. Specifically, I don't like her misgendering any more than you do.  I just think there's little value in asking her not to, compared to challenging what she says. 

I don't think the two situations are analogous. The word 'paki' is intrinsically offensive in a way that 'he' isn't.  There's no philosophical point behind the use of the word 'paki on the way that there is behind deciding to whom the label woman should apply. 

Have a good weekend yourself.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2018)

Red Cat said:


> I haven't replied because I don't really have anything to say in response but didn't want to give the impression I was ignoring you. I don't find the idea controversial as such, I just don't know what it means outside of the ways we currently have of looking at these things i.e biological sex, development of selves in gendered societies.


I'll do my best not to turn this into an essay! I'm repeating some stuff I've said before, but I'll try to tie it together.  

Firstly, regarding the way that we may be primed from birth to search for something like gender, I think this is very likely to be true if and only if gender is something that can be shown to be universal to human societies across time and place. If it can't be shown to be universal, this priming is very unlikely to be true. If it can, I would say that it's very unlikely not to be true, because there would be a clear selection advantage for it to be there, and such priming is present where there is a selection advantage in other areas. Evolution can and does find this kind of thing. To be explicit, that would not be a priming of girls to search for 'girl' and boys to search for 'boy'. That's not the kind of solution evolution finds - just as a baby gosling doesn't know the thing it's imprinting on is its mother, a baby human doesn't know its biological sex. It would simply be a priming to search out that kind of category as something that you belong to. It would help to make sense of the mass of information being thrown at you.  

I do think the answer to this question matters, because it touches on the question 'what is gender for?' We have rarely mentioned sexual attraction on these trans threads, but most people employ or respond to various aspects of gender performance in their mating rituals. Often we're contradictory, in that one part of us may dislike the performance while another enjoys the effect that it produces. The idea that we should 'abolish gender', where gender is a universal of human society, ignores its role in socialising males and females in the way they relate to and treat each other, not all of which is necessarily bad. To make a comparison to other animals, there is evidence from the traumatised populations of elephants left behind after human culls that young adult male elephants, upon leaving their family group, need the presence of older males to teach them both how to relate to other males without conflict and how to treat females and their families with respect (see the work of GA Bradshaw). This looks very much like gender performance to me. 

Having this culturally learned role gives human societies a huge amount of flexibility, and even if we are primed to search for such a thing, that doesn't say anything about what its content might be, so I'm absolutely not defending the idea that we should be forcing limiting stereotypes on anybody. There is a hell of a lot wrong with the gender norms we currently have, which reflect the past oppression of women, among many other things. But we seem to be getting stuck here, comparing the desire for the 'wrong' gender to wanting to be a tree, etc. 

I would suggest that in many people's minds (in mine, definitely), biological sex and gender are so entwined with one another that we do sometimes confuse or conflate the two. In language, we just have 'woman' and 'man' to represent both, assuming that they will never be in conflict. But the culturally learned aspect of that identity, gender, clearly doesn't always correspond with the biologically determined aspect of it, sex, in a neat way. And there is clearly a very wide range of experience here - from those for whom gender is unimportant to the extent that they would like to see it erased to those for whom gender trumps sex and is the most important part in explaining to themselves and to others who they are and how they feel. 

I have a lot of sympathy with those who would like to see gender abolished, but I think it's not only unrealistic but also not necessarily desirable: we need ways for males to be taught how to treat females, for instance, just as much as elephants do; and gender's role in sexual attraction can't just be wished away. Acknowledging that gender is universal to human societies (if it is) does not mean you should not try to change how it is expressed. There is a pressing need to change how it is expressed. But alongside that, surely there is also a need to acknowledge the wide variety of experience here, which includes the people (both trans and cis) for whom gender expression is an important part of the way they relate to the world. Those who would wish to abolish gender are not *right* where others are *wrong*, but some gender-critical people act and write as if they were, with mean and hurtful consequences.


----------



## Athos (Jan 6, 2018)

Red Cat said:


> I'm sure it has some benefit for some people, but it's very hard in mental health to say any one thing has benefit for everyone.
> 
> I'm not familiar with specialist adult services.



Yes, and assessing that benefit is part of the weighing up of the pros and cons that's necessary.


----------



## Jonti (Jan 6, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> You realise female pronouns are a fairly recent invention?


No, I don't realise that at all. I think this is another of your alternative facts.

You'll have a link, of course?


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 6, 2018)

Athos said:


> To me, such an argument based on compassion is more compelling than the philosophical arguments for why trans women are women.



Edited cos it was a fuck up

Arguments that leave the realm of mere philosophy and enter the lived experiences of everyone  including those of millions of womb carrying individuals on change of law.


----------



## Athos (Jan 6, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In language, we just have 'woman' and 'man' to represent both, assuming that they will never be in conflict.



Traditionally, this as resolved by using man/woman for gender and male/female for sex. But there's an ideological drive to destroy that distinction, embodied in the increased use of the 'trans women are female' mantra.


----------



## Athos (Jan 6, 2018)

Jonti said:


> I don't think this is true at all.  It's just you confidently spraying "alternative facts".  There are transgender people all over the earth, and it's possible that there have been since Homo sapiens first appeared some 300,000 years ago.
> 
> And it's not cultural appropriation, quite the reverse in fact, to look to other societies to see the options open to transgender individuals in differing cultures.



I think the point was that many other cultures have a third gender which isn't the same as our conception of transgenderism. For instance Indian males who don't feel like men are Hijra, not women.


----------



## Jonti (Jan 6, 2018)

Athos said:


> I think the point was that many other cultures have a third gender which isn't the same as our conception of transgenderism. For instance Indian males who don't feel like men are Hijra, not women.


Yes, and it's interesting that Indian law recognises Hirja as a third gender.  On the face of it, that seems a better solution than shoe-horning transgender people into the woman/man categories.

eta: It seems that for Hirja transgender people it's usual to take a feminine name, and use the feminine pronouns. Sister mother and daughter are used to describe their relationships.


----------



## Athos (Jan 6, 2018)

Jonti said:


> Yes, and it's interesting that Indian law recognises Hirja as a third gender.  On the face of it, that seems a better solution than shoe-horning transgender people into the woman/man categories.
> 
> eta: It seems that for Hirja transgender people it's usual to take a feminine name, and use the feminine pronouns. Sister mother and daughter are used to describe their relationships.



Better for whom?! You won't find many trans people in this country embracing the idea they're third gender!


----------



## Jonti (Jan 6, 2018)

All depends what gender means really. My dictionary is remarkably unhelpful.


----------



## Athos (Jan 6, 2018)

Jonti said:


> All depends what gender means really. My dictionary is remarkably unhelpful.



Yes, and 'gender identity'. There needs to be some common understanding on these points, particularly if they will underpin legislation. 

Sadly, even the most vocal proponents of the idea of a 'gender identity' that exists independently of sex or how someone is seen by society (based on sex) cannot offer a cogent and non-circular definition. 

Instead,  people are being asked, or,  worse, expected, to accept magical thinking uncritically.

I'm willing to do that (as a matter of courtesy and compassion) to a point, because my life doesn't entail instances where those issues are really critical in the way they are for many women.


----------



## andysays (Jan 6, 2018)

Red Cat said:


> I agree also it would be absolutely appropriate to address the person in whatever way they preferred, and to not do so would be a violation.
> 
> I haven't discussed anyone's individual psychotherapeutic needs, I don't understand why you think I have done so.


Now it's my turn to apologise. I didn't intend to suggest you were discussing anyone's individual  therapeutic needs.

I was trying to say that while I appreciate that you and others may want to discuss psychotherapeutic issues as they may relate to transgender people, I personally don't wish to get involved in that aspect.


----------



## andysays (Jan 6, 2018)

bimble said:


> So, its an illness? I thought you wanted to get rid of the whole medical approach.


It's an illness when they want it to be, but when they don't, it's offensive to even suggest that it is.

The reality seems to be that some self-indentifying trans eople are experiencing gender dysphoria and some are not.

That's one of the problems of basing the whole discussion on people's subjective feelings and the demand that no one uses any terms with any rigour, in case someone might find that offensive.

Dysphoria, obviously. Fucking autocorrect


----------



## elbows (Jan 6, 2018)

I could use some gender euphoria!


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 6, 2018)

so now theres man, woman and the raggy doll bin, fuck off with yer other box.


----------



## smmudge (Jan 6, 2018)

andysays said:


> Maybe you should take that up with the poster who brought up the  question of trees, houses and cats, and whether they have an innate essence, which wasn't me



The only clue that you mean my post is that you mention cats, trees and houses which mine did. The rest of what you say bears absolutely no resemblance to my point, so perhaps you should go back and re-read my post and the posts I was responding to, before you try and comment on it any further.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 6, 2018)

Jonti said:


> Yes, and it's interesting that Indian law recognises Hirja as a third gender.  On the face of it, that seems a better solution than shoe-horning transgender people into the woman/man categories.



And how has that worked out for Hijra people? 

Violence & Discrimination against Hijra Community in S. Asia | Scoop News


----------



## andysays (Jan 6, 2018)

elbows said:


> I could use some gender euphoria!


If you get some, please let us know, also clarify what exactly it means


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 6, 2018)

I dunno when everyone stopped googling shit for themselves and became reliant on others 'clarifying' what shit means for them.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 6, 2018)

andysays said:


> Sure, I'd want to treat them sympathetically, which might include treating them as a tree in certain situations, but that's quite different to agreeing that they ARE a tree.
> 
> And that is effectively what some of those pushing this 'identity trumps all' transideology demand we do



At what point does the insistence on treating people according to ''what I see'' turn into agreeing to treat people according to ''what they request''? Like if ones friend John or Jane, apropos of not a lot, decides one day they'd rather be called _Alex_, would one call them _Alex_, or the name one had always used? What would be the rationale, one way of the other?

I'm curious as to what levels we work at, with respect to doing _what someone else wants_ rather than _what I myself deem to be correct_. For myself, working with people with mental health needs and learning disabilities, my default is to treat people how they wish, rather than how I wish. But I understand not everyone does the same, and that some people's limits in this regard may be different from my own.


----------



## NoXion (Jan 6, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> I dunno when everyone stopped googling shit for themselves and became reliant on others 'clarifying' what shit means for them.



Maybe because the people asking that want to know what the other person thinks of the subject, and not whatever results Google's algorithms think people want to see? This is a pretty shit thread but you are not fucking helping.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 6, 2018)

NoXion said:


> Maybe because the people asking that want to know what the other person thinks of the subject, and not whatever results Google's algorithms think people want to see? This is a pretty shit thread but you are not fucking helping.




oh sorry, I didnt realise that 99% of this thread was helpful, my mistake.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 6, 2018)

Athos said:


> Yes, and assessing that benefit is part of the weighing up of the pros and cons that's necessary.



You make it sound so easy.


----------



## NoXion (Jan 6, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> oh sorry, I didnt realise that 99% of this thread was helpful, my mistake.



Try typing out the word "basic" some more, or perhaps you could add some more posts telling this thread just how uninterested you are.


----------



## campanula (Jan 6, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> At what point does the insistence on treating people according to ''what I see'' turn into agreeing to treat people according to ''what they request''? Like if ones friend John or Jane, apropos of not a lot, decides one day they'd rather be called _Alex_, would one call them _Alex_, or the name one had always used? What would be the rationale, one way of the other?
> 
> I'm curious as to what levels we work at, with respect to doing _what someone else wants_ rather than _what I myself deem to be correct_. For myself, working with people with mental health needs and learning disabilities, my default is to treat people how they wish, rather than how I wish. But I understand not everyone does the same, and that some people's limits in this regard may be different from my own.



Depends. When a acquaintance joined the Bhagwan crew, he changed his name to Kabba. Personally, I just couldn't bring myself to not refer to him as Steve...unless it was to annoy him more by calling him 'Taxi'...but you know - the Orange loons?
My eldest was pretty insistent he wanted to be called 'James' (Bond!) and then 'Martin' (for some obscure, unarticulated reason) Naturally, I ignored this completely. However, I was OK to comply with his friend's request to be called 'Sam' instead of Kerry Crisp.

There aren't really points... or lines in the sand...just vague sets of circumstances with a million variables.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 6, 2018)

andysays said:


> Now it's my turn to apologise. I didn't intend to suggest you were discussing anyone's individual  therapeutic needs.
> 
> I was trying to say that while I appreciate that you and others may want to discuss psychotherapeutic issues as they may relate to transgender people, I personally don't wish to get involved in that aspect.



I don't really apart from in the broadest sense, I was using it more as an example of the kind of conflict between ideas that may occur in mental health settings. Given the large rise in referrals to CAMHS due to gender identity issues, it seems important to me to think about these aspects.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 6, 2018)

NoXion said:


> Try typing out the word "basic" some more, or perhaps you could add some more posts telling this thread just how uninterested you are.




might just do that, cheers for the advice


----------



## bimble (Jan 6, 2018)

campanula said:


> Depends. When a acquaintance joined the Bhagwan crew, he changed his name to Kabba. Personally, I just couldn't bring myself to not refer to him as Steve...unless it was to annoy him more by calling him 'Taxi'...but you know - the Orange loons?


I had a friend who was born into that cult . She then changed her name from the 3 syllables of sanskrit stuff to .. Amy. I think call people whatever they want to be called is a good rule.


----------



## campanula (Jan 6, 2018)

bimble said:


> I had a friend who was born into that cult . She then changed her name from the 3 syllables of sanskrit stuff to .. Amy. I think call people whatever they want to be called is a good rule.



Yeah, but he was a prick...and I considered my prickishness was more minor than his (which was gargantuan tbh).


----------



## andysays (Jan 6, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> At what point does the insistence on treating people according to ''what I see'' turn into agreeing to treat people according to ''what they request''? Like if ones friend John or Jane, apropos of not a lot, decides one day they'd rather be called _Alex_, would one call them _Alex_, or the name one had always used? What would be the rationale, one way of the other?
> 
> I'm curious as to what levels we work at, with respect to doing _what someone else wants_ rather than _what I myself deem to be correct_. For myself, working with people with mental health needs and learning disabilities, my default is to treat people how they wish, rather than how I wish. But I understand not everyone does the same, and that some people's limits in this regard may be different from my own.


I hope I haven't given the impression that I believe I or anyone should call or treat someone else based simply on what I as an individual see or think. It's that sort of individualist approach I'm arguing against.

Someone is or is not a tree or a human, male or female, not because of what I think, but because those words have fairly clear meanings which most of us understand and agree on.

When it comes to personal names, I'm happy to call anyone by whatever name they prefer, including if someone who was previous called Andrew now wants to be called Andrea. That's in no way controversial, I don't think.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 6, 2018)

No, of course. So my question is, at what point does the focus change from_ I'll treat you how you want_, to_ I'll treat you how I want_.

I'm genuinely interested, I believe this question sits close to the heart of this issue


----------



## andysays (Jan 6, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> No, of course. So my question is, at what point does the focus change from_ I'll treat you how you want_, to_ I'll treat you how I want_.
> 
> I'm genuinely interested, I believe this question sits close to the heart of this issue


I don't think I would phrase your question in the same way.

I would express it something like 'I will treat you the same way I treat everyone else and the way I expect to be treated myself, including respecting your views and ability to live however you chose free from discrimination. But I won't accept any attempt from you to impose your ideology or beliefs on me, especially when your demands appear to me to conflict with reality as it is generally understood'

Don't know if that answers your question or is in any way helpful.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 6, 2018)

andysays said:


> I don't think I would phrase your question in the same way.
> 
> I would express it something like 'I will treat you the same way I treat everyone else and the way I expect to be treated myself, including respecting your views and ability to live however you chose free from discrimination. But I won't accept any attempt from you to impose your ideology or beliefs on me, especially when your demands appear to me to conflict with reality as it is generally understood'
> 
> Don't know if that answers your question or is in any way helpful.



It's a long answer that boils down to _I'll treat you how I want, or how you want as long as it's what I want too._

I'm not judging that, I'm interested in any honest response. It seems to me that this is a pretty fundamental question of attitude, and it deserves frank and honest examination.


----------



## Athos (Jan 6, 2018)

Red Cat said:


> You make it sound so easy.



I didn't mean to. I think it's pretty obvious how difficult it is to have a sensible discussion of this topic, sadly!


----------



## andysays (Jan 6, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> It's a long answer that boils down to _I'll treat you how I want, or how you want as long as it's what I want too._
> 
> I'm not judging that, I'm interested in any honest response. It seems to me that this is a pretty fundamental question of attitude, and it deserves frank and honest examination.


It's a longish answer because the question warrants such an answer, rather than a simplistic one.

Again, I wouldn't phrase it quite as you have re-phrased it, but the alternative seems to be 'I'll behave exactly as you demand, regardless of my feelings or the material consequences for me or anyone else, and in areas which don't just affect you personally but which have implications for well established and agreed social norms'

That's why I don't accept some of the more extreme demands of identitarian trans ideology, of which we've seen various examples on this thread.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 6, 2018)

It's a fundamental principle of just about every really civilized society there's ever been; _treat others as you would wish to be treated_. It's a religious principle all over the world, it's a cornerstone of (what I'm going to call) judaeo-christian liberalism, the worldview most of us here grew up in and take for granted. Generally, it's a good way to go about the world.

But. Amazingly, there is a _but_.

There's a dark corollary to_ do as you would be done by_, which is essentially _I'm OK with this - why wouldn't anyone be OK with this?_ And it's not hard to see why that attitude causes trouble - but it's an attitude that seems to be everywhere, I'm not even pointing any particular fingers, I'm as guilty of it as anyone. It's like the shade of liberalism.

We have a society that teaches kids, _You can be whatever you want!_
Then they try, and society says, _Oh no, not that._
It's pretty fucked up, that's not my opinion it's a S0L1D FACKT

EtA, I added something but it added nothing.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 6, 2018)

Athos said:


> I didn't mean to. I think it's pretty obvious how difficult it is to have a sensible discussion of this topic, sadly!



Sorry, I was a bit curt. I'm just very aware that, a bit like mothers and schools, mental health services are either not good enough or expected to provide everything, but the reality is you're always working within a context of uncertainty.


----------



## Athos (Jan 6, 2018)

Red Cat said:


> Sorry, I was a bit curt. I'm just very aware that, a bit like mothers and schools, mental health services are either not good enough or expected to provide everything, but the reality is you're always working within a context of uncertainty.



No problem. I wasn't really focusing on MH services so much as wider society, anyway.


----------



## andysays (Jan 6, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> It's a fundamental principle of just about every really civilized society there's ever been; _treat others as you would wish to be treated_. It's a religious principle all over the world, it's a cornerstone of (what I'm going to call) judaeo-christian liberalism, the worldview most of us here grew up in and take for granted. Generally, it's a good way to go about the world.
> 
> But. Amazingly, there is a _but_.
> 
> ...


I've offered my approach, for whatever it's worth. I'd be interested in hearing yours.

I'd also be interested in hearing more about what you say about this dark corollary, because it doesn't seem to me to follow from my approach at all (I would say that though, wouldn't I)


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 6, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> It's a fundamental principle of just about every really civilized society there's ever been; _treat others as you would wish to be treated_. It's a religious principle all over the world, it's a cornerstone of (what I'm going to call) judaeo-christian liberalism, the worldview most of us here grew up in and take for granted. Generally, it's a good way to go about the world.
> 
> But. Amazingly, there is a _but_.
> 
> ...


Yeh kids are taught you can be whatever you want but any aspirations quickly knocked out of them - you can go to uni and study whatever you want but you'll saddle yourself with a burden of debt previous generations haven't known


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 6, 2018)

andysays said:


> I've offered my approach, for whatever it's worth. I'd be interested in hearing yours.



I posted before I really try to treat people however they want, as long as that's clear to me. Otherwise yeah, I default to do as you would be done by, seems OK to me (cultural background etc)



andysays said:


> I'd also be interested in hearing more about what you say about this dark corollary, because it doesn't seem to me to follow from my approach at all (I would say that though, wouldn't I)



Fair enough, it's something I've noticed, in myself and around me in life. I think it is a kind of corollary to _do as you would be done by_, I think even abusive behaviour can happen under the impression that _I would be OK with this, I am OK with this, why wouldn't anyone be OK with this?_

Anyway, it's verging on off-topic so apologies for that.


----------



## andysays (Jan 6, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> I posted before I really try to treat people however they want, as long as that's clear to me...


Literally however they want, with no qualifications, no consideration of your own feelings or needs, or whether what they want reflects any socially agreed way of behaving or might have adverse effects on you, them or anyone else?

I find that difficult to believe, TBH, and even if it's true I don't think it's a good or healthy way to behave towards others


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 6, 2018)

I don't know. What kinds of people do you imagine I meet?
Never mind, that's not a serious question.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> No, of course. So my question is, at what point does the focus change from_ I'll treat you how you want_, to_ I'll treat you how I want_.
> 
> I'm genuinely interested, I believe this question sits close to the heart of this issue


I think I can genuinely say that I don't reason things out in that way. U75's 'don't be a dick' would be a decent place to start. imo deliberately misgendering people for effect, for instance like Miranda Yardley has repeatedly done on this thread, is 'being a dick'.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 6, 2018)

Seems to me that a lot of this stuff sounds fine in theory but becomes fraught with difficulties when it might be played out in real people's interactions.  Misgendering is a good example.  Not everyone who is trans looks obviously trans, some people pass very well.  At the very least there is ambiguity, some non-trans men can look very feminine and some non-trans women can look very masculine - as least according to current conventions.  So unless someone tells you that they are trans you don't know for sure.  Do you use the pronouns you think they most physically look like, according to some kind of subjective scale of masculinity or femininity, or do you take cues from how they present, or seem to identify, or how others idenitify them - things that are often much more clear cut.  To only accept (from a social if not philosophical view) passable trans people as their aquired gender - because you have no choice, you won't know they are trans - sets up what's basically a hierarchy based on conventional physical attractiveness.  Pretty transwoman are treated as woman and butch trans men as men.  

Secondly people who are trans, and who pass fairly well, do not necessarily want to be 'outed' in every single interaction, not least because trans people are often targets for abuse.  To misgender someone, in a social setting, when no-one else might know they are trans, is to put that person at  risk.  And since misgendering transpeople sometimes has a political motive, or worse might be a prelude to abuse, then this could leaves some transpeople unable to ever relax into a social environment because experience might tell them that they are about to be interrogated over their gender, or mocked, or beaten up.

It's a shitty way to treat someone and if the only excuse for it is to preserve some mystical pure womaness of pronouns then that's a shitty excuse.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 6, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'll do my best not to turn this into an essay! I'm repeating some stuff I've said before, but I'll try to tie it together.
> 
> Firstly, regarding the way that we may be primed from birth to search for something like gender, I think this is very likely to be true if and only if gender is something that can be shown to be universal to human societies across time and place. If it can't be shown to be universal, this priming is very unlikely to be true. If it can, I would say that it's very unlikely not to be true, because there would be a clear selection advantage for it to be there, and such priming is present where there is a selection advantage in other areas. Evolution can and does find this kind of thing. To be explicit, that would not be a priming of girls to search for 'girl' and boys to search for 'boy'. That's not the kind of solution evolution finds - just as a baby gosling doesn't know the thing it's imprinting on is its mother, a baby human doesn't know its biological sex. It would simply be a priming to search out that kind of category as something that you belong to. It would help to make sense of the mass of information being thrown at you.
> 
> ...



That's a very long post! I can't really do it justice but thanks for taking the time to explain.

But I would like to say, as I responded to a post with the tree in it, it seemed to me an arbitrary example of someone stating that they believed something that didn't conform with the consensus view, rather than an attempt at equivalence. It probably did trivialise the issue and I'm sorry if that was so. 

I don't come either from a position of gender abolition or a belief in an innate gender identity. I think the idea of being primed is an interesting one.


----------



## Athos (Jan 6, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Seems to me that a lot of this stuff sounds fine in theory but becomes fraught with difficulties when it might be played out in real people's interactions.  Misgendering is a good example.  Not everyone who is trans looks obviously trans, some people pass very well.  At the very least there is ambiguity, some non-trans men can look very feminine and some non-trans women can look very masculine - as least according to current conventions.  So unless someone tells you that they are trans you don't know for sure.  Do you use the pronouns you think they most physically look like, according to some kind of subjective scale of masculinity or femininity, or do you take cues from how they present, or seem to identify, or how others idenitify them - things that are often much more clear cut.  To only accept (from a social if not philosophical view) passable trans people as their aquired gender - because you have no choice, you won't know they are trans - sets up what's basically a hierarchy based on conventional physical attractiveness.  Pretty transwoman are treated as woman and butch trans men as men.
> 
> Secondly people who are trans, and who pass fairly well, do not necessarily want to be 'outed' in every single interaction, not least because trans people are often targets for abuse.  To misgender someone, in a social setting, when no-one else might know they are trans, is to put that person at  risk.  And since misgendering transpeople sometimes has a political motive, or worse might be a prelude to abuse, then this could leaves some transpeople unable to ever relax into a social environment because experience might tell them that they are about to be interrogated over their gender, or mocked, or beaten up.
> 
> It's a shitty way to treat someone and if the only excuse for it is to preserve some mystical pure womaness of pronouns then that's a shitty excuse.



With regard to your second point, I don't think anyone here other than MY is in favour of misgendering.

I don't think you're able to empathise with women's concerns if you think they're motivated by nothing more significant than lingistic purity.


----------



## andysays (Jan 6, 2018)

The very term misgendering as it's being used here and elsewhere is based on the ideological position that one can determine one's own gender. This is, to say the least, a contested position.

Personally, I would address anyone I met by whatever name and with whatever pronoun they wanted, for the obvious reasons discussed on this thread.

But to automatically condemn anyone who doesn't as 'misgendering' is as wrong as claiming that someone who is biologically male but has the gender identity of a woman as misgendering themselves, IMO.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 6, 2018)

Red Cat said:


> I just re-read my post. I was quite specifically taking issue with the idea that telling people what they want to hear is therapeutic. This seems to be a common idea atm.
> 
> I honestly don't know what is most helpful for young people with gender dysphoria. The aim of psychoanalytic psychotherapy in the UK (as practised at the Tavi) is to help a young person feel happier in their own skin, regardless of presenting symptoms, so they feel less need to defend themselves in ways that get in the way of their relationships. It's not a symptom focused treatment. But it's not 'supportive' psychotherapy either. Do you know if the Tavi GIDS does more supportive psychotherapy, have they modified their approach?
> 
> btw I don't have an agenda. You reply to my posts as though you think I have an agenda.



So, I checked it out myself. I hadn't understood that the Tavistock GIDS is separate from CAMHS, so from what I can gather they offer therapeutic support as part of their MDT approach but not Child and Adolescent Psychotherapy (psychoanalytic) as practiced by Tavistock CAMHS, unless that was wanted/needed/indicated alongside GIDS.

For anyone apart from me who may be interested.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 6, 2018)

andysays said:


> Literally however they want, with no qualifications, no consideration of your own feelings or needs, or whether what they want reflects any socially agreed way of behaving or might have adverse effects on you, them or anyone else?
> 
> I find that difficult to believe, TBH, and even if it's true I don't think it's a good or healthy way to behave towards others



Yes, literally however they want, assuming that differs radically from what I would do anyway. And assuming nobody's going to get hurt or humiliated. To be fair how we are with each other can be largely instinctive but IMO one of the benefits of being human is that we can think things through and not always have to rely on instinct, if instinct leads to poor outcomes we can reconsider and change. I'm not sure what's unhealthy about it. I think I'd rather spend my time listening to someone than second-guessing them.

There are loads of reasons I think people I meet are wrong, but I pick my battles, and as I get older I think I want fewer of those, not more. Also as I mentioned, I work with people who have varying MH needs and learning disabilities, as well as other conditions that affect how they perceive themselves and the world around them, and how they behave, in ways a lot of people might find hard to relate to. This colours my views.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 6, 2018)

andysays said:


> But to automatically condemn anyone who doesn't as 'misgendering' is as wrong as claiming that someone who is biologically male but has the gender identity of a woman as misgendering themselves, IMO.



How do we conduct these conversations though?
How does, for example, a college for women, having been founded to, say, help get more women into science, even begin debate this issue when even the basic terms and definitions of what male and female, man, woman, girl, boy mean in people's daily lives are being eroded?
What will all this mean to statistics of all sorts?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> How do we conduct these conversations though?
> How does, for example, a college for women, having been founded to, say, help get more women into science, even begin debate this issue when even the basic terms and definitions of what male and female, man, woman, girl, boy mean in people's daily lives are being eroded?
> What will all this mean to statistics of all sorts?


ETA: I don't know if you're referring here to a report about a Cambridge women-only college admitting trans women, but if so:

What is the scale of this problem in reality?

Looking at the UK, where there used to be far more men going to uni than women, now more women go. For the first time this year, irrc, Cambridge has admitted more women than men, while other unis have been doing so for a while. wrt getting more women into science, the very few women-only colleges that are left at places like Cambridge aren't really the vehicle for that - in our system as it is now, that's too late, you need to have intervened in schools. One or two trans women (which is really all it will be) getting places at the one or two elite institutions left for women only here in the UK really is neither here nor there wrt wider issues to do with getting more women into things like science or engineering. Is there really a problem here at all? The circumstances in which women-only colleges such as these were founded have now changed dramatically.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 6, 2018)

ridiculous init, dont reflect the real world NOW

segregation is so dead


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 6, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> ETA: I don't know if you're referring here to a report about a Cambridge women-only college admitting trans women, but if so:



No, it was just a reality based created example to get an answer to the question. I briefly attended a women only college a few years ago. That's where I met my friend.



pengaleng said:


> segregation is so dead



Segregation was what some of us actually needed.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 6, 2018)

I don’t think the idealism of 0.4% of the population and their allies reflect it either so it’s worth discussing if it might possibly impact on 50% of people in the ‘real world NOW’.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 6, 2018)

segregate yerselves from life


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 7, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> No, it was just a reality based created example to get an answer to the question. I briefly attended a women only college a few years ago. That's where I met my friend.
> 
> 
> 
> Segregation was what some of us actually needed.


Fair enough. The Cambridge eg is also reality-based, and it has been used to attack trans inclusion.

Would the college you attended have been compromised by the presence of the odd trans woman? 

Regarding the wider question of encouraging women and girls into science we could do worse than to look at how it was done in the former communist block. That involved breaking with shite gender stereotypes from a young age as I understand it.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 7, 2018)

There’s no escaping the fact that women are the class that produce babies, but the context under capitalism is that it’s unpaid labour that capital benefits from. No idea how trans fits into this.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 7, 2018)

If they’re equitable because of ‘male violence’ well men are victims of that also.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 7, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I don’t think the idealism of 0.4% of the population and their allies reflect it either so it’s worth discussing if it might possibly impact on 50% of people in the ‘real world NOW’.


So what do you think? Is trans inclusion a threat to that 50 percent or not? If so, how?You seem to want things both ways - both a tiny number of people and also somehow a threat.

Stupid thing to say that somehow the concerns of trans people are not a reflection of now because there aren't many of them.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 7, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> If they’re equitable because of ‘male violence’ well men are victims of that also.



Not male sexual violence, or sexual  objectification or sexual exploitation and harassment, to anywhere near the same extent.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 7, 2018)

Athos said:


> Of course. But that wasn't my question to spanglechick. I was asking whether or not, in her experience, it's the feeling of being in 'team female' that makes her a woman. (As opposed to e.g. her being a woman that makes her feel part of 'team female'.)



Fair point, guv.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 8, 2018)

Stella Creasy getting much abuse from TERFs now for being trans supportive 



>


----------



## Gromit (Jan 8, 2018)

Not 100% sure if this is trans relevant but watch how the Mail start the article using female pronouns and then slide into male ones:

CBB: Male stars enter the house | Daily Mail Online

They quote a tweet that says trans but they themselves refer to ‘drag queen’ throughout the article. 

I don’t know who this person is but in my mind a drag queen is an entertainer who isn’t trans but merely cross dressing for their job. 
Which I consider different to transsexual and transvestite.


----------



## elbows (Jan 8, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Stella Creasy getting much abuse from TERFs now for being trans supportive



Yeah, its the fall-out from the Vice article that I posted about the other day. I wonder if Stella knew what some of these people can be like before she found herself in the middle of a barrage of abuse. She does now


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 8, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Stella Creasy getting much abuse from TERFs now for being trans supportive



The extent of the ‘abuse’ there is her position being described as ‘barmy af’. 

‘Getting much abuse’ is hyperbole.


----------



## Manter (Jan 8, 2018)

I stumbled into a Terf- nest on twitter this weekend. Miranda Yardley may be intelligent and articulate, but some of her fellow travellers are repulsive (I mention her because they tagged her into the conversation)- islamophobic, retweeting stuff tagged MAGA, lots of shouty capitals, egregious slut shaming, insults, suggestions women who don't agree with them are sluts, 'fun fems' and deserve everything they get (including sexual assault) plus plenty of attitudes straight from the patriarchy, despite calling themselves feminists. Deeply, deeply unpleasant to talk to, as well as wildly intolerant and just plain rude. 

So, that was fun


----------



## Manter (Jan 8, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> The extent of the ‘abuse’ there is her position being described as ‘barmy af’.
> 
> ‘Getting much abuse’ is hyperbole.


My little run in with terfs was as a result of her being called the most disgusting politician that ever lived (on a post where she quoted Gramsci, bizarrely- it had no connection the vogue photo they are so cross about) and I've seen her called that and worse. And hundreds of messages an hour. They don't lack energy....


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 8, 2018)

Kiri Tunks suffered the same sort of abuse for raising the issue in the Morning Star in an attempt to encourage dialogue.
Keeping a balance on who abuses whom the most is idiotic beyond attempting to shut the other side up.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Kiri Tunks suffered the same sort of abuse for raising the issue in the Morning Star in an attempt to encourage dialogue.
> Keeping a balance on who abuses whom the most is idiotic beyond attempting to shut the other side up.



The article


----------



## TopCat (Jan 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> The article


Interesting article.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 8, 2018)

TopCat said:


> Interesting article.



I thought so too. However according to some that was pure and simple scaremongering from transphobic TERFs


----------



## elbows (Jan 8, 2018)

It was interesting. Even if I read it again several times and manage to find some bits to pick on, there are clearly a bunch of real issues here that cannot be dismissed just because there are some extreme positions and abusive language on both sides.

Even without the overly-charged extremes on both sides, I'm not sure the right balance and solutions are particularly obvious or easily reachable now. Oh how I wish so much more had been won long before now in terms of womens rights etc, because quite a few of the problems now might have been avoidable if the landscape had been radically changed.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> The article


Totally irrelevant to this thread, but having followed your link I then searched the site on a hunch and discovered to my satisfaction that I have been quoted in the Morning Star.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 8, 2018)

elbows said:


> It was interesting. Even if I read it again several times and manage to find some bits to pick on, there are clearly a bunch of real issues here that cannot be dismissed just because there are some extreme positions and abusive language on both sides.
> 
> Even without the overly-charged extremes on both sides, I'm not sure the right balance and solutions are particularly obvious or easily reachable now. Oh how I wish so much more had been won long before now in terms of womens rights etc, because quite a few of the problems now might have been avoidable if the landscape had been radically changed.



And yet, some people felt within their rights to demand Tunks removal from the NUT following that article. People who call themselves feminist allies. This is why when people shout "Our friend's been abused" I tend to give a toss no longer.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

Athos said:


> I guess the rub come when allowing others to live according to their own beliefs crosses into compelling others to profess those beliefs.  In most cases, it's a matter a courtesy with no real consequence to those from whom it's expected. But it becomes more difficult in the marginal cases e.g. women only rape shelters.



This really is the issue, whether someone's personal and subjective inner sense of 'self' should trump material reality. If transgender activists would even acknowledge there's a rights conflict and entertain that idea that 'trans women' may be something other than women (how often do we hear 'trans women are women end of!') much of the objections that exist now would likely fade. As a for example, see the video from Friday evening of India Willoughby from Friday night's Big Brother, what India was demanding was not courtesy it was submission.

(And no, ordinarily I would never watch that show, but the gender politics meant I was quickly roped into it).



Athos said:


> Also, you seem to want to eat your cake and have it, switching between it being a condition that retirees a therapeutic response on the one hand, and a desire to demedicalise it on another.



The demedicalisation worries me, it's all moving to be 'identity based' and is being done so without critical analysis; surgical and drug-based transition have pretty profound effects on our bodies and our physical and mental health. I believe we should have better evidence-based treatments (based on studies commissioned without ANY external political interference) and before we start offering drug treatment protocols to children, we need a clear and agreed etiology of what 'trans' is, that's supported by science. Try asking any transgender activist to describe what 'trans' means...


----------



## 8ball (Jan 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> The article



The idea that words mean things is always wont to stir up trouble.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 8, 2018)

The reference to 'pregnant people' in that article appears to be a reference in part at least to a UK FO submission to the UN to get the term changed so that trans men who get pregnant are included in a statement about human rights. It was leaped on by the r/w press at the time. 

It’s not women who get pregnant — it’s ‘people’

My first thought on reading that was that this was an attempt at legal clarity more than anything else, and not quite as the likes of The Times, The Sun or The Express have reported. And that is what the FO itself has said:

Has the government banned the term 'pregnant woman'?



> A Foreign Office spokesperson commented: “We strongly support the right to life of pregnant women, and we have requested that the Human Rights Committee does not exclude pregnant transgender people from that right to life.”
> 
> The Times reported that “The government has said the term “pregnant woman” should not be used in a UN treaty”.
> 
> This is not strictly true – the government’s suggestion aimed to add legal clarity in one specific General Comment on a UN treaty, which will not appear in the main treaty itself. It does not affect the use of “pregnant woman” in any other part of the treaty, or dictate when the term can be used in general.



However, we clearly have a confusion here with language and meanings. Later in that article, the concept of 'pregnant men' appears as a suggested term for pregnant trans men. I don't see much middle ground here, tbh, if each side demands primacy of one or the other - sex or gender - where we just have one word for both. We're stuck with a bunch of inadequate terms. However, I'm not sure it's helpful to take this line:



> Bernard Reed, Trustee of the Gender Identity Research & Education Society, told us that the most important thing is to “listen” to the trans community. If they find the term “pregnant woman” offensive, he says we should consider changing it.



I can see the case for creating clarity in a legal document in order not to allow loopholes (protecting against the idea that 'he was legally registered as a man, so we were entitled to kill him, pregnant or not'), but something has surely gone wrong somewhere if the term 'pregnant woman' is deemed offensive.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

comrade spurski said:


> Using an analogy about the tiger was clearly meant to mock. If some one said they were a tiger it would not be worth taking seriously so equating that to this subject is plainly fucking stupid.
> 
> It is possible to express a personally held view that you disagree that transwomen are not the same as non trans women without insisting on calling a trans person a man when they have said they do not wish to be addressed that way.



Please then address the point I made, because you look like you're contradicting yourself.



comrade spurski said:


> I do not understand this issue, I am confused about language, the law and rights but I do understand the need for an honest discussion, the need to stop hatred and bigotry, the need to move forward but mostly I understand that MY is offering very little if anything to help in any of these areas in my opinion.



How can we have honest discussion when the price of admission to discussion is to demand we accept 'trans women are women'? Again, this is not asking for courtesy, it's asking for submission and to concede the very point central to this debate.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

Manter said:


> I stumbled into a Terf- nest on twitter this weekend. Miranda Yardley may be intelligent and articulate, but some of her fellow travellers are repulsive (I mention her because they tagged her into the conversation)- islamophobic, retweeting stuff tagged MAGA, lots of shouty capitals... etc



Re-hi. 

I don't spend an awful lot of time on Twitter as I get roped into so many conversations, as often by people with opposing views to myself. Also, I'm not responsible for what my followers say, and I am not going to defend someone else's beliefs, only my own. FWIW I don't even agree with much of what the people I follow say. You may also notice I will often tell someone when I disagree with what they say, even if we are supposed to be 'friends'. But like I said, I'm not on there all the time.

Please would you outline here or on DM here (or on Twitter) what was said that was 'Islamophobic'? I'd appreciate that, thanks.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think I can genuinely say that I don't reason things out in that way. U75's 'don't be a dick' would be a decent place to start. imo deliberately misgendering people for effect, for instance like Miranda Yardley has repeatedly done on this thread, is 'being a dick'.



Having a political disagreement on whether adult males are men isn't being a dick.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 8, 2018)

8ball said:


> The idea that words mean things is always wont to stir up trouble.


What does this mean?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> How can we have honest discussion when the price of admission to discussion is to demand we accept 'trans women are women'? Again, this is not asking for courtesy, it's asking for submission and to concede the very point central to this debate.


I think this is disingenuous because the language you use in this debate, such as the way you phrased post 4494, shows that for you it is clear that the price of admission to discussion is to demand that we accept 'trans women are men'.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> What does this mean?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think this is disingenuous because the language you use in this debate, such as the way you phrased post 4494, shows that for you it is clear that the price of admission to discussion is to demand that we accept 'trans women are men'.



Well, no. 

Please explain how 'trans women are women'.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 8, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think this is disingenuous because the language you use in this debate, such as the way you phrased post 4494, shows that for you it is clear that the price of admission to discussion is to demand that we accept 'trans women are men'.


Pot and kettle.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 8, 2018)

8ball said:


>



What? My question? It was a serious question.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 8, 2018)

seriously if any of you cunts mention fertilisation of egg cells again you need to get a gcse science textbook. fucking wastes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2018)

.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 8, 2018)

binary is just a simplification of a spectrum. it means fuck all.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> binary is just a simplification of a spectrum. it means fuck all.


yeh, you know that and i know that but miranda yardley struggles to comprehend things which aren't 1 or 0, yea or nay, woman or man.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 8, 2018)

I'd argue ,me points but yer all just too fucking thick, except dickmans.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Well, no.
> 
> Please explain how 'trans women are women'.


Well, yes:



> Having a political disagreement on whether adult males are men isn't being a dick.



Even your formulation of the disagreement includes your own ideological take. And this is typical of the way you have argued on this thread.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 8, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh, you know that and i know that but miranda yardley struggles to comprehend things which aren't 1 or 0, yea or nay, woman or man.




or shades of grey.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> binary is just a simplification of a spectrum. it means fuck all.



If sex is a spectrum, then 'trans women' are not women.

#justsayin'


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> If sex is a spectrum, then 'trans women' are not women.
> 
> #justsayin'


on the grounds that...


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 8, 2018)

and actually if everyones hormone levels were tested not many women would actually fit in the peak woman band 


Miranda Yardley said:


> If sex is a spectrum, then 'trans women' are not women.
> 
> #justsayin'




you dunno wtf you're talking about tho, you dont even have a basic grasp of biology, I cant argue with this low intelligence.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well, yes:
> 
> Even your formulation of the disagreement includes your own ideological take. And this is typical of the way you have argued on this thread.



Are you going for #peakirony?

Please explain how 'trans women are women'.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 8, 2018)

gonna talk about the fertilised egg again?

that ships sailed, it's crap.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> If sex is a spectrum, then 'trans women' are not women.
> 
> #justsayin'



Nor are women who can't produce, have fertilised and gestate eggs/have a baby by your earlier posts.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> and actually if everyones hormone levels were tested not many women would actually fit in the peak woman band
> 
> you dunno wtf you're talking about tho, you dont even have a basic grasp of biology, I cant argue with this low intelligence.



Sex is not based on hormone levels, it's based on reproductive class. Please find me a single instance of someone with a male reproductive system who has ever has one of their own eggs fertilised, conceived and gestated a child.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Nor are women who can't produce, have fertilised and gestate eggs/have a baby by your earlier posts.



Nope, never made that claim. Please don't twist my words.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Sex is not based on hormone levels, it's based on reproductive class. Please find me a single instance of someone with a male reproductive system who has ever has one of their own eggs fertilised, conceived and gestated a child.




fuck off this is crap if you knew what you were talking about you wouldnt have said this because you'd know it'd make you look thick as shit.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> What? My question? It was a serious question.



Ah - ok, soz.

Well, that article (meant to foster dialogue) leading to a flamestorm was a good example.  We also get a lot of it on here.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> on the grounds that...



The irony that two dudes who suggest my thinking doesn't accommodate shades of grey fail to accommodate a shade of grey in their own thinking!


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 8, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Nor are women who can't produce, have fertilised and gestate eggs/have a baby by your earlier posts.



Actually she's also mentioned CAIS women as women by virtue of being socialised as such.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Nope, never made that claim. Please don't twist my words.


I haven't twisted them. You set the boundaries (defining man/woman) and imply this as a result.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> fuck off this is crap if you knew what you were talking about you wouldnt have said this because you'd know it'd make you look thick as shit.



Thank you for this dispersement, which confirms you don't have a substantive argument.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 8, 2018)

bellend.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 8, 2018)

8ball said:


> Ah - ok, soz.
> 
> Well, that article (meant to foster dialogue) leading to a flamestorm was a good example.  We also get a lot of it on here.



This is where I get stuck. How do you begin the conversation wihtout defining terms?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Actually she's also mentioned CAIS women as women by virtue of being socialised as such.


 Was that before or after she dismissed spanglechick as a 'cis woman without kids' and accused her of trying to derail the thread?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> I haven't twisted them. You set the boundaries and imply this as a result.



No, I really did not. I asked for a single instance of someone with a male reproductive system who has ever has one of their own eggs fertilised, conceived and gestated a child, which I again have done above. This does not preclude women who are infertile, nor does it imply 'trans women are women'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> The irony that two dudes who suggest my thinking doesn't accommodate shades of grey fail to accommodate a shade of grey in their own thinking!


those are shit grounds for your assertion.

#justsayin


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> No, I really did not. I asked for a single instance of someone with a male reproductive system who has ever has one of their own *eggs fertilised, conceived and gestated a child*, which I again have done above. This does not preclude women who are infertile, nor does it imply 'trans women are women'.




that dont make women women you fucking idiot.

yer a fucking idiot

how can someone actually be this thick??

do a gcse biology refresher or something, jesus


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2018)

cba


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 8, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Was that before or after she dismissed spanglechick as a 'cis woman without kids' and accused her of trying to derail the thread?



Before... way before


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> No, I really did not. I asked for a single instance of someone with a male reproductive system who has ever has one of their own eggs fertilised, conceived and gestated a child, which I again have done above. This does not preclude women who are infertile, nor does it imply 'trans women are women'.


nuns not women i see


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> those are shit grounds for your assertion.
> 
> #justsayin



No not really.

 - 'sex is a spectrum you are binarist can't you think in shades of grey'
 - 'if sex is not a binary then whatever trans women' are, they are not women
 - 'sex is a spectrum but trans women are binary women waaaaaaaaaaaah'

#justsayin'


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Before... way before



I definately missed that.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> nuns not women i see



You don't get this do you.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> You don't get this do you.



projection.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> This is where I get stuck. How do you begin the conversation wihtout defining terms?



Well, yeah.  Some people seem to think defining agreed terms is divisive and dangerous.
Someone you disagree with might start using them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> You don't get this do you.


run it past me one more time - it might be your explanation that's the problem


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> projection.



That's not 'projection', silly.

"*Psychological projection* is a theory in *psychology* in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others."


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 8, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> nuns not women i see



One big fat social evidence that nuns are women is that they are not allowed to become priests


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

8ball said:


> Well, yeah.  Some people seem to think defining agreed terms is divisive and dangerous.
> Someone you disagree with might start using them.



In any debate and especially this divisive and emotionally charged debate, defined terms are absolutely necessary.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 8, 2018)

this is embarrassing now.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> One big fat social evidence that nuns are women is that they are not allowed to become priests


bollocks

when did the church of england decree that?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> this is embarrassing now.



Sorry about your di... lack of substantive argument.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 8, 2018)

8ball said:


> Well, yeah.  Some people seem to think defining agreed terms is divisive and dangerous.
> Someone you disagree with might start using them.



How do you begin the conversation then?


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Sorry about your di... lack of substantive argument.




lol patronising, but still talking about yerself.

i dont have an argument because you're failing to provide something logical to argue about. therefore insulting your intelligence is the option i have left.

if you want argument give something to argue about that isnt basic crap.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Sorry about your di...


  

What does this mean?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> How do you begin the conversation then?



Death threats on Twitter are a popular opening gambit.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Sorry about your di... lack of substantive argument.


we're all sorry about di here


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 8, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> we're all sorry about di here




i love princess di


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 8, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> bollocks
> 
> when did the church of england decree that?



.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> .


yeh. you didn't know there were anglican nuns, did you?


----------



## kabbes (Jan 8, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> I haven't twisted them. You set the boundaries (defining man/woman) and imply this as a result.


Actually, MY set boundaries by defining the class "women" as including all individuals _with the same reproductive systems_ that has allowed a single member of that class to have one of their own eggs fertilised, resulting in the conception and gestation of a child.  There is nothing in that definition that says _all _members must have had one of their own eggs fertilised.  They merely have to have the same reproductive system.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 8, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. you didn't know there were anglican nuns, did you?



They are relatively stealthy tbf.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2018)

8ball said:


> They are relatively stealthy tbf.


yeh stealth nuns


----------



## 8ball (Jan 8, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh stealth nuns


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 8, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. you didn't know there were anglican nuns, did you?



My response was to do with your disingenuous tactics. Don't assume too much about me. You may betray a tiny reach in imagination.


----------



## 19force8 (Jan 8, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh stealth nuns


Oh no, not nuns chuck


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> My response was to do with your disingenuous tactics. Don't assume too much about me. You may betray a tiny reach in imagination.


i'll take your post as a 'no'.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 8, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Actually, MY set boundaries by defining the class "women" as including all individuals _with the same reproductive systems_ that has allowed a single member of that class to have one of their own eggs fertilised, resulting in the conception and gestation of a child.  There is nothing in that definition that says _all _members must have had one of their own eggs fertilised.  They merely have to have the same reproductive system.



Great. Can you translate this too please...




			
				Miranda Yardley said:
			
		

> Sorry about your di...


----------



## andysays (Jan 8, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Actually, MY set boundaries by defining the class "women" as including all individuals _with the same reproductive systems_ that has allowed a single member of that class to have one of their own eggs fertilised, resulting in the conception and gestation of a child.  There is nothing in that definition that says _all _members must have had one of their own eggs fertilised.  They merely have to have the same reproductive system.


And, for the sake of clarity, it doesn't have to be a functioning reproductive system, ie women who are infertile are still women


----------



## kabbes (Jan 8, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Great. Can you translate this too please...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why would you expect me to translate that?  I am not MY's handler.  Neither do I remotely see what it has to do with your misunderstanding of the class being described as "women" by MY.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Great. Can you translate this too please...



Please defend the claim 'trans women are women'.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Please defend the claim 'trans women are women'.


Eh?  How is that a response to me asking what you meant by _'Sorry about your di...'_ ?

Why don't you tell me what it means.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 8, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> i'll take your post as a 'no'.



Ok


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Ok


grand


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Eh?  How is that a response to me asking what you meant by _'Sorry about your di...'_ ?
> 
> Why don't you tell me what it means.


miranda yardbot is an earlier model of the theresa maybot


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Are you going for #peakirony?
> 
> Please explain how 'trans women are women'.


Putting a hashtag in front of a word isn't an argument.

Regarding your second bit, that's not my argument to explain particularly, beyond acknowledging that there is such a thing as gender as well as biological sex, and that there are people who wish to present themselves to the world and be treated as a different gender from the one they were assigned according to their biological sex at birth. And whatever your position on gender, in this world that we live in now, it informs how the vast majority of people present themselves. That involves, among other things, if you are an English-speaker, being referred to by the pronoun that is used to refer to people of that gender. Whatever your philosophical position on that, deliberately going out of your way to refer to a trans person by the pronoun used for the gender they were assigned at birth, which you have repeatedly done on this thread with evident relish, is a dickish thing to do.

The rest is purely a definitional problem, and not particularly interesting, except in the way that our language reveals how muddled most of us are about much of this - I'm not the one claiming all the answers here. It's not as though you have access to some important piece of knowledge that others are missing, which is where your patronising tone falls distinctly flat.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 8, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That involves, among other things, if you are an English-speaker, being referred to by the pronoun that is used to refer to people of that gender. Whatever your philosophical position on that, deliberately going out of your way to refer to a trans person by the pronoun used for the gender they were assigned at birth, which you have repeatedly done on this thread with evident relish, is a dickish thing to do.



There's an obvious bit of bad faith going on here.

The incomplete logical equivalence of the "trans women are women"* statement is used as a device to force a general acceptance of the statement "trans women are men".

* - in many, but not all, people's minds


----------



## free spirit (Jan 8, 2018)

after 152 pages the answer to the original question seems clear...... it's not just the OP who's perplexed.

If Trans women are female, the same as CIS women, and should be referred to as women, female and she in the same way and fully accepted as being in the same category as CIS women, why is there a constant need by transrights activists to differentiate between CIS and Trans women via the use of the 'CIS' and 'Trans' labels?

On the one hand the differences are obvious and recognised via the CIS / Trans labels, but on the other any feminist (or apparently Trans person) who attempts to point this out is a nasty TERF.

IMO transrights activists really need to find a way to campaign alongside feminist campaigns rather than demanding they be fully included within every aspect of those campaigns as women in the same way as CIS women.

I've hesitated to say this as a CIS man, but being as the majority of the most active contributors to this thread are also CIS men I hope to avoid the accusations of mansplaining on this occasion.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> miranda yardbot is an earlier model of the theresa maybot



Except we lie on diametrical opposite ends of the political spectrum... nice try at an ad hom.


----------



## andysays (Jan 8, 2018)

andysays said:


> And, for the sake of clarity, it doesn't have to be a functioning reproductive system, ie women who are infertile are still women


And for the sake of further clarity,  I should have added "born with" that reproductive system - having it removed doesn't mean you cease to be a woman


----------



## free spirit (Jan 8, 2018)

8ball said:


> There's an obvious bit of bad faith going on here.
> 
> The incomplete logical equivalence of the "trans women are women"* statement is used as a device to force a general acceptance of the statement "trans women are men".
> 
> * - in many, but not all, people's minds


or, trans women are ..... trans women.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Please defend the claim 'trans women are women'.


Rather than taking this into the realm of definitions, why not ask the question 'what potential is there for solidarity between feminists and trans activisits'? FWIW I could ask that question of anyone making definitive statements about the gender of trans people, not just you of course. But if there isn't such a potential, it suggests something has been lost along the way.

I realise that as someone who is neither female nor trans, it's easy for me to ask such a question. But if the discussion doesn't ever get onto that kind of territory - solidarity - surely we never get to the point where identity politics is transcended.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 8, 2018)

free spirit said:


> or, trans women are ..... trans women.



I don't think that one is causing much of a reaction at Twitter at the moment, but someone might well try to dox you for it.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Putting a hashtag in front of a word isn't an argument.



It's what passes for humour (I don't have a sense of humour).



littlebabyjesus said:


> Regarding your second bit, that's not my argument to explain particularly, beyond acknowledging that there is such a thing as gender as well as biological sex, and that *there are people who wish to present themselves to the world and be treated as a different gender from the one they were assigned according to their biological sex at birth*.



Your definition is reliant on stereotypes. Being 'a woman' is a biological reality with material, real-world consequences. Just as is 'being a man'.



littlebabyjesus said:


> And whatever your position on gender, in this world that we live in now, it informs how the vast majority of people present themselves. That involves, among other things, if you are an English-speaker, being referred to by the pronoun that is used to refer to people of that gender. Whatever your philosophical position on that, deliberately going out of your way to refer to a trans person by the pronoun used for the gender they were assigned at birth, which you have repeatedly done on this thread with evident relish, is a dickish thing to do.



Again, is this an act of compassion? Or cruelty (to indulge a delusion)? Or submission (why should women be compelled to do this? Or gay men accept 'trans men' as men?)



littlebabyjesus said:


> The rest is purely a definitional problem, and not particularly interesting, except in the way that our language reveals how muddled most of us are about much of this - I'm not the one claiming all the answers here. It's not as though you have access to some important piece of knowledge that others are missing, which is where your patronising tone falls distinctly flat.



I'm looking for answers, hence why I ask questions.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

free spirit said:


> On the one hand the differences are obvious and recognised via the CIS / Trans labels, but on the other any feminist (or apparently Trans person) who attempts to point this out is a nasty TERF.
> 
> IMO transrights activists really need to find a way to campaign alongside feminist campaigns rather than demanding they be fully included within every aspect of those campaigns as women in the same way as CIS women.
> 
> I've hesitated to say this as a CIS man, but being as the majority of the most active contributors to this thread are also CIS men I hope to avoid the accusations of mansplaining on this occasion.



Three very good points.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 8, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Actually, MY set boundaries by defining the class "women" as including all individuals _with the same reproductive systems_ that has allowed a single member of that class to have one of their own eggs fertilised, resulting in the conception and gestation of a child.  There is nothing in that definition that says _all _members must have had one of their own eggs fertilised.  They merely have to have the same reproductive system.



and intersex people?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

8ball said:


> There's an obvious bit of bad faith going on here.
> 
> The incomplete logical equivalence of the "trans women are women"* statement is used as a device to force a general acceptance of the statement "trans women are men".
> 
> * - in many, but not all, people's minds



In fact, the dominant claim is now that 'trans women' are not just women, but also female. The problem appears to run deeper than you believe.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Except we lie on diametrical opposite ends of the political spectrum... nice try at an ad hom.



How's David Davies?  Not so far along the political spectrum that you won't have cosy meetings with Tory scum who pose a far greater threat to women's services than any transwoman.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

smokedout said:


> and intersex people?



We don't have a third sex, human beings are sexually dimorphic. IMHO transactivists should attempt to support intersex people, not use them as human shields.

(Also, can someone explain how it's consistent that transactivists appear to support intersex people being left to decide their own fate, surgery and hormone-wise, yet support the unquestioned affirmation of an adopted gender in infants?)


----------



## smokedout (Jan 8, 2018)

free spirit said:


> after 152 pages the answer to the original question seems clear...... it's not just the OP who's perplexed.
> 
> If Trans women are female, the same as CIS women, and should be referred to as women, female and she in the same way and fully accepted as being in the same category as CIS women, why is there a constant need by transrights activists to differentiate between CIS and Trans women via the use of the 'CIS' and 'Trans' labels?
> 
> On the one hand the differences are obvious and recognised via the CIS / Trans labels, but on the other any feminist (or apparently Trans person) who attempts to point this out is a nasty TERF.



This is a daft argument, you can have lesbian woman and straight women, it  doesn't mean one of those groups isn't a woman.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> We don't have a third sex, human beings are sexually dimorphic. IMHO transactivists should attempt to support intersex people, not use them as human shields.
> 
> (Also, can someone explain how it's consistent that transactivists appear to support intersex people being left to decide their own fate, surgery and hormone-wise, yet support the unquestioned affirmation of an adopted gender in infants?)



So do you respect the choice of intersex people to identify as the gender they want regardless of their reproductive potential?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

smokedout said:


> How's David Davies?  Not so far along the political spectrum that you won't have cosy meetings with Tory scum who pose a far greater threat to women's services than any transwoman.



Again, that's an ad hominem argument. If you read his writing on this, he can identify the problem as it affects women and girls. Also, during the meeting in Parliament, he identified and acknowledged a number of the problems trans ideology causes for lesbians and gay men. It pains me he can see this, whereas progressives cannot: the infection of the left with identity politics, straying from the material analysis of Bentham, Mill, Marx, Engels and Gramsci, is horseshoeing the left into another form of the right, in authoritarian, metaphysical and neoliberal economic terms.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

smokedout said:


> This is a daft argument, you can have lesbian woman and straight women, it  doesn't mean one of those groups isn't a woman.



No, because they're women.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Except we lie on diametrical opposite ends of the political spectrum... nice try at an ad hom.


except may isn't at an end of the political spectrum.

nice admission of lying though.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 8, 2018)

smokedout said:


> and intersex people?


Not my definition, so I don’t know.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

smokedout said:


> So do you respect the choice of intersex people to identify as the gender they want regardless of their reproductive potential?



What do you mean by 'gender'? If someone who is intersex has a clear reproductive potential, how are they intersex?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> except may isn't at an end of the political spectrum.
> 
> nice admission of lying though.



What have I lied about?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Except we lie on diametrical opposite ends of the political spectrum... nice try at an ad hom.





Miranda Yardley said:


> What have I lied about?


will you read your own posts please?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> In fact, the dominant claim is now that 'trans women' are not just women, but also female. The problem appears to run deeper than you believe.



There isn't a single "problem" in my view.  

There are all sorts of definitional claims and arguments knocking about, but the one I personally see most is the argument over what particular degrees and contexts feminists can/should accept the "trans women are women" claim.

Which is a question for feminists, obv.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 8, 2018)

Sorry to go on...

But does anyone have any ideas what 





> _Sorry about your di..._


 means?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Again, that's an ad hominem argument. If you read his writing on this, he can identify the problem as it affects women and girls. Also, during the meeting in Parliament, he identified and acknowledged a number of the problems trans ideology causes for lesbians and gay men. It pains me he can see this, whereas progressives cannot: the infection of the left with identity politics, straying from the material analysis of Bentham, Mill, Marx, Engels and Gramsci, is horseshoeing the left into another form of the right, in authoritarian, metaphysical and neoliberal economic terms.



Nothing ad hominem about it.  You are happy to work with the worst kind of misogynists, who cheered on the benefit cuts for lone parents, who supported slashing funding for women's services, who is a one of the most homophobic MPs and an openly racist, climate change denying piece of filth.

Just like your comrades have cosy'd up to the Daily Mail.  Your politics are shit, you should be ashamed of yourself for giving that twat a PR boost so he can pretend he gives a shit about women - you are a danger to women if you are prepared to make these compromises.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Your definition is reliant on stereotypes. Being 'a woman' is a biological reality with material, real-world consequences. Just as is 'being a man'.


My 'definition', such as it is, is merely an acknowledgement of the existence of gender alongside/as a layer on top of biological sex. But we only have one word, 'woman' or 'man', to identify both, because our language reflects a time when, in our society, the two were taken to be inseparable - 'god-given', even, in the minds of many. 

You're right that gender involves a web of stereotypes. Acknowledging its existence doesn't necessarily imply approval. But criticising how it functions doesn't stop it being a very deeply embedded part of how most people operate, something that few of us can escape. It seems to me to be a very specific and unworthy targetting when criticising gender to take aim at those who wish to change their gender identity.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> What do you mean by 'gender'? If someone who is intersex has a clear reproductive potential, how are they intersex?



Would you respect an intersex person's gender if they lived in the gender role counter to their reproductive potential?


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 8, 2018)

free spirit said:


> If Trans women are female, the same as CIS women, and should be referred to as women, female and she in the same way and fully accepted as being in the same category as CIS women, why is there a constant need by transrights activists to differentiate between CIS and Trans women via the use of the 'CIS' and 'Trans' labels?



So they can constantly demand that we "check our privilege" while they disregard our misgivings.



free spirit said:


> On the one hand the differences are obvious and recognised via the CIS / Trans labels, but on the other any feminist (or apparently Trans person) who attempts to point this out is a nasty TERF.



Because in arguing that definitions of gender identity such as "gender identity is the gender one feels/chooses" make too elusive definitions to base laws on that will affect us negatively we're failing to check that privilege.



free spirit said:


> I've hesitated to say this as a CIS man, but being as the majority of the most active contributors to this thread are also CIS men I hope to avoid the accusations of mansplaining on this occasion.



The same questions arise from "Transgender men are men" which as a cis man you are as able to comment on as women are.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Nothing ad hominem about it.  You are happy to work with the worst kind of misogynists, who cheered on the benefit cuts for lone parents, who supported slashing funding for women's services, who is a one of the most homophobic MPs and an openly racist, climate change denying piece of filth.
> 
> Just like your comrades have cosy'd up to the Daily Mail.  Your politics are shit, you should be ashamed of yourself for giving that twat a PR boost so he can pretend he gives a shit about women - you are a danger to women if you are prepared to make these compromises.



I was critical of DD's voting record in Parliament, to his face and in everything I have written about this. As were, I am sure, the dozen female Labour MPs who attended this meeting and supported it.

What do you say to trans writers like, for example, Jane Fae who is happy to accept the money and exposure given by the Daily Mail?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> My 'definition', such as it is, is merely an acknowledgement of the existence of gender alongside/as a layer on top of biological sex. But we only have one word, 'woman' or 'man', to identify both, because our language reflects a time when, in our society, the two were taken to be inseparable - 'god-given', even, in the minds of many.
> 
> You're right that gender involves a web of stereotypes. Acknowledging its existence doesn't necessarily imply approval. But criticising how it functions doesn't stop it being a very deeply embedded part of how most people operate, something that few of us can escape. It seems to me to be a very specific and unworthy targetting when criticising gender to take aim at those who wish to change their gender identity.



Gender *is* stereotypes, sex-based stereotypes (cf 'sexism'), it is cultural and differs across time and cultures. Being a woman, as an adult human female, is not all about performing a cultural stereotype.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Would you respect an intersex person's gender if they lived in the gender role counter to their reproductive potential?



You missed the important part of my question: if someone belongs to a reproductive class, how can they be intersex? Your question is, quite literally, begging the question as it relies on a false premise.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I was critical of DD's voting record in Parliament, to his face and in everything I have written about this. As were, I am sure, the dozen female Labour MPs who attended this meeting and supported it.



Sure you have, savaged him in fact:



> _Mr Davies is an unlikely ally to the cause I am promoting. It is my view that The 2015 Transgender Equality Report is an unbalanced, one-sided, socially regressive and profoundly anti-woman document; the inquiry that produced this simply did not get to grips with the subject matter they are reporting on and the document is more a work of propaganda than a reasoned investigation. It is a work of activists and activism.
> 
> There is some irony that, aside from Caroline Flint MP in the now defunct bill’s first reading, the only MP to have demonstrated any understanding of the issues involved and how these impact on women is a white, middle-class Tory MP with a voting record that is anathema to classic liberals such as myself. Yet, kudos to Mr Davies, he gets it, and in asides during the meeting he demonstrated understanding of how this also adversely affects LGB rights. It’s like entering ‘The Twilight Zone’ when a Conservative MP is doing the work of the left because the left is toothless, impotent, powerless._



'classic liberal' lol.  Do you support children working in factories?



> What do you say to trans writers like, for example, Jane Fae who is happy to accept the money and exposure given by the Daily Mail?



There's a difference between trying to use them as a platform and passing on stories to whip up a bigoted mob.  But no, I don't support anyone writing for the Daily Mail generally.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> You missed the important part of my question: if someone belongs to a reproductive class, how can they be intersex? Your question is, quite literally, begging the question as it relies on a false premise.


yeh, smokedout shouldn't have anticipated an expression of respect


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Gender *is* stereotypes, sex-based stereotypes (cf 'sexism'), it is cultural and differs across time and cultures. Being a woman, as an adult human female, is not all about performing a cultural stereotype.


For better or worse, aspects of gender performance do form a part of 'being a woman' or 'being a man' for a very large number of people in particular contexts. And not just because we're all indoctrinated fools. You seem to want there to be a definitive answer to the question 'Does gender trump sex, or does sex trump gender?' I don't see why there necessarily needs to be an answer to that question.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> You missed the important part of my question: if someone belongs to a reproductive class, how can they be intersex? Your question is, quite literally, begging the question as it relies on a false premise.



Can I take it that means no, you wouldn't recognise the gender of an intersex person, who was technically biologically capable of conceiving but who lived as a man.


----------



## elbows (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> You missed the important part of my question: if someone belongs to a reproductive class, how can they be intersex? Your question is, quite literally, begging the question as it relies on a false premise.



Are you suggesting that everyone who is intersex is infertile? Because that just isnt true.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 8, 2018)

elbows said:


> Are you suggesting that everyone who is intersex is infertile? Because that just isnt true.



and that intersex people who are infertile can be neither man or woman?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 8, 2018)

I think it's odd that you won't qualify what you meant with this Miranda Yardley 



> Sorry about your di...



What is_ di_ short for? Dick?


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 8, 2018)

I'd like to know.... 1. if transgender women are women why do they need to transition? and 2. Those who do, what do they transition from?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 8, 2018)

elbows said:


> Are you suggesting that everyone who is intersex is infertile? Because that just isnt true.



Do they assign fertile intersex people to the gender that mismatches their gametes?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 8, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> I think it's odd that you won't qualify what you meant with this Miranda Yardley
> 
> 
> 
> What is_ di_ short for? Dick?


Ah, I'm a bit slow. I hadn't thought of that. I do hope so.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 8, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ah, I'm a bit slow. I hadn't thought of that. I do hope so.




I did, but it wasnt worth bothering with


----------



## free spirit (Jan 8, 2018)

smokedout said:


> This is a daft argument, you can have lesbian woman and straight women, it  doesn't mean one of those groups isn't a woman.


there's a significant difference. Those prefixes refer to their sexual orientation in terms of whether they fancy men or women. Both lesbian and straight women were born as women, would fall in the CIS woman classification now, and would always previously have fallen into the category of being women. 

Trans women weren't born as women, they don't fall into the CIS women classification. They (or their advocates) have self identified as not being the same as CIS women by bringing the CIS classification into use to differentiate women born as women from trans women, and then want to redefine the term 'woman' (without any prefix) to always include both CIS and trans, whereas previously it has been used to mean CIS women without the need for the prefix.

This has then been extended from those who've actually been through gender reassignment surgery, hormone treatment etc to transition as closely as possible to the sex they feel they should be, to now include those who 'self identify as a woman' but present pretty obviously as a man and have no intention of attempting to present as a woman (such as those with a full beard).

As far as I can see with this, transrights activists in the last few years have decided that this is how it should be, and then rather than consulting with the feminist movement to discuss their opinions on it and seek some form of consensus on it, have sought to force this change upon them via a campaign of hounding anyone who dissents from their viewpoint on it.

This has been compounded by the identity politics heirachy bollocks which automatically places trans women as being less privileged than CIS women, and therefore that their voices should be heard louder and feminist campaigns should be diverted to support the transrights campaigns rather than say focusing on reproductive rights issues. 

So effectively transrights activists (at least a vocal subsection of them) want feminist groups not only to accept that trans women should be included in their groups and campaigns, but then want to subvert those campaigns for their own aims. Given this, I'd be unsurprised if some long  running feminist campaign groups have told them to get to fuck.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jan 8, 2018)

> kudos to Mr Davies, he gets it



Yeah he's a grand ally of women everywhere. Voting against abortion rights in 2008 was a highlight, along with that time he harassed Diane Abbott. Oh and of course how could we forget...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 8, 2018)

Rob Ray said:


> Yeah he's a grand ally of women everywhere. Voting against abortion rights in 2008 was a highlight, along with that time he harassed Diane Abbott. Oh and of course how could we forget...
> 
> View attachment 124856


Wrong tory cunt.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 8, 2018)

even sex cant sell the tory party


----------



## smokedout (Jan 8, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Wrong tory cunt.



The other ones even worse.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jan 8, 2018)

Oh sorry my bad, you meant the massive racist who tried to get abortion reduced to 12 weeks. Apologies


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

smokedout said:


> 'classic liberal' lol.  Do you support children working in factories?



No, and neither did 'classic liberals'. My political compass is JS Mill, who was not just years ahead of his own time, but is years ahead of now, with his thoughts on democracy, women's rights and free speech.



smokedout said:


> There's a difference between trying to use them as a platform and passing on stories to whip up a bigoted mob.  But no, I don't support anyone writing for the Daily Mail generally.



Please advise me of anything I have ever said that is 'bigoted'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Wrong tory cunt.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Please advise me of anything I have ever said that is 'bigoted'.




is this a joke??


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You seem to want there to be a definitive answer to the question 'Does gender trump sex, or does sex trump gender?' I don't see why there necessarily needs to be an answer to that question.



Sex is material biological reality, gender is cultural stereotypes. If we can recognise this, why can we not recognise 'trans women' are not women, but afford them respect and compassion as 'trans women'?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

elbows said:


> Are you suggesting that everyone who is intersex is infertile? Because that just isnt true.



If someone is fertile, that's a pretty solid determinant they are either male or female. We don't have a 'third sex'.


----------



## elbows (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> No, and neither did 'classic liberals'. My political compass is JS Mill, who was not just years ahead of his own time, but is years ahead of now, with his thoughts on democracy, women's rights and free speech.
> 
> Please advise me of anything I have ever said that is 'bigoted'.



Given one of the foundations of your wisdom involves crudely shoehorning autogynephilia into areas it doesnt belong, you'll always be a bigot to me.


----------



## elbows (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> If someone is fertile, that's a pretty solid determinant they are either male or female. We don't have a 'third sex'.



More fuckwittery, divorced from the reality and the conditions some people have. Useless.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> is this a joke??


perhaps it might be easier to turn it round and advise my of anything they've said which isn't bigoted.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

free spirit said:


> As far as I can see with this, transrights activists in the last few years have decided that this is how it should be, and then rather than consulting with the feminist movement to discuss their opinions on it and seek some form of consensus on it, have sought to force this change upon them via a campaign of hounding anyone who dissents from their viewpoint on it.



This is true. I have been attacked for even suggesting we recognise differences so we can build coalition.



free spirit said:


> This has been compounded by the identity politics heirachy bollocks which automatically places trans women as being less privileged than CIS women, and therefore that their voices should be heard louder and feminist campaigns should be diverted to support the transrights campaigns rather than say focusing on reproductive rights issues.



Problem is so much feminist discourse is being diverted to trans issues.



free spirit said:


> So effectively transrights activists (at least a vocal subsection of them) want feminist groups not only to accept that trans women should be included in their groups and campaigns, but then want to subvert those campaigns for their own aims. Given this, I'd be unsurprised if some long  running feminist campaign groups have told them to get to fuck.



See for example what has happened with Lily Madigan, who is being used by one side and subjected to relentless attack by the other.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

elbows said:


> More fuckwittery, divorced from the reality and the conditions some people have. Useless.



Please support your claim.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Please support your claim.




fuck off, dave


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Sex is material biological reality, gender is cultural stereotypes. If we can recognise this, why can we not recognise 'trans women' are not women, but afford them respect and compassion as 'trans women'?


gender is no less a material reality than sex. _Mind_ is a material reality. Your categories don't work the way you think they do.

As for affording people respect and compassion, you have failed that test pretty spectacularly.


----------



## elbows (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Please support your claim.



Which bit?

There are plenty of people with lives that are not served by your crude take on things, that should be obvious. That it isnt obvious to you at this time makes me think I have zero chance convincing you otherwise, but just for the sake of providing an example here is something.

intersexed and10 weeks pregnant, feeling scared and alone :( - Netmums Chat


----------



## 8ball (Jan 8, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> gender is no less a material reality than sex.



Hmmm...


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 8, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> gender is no less a material reality than sex.


Seriously?


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Sex is material biological reality, gender is cultural stereotypes. If we can recognise this, why can we not recognise 'trans women' are not women, but afford them respect and compassion as 'trans women'?






littlebabyjesus said:


> As for affording people respect and compassion, you have failed that test pretty spectacularly.



Pretend the sentence was uttered by someone other than Miranda, what do you have against its premise?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> gender is no less a material reality than sex.


The effete liberal always makes one fatal error. Tell you what, point me to a picture of gender.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 8, 2018)

why does everyone keep capitalising "cis" so it reads 'CIS' as if it's an acronym. I notice it's something mostly done by people taking an anti-trans viewpoint. Is there an agenda attached to this - like using "transwomen" instead "trans women"?


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 8, 2018)

Oh gawd!


----------



## TopCat (Jan 8, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> why does everyone keep capitalising "cis" so it reads 'CIS' as if it's an acronym. I notice it's something mostly done by people taking an anti-trans viewpoint. Is there an agenda attached to this - like using "transwomen" instead "trans women"?


Yeah right. Please do tell us how to correctly use the label you have dumped on us.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> gender is no less a material reality than sex. _Mind_ is a material reality. Your categories don't work the way you think they do.
> 
> As for affording people respect and compassion, you have failed that test pretty spectacularly.



On the contrary, biological sex exists independent of human existence, gender exists only because human beings create it in their society.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> fuck off, dave



..


----------



## LDC (Jan 8, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Is there an agenda attached to this - like using "transwomen" instead "trans women"?



When this level of pedantry starts to be an issue I think we've taken a wrong turn somewhere. FFS.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> On the contrary, biological sex exists independent of human existence, gender exists only because human beings create it in their society.


It seems there are many animals other than humans which don't adhere to a gender binary. You see you use mill as your political guide. Do you rely on nineteenth century science too?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> When this level of pedantry starts to be an issue I think we've taken a wrong turn somewhere. FFS.


Beware the wrath of the ultrapedant


----------



## free spirit (Jan 8, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> why does everyone keep capitalising "cis" so it reads 'CIS' as if it's an acronym. I notice it's something mostly done by people taking an anti-trans viewpoint. Is there an agenda attached to this - like using "transwomen" instead "trans women"?


In my case you can put it down to me rarely if ever using the term and forgetting how it's supposed to be written.

ps I've not got an anti-trans viewpoint, I've got a viewpoint that differs from that of a bunch of self appointed transrights activists, most of whom aren't trans.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

elbows said:


> Which bit?
> 
> There are plenty of people with lives that are not served by your crude take on things, that should be obvious. That it isnt obvious to you at this time makes me think I have zero chance convincing you otherwise, but just for the sake of providing an example here is something.
> 
> intersexed and10 weeks pregnant, feeling scared and alone :( - Netmums Chat



Like one of the replies says, 'this is a very complex situation' and with respect to the OP, this appears to be pretty much a singular outlier and these characteristics are not shared by 'trans women'. How does this support any argument that 'trans women' are female, or even women?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2018)

free spirit said:


> In my case you can put it down to me rarely if ever using the term and forgetting how it's supposed to be written.
> 
> ps I've not got an anti-trans viewpoint, I've got a viewpoint that differs from that of a bunch of self appointed transrights activists, most of whom aren't trans.


Aren't all activists self appointed?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> It seems there are many animals other than humans which don't adhere to a gender binary. You see you use mill as your political guide. Do you rely on nineteenth century science too?



His politics on free speech and women's rights are still light years ahead of much on this board.

There's no 'science' to show 'trans women are women'.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 8, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Aren't all activists self appointed?


no. Some are elected to their role.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2018)

free spirit said:


> no. Some are elected to their role.


Against their will no doubt


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> His politics on free speech and women's rights are still light years ahead of much on this board.
> 
> There's no 'science' to show 'trans women are women'.


Yeh yardbot. Don't mention the animals!


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Pretend the sentence was uttered by someone other than Miranda, what do you have against its premise?



#wrongkindatrans

Seriously though, being attacked like this by a bunch of blokes who profess to be trans allies really makes me worry; their compassion for trans people seems to be a veil for their moral disgust.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 8, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> When this level of pedantry starts to be an issue I think we've taken a wrong turn somewhere. FFS.


it's not pedantry - it's a crucial point that something called a transwoman cannot be a woman but "trans woman" is a woman who is trans. some people use transwoman out of ignorance but others use it deliberately to make precisely that point - that trans women aren't women.


----------



## LDC (Jan 8, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Against their will no doubt



I refuse to join any club... etc... etc...


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh yardbot. Don't mention the animals!



Support your claim then. Thanks.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Support your claim then. Thanks.


No, support yours. I like a laugh.


----------



## LDC (Jan 8, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> it's not pedantry - it's a crucial point that something called a transwoman cannot be a woman but "trans woman" is a woman who is trans. some people use transwoman out of ignorance but others use it deliberately to make precisely that point - that trans women aren't women.



A _crucial_ point? FFS, exactly what I mean, get some perspective on this, and where this issue sits among the problems in the world today.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 8, 2018)

free spirit said:


> ps I've not got an anti-trans viewpoint, I've got a viewpoint that differs from that of a bunch of self appointed transrights activists, most of whom aren't trans.



that's a really odd statement. So you're fine with trans women and allies as long as we stay out of politics. And I think it's really unlikely that most "transrights" activists aren't trans. Got something to back this up?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> If someone is fertile, that's a pretty solid determinant they are either male or female. We don't have a 'third sex'.



So you don't recognise the right of intersex people to live in the gender they choose.  Noted.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 8, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> A _crucial_ point? FFS, exactly what I mean, get some perspective on this, and where this issue sits among the problems in the world today.


that's 0k. I'm used to being told to shut up and stop worrying. If it's such a fucking trivial thing then why do those who campaign against us always make the point of writing it in a way that invalidates us?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> No, support yours. I like a laugh.



You seem more pouty than laughy.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

smokedout said:


> So you don't recognise the right of intersex people to live in the gender they choose.  Noted.



I didn't say that. Please don't misrepresent me.


----------



## LDC (Jan 8, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> that's 0k. I'm used to being told to shut up and stop worrying. If it's such a fucking trivial thing then why do those who campaign against us always make the point of writing it in a way that invalidates us?



I've heard loads of criticisms on topics around this issue, I've just literally never heard this issue with whether it's transwomen or trans women.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> You seem more pouty than laughy.


You seem unwilling to support your point


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 8, 2018)

amazing - us using 'cis' is disrespectful deal breaker but you guys using "transwomen" for us is trivial. Yeah I got that. this is all about cis people. Gotcha!


----------



## smokedout (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> No, and neither did 'classic liberals'. My political compass is JS Mill, who was not just years ahead of his own time, but is years ahead of now, with his thoughts on democracy, women's rights and free speech.
> 
> 
> 
> Please advise me of anything I have ever said that is 'bigoted'.



I wasn't attacking you over the Daily Mail, just your comrades.  I was attacking you for cosying up to a Tory misogynist.  I think it reveals you as part of a movement that has lost all semblance of objectivity, that is reduced to conspiracy theories and crackpot 1970s sexology, and that is largely motivated by bigotry.  That's why when other feminists are out campaigning to save women's services from closure you're forming alliances with the people doing it.  You are a danger to working class women, cis, trans or otherwise.


----------



## iona (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Like one of the replies says, 'this is a very complex situation' and with respect to the OP, this appears to be pretty much a singular outlier and these characteristics are not shared by 'trans women'. How does this support any argument that 'trans women' are female, or even women?



They weren't talking about trans women, they were responding to your nonsense about intersex people.


----------



## Manter (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Re-hi.
> 
> I don't spend an awful lot of time on Twitter as I get roped into so many conversations, as often by people with opposing views to myself. Also, I'm not responsible for what my followers say, and I am not going to defend someone else's beliefs, only my own. FWIW I don't even agree with much of what the people I follow say. You may also notice I will often tell someone when I disagree with what they say, even if we are supposed to be 'friends'. But like I said, I'm not on there all the time.
> 
> Please would you outline here or on DM here (or on Twitter) what was said that was 'Islamophobic'? I'd appreciate that, thanks.


Well, you didn't challenge anything Mary King said, which is interesting- but I do understand you aren't responsible for fellow travellers. 
And for the islamophobia read pragmatic chick's timeline. She didn't tag you in- she appears to be one of Mary King's mates.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 8, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I've heard loads of criticisms on topics around this issue, I've just literally never heard this issue with whether it's transwomen or trans women.


oh well obviously if you've never heard of it it's not a thing, because what do I know? I only get attacked by trans excluders on a nearly daily basis for existing and having an opinion that they disagree with. And I and every other trans person who's noticed this was obviously imagining it. No wonder you prefer your trans women non-political, and gagged - oh, unless they agree with you, presumably.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I didn't say that. Please don't misrepresent me.



Then will you answer the question, would you recognise an intersex person as a man even if they had female reproductive capacity?

It's a pretty simple question, a yes/no answer is fine.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 8, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> amazing - us using 'cis' is disrespectful deal breaker but you guys using "transwomen" for us is trivial. Yeah I got that. this is all about cis people. Gotcha!


I haven't used any label. Stop generalising.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 8, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> that's a really odd statement. So you're fine with trans women and allies as long as we stay out of politics. And I think it's really unlikely that most "transrights" activists aren't trans. Got something to back this up?


this thread (check the top posters on the thread), multiple facebook interactions, observation of multiple trans rights related protests and campaigns, seeing how it's worked in the green party / young greens etc.

The majority of those who involve themselves heavily in these discussions and associated protests, no platforming campaigns etc supposedly on behalf of trans people aren't trans themselves. Some may class themselves as identity curious, most seem to be men who class themselves as allies.

And by all means get involved with politics, but focusing most of your efforts on disrupting and no platforming long standing feminist and gay rights campaigners / campaigns isn't how to win people over to your viewpoint, it just means that all sides lose as people on all sides of the argument get pissed off and stop being involved in anything at all.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> #wrongkindatrans
> 
> Seriously though, being attacked like this by a bunch of blokes who profess to be trans allies really makes me worry; their compassion for trans people seems to be a veil for their moral disgust.



I don't have a problem with you being attacked. If you were a racist bitch I'd be attacking you. What I'd also be doing is arguing against your arguments even if I thought you were beyond contempt.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 8, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> oh well obviously if you've never heard of it it's not a thing, because what do I know? I only get attacked by trans excluders on a nearly daily basis for existing and having an opinion that they disagree with. And I and every other trans person who's noticed this was obviously imagining it. No wonder you prefer your trans women non-political, and gagged - oh, unless they agree with you, presumably.


Attacked? Gagged? Near daily basis? Bit to much egg in pudding.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley you've gone all brave sir robin


----------



## LDC (Jan 8, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> No wonder you prefer your trans women non-political, and gagged - oh, unless they agree with you, presumably.



Are you mistaking me for saying something someone else said, or are you just flying off the handle randomly?


----------



## TopCat (Jan 8, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> amazing - us using 'cis' is disrespectful deal breaker but you guys using "transwomen" for us is trivial. Yeah I got that. this is all about cis people. Gotcha!


You guys?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 8, 2018)

TopCat said:


> You guys?



'Guys' has been gender-negotiable since the 1990s ime.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 8, 2018)

free spirit said:


> And by all means get involved with politics, but focusing most of your efforts on disrupting and no platforming long standing feminist and gay rights campaigners / campaigns isn't how to win people over to your viewpoint, it just means that all sides lose as people on all sides of the argument get pissed off and stop being involved in anything at all.



You may not have noticed, but there's been something of a campaign going on in the last couple of years to prevent a new Gender Recognition Act, a campaign that appears to have been successful, and involves many of those 'long standing feminist and gay rights campaigners' cosying up to proven anti-gay rights, anti-women's rights right wingers like David Davies. Every time an institution becomes trans-inclusive, this nexus of dubious forces cranks into gear to personally vilify the trans people involved. Given that these are the current places of fracture of the ongoing quest for trans rights, what exactly do you expect trans rights campaigners to focus on instead?


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 8, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> amazing - us using 'cis' is disrespectful deal breaker but you guys using "transwomen" for us is trivial. Yeah I got that. this is all about cis people. Gotcha!





> So the only option available to me, if I want to reject the label cis, is to pick some other gender identity. I am not permitted to deny that I have a gender identity at all. But this is in itself oppressive. It makes false assertions about the subjective experience of many people – people like me who do not feel as if we have a deep, internal sense of our own gender, and whose primary experience of gender is as a coercive, externally imposed set of constraints, rather than an essential aspect of our personal identity. It forces us to define ourselves in ways we don’t accept (and, as I’m now learning, if we refuse to define ourselves in this way, this is attributed to bigotry and a lack of empathy for trans people, rather than a reasonable rejection of what being cis entails). If “cisgender” were a description of a medical condition, characterised by an absence of sex dysphoria, then I would accept that I am cis. But if cisgender is a gender identity, which it appears to be, then I am not cis, because I do not have a gender identity. I am a woman. But it’s not because deep down, I _feel_ like one. Because deep down, I just feel like a person.



Am I cisgender?


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 8, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You may not have noticed, but there's been something of a campaign going on in the last couple of years to prevent a new Gender Recognition Act, a campaign that appears to have been successful, and involves many of those 'long standing feminist and gay rights campaigners' cosying up to proven anti-gay rights, anti-women's rights right wingers like David Davies. Every time an institution becomes trans-inclusive, this nexus of dubious forces cranks into gear to personally vilify the trans people involved. Given that these are the current places of fracture of the ongoing quest for trans rights, what exactly do you expect trans rights campaigners to focus on instead?



That's misrepresenting a lot of us who are sensitive to the various ways the GRA as people like you mean for it to go ahead will impact on women.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> That's misrepresenting a lot of us who are sensitive to the various ways the GRA as people like you mean for it to go ahead will impact on women.



I'm not familiar with the details of this act.  Use of toilets and changing rooms aside (because that comes up a lot), what are the other impacts?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> That's misrepresenting a lot of us who are sensitive to the various ways the GRA as people like you mean for it to go ahead will impact on women.


It's not misrepresenting the people Sea Star campaigns against, which is the people I was talking about. People like Julia Long, Maria Mac, Dr RadFem, Miranda Yardley, and others.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Am I cisgender?



The stuff about identity is interesting.  I think if I was (for the sake of argument) transformed into a person with a female body, I expect I'd be a very 'blokey' one, even if no dysphoria resulted.  The things you like, the stuff you wear, all of that subconscious "you can colour, but only within the lines" stuff...

Maybe that's what gender identity is to those of us with no strong "internal feeling" about it.  Or part of it, anyway.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 8, 2018)

8ball said:


> The stuff about identity is interesting.  I think if I was (for the sake of argument) transformed into a person with a female body, I expect I'd be a very 'blokey' one, even if no dysphoria resulted.  The things you like, the stuff you wear, all of that subconscious "you can colour, but only within the lines" stuff...
> 
> Maybe that's what gender identity is to those of us with no strong "internal feeling" about it.  Or part of it, anyway.



The other day I said this:



MochaSoul said:


> Beauvoir said "One becomes woman". I see it more as one comes to terms with being [seen, treated as, compelled to act as] as woman. Little things, big things, bigger things that shout at one "lesser", "confined to", "not allowed", "liable to", "unable to", etc, etc, not including periods and the pains that accompany them, worry about pregnancy, fear of infertility, motherhood, etc, etc, etc. Whereas before my conversation with my friend (which I have described here earlier) I welcomed the whole spanner in the works of patriarchy that the very existence of transgender people represent, I'm not so sure now. Now I fear, the very principles behind being a transgender woman, passing as woman, are a threat to an awful lot of the gains so many before me struggled for me to, today, be able to say I have come to terms with being woman within and in spite of the patriarchal world I find myself in. Not by virtue of them being transgender women. By virtue of the claims on gender they make.



I only found this article yesterday but I think she says it a lot better than I. To me being a woman is not like having a soul or the spirit of a woman. It's been a long and drawn out process of trying to square how I see myself to how society does. My resistance to this whole "I feel like a woman" that goes on in this debate is to do with all of that.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I've heard loads of criticisms on topics around this issue, I've just literally never heard this issue with whether it's transwomen or trans women.



Oh this has been an issue for ages, 'trans women' implies they are a variant of 'women' because 'trans' is an adjective; 'transwomen' implies they are something else. This is quite a big area of contention.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

smokedout said:


> I wasn't attacking you over the Daily Mail, just your comrades.  I was attacking you for cosying up to a Tory misogynist.  I think it reveals you as part of a movement that has lost all semblance of objectivity, that is reduced to conspiracy theories and crackpot 1970s sexology, and that is largely motivated by bigotry.  That's why when other feminists are out campaigning to save women's services from closure you're forming alliances with the people doing it.  You are a danger to working class women, cis, trans or otherwise.



Again, please show me one thing I have ever said that is 'bigoted' or 'hateful'. I notice your big long ad hominem in the absence of a substantive argument.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

smokedout said:


> would you recognise an intersex person as a man even if they had female reproductive capacity?



Sex class is based upon reproduction, again please find me one single independently verified instance of a recorded conception and gestation by someone with a male reproductive system.



smokedout said:


> It's a pretty simple question, a yes/no answer is fine.



It's funny I get accused of black and white thinking yet here you are presenting a yes or no answer, when you beg the question...


----------



## Athos (Jan 8, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> A _crucial_ point? FFS, exactly what I mean, get some perspective on this, and where this issue sits among the problems in the world today.



It's far from trivial; the policing of language is an important part of much of TRA strategy.

Clearly, it's not easy to bring trans women within the definition of 'woman' as the vast majority of people  currently understand that term. So the focus becomes expanding the meaning of the word 'woman' to include trans women. Because words have a two way relationship with reality; if enough people use 'woman' to include trans women, then trans women become women (literally, by (a change in) definition).

And, there's two ways of bringing that about: arguing why the definition should be expanded; or, hectoring, bullying or guilting people with accusations of bigotry if they don't comply (which, also, conveniently excuses a failure to engage with the substance of opponents' positions).

The most ridiculous thing about Sea Star's excitement about the use of the word is that, on this thread, it's been used most consistently by smokedout (whom I think we'd all accept isn't a TERF!), and at least once by a trans woman to describe herself!


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

free spirit said:


> this thread (check the top posters on the thread), multiple facebook interactions, observation of multiple trans rights related protests and campaigns, seeing how it's worked in the green party / young greens etc.



Here's an example of the sort of thing that 'trans allies' say to transsexuals they disagree with.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

8ball said:


> 'Guys' has been gender-negotiable since the 1990s ime.



More like the '60s.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Again, please show me one thing I have ever said that is 'bigoted' or 'hateful'. I notice your big long ad hominem in the absence of a substantive argument.




explain what you meant by 'di...' first

but you wont because you are weak.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Every time an institution becomes trans-inclusive, this nexus of dubious forces cranks into gear to personally vilify the trans people involved. Given that these are the current places of fracture of the ongoing quest for trans rights, what exactly do you expect trans rights campaigners to focus on instead?



Actually that's not true; it's not about vilifying trans people, it is instead about preserving existing protections and the rights to privacy of women and girls.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 8, 2018)

I think you waive yer right to privacy in public spaces. sweat.

dont go outside if yer that scared.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's not misrepresenting the people Sea Star campaigns against, which is the people I was talking about. People like Julia Long, Maria Mac, Dr RadFem, Miranda Yardley, and others.



SS doesn't 'campaign' against anyone, rather SS whines away on Twitter attacking anyone he disagrees with. I remember a couple of years ago how SS instigated a pile-on against a young trans 'sex worker', which caused that person a lot of distress.

Are you trans yourself? It would be useful to know, so I know whether you're a non-trans individual picking sides in a dispute between trans people.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 8, 2018)

no one gives a fuck about who did what when, you child.

theres no teacher to tell in the real world so you just whine about people on forums, it's pathetic, do your own self.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Are you trans yourself? It would be useful to know, so I know whether you're a non-trans individual picking sides in a dispute between trans people.




yer a fucking waste asking this shit.

shows your hand.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> I don't have a problem with you being attacked. If you were a racist bitch I'd be attacking you. What I'd also be doing is arguing against your arguments even if I thought you were beyond contempt.



Yet for some reason I get a bunch of dudes being mean!


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Yet for some reason I get a bunch of dudes being mean!




mnerrrrrr mi such a victimmmmm i dunno why people ar reacting to me being a total cunt

call the fucking wahmbulance


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> I think you waive yer right to privacy in public spaces. sweat.
> 
> dont go outside if yer that scared.





pengaleng said:


> no one gives a fuck about who did what when, you child.
> 
> theres no teacher to tell in the real world so you just whine about people on forums, it's pathetic, do your own self.





pengaleng said:


> yer a fucking waste asking this shit.
> 
> shows your hand.



This is what presently passes for discourse from transgenderists and is illustrative of exactly why some many women (and men) of all political colours object to what is happening.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> mnerrrrrr mi such a victimmmmm i dunno why people ar reacting to me being a total cunt
> 
> call the fucking wahmbulance



You boys really are a riot.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> This is what presently passes for discourse from transgenderists and is illustrative of exactly why some many women (and men) of all political colours object to what is happening.




no it isnt lol it's being called a fucking cunt for being a cunt, dont dress it up


----------



## TopCat (Jan 8, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> mnerrrrrr mi such a victimmmmm i dunno why people ar reacting to me being a total cunt
> 
> call the fucking wahmbulance


Were you dropped on your head as a baby?


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 8, 2018)

TopCat said:


> Were you dropped on your head as a baby?



were you born addicted to smack? foetal alcohol syndrome? abused? an abortion that crawled out the bin?


----------



## free spirit (Jan 8, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You may not have noticed, but there's been something of a campaign going on in the last couple of years to prevent a new Gender Recognition Act, a campaign that appears to have been successful, and involves many of those 'long standing feminist and gay rights campaigners' cosying up to proven anti-gay rights, anti-women's rights right wingers like David Davies. Every time an institution becomes trans-inclusive, this nexus of dubious forces cranks into gear to personally vilify the trans people involved. Given that these are the current places of fracture of the ongoing quest for trans rights, what exactly do you expect trans rights campaigners to focus on instead?


I'd suggest they'd be best to focus on positively campaigning to gain support for the changes they wish to see in the legislation.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

Athos said:


> The most ridiculous thing about Sea Star's excitement about the use of the word is that, on this thread, it's been used most consistently by smokedout (whom I think we'd all accept isn't a TERF!), and at least once by a trans woman to describe herself!



Trans people are not a monolith(!)


----------



## Athos (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> You boys really are a riot.



You're just being a dick, now. Pack it in.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

Athos said:


> You're just being a dick, now. Pack it in.



If the response I get to making an argument is abuse, I'll respond to it how I like, thank you very much.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> SS doesn't 'campaign' against anyone, rather SS whines away on Twitter attacking anyone he disagrees with. I remember a couple of years ago how SS instigated a pile-on against a young trans 'sex worker', which caused that person a lot of distress.


Given your reaction to Sea Star when she made accusations against you, I suggest you retract that immediately. You don't want her talking about you? Well don't fucking talk about her then, especially as you can't help doing so without getting in the obligatory pronoun dig.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> If the response I get to making an argument is abuse, I'll respond to it how I like, thank you very much.


Fuck you. It's not ok to respond to abuse with racist, sexist or homophobic comments and it's not ok to respond to abuse with transphobic shit, regardless of the abuse that's coming your way.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 8, 2018)

redsquirrel said:


> Fuck you. It's not ok to respond to abuse with racist, sexist or homophobic comments and it's not ok to respond to abuse with transphobic shit, regardless of the abuse that's coming your way.


What’s transphobic about referring to pengaleng as a boy?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Given your reaction to Sea Star when she made accusations against you, I suggest you retract that immediately. You don't want her talking about you? Well don't fucking talk about her then, especially as you can't help doing so without getting in the obligatory pronoun dig.



SS was lying about me, I am telling the truth. SS was attacking a young transsexual who was tweeting details of an experience of sexual harassment and SS made out this was 'hate speech'. And no, I will not be submitting to SS over pronouns.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

redsquirrel said:


> Fuck you. It's not ok to respond to abuse with racist, sexist or homophobic comments and it's not ok to respond to abuse with transphobic shit, regardless of the abuse that's coming your way.



What have I said that is 'transphobic'?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 8, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> What’s transphobic about referring to pengaleng as a boy?


It's transphobic to refer to Sea Star as 'he', and I think the 'boys' was aimed at SS too.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

redsquirrel said:


> It's transphobic to refer to Sea Star as 'he', and I think the 'boys' was aimed at SS too.



No, it was aimed at the person I quoted. It is not an act of 'transphobia' to refuse to submit to someone's demand I suspend my disbelief and relationship with reality.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 8, 2018)

Bullshit,


Miranda Yardley said:


> You boys really are a riot.


you used the plural on purpose.

And yes if someone in Sea Star's position asks to be referred to as she it's utterly shitty, and transphobic, not to have the solidarity or common courtesy to respect that. I have many, many issues with Sea Star's positions but only a cunt would call her 'he'.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 8, 2018)

Well, that escalated quickly... over 157 pages.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> ...


You were put on forced ignore with SS for a reason, and to be fair to her that has to work both ways. Take this shit down. I will edit my posts accordingly when you've taken it down.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Again, please show me one thing I have ever said that is 'bigoted' or 'hateful'. I notice your big long ad hominem in the absence of a substantive argument.



Calling Sea Star "he" is fucking hateful.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You were put on forced ignore with SS for a reason, and to be fair to her that has to work both ways. Take this shit down. I will edit my posts accordingly when you've taken it down.



No, I certainly will not.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Calling Sea Star "he" is fucking hateful.



Why is it hateful?


----------



## bimble (Jan 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Am I cisgender?


This is great, thanks for posting it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> No, I certainly will not.


Post reported. I very rarely do that, but there is a basic power imbalance here as she is unable to see your posts or to respond.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> No, I certainly will not.



Whatever grievances you may have against each other, don't you think it's unreasonable of you to be talking about SS when she can't see your posts?
I mean, where is the fairness in that?
Don't just reply with "She started it.". That's just childish. Please think about it


----------



## Wilf (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Why is it hateful?


Go on, humour me: have a think about it, see what you come up with.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 8, 2018)

8ball said:


> I'm not familiar with the details of this act.  Use of toilets and changing rooms aside (because that comes up a lot), what are the other impacts?



It would make it easier to legally change gender, and remove the need to provide reams of evidence.  That's about all, the exemptions which permit women's only services to discriminate trans women was not part of the consultation and as such were likely to have remained - especially as the government had previously rejected this proposal.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 8, 2018)

bimble said:


> This is great, thanks for posting it.



Thanks, I found it in a Portuguese forum. It certainly identified a lot that I couldn't put my finger on.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Whatever grievances you may have against each other, don't you think it's unreasonable of you to be talking about SS when she can't see your posts?
> I mean, where is the fairness in that?
> Don't just reply with "She started it.". That's just childish. Please think about it



I was responding to something someone else said. I'm sorry that person has apparently blocked me on here, I didn't even know this forum had such a facility.

If SS or anyone else would be interested in dialog, I'm always happy to oblige.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Again, please show me one thing I have ever said that is 'bigoted' or 'hateful'. I notice your big long ad hominem in the absence of a substantive argument.



I said your movement, not you.

Do you condemn the transcrime website?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I was responding to something someone else said. I'm sorry that person has apparently blocked me on here, I didn't even know this forum had such a facility.
> 
> If SS or anyone else would be interested in dialog, I'm always happy to oblige.



The editor forced the ignore as libel threats were flying about.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> ...


You’ve been put on mutual ignore to prevent escalating and disruptive personal attacks and I would ask that you kindly do not continue them despite this.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2018)

.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I was responding to something someone else said. I'm sorry that person has apparently blocked me on here, I didn't even know this forum had such a facility.
> 
> If SS or anyone else would be interested in dialog, I'm always happy to oblige.



I believe it was the editor that put you both on mutual ignore. That may have been requested by SS. When people are on mutual ignore it is expected that they wont refer to or talk about each other as well.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Sex class is based upon reproduction, again please find me one single independently verified instance of a recorded conception and gestation by someone with a male reproductive system.
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny I get accused of black and white thinking yet here you are presenting a yes or no answer, when you beg the question...



Well unless you answer the question then I can only assume that you do not recognise intersex people living in the gender they choose.

The fact you can't give a straight answer shows the weakness of your position.

yes or no?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

smokedout said:


> It would make it easier to legally change gender, and remove the need to provide reams of evidence.  That's about all, the exemptions which permit women's only services to discriminate trans women was not part of the consultation and as such were likely to have remained - especially as the government had previously rejected this proposal.



The evidence required for a GRC isn't onerous at all.

Do you feel that women's only services should by default have to accommodate 'trans women'? If so, at which point in the 'transition' does the 'trans woman' become entitled to those services?


----------



## bimble (Jan 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Thanks, I found it in a Portuguese forum. It certainly identified a lot that I couldn't put my finger on.


Yep. I relate to everything she says completely, including the frustration with 'just pick another gender identity then' as the only offered solution.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> I believe it was the editor that put you both on mutual ignore. That may have been requested by SS. When people are on mutual ignore it is expected that they wont refer to or talk about each other as well.



Live I said, this is all new to me, and I didn't tag SS, even though I believe someone else did. I respect SS's right not to engage with me.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Well unless you answer the question then I can only assume that you do not recognise intersex people living in the gender they choose.
> 
> The fact you can't give a straight answer shows the weakness of your position.
> 
> yes or no?



I refer you to my previous answer. Your question relies on a false premise.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Why is it hateful?


 Because you absolutely know it will cause upset and offence. Whilst you can argue on the details of what it means to be a 'woman' in terms of biological sex and point out the differences between cis and transgender women, I don't see why you can't use the she/her pronouns for someone who is a transwoman  even if you reject them.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Live I said, this is all new to me, and I didn't tag SS, even though I believe someone else did. I respect SS's right not to engage with me.



Fair enough if this forum rule/function is new to you and never been explained properly.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

FridgeMagnet said:


> You’ve been put on mutual ignore to prevent escalating and disruptive personal attacks and I would ask that you kindly do not continue them despite this.



Thanks for the message which I will respect. I was unaware of this until now.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Live I said, this is all new to me, and I didn't tag SS, even though I believe someone else did. I respect SS's right not to engage with me.


You're not allowed to refer to her - in case you forgot / didn't care, here's the message


editor said:


> For the various reasons, I'm putting Miranda Yardley and Sea Star on mutual ignore.
> 
> This means that neither poster may respond to, or reference, the other.


Which despite people telling you about it you blithely ignored


----------



## bimble (Jan 8, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> a transwoman


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 8, 2018)

bimble said:


>



Spit it out princess...no time to play games after a long day actually doing some work... what's the shockgaff that you are trying to shit stir about.

Should I have written transgender woman?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Because you absolutely know it will cause upset and offence. Whilst you can argue on the details of what it means to be a 'woman' in terms of biological sex and point out the differences between cis and transgender women, I don't see why you can't use the she/her pronouns for someone who is a transwoman  even if you reject them.



Why should anyone have to do that? Isn't it fundamentally illiberal to effectively police someone's thoughts and speech?


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 8, 2018)

bimble said:


> Yep. I relate to everything she says completely, including the frustration with 'just pick another gender identity then' as the only offered solution.



Oh yes, totally forgetting that by the time one decides to stop fighting there's been a lot of emotional investment.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Why should anyone have to do that? Isn't it fundamentally illiberal to effectively police someone's thoughts and speech?



You don’t have to, but on this board there’s a “don’t be a dick” rule.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Why should anyone have to do that? Isn't it fundamentally illiberal to effectively police someone's thoughts and speech?



Well that is one way of looking at it I suppose...another is that it's kind and not deliberately hurtful.  Not being a dick is the benchmark.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 8, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You were put on forced ignore with SS for a reason, and to be fair to her that has to work both ways. Take this shit down. I will edit my posts accordingly when you've taken it down.


Liberal picks up his baton


----------



## bimble (Jan 8, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Spit it out princess...no time to play games after a long day actually doing some work... what's the shockgaff that you are trying to shit stir about.
> 
> Should I have written transgender woman?



Is it hateful of you to keep calling me that? Here, this is me asking you to stop. You may not be aware of it but 'princess' is a really bad choice of name for you to have picked out for me as its a typical slur against jewish women. So please stop.
This is the post  you must have missed during your busy day:


Sea Star said:


> it's not pedantry - it's a crucial point that something called a transwoman cannot be a woman but "trans woman" is a woman who is trans. some people use transwoman out of ignorance but others use it deliberately to make precisely that point - that trans women aren't women.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 8, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> You're not allowed to refer to her - in case you forgot / didn't care, here's the message
> Which despite people telling you about it you blithely ignored


To be fair this mutual ignore is no moral imperitive just a U75 mod fudge.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Why should anyone have to do that? Isn't it fundamentally illiberal to effectively police someone's thoughts and speech?



If you want to foster dialogue you can meet people halfway. They already know you don't see them as men/women. You hardly need to get in their faces just to ram your point in.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> The evidence required for a GRC isn't onerous at all.



Perhaps not if your a middle class magazine editor, have good literacy, speak English as your first lannguage, have a stable address, supportive healthcare professionals, a supportive boss or someone else who can provide evidence, find it easier to access phones and the internet to change bank statements and bills, can afford a new passport, solicitors fees, medical report fees and in many cases the fee for the GRC itself, do not struggle filling in forms, have no disabilities that make this kind of thing difficult, and have had a stable and secure enough life to be able to maintain two years worth of evidence of your gender.  Oh and have recourse to private medical professionals and solicitors if you want to take the strain off.  Then it's not difficult at all.  For many people however it's near impossible.



> Do you feel that women's only services should by default have to accommodate 'trans women'? If so, at which point in the 'transition' does the 'trans woman' become entitled to those services?



At the point that her partner is abusing her, or she gets raped and she needs a place of safety.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Fair enough if this forum rule/function is new to you and never been explained properly.



Like I said, I didn't tag, in fact I didn't even use the poster's name, just enough to allow the poster to be identified within the reply. What I was responding to was rather what I saw as a double standard. 

Nonetheless, I'd still be happy to talk or even meet that person; in my experience differences on the internet often sound wider than they are IRL, especially as forum debate often concentrates on strong differences rather than the commonalities that people frequently share. Rarely is the internet a great place to resolve differences.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> If you want to foster dialogue you can meet people halfway. They already know you don't see them as men/women. You hardly need to get in their faces just to ram your point in.



I am always happy to do that, but how can I as someone who is transsexual view someone else who is transsexual differently? Please understand I am not trying to get in anyone's face.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 8, 2018)

bimble said:


> Is it hateful of you to keep calling me that? Here, this is me asking you to stop. You may not be aware of it but 'princess' is a really bad choice of name for you to have picked out for me as its a typical slur against jewish women. So please stop.
> This is the post  you must have missed during your busy day:



I call you that because you have persisted in a butter wouldn't melt innocent act, nothing to do with you being Jewish as you damn well know. You've never asked me to stop before so don't give it the poor you either.

Yes I did miss that post by SS. Why not just refer to it rather than the feigned shock/horror/shitstirring...oh yeah...that butter wouldn't melt, shitstirring innocence act again. Fuck you.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Why should anyone have to do that? Isn't it fundamentally illiberal to effectively police someone's thoughts and speech?



Or you could use they, their, them. It's neutral enough for them not to feel insulted and for you to maintain your political/philosophical/yada integrity.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Like I said, I didn't tag, in fact I didn't even use the poster's name, just enough to allow the poster to be identified within the reply. What I was responding to was rather what I saw as a double standard.
> .


You're on forced ignore, so she won't see it if you tag her. 

You quoted a post from a different forum in a different name. Most of us don't use our real names on here, and don't take kindly to others unilaterally deciding to 'out' us.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 8, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> it's not pedantry - it's a crucial point that something called a transwoman cannot be a woman but "trans woman" is a woman who is trans. some people use transwoman out of ignorance but others use it deliberately to make precisely that point - that trans women aren't women.



I used it this evening out of ignorance. A lot of this is new to me in the depth that it is being discussed here. I have no problem thinking how I use language.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Perhaps not if your a middle class magazine editor, have good literacy, speak English as your first lannguage, have a stable address, supportive healthcare professionals, a supportive boss or someone else who can provide evidence, find it easier to access phones and the internet to change bank statements and bills, can afford a new passport, solicitors fees, medical report fees and in many cases the fee for the GRC itself, do not struggle filling in forms, have no disabilities that make this kind of thing difficult, and have had a stable and secure enough life to be able to maintain two years worth of evidence of your gender.  Oh and have recourse to private medical professionals and solicitors if you want to take the strain off.  Then it's not difficult at all.  For many people however it's near impossible.



There's financial and practical support available for anyone who wishes to go through this process. And as a for example, the current extortionate fee to change the passport would apply under self-ID as well as the GRA. Self-ID makes none of these easier, rather as I have said it makes life harder for transsexuals because it gives people reason to doubt our sincerity and it removes the protected characteristic we presently enjoy, 'gender reassignment' (which admittedly is not required, but when it has it is a material characteristic which may be protected). And I've stated many times nobody should lose jobs or housing because they are trans.



smokedout said:


> At the point that her partner is abusing her, or she gets raped and she needs a place of safety.



I don't think existing services would turn anyone away. We have a real problem in this country with securing funding for rape and DV shelters and services, this is an area trans and women could potentially unite to mount a more effective campaign.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I am always happy to do that, but how can I as someone who is transsexual view someone else who is transsexual differently? Please understand I am not trying to get in anyone's face.



You don't have to see them as something you don't think they are. I just think that if you want to talk to them and get an argument back rather than just a reaction, it's useful to, as I said before, meet them half way.

This is not a philosophy department debate room (as much as I'd sometimes like it to be). There are real people behind the user names/avatars.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You're on forced ignore, so she won't see it if you tag her.
> 
> You quoted a post from a different forum in a different name. Most of us don't use our real names on here, and don't take kindly to others unilaterally deciding to 'out' us.



I believe it was the name that the original post I'd complained about was posted under. Now, can we agree to disagree on this and not have to discuss that individual? Thanks!


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> This is not a philosophy department debate room (as much as I'd sometimes like it to be). There are real people behind the user names/avatars.



Yes, I understand that; hence why my replies have always been courteous even where I've had abuse hurled at me on here.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 8, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> I used it this evening out of ignorance. A lot of this is new to me in the depth that it is being discussed here. I have no problem thinking how I use language.


I used it for ages out of ignorance too, but once it was pointed out to me I embraced it - even if I was skeptical to begin with. I don't expect people to get this stuff without a learning curve but it's the reams of literature produced by the TERFs that pointedly use transwomen I object to. I've even seen TERFs explaining why they use transwomen as one word, and it's what I said. It's because they don't want to say we're women.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Yes, I understand that; hence why my replies have always been courteous even where I've had abuse hurled at me on here.



If courtesy extends to avoiding "misgendering" why not extend it to that? I mean, is it really that difficult for you to use they, their, them? Does it make that much of a difference to your ability to argue?


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 8, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> I used it for ages out of ignorance too, but once it was pointed out to me I embraced it - even if I was skeptical to begin with. I don't expect people to get this stuff without a learning curve but it's the reams of literature produced by the TERFs that pointedly use transwomen I object to. I've even seen TERFs explaining why they use transwomen as one word, and it's what I said. It's because they don't want to say we're women.



If they don't consider you to be a woman then what? They should shut up about it?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> There's financial and practical support available for anyone who wishes to go through this process.



You sound like Iain Duncan Smith now.



> I don't think existing services would turn anyone away. We have a real problem in this country with securing funding for rape and DV shelters and services, this is an area trans and women could potentially unite to mount a more effective campaign.



They have been, see Sisters Uncut for details, you and your cronies were strangely absent.

But to be clear, do you support transwomen having access to women's refuges and rape counselling as things stand now?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

smokedout said:


> You sound like Iain Duncan Smith now.



Never a post without an ad hominem.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> If they don't consider you to be a woman then what? They should shut up about it?


nice try. Just saying, we know there's an agenda behind use of "transwomen" and was wondering about writing cis as CIS that's all.

I'm not trying to shut anyone up - just want the rights i need to live a reasonable life - and if not me, then others coming behind me.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 8, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> nice try. Just saying, we know there's an agenda behind use of "transwomen" and was wondering about writing CIS as cis that's all.



Fine. But you have no right to simply assume and proceed on that assumption to make accusations of people arguing for that agenda on the grounds that the spoke this or that way or used this or that term even if they refuse to be dictated by the politically correct speech police. It does NOT endear them to your cause, I can tell you that from my own experience. It just serves to make people fearful of debating, asking, exploring or simply just talking.
Where's your jibe at this?


smokedout said:


> do you support transwomen having access to women's refuges


Or is it just those you haven't yet roped in to your cause whose words you're sensitive to?


----------



## Nemesisuk (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Never a post without an ad hominem.



I see you side stepped the question. Which seems to happen a lot.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Fine. But you have no right to simply assume and proceed on that assumption to make accusations of people arguing for that agenda on the grounds that the spoke this or that way or used this or that term even if they refuse to be dictated by the political correct speech police. It does NOT endear them to your cause, I can tell you that from my own experience. It just serves to make people fearful of debating, asking, exploring or simply just talking.
> Where's your jibe at this?
> 
> Or is it just those you haven't yet roped in to your cause whose words you're sensitive to?


i didn't point my finger at anyone and i went out of my way to state that i don't expect people not to make mistakes - i used the term myself until someone had a gentle word with me. And now i try to have gentle words with others. There is no political correct speech police - at least -i'm not part of it. But this is just a case of good grammar. Trans in this context is short for transgender and it's an adjective. Transgenderwomen looks daft - i'm sure you agree so if you wouldn't write transgenderwomen then why write transwomen. See also any other adjective that could apply to a person - it's always two seperate words. Not even a hyphen is employed in modern English.

Please give Smokedout the respect that they deserve as a human being to have made their own mind up and not make claims that i roped anyone in to my way of thinking. It does sound rather paranoid tbh and i don;t even know Smokedout, and i certainly don;t agree 100% with everything they've said (not so much that i feel the need to argue with them, because, on the whole i like what they've been saying on here), but on the other hand I am tolerant of other people having a different opinion so that's fine.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Never a post without an ad hominem.



Never a post where you actually answer a question.


----------



## Athos (Jan 8, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> I call you that because you have persisted in a butter wouldn't melt innocent act, nothing to do with you being Jewish as you damn well know. You've never asked me to stop before so don't give it the poor you either.
> 
> Yes I did miss that post by SS. Why not just refer to it rather than the feigned shock/horror/shitstirring...oh yeah...that butter wouldn't melt, shitstirring innocence act again. Fuck you.



You're priceless. You've repeatedly used an anti-semitic epithet towards a Jewish woman, and when she asks you not to, your response is to blame her for not asking you to stop before, and telling her "fuck you". Stay classy.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 8, 2018)

Athos said:


> You're priceless. You've repeatedly used an anti-semitic epithet towards a Jewish woman, and when she asks you not to, your response is to blame her for not asking you to stop before, and telling her "fuck you". Stay classy.




No I haven't, my usage had fuck all to do with her ethnicity as explained. She got told 'fuck you' because of the feigned innocent shitstirring she tried this evening. No surprise that you pop up trying to put the boot in though. You can both get to fuck trying to label me as an anti-semite as well. Class? You are both firmly middle class, spoilt brats and it shows. I'll stay where I am thanks. 

Back to Coventry now. You love it there.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Am I cisgender?


Thanks for posting that. I had a similar thought process recently when trying to work out / explain why I felt really uncomfortable with the recently adopted policy in our local Green Party meetings of expecting everyone to not just give their name, but also their preferred pronoun at the start of each meeting. I'd really not expected to have a problem with it, and supported the reasoning behind it, but when it actually came to doing it suddenly it felt really intrusive.


----------



## Athos (Jan 8, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> No I haven't, my usage had fuck all to do with her ethnicity as explained.



Well, you would say that, of course. Hypocrite.




Rutita1 said:


> You are both firmly middle class...



 Liar.  You know nothing about me.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 8, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> i didn't point my finger at anyone



You did worse... You asked the question/comment it in such a generalised way that I felt the need to go and look at the almost entirety  of what I have written in the thread in fear of having put my foot in it because of an excessively heightened awareness of how pointed my questions and opinions are. Thing is... knowing myself a little I know that when I get tired of that kind of shit I cease to care so I've been trying not to get too reactive before I get all info in order to make up my mind. That kind of attitude really, I mean really, does not make the task easy... and I don't think my blood is more/less red than that of a lot of people on that front.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 8, 2018)

Athos said:


> Well, you would say that, of course. Hypocrite.




Prove it you shit stirring cunt. I think Urban would have noticed if I were an anti-semite before given my 10 years here.

This is your level. Sad, pathetic, bored with your own existence and constantly out to assert some non-existent authority. You think you are smarter and more important than others. You aren't. Like I said, off you pop. Have the last word if you must but do try not to leave yourself looking like a spoilt, argumentative prick. Actually, don't hold back. It suits you.


----------



## Athos (Jan 8, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Prove it you shit stirring cunt. I think Urban would have noticed if I were an anti-semite before given my 10 years here.



I don't know whether or not you're an anti-semite; all I know is that you repeatedly used an anti-semitic (and misogynistic) slur towards a Jewish woman. And note that, when pulled up on it, you went on the offensive rather than having the decency to apologise.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 8, 2018)

Rutita, your posting style always reminds me of a comedown from amphetamines.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 8, 2018)

free spirit said:


> Thanks for posting that. I had a similar thought process recently when trying to work out / explain why I felt really uncomfortable with the recently adopted policy in our local Green Party meetings of expecting everyone to not just give their name, but also their preferred pronoun at the start of each meeting. I'd really not expected to have a problem with it, and supported the reasoning behind it, but when it actually came to doing it suddenly it felt really intrusive.



It's a funny one. I don't find it invasive per se. Before that I find it more invalidating in the sense that I have keenly felt the weight of "woman" as an identity (or maybe I should say "identification") and fought enough against it for anyone to simply "tell me" how I should feel about it or assume to know enough of how I feel about it as an identity to feel free to stick the label on me. Because the conversation has not and does not include me,it seems I'm then required to like it or lump it. It's only then I find it invasive.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 8, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Rutita, your posting style always reminds me of a comedown from amphetamines.


Haven't touched them in years. what shall I say now, yours reminds me of a snidey little nobody... Everyday affair for you still isn't it, snidely little nobodiness that encourages you to pop up and want a piece of nothing?

Just why would you want to get involved in this? Seriously fuck off. I'll never put up with this shit from you.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 8, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Rutita, your posting style always reminds me of a comedown from amphetamines.



A notch up from that and you'll be diagnosing her with hysteria. 
Seriously!!!!


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 8, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Haven't touched them in years. what shall I say now, yours reminds me of a snidey little nobody... Everyday affair for you still isn't it, snidely little nobodiness that encourages you to pop up and want a piece of nothing?
> 
> Just why would you want to get involved in this? Seriously fuck off. I'll never put up with this shit from you.



What’s so hard in acknowledging the problem with calling a Jewish poster a ‘princess’


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> A notch up from that and you'll be diagnosing her with hysteria.
> Seriously!!!!



No drama, that cap is already taken by madeinbedlam. I kept it as a tag line for a bit until a better one presented itself, naturally.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 8, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> What’s so hard in acknowledging the problem with calling a Jewish poster a ‘princess’


 There is nothing wrong with it. If I were doing it for that reason and the reason I was asked to stop wasn't dressed up in the obvious fake innocent dig that it was. So...am I supposed to be surprised you have joined in this nonsense too?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> A notch up from that and you'll be diagnosing her with hysteria.
> Seriously!!!!



There’s nothing sexist about my description. Her posts make my eyes bleed.


----------



## Brimble (Jan 8, 2018)

My parents used to have transgender guests at their parties. Lovely people.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 8, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> There’s nothing sexist about my description. Her posts make my eyes bleed.


Oh...you poor thing. Yours make me glad to be me. So, here we all are.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 8, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> What’s so hard in acknowledging the problem with calling a Jewish poster a ‘princess’



Because she didn't use the term in its meaning as a slur. She used it not exactly as but close to prima donna as per below in meaning. It could have been directed at anyone it just happened to be the case that bimble is Jewish. Is that so hard to understand?


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 8, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> There is nothing wrong with it. If I were doing it for that reason and it wasn't dressed up in the obvious fake innocent dig that it was. So...am I supposed to be surprised you have joined in this nonsense too?



Or you could just acknowledge the problem in using an anti-Semitic insult. 

For someone so vocal about of the unwelcoming nature of urban to POC, you’re surprisingly blaze about your own language. Of perhaps not so surprising


----------



## Athos (Jan 8, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> What’s so hard in acknowledging the problem with calling a Jewish poster a ‘princess’


Pride and a fragile ego.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 8, 2018)

What other racial epithets are acceptable if said accidentally?


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Because she didn't use the term in its meaning as a slur. She used it not exactly as but close to prima donna as per below in meaning. It could have been directed at anyone it just happened to be the case that bimble is Jewish. Is that so hard to understand?
> 
> View attachment 124881



I’ve no idea what her underlying motive was, but it’s been pointed out why it’s problematic. 

And given your post upthread re the come-down comment...

But this is the dead end that is IDpolitics. It isn’t about courtesy is it. But demanding that others adhere to a set of manners that oneself will never adhere to.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 8, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> What other racial epithets are acceptable if said accidentally?



I didn't say it by accident, nor was my usage racial or ethnically charged. I call manipulative, feigning innocence, spoilt, their feelings are important but not those of others, princesses or princes...But nice try. A piece of nothing. All you deserve.


----------



## Athos (Jan 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Because she didn't use the term in its meaning as a slur. She used it not exactly as but close to prima donna as per below in meaning. It could have been directed at anyone it just happened to be the case that bimble is Jewish. Is that so hard to understand?
> 
> View attachment 124881



Even if that were true, most people, on learning they're reputedly called someone a name that person considers a racial slur, would have the decency to apologise.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 8, 2018)

And at least other posters that Rutita obsesses about have actually been rude to her (myself included). 

Her vendetta against Bimble is just weird


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 8, 2018)

1/10


----------



## Athos (Jan 8, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> And at least other posters that Rutita obsesses about have actually been rude to her (myself included).
> 
> Her vendetta against Bimble is just weird



It stems from when she was made to look very foolish by wrongly accusing Bimble of claiming to be black.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 8, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> What other racial epithets are acceptable if said accidentally?



Not so long ago I put someone name in brackets like (((this))). I meant "hug". I then found out it's got anti-Jewish connotations too. I just explained that was not my meaning. Rutita has done the same. Where is the drama?


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 8, 2018)

Yep. Falsely accusing others of racist behaviour, then repeatedly using racist insults to describe them (in a non-racist way obvs)


----------



## Athos (Jan 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Not so long ago I put someone name in brackets like (((this))). I meant "hug". I then found out it's got anti-Jewish connotations too. I just explained that was not my meaning. Rutita has done the same. Where is the drama?



On a previous occasion she used the slur, Bimble referenced Zappa's 'Jewish Princess'.  But she persisted with it.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Not so long ago I put someone name in brackets like (((this))). I meant "hug". I then found out it's got anti-Jewish connotations too. I just explained that was not my meaning. Rutita has done the same. Where is the drama?





MochaSoul said:


> A notch up from that and you'll be diagnosing her with hysteria.
> Seriously!!!!


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Not so long ago I put someone name in brackets like (((this))). I meant "hug". I then found out it's got anti-Jewish connotations too. I just explained that was not my meaning. Rutita has done the same. Where is the drama?



Where’s the apology?


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Not so long ago I put someone name in brackets like (((this))). I meant "hug". I then found out it's got anti-Jewish connotations too. I just explained that was not my meaning. Rutita has done the same. Where is the drama?



1) the brackets thing is recent. ‘Jewish princess’ has a longer pedigree. 

2) your hug wasn’t done to insult, was it?

3) you’ve not persisted with it, have you?


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 8, 2018)

I was talking to Magnus about his/her amphetamine comment. What of it?


----------



## rutabowa (Jan 8, 2018)

oops just read a page of this thread. Athos Magnus McGinty MadeInBedlam you are blatantly being dicks because of personal history, it really isn't very subtle.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 8, 2018)

rutabowa said:


> oops just read a page of this thread. Athos Magnus McGinty MadeInBedlam you are blatantly being dicks, it really isn't very subtle.



Nothing more than their usual tag team, nobody, nonsense. I'm learning to mix Afrobeat in the background...it helps.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 8, 2018)

Tag team!  I’ve had barneys with both in the past.


----------



## rutabowa (Jan 8, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Tag team!  I’ve had barneys with both in the past.


that happens in WWF wrestling too... in fact it is almost a prerequisite


----------



## spanglechick (Jan 8, 2018)

Got to say, it's quite clearly a pile on that has nothing to do with the thread, and frankly feels a bit gleeful on behalf of some posters who had already decided they had a negative opinion of Rutita1 - an unedifying spectacle.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 8, 2018)

i barely interact with Athos, and as Magnus has pointed out, we’re hardly a team. 

But you have no issue with the princess epithet then rutabowa ?


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 8, 2018)

I'm not around here long enough to have witnessed all of that. I take all of your points. I still think in that particular instance that was not the case but only Rutita1 knows that anyway. That being the case, I'll just shut up about it. I think this thread is fraught enough and doesn't need any more drama than it's already got tbh.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 8, 2018)

complaints about anti-semitism are made in bad faith. 

Never heard that one before


----------



## rutabowa (Jan 8, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> But you have no issue with the princess epithet then rutabowa ?


oooff I feel like you literally just SLAMMED me to the CANVAS and clotheslined me with that clever rhetorical device, mean how on EARTH should I ANSWER!!!


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 8, 2018)

rutabowa said:


> oooff I feel like you literally just SLAMMED me to the CANVAS and clotheslined me with that clever rhetorical device, mean how on EARTH should I ANSWER!!!



Er...


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 8, 2018)

So we’ve just spent how many pages talking about lanague, courtesy etc, 

A poster is asked to desist from (repeatedly) using an insult laden with antisemtic connotations, to a Jewish poster who has already asked them not to use it. 

The response from some posters on here is disgusting


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 8, 2018)

Is everyone drunk or something?


----------



## bimble (Jan 8, 2018)

What a massive fuss. Ffs, I said in my post to Rutita that I know she may not have been aware at all of the connotation , pointed it out and asked her to stop, that’s all. That she replied with a fuck you should surprise nobody. But please drop this now.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 8, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> to a Jewish poster who has already asked them not to use it.


Where? Stop making it up to suit your pathetic agenda.

She asked today and explained why. I in turn explained why I nicknamed her that in the past and showed how her posts today that tried to shit stir are an example of why I use the nick name and told her to fuck off because I won't be manipulated in that way. Nothing to do with her being Jewish, never has been.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 8, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> So we’ve just spent how many pages talking about lanague, courtesy etc,
> 
> A poster is asked to desist from (repeatedly) using an insult laden with antisemtic connotations, to a Jewish poster who has already asked them not to use it.
> 
> The response from some posters on here is disgusting



This thread is also full of pointed accusations at a group of people of meaning to de facto denying the humanity of a group of people by refusing to accept a set of premises regardless of what their actual attitudes toward that group of people are. I don't accept that the uses of word or a phrase or a slogan, or arguments  against such premises mean denying that group's right to live their lives unencumbered... yet, here we are.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 8, 2018)

bimble said:


> What a massive fuss. Ffs, I said in my post to Rutita that I know she may not have been aware at all of the connotation , pointed it out and asked her to stop, that’s all. That she replied with a fuck you should surprise nobody. But please drop this now.



I replied with a fuck off because you dressed it up like you were being innocent tonight when you were shit-stirring and finger pointing because I used the term 'transwoman'. Perhaps you can stop that now?



> That she replied with a fuck you should surprise nobody.


There we go again. Fucking special somebody whom everyone agrees with? I doubt few will be surprised with you continuing on with this conceited nonsense.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 8, 2018)

bimble said:


> What a massive fuss. Ffs, I said in my post to Rutita that I know she may not have been aware at all of the connotation , pointed it out and asked her to stop, that’s all. That she replied with a fuck you should surprise nobody. But please drop this now.



It dropped ages ago. This is the stage where the finger waggers keep it going.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Am I cisgender?



If gender is a set of behaviours, that includes very visible indicators like clothing and presentation and how people move and talk, as well as interests, tastes and social roles - and if someone meets enough of those behaviours that they are easily identifiable as a particular gender then is it reasonable to say they are cis no matter how they feel inside?

In my experience some people who reject the term cis when you meet them are very typical for their gender - they are reproducing or performing gender whilst claiming to reject it.  Is this legitimate?  Would you accept someone as straight if they had only ever had same sex partners?  I mean you might out of politeness, but would you really?  Is it incumbent on us to accept their lack of gender identity and not label them cis, even though as far as anyone looking or interacting with them might tell they do have a gender identity -  perhaps not an internal one, but an external one?  I recognise that gender is imposed, but not everyone performs gender according to their biological sex, trans people don't, so is there a valid distinction to be made between people who do and people who don't?

I'm not saying I 'm really sure about any of this, I'm just posing the question, possibly due to a certain amount of irritation at people declaring themselves genderless who are very visibly gendered.  It feels like a bit of a pose without actually accepting the consequences of genuinely rejecting gender, and possibly in a lot of cases because some people, especially men, rather like the gender they have been assigned.

Not all aimed at you by the way MochaSoul just that post made me think about it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2018)

I go and watch telly for a bit and come back to this clusterfuck.


----------



## B.I.G (Jan 8, 2018)

The bimble and Rutita1 beef is my favourite on urban. Entirely made up of one person not being able to accept they were wrong.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 8, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Not so long ago I put someone name in brackets like (((this))). I meant "hug". I then found out it's got anti-Jewish connotations too. I just explained that was not my meaning. Rutita has done the same. Where is the drama?



I’d never heard of either issue.  I only know a couple of Jewish people (to my knowledge).

Learning a few things tonight...


----------



## 8ball (Jan 8, 2018)

free spirit said:


> Thanks for posting that. I had a similar thought process recently when trying to work out / explain why I felt really uncomfortable with the recently adopted policy in our local Green Party meetings of expecting everyone to not just give their name, but also their preferred pronoun at the start of each meeting. I'd really not expected to have a problem with it, and supported the reasoning behind it, but when it actually came to doing it suddenly it felt really intrusive.



I only know three (possibly four) transgender people.  My policy is to use their name and listen to what other people say to get a sense of the right pronoun.  It isn’t hard.

Still, there’s the odd curveball that can get you - a friend’s father is transgender and refers to herself as “X’s Dad”.  Easy enough to navigate around, but I wouldn’t have been sure if she didn’t announce herself as such at X’s wedding during the speech.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 8, 2018)

It does seem to me that our shared meaning of the term cis has by no means been worked out yet. It's a new term, so not so surprising. I see it used in sensible, sober discussions of trans issues in a very neutral way, really meaning no more than 'not trans': not suffering from a significant degree of gender dysphoria or wanting to change your gender identity. And it has a clear utility in that context, providing a neutral term for 'not-trans'. But it is also clear that some think it means something more than that, containing within it the implication that you are happy with your gender identity. It doesn't help that it's a term that's used aggressively in an 'us and them' way, especially when someone is trying to explain your existence to you by calling you that, which is always pretty infuriating. Twitter has a lot to answer for in this respect, imo, and it appears that it is often there that people first hear the term cis or cisgender, rather than reading it in a considered academic article.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 8, 2018)

B.I.G said:


> The bimble and Rutita1 beef is my favourite on urban. Entirely made up of one person not being able to accept they were wrong.



People are often slow to apologise when they are angry.  I think if R drops the p-word in future it’s fair to draw a line under it.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

8ball said:


> Still, there’s the odd curveball that can get you - a friend’s father is transgender and refers to herself as “X’s Dad”.



This is quite common, as is younger children using a pet name.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 8, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It does seem to me that our shared meaning of the term cis has by no means been worked out yet. It's a new term, so not so surprising. I see it used in sensible, sober discussions of trans issues in a very neutral way, really meaning no more than 'not trans': not suffering from a significant degree of gender dysphoria or wanting to change your gender identity. And it has a clear utility in that context, providing a neutral term for 'not-trans'. But it is also clear that some think it means something more than that, containing within it the implication that you are happy with your gender identity. It doesn't help that it's a term that's used aggressively in an 'us and them' way, especially when someone is trying to explain your existence to you by calling you that, which is always pretty infuriating. Twitter has a lot to answer for in this respect, imo, and it appears that it is often there that people first hear the term cis or cisgender, rather than reading it in a considered academic article.



It’s mostly problematic due to identity politics - where your politics and identity are apparently inextricably linked. So if there’s a disagreement rather than it coming from different schools of thought it’s because you belong to x group (or series of groups). I haven’t heard it outside of this context.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

smokedout said:


> In my experience some people who reject the term cis when you meet them are very typical for their gender - they are reproducing or performing gender whilst claiming to reject it.



This is not the case, some of the people who reject this term the strongest are lesbians and gay men, who are about as gender non-conforming as you can get. Also, on the basis that part of the woman's gender role is to be submissive, any woman who has ever told a man to 'fuck off' is definitely not gender conformant!


----------



## 8ball (Jan 8, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It does seem to me that our shared meaning of the term cis has by no means been worked out yet. It's a new term, so not so surprising. I see it used in sensible, sober discussions of trans issues in a very neutral way, really meaning no more than 'not trans': not suffering from a significant degree of gender dysphoria or wanting to change your gender identity. And it has a clear utility in that context, providing a neutral term for 'not-trans'. But it is also clear that some think it means something more than that, containing within it the implication that you are happy with your gender identity.



It’s also used in the infuriating assignment of levels of “privilege” that people use as an excuse for not listening to each other.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> This is quite common, as is younger children using a pet name.



Ah, right. Not experienced that myself but I can see the sense in it.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 8, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> I go and watch telly for a bit and come back to this clusterfuck.


I know - and it's been such a happy go lucky, let's split the difference thread right up to what we will all hope was a blip.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> This is not the case, some of the people who reject this term the strongest are lesbians and gay men, who are about as gender non-conforming as you can get!



Not sure about gay people being necessarily gender non-conforming.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

8ball said:


> Not sure about gay people being necessarily gender non-conforming.



Having a partner of the same sex is about as gender non-conforming as you can get. Also, have you met many lesbians and/or gay men? It's their gender non-conformity that stands out. Especially with children (although that's a whole other can of worms...).


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 8, 2018)

8ball said:


> People are often slow to apologise when they are angry.  I think if R drops the p-word in future it’s fair to draw a line under it.



The P -word is commonly short for/a substitute for _Paki_. I've never used that to describe anyone, nor would I. LET'S HAVE THAT CLEAR.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 8, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> It’s mostly problematic due to identity politics - where your politics and identity are apparently inextricably linked. So if there’s a disagreement rather than it coming from different schools of thought it’s because you belong to x group (or series of groups). I haven’t heard it outside of this context.


Some clearly feel that the existence of the term is a reinforcement of gender boundaries: 'I feel that I'm on the wrong side of the boundary, you feel that you're on the right side of it', leaving little room for those who dislike the boundary. I think that's very unfortunate, as I've said before, because I have seen it used outside that context, without these value-laden implications, and language does matter in these things, I think: having a term for 'not-X' that isn't 'normal'. At its worst, objecting to the existence of the term cis can sound like an objection to the existence of the term trans, because it usually doesn't contain a suggestion for what other term people ought to use instead.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Having a partner of the same sex is about as gender non-conforming as you can get. Also, have you met many lesbians and/or gay men? It's their gender non-conformity that stands out.



My gaydar is admittedly poor, but I don’t consider sexuality part of gender at all.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 8, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> The P -word is commonly short for/a substitute for _Paki_. I've never used that to describe anyone, nor would I. LET'S HAVE THAT CLEAR.



I’d assumed it was clear which word I was talking about and wasn’t aware that ‘p-word’ was common parlance for something else.

Happy to confirm I’ve never witnessed you say any such thing.

That’s the thing with racial slurs and their sub-types, there are a lot of them to learn if you want to effectively avoid ever tripping up.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 8, 2018)

8ball said:


> I’d assumed it was clear which word I was talking about and wasn’t aware that ‘p-word’ was common parlance for something else.
> 
> *Happy to confirm I’ve never witnessed you say any such thing.*
> 
> That’s the thing with racial slurs and their sub-types, there are a lot of them to learn if you want to effectively avoid ever tripping up.



I appreciate the clarity.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 8, 2018)

I dislike the word 'cis'. I am a straight woman but people who don't know me often assume I'm a lesbian, I guess because I am outwardly non-conforming  which puts me in their mental lesbian box - by which I mean I wear baggy jeans, trainers and a hoody 99% of the time, I work in a massively male-dominated industry and am generally pretty grubby and oily, I don't ever wear makeup anymore, I can't be arsed with plucking my eyebrows or any of that. About the only stereotypical female appearance thing I do is shave my legs, but tbh only because I wear shorts at work and it makes cleaning dirty oily marks off my knees easier. I have many times been mistaken for a man at work when my hair's been short or I'm wearing a hat. I don't feel like it's a pose or a copout being how I am, in fact I rather feel it's the opposite. It's not an easy road to travel and it's taken 40 years to get comfortable with it and stop feeling like I have to 'perform' womanhood outwardly. I am a woman, and fuck anyone who says I'm any less of one or that I'm just striking a pose or attention-seeking because I don't conform to their mental rules for that word.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 8, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Some clearly feel that the existence of the term is a reinforcement of gender boundaries: 'I feel that I'm on the wrong side of the boundary, you feel that you're on the right side of it', leaving little room for those who dislike the boundary. I think that's very unfortunate, as I've said before, because I have seen it used outside that context, without these value-laden implications, and language does matter in these things, I think: having a term for 'not-X' that isn't 'normal'. At its worst, objecting to the existence of the term cis can sound like an objection to the existence of the term trans, because it usually doesn't contain a suggestion for what other term people ought to use instead.



 I always hated the term non-white, because why should there be an opposite of white? And why lump so many people in either group and for what reason? PoC is the fashionable way of saying the same thing nowadays.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 8, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Having a partner of the same sex is about as gender non-conforming as you can get. Also, have you met many lesbians and/or gay men? It's their gender non-conformity that stands out. Especially with children (although that's a whole other can of worms...).



Sexuality is only one very loose facet of gender, and lots of gay men very actively and proudly perform the male gender, in fact most mainstream gay sexuality is highly male gendered - so much so that many gay clubs once would not admit trans people.  

Some rad fems and butch lesbians, and some feminine gay men I would concede do not perform gender to the usual extent, but it's rare to meet someone who is not trans who radically appears to reject gender.  If all other things were equal or obscured such as facial features and body shape, the average person would easily be able to identify their gender of almost everyone who is not trans based on their clothes, mannerisms, speech patterns, interests and social role.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 8, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I always hated the term non-white, because why should there be an opposite of white? And why lump so many people in either group and for what reason? PoC is the fashionable way of saying the same thing nowadays.


And sometimes there just isn't a good solution. I agree that 'non-white' is clumsy. But so is PoC.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 8, 2018)

The issue with the term non-white is that it centres whiteness as normal and default. It sets up and reinforces a power relation and others anyone who isn't White.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 8, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> The issue with the term non-white is that it centres whiteness as normal and default. It sets up and reinforces a power relation and others anyone who isn't White.



But every other permutaion of it does the same. Which socialists would argue against given power isn’t neatly distributed via ethnicity.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 8, 2018)

weepiper said:


> I dislike the word 'cis'..



I see where you’re coming from, but I think the term ‘cis’ just came from the Latinate opposite of ‘trans’.  We all accept it doesn’t relate to the performative aspects of gender you... perform.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 8, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> But every other permeation of it does the same. Which socialists would argue against given power isn’t neatly distributed via ethnicity.



In some conversations and for some situations power _is_ distributed via ethnicity....for those conversations nobody should be arguing against it for the sake of arguing because they are socialist.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 8, 2018)

weepiper said:


> I dislike the word 'cis'. I am a straight woman but people who don't know me often assume I'm a lesbian, I guess because I am outwardly non-conforming  which puts me in their mental lesbian box - by which I mean I wear baggy jeans, trainers and a hoody 99% of the time, I work in a massively male-dominated industry and am generally pretty grubby and oily, I don't ever wear makeup anymore, I can't be arsed with plucking my eyebrows or any of that. About the only stereotypical female appearance thing I do is shave my legs, but tbh only because I wear shorts at work and it makes cleaning dirty oily marks off my knees easier. I have many times been mistaken for a man at work when my hair's been short or I'm wearing a hat. I don't feel like it's a pose or a copout being how I am, in fact I rather feel it's the opposite. It's not an easy road to travel and it's taken 40 years to get comfortable with it and stop feeling like I have to 'perform' womanhood outwardly. I am a woman, and fuck anyone who says I'm any less of one or that I'm just striking a pose or attention-seeking because I don't conform to their mental rules for that word.


Yeah, I appreciate that, and if anyone does use the term implying that they have a set of mental rules for how men or women _should_ be, then yes they can fuck off. 

I do think we get stuck here sometimes because the thing I see reported repeatedly by trans people is the inner feeling that they are the 'other' gender, which exists independently of any performance aspect of gender, but it is equally clear that there are people who don't relate to that idea at all. I'm not sure I relate to that idea, although I have no problem with the term cis.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 8, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> The issue with the term non-white is that it centres whiteness as normal and default. It sets up and reinforces a power relation and others anyone who isn't White.



PoC does the same.  Though I guess it’s slightly better.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 8, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> In some conversations and for some situations power _is_ distributed via ethnicity....for those conversations nobody should be arguing against it for the sake of arguing because they are socialist.



In some contexts. In a global one it isn’t.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 8, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> The issue with the term non-white is that it centres whiteness as normal and default. It sets up and reinforces a power relation and others anyone who isn't White.


Doesn't 'PoC' do a similar thing, though? It also basically lumps together everyone who isn't white. I kind of recoil at the word 'colour' in there.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 8, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> In some contexts.



That's what I said.


----------



## Sue (Jan 8, 2018)

smokedout said:


> If all other things were equal or obscured such as facial features and body shape, the average person would easily be able to identify their gender of almost everyone who is not trans based on their clothes, mannerisms, speech patterns, *interests and social role*.



Really? I must either know a lot of unusual people or this is crass stereotyping.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Sexuality is only one very loose facet of gender, and lots of gay men very actively and proudly perform the male gender, in fact most mainstream gay sexuality is highly male gendered - so much so that many gay clubs once would not admit trans people.
> 
> Some rad fems and butch lesbians, and some feminine gay men I would concede do not perform gender to the usual extent, but it's rare to meet someone who is not trans who radically appears to reject gender.



You really do sound like you've never moved within the gay scene. Sexual orientation is very much tied to gender roles, think of the defaults applied to children of cars and sports for boys and dolls and tea sets for girls. Speak to most homosexual adults and you'll find a history of gender non-conformity in addition to their choice of partner: let's not forget it's gender roles which create and incubate misogyny and homophobia.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 8, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Doesn't 'PoC' do a similar thing, though? It also basically lumps together everyone who isn't white. I kind of recoil at the word 'colour' in there.


Why are you asking me? I didn't coin the term 

In a way it does...but in other ways it doesn't....it centres people who are not White, it acknowledges the tendency for Whiteness to be a non-colour/invisibleand tries to flip it... it is akin to using the term 'black'  or 'brown' and mostly used when talking about shared experiences, not to flatten and lump together, merely focus on what is commonplace. It's not a be all/end all description. Just like White isn't.

I don't recoil at the use of 'colour', I suspect I am more used to thinking about myself in those terms (ethnicity/phenotype/colour) though. I don't think many White people in Europe have had that experience tbh and you are certainly not the first White person I have experienced recoiling in that way.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 8, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Doesn't 'PoC' do a similar thing, though? It also basically lumps together everyone who isn't white. I kind of recoil at the word 'colour' in there.



Had this conversation with my Mum at Christmas.  I said I flinch whenever she says ‘coloured’ but she says since she is ‘coloured’ and from an age when that was considered the most polite term, she’s going to carry on using it.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

weepiper said:


> I dislike the word 'cis'. I am a straight woman but people who don't know me often assume I'm a lesbian, I guess because I am outwardly non-conforming  which puts me in their mental lesbian box - by which I mean I wear baggy jeans, trainers and a hoody 99% of the time, I work in a massively male-dominated industry and am generally pretty grubby and oily, I don't ever wear makeup anymore, I can't be arsed with plucking my eyebrows or any of that.



Another problem with 'cis' of course is that it's used to suggest that females have privilege over 'trans women' (aka trans-identified males) through the system of gender (which is used to oppress females from birth).


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 8, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> That's what I said.



At least we ended up agreeing!


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 8, 2018)

Sue said:


> Really? I must either know a lot of unusual people or this is crass stereotyping.



This is crass stereotyping. I can imagine many trans people would object to this too.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 8, 2018)

8ball said:


> Had this conversation with my Mum at Christmas.  I said I flinch whenever she says ‘coloured’ but she says since she is ‘coloured’ and from an age when that was considered the most polite term, she’s going to carry on using it.



It’s fallen out of fashion because it’s seen as a racial epithet yet people of colour, which is basically saying the same thing, is in vogue and fine.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 8, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Why are you asking me? I didn't coin the term
> 
> In a way it does...but in other ways it doesn't....it centres people who are not White, it acknowledges the tendency for Whiteness to be a non-colour/invisibleand tries to flip it... it is akin to using the term 'black'  or 'brown' and mostly used when talking about shared experiences, not to flatten and lump together, merely focus on what is commonplace. It's not a be all/end all description. Just like White isn't.
> 
> I don't recoil at the use of 'colour', I suspect I am more used to thinking about myself in those terms (ethnicity/phenotype/colour) though. I don't think many White people in Europe have had that experience tbh and you are certainly not the first White person I have experienced recoiling in that way.


I know black people who aren't keen on it either, tbf, having spent years getting people to just say 'black'.

My recoiling is due to the same thing as 8ball: that it feels very close to 'coloured'.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 8, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> It’s fallen out of fashion because it’s seen as a racial epithet yet people of colour, which is basically saying the same thing, is in vogue and fine.



Yep, it’s confusing.

That Dennis Potter quote seems incredibly relevant to this thread: “The trouble with words is you never know whose mouths they have been in”.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 8, 2018)

8ball said:


> Yep, it’s confusing.
> 
> That Dennis Potter quote seems incredibly relevant to this thread: “The trouble with words is you never know whose mouths they have been in”.



The bottom line is this new wave of identitarians use the language (and politics) of the right but it’s just re-worded to sound progressive.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 8, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I know black people who aren't keen on it either, tbf, having spent years getting people to just say 'black'.


'getting people to just say Black'?  Who had to get them to do that? Or do you mean there wasn't a consensus? Some didn't want to?

It's up to people to choose. Ethnically speaking, I can and do refer to myself as British, Mixed, Black, Caribbean and English, a POC, Brown...it all depends on the conversation/reason and I just seem to know which one is appropriate for whichever moment. It's not performative. Nothing changes about me.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 8, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> 'getting people to just say Black'?  Who had to get them to do that? Or do you mean there wasn't a consensus?


I mean awkward moments where (white) people are not sure what to say.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 8, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I mean awkward moments where (white) people are not sure what to say.



Ah okay.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 9, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Ethnically speaking, I can and do refer to myself as British, Mixed, Black, Caribbean and English, a POC, Brown...it all depends on the conversation/reason and I just seem to know which one is appropriate for whichever moment. It's not performative. Nothing changes about me.



If something is performative, doesn’t that actually mean that nothing essentially changes about you by definition?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 9, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> 'getting people to just say Black'?  Who had to get them to do that? Or do you mean there wasn't a consensus? Some didn't want to?
> 
> It's up to people to choose. Ethnically speaking, I can and do refer to myself as British, Mixed, Black, Caribbean and English, a POC, Brown...it all depends on the conversation/reason and I just seem to know which one is appropriate for whichever moment. It's not performative. Nothing changes about me.



Unfortunately it becomes how others address you also.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 9, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Unfortunately it becomes how others address you also.



If they’re all true is that a problem?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2018)

8ball said:


> Yep, it’s confusing.
> 
> That Dennis Potter quote seems incredibly relevant to this thread: “The trouble with words is you never know whose mouths they have been in”.


That's a great quote.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 9, 2018)

8ball said:


> If something is performative, doesn’t that actually mean that nothing essentially changes about you by definition?



Eh? Have I misused the term? 

What I meant is that it isn't a performance/show/acting/trying to fit in or be right on.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 9, 2018)

8ball said:


> If they’re all true is that a problem?



Is identity politics a problem? I think it is yes.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Is identity politics a problem? I think it is yes.


hmmm. I rarely refer to myself as anything, but then I'm white living in a white-majority country.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 9, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Eh? Have I misused the term?
> 
> What I meant is that it isn't a performance/show/acting/trying to fit in or be right on.



I think ‘performative’ as it pertains to gender (going with the background of this thread) makes it something deeper than a ‘faking it’ thing, but tries to explain it as ‘things you do’ rather than ‘things you are’ iyswim.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 9, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Is identity politics a problem? I think it is yes.


That's not an answer to 8ball 's question at all. Beat that drum any harder and maybe, just maybe no-one, not even you, will ever think/talk about the politics of your own identity and how they play out in your interactions, self depictions and practice of being you.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 9, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Is identity politics a problem? I think it is yes.



That’s not really identity politics, it’s just saying that we are all describable by a multitude of terms.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 9, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> That's not an answer to 8ball 's question at all. Beat that drum any harder and maybe, just maybe no-one, not even you, will ever think/talk about the politics of your own identity and how they play out in your interactions, self depictions and practice of being you.



Or maybe I’m not guilty of anything by being white just as you’re not guilty of anything by being black and the way forward isn’t to set up that dichotomy?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 9, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Or maybe I’m not guilty of anything by being white just as you’re not guilty of anything by being black and the way forward isn’t to set up that dichotomy?



Eh? What are you talking about? I haven't set one up in this discussion...You just imagine that. It's boring.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 9, 2018)

Is this cross-thread beef?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 9, 2018)

8ball said:


> Is this cross-thread beef?



No idea...I am just bored of it.


----------



## xenon (Jan 9, 2018)

Sue said:


> Really? I must either know a lot of unusual people or this is crass stereotyping.



 Yeah, that is rather overdone.  Look how often  people on here don’t know someone’s gender  or assume and get it wrong.  IRL voice isn’t   a certain either.  Majority of the time  accurate enough, sure, but the conversational content is not the  initial clue.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 9, 2018)

Either you favour identity driven politics or you don’t. Let’s not pretend to be ignorant of what it does.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Or maybe I’m not guilty of anything by being white just as you’re not guilty of anything by being black and the way forward isn’t to set up that dichotomy?


Think you've gone a bit haywire on this one, tbh. This isn't about id politics or setting up divisions.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 9, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Either you favour identity driven politics or you don’t. Let’s not pretend to be ignorant of what it does.



Have a herb tea and go to bed. Seriously.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 9, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Think you've gone a bit haywire on this one, tbh. This isn't about id politics or setting up divisions.



Perhaps so. But identity politics does that whichever way you look at it.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 9, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Have a herb tea and go to bed. Seriously.



We’ll settle with people of colour being a group then.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 9, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> We’ll settle with people of colour being a group then.



What?

I'll settle with a snore and peace tea and stop reading your bizzare, drum beating, drivel tonight I think.


----------



## elbows (Jan 9, 2018)

weepiper said:


> I dislike the word 'cis'. I am a straight woman but people who don't know me often assume I'm a lesbian, I guess because I am outwardly non-conforming  which puts me in their mental lesbian box - by which I mean I wear baggy jeans, trainers and a hoody 99% of the time, I work in a massively male-dominated industry and am generally pretty grubby and oily, I don't ever wear makeup anymore, I can't be arsed with plucking my eyebrows or any of that. About the only stereotypical female appearance thing I do is shave my legs, but tbh only because I wear shorts at work and it makes cleaning dirty oily marks off my knees easier. I have many times been mistaken for a man at work when my hair's been short or I'm wearing a hat. I don't feel like it's a pose or a copout being how I am, in fact I rather feel it's the opposite. It's not an easy road to travel and it's taken 40 years to get comfortable with it and stop feeling like I have to 'perform' womanhood outwardly. I am a woman, and fuck anyone who says I'm any less of one or that I'm just striking a pose or attention-seeking because I don't conform to their mental rules for that word.



My brain still hurts when it comes to words like cis. Probably because it seems to have turned out to be somewhat divisive. And because terms can be come up with for sensible and useful purposes in certain contexts, but may then turn out to have loads of other potential implications that havent been thought through. Including ones that might expose existing weaknesses in peoples mutual understanding and agreement or disagreement over things like gender. It doesnt take much for it to feel like things a person cares about or are a major feature of the story and struggle of their lives, are being eroded in some way. Or old myths long fought against and seemingly overcome, returning to the stage again in new form.

I think theres also something to be said for elegant solutions, if something is too easily clumsy then its less likely to thrive without unintended consequences.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 9, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> The same questions arise from "Transgender men are men" which as a cis man you are as able to comment on as women are.



Someone Assigned Female at Birth, can they be A Man?

This is an area of the discussion we haven't really heard, it's all framed as AFAB women complaining that trans women are really men playing pretendy dress-up. Where are the AMAB men complaining that there are loads of women pretending to be men? Would anyone care about that argument anyway? Is there anything about being an AMAB man and experiencing childhood being treated and socialised as a boy rather than a girl, that makes _true man-ness _unavailable to a trans man? Of course the reproduction issue isn't an issue, but then it isn't for every woman either, or even every AFAB woman, so what's left beyond that? Is there anything that _makes a man_, which a trans man could not access, in the way it's being argued trans women can not access things that _make a woman? _

Simplistic language attempted on purpose because for me there are manifold unresolved issues and I want to avoid building in assumptions to the questions.



Miranda Yardley said:


> Having a partner of the same sex is about as gender non-conforming as you can get. Also, have you met many lesbians and/or gay men? It's their gender non-conformity that stands out.



I have to say, no. My own experience here, there are loads and loads of _very _masculine gay men, and plenty of _very _feminine lesbians. Also yes there are camp gay men and butch lesbians but yeah. No. Gender and sexuality are related issues, sure, but one_ in no way _maps cleanly onto the other.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 9, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> Someone Assigned Female at Birth, can they be A Man?
> 
> This is an area of the discussion we haven't really heard, it's all framed as AFAB women complaining that trans women are really men playing pretendy dress-up. Where are the AMAB men complaining that there are loads of women pretending to be men? Would anyone care about that argument anyway? Is there anything about being an AMAB man and experiencing childhood being treated and socialised as a boy rather than a girl, that makes _true man-ness _unavailable to a trans man? Of course the reproduction issue isn't an issue, but then it isn't for every woman either, or even every AFAB woman, so what's left beyond that? Is there anything that _makes a man_, which a trans man could not access, in the way it's being argued trans women can not access things that _make a woman? _
> 
> ...



Because men aren’t threatened by women entering their spaces.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 9, 2018)

What bit is that answering?


----------



## elbows (Jan 9, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> I have to say, no. My own experience here, there are loads and loads of _very _masculine gay men, and plenty of _very _feminine lesbians. Also yes there are camp gay men and butch lesbians but yeah. No. Gender and sexuality are related issues, sure, but one_ in no way _maps cleanly onto the other.



Its kind of blowing my mind that we are having to add these things to the picture.

I'm tempted to conclude that Miranda Yardley doesnt have enough pigeon holes, those that are available are too limited in depth, and the system is way too rigid to respond to the variations actually present in the world. At best this feeble array of choices may on odd occasion reveal some awkward complication that fancier systems fear to dwell on, at worst it leads to something resembling a parody of historical medical literature concerning homosexual tendencies.


----------



## Ralph Llama (Jan 9, 2018)

I just go with the non-defining idea that we're all queer humans. Obtuse I know, but it works.

<- Hetro queer



Magnus McGinty said:


> Perhaps so. But identity politics does that whichever way you look at it.



Gender/Identity is so individual and fluid that by simply labelling a particular strain, you create a political dualism of prejudice and acceptance which in turn creates social movements opposed to each other. It is a tactic of division from the patriarchy and reactionary 80`s feminism (SCUM!)
Maybe we should be reducing the labels, not adding to them?

As Crass said: movements are systems and systems kill.

The social root of this fear about men becoming women probably is rooted in the defence of patriarchy and macho masculinity as nobody seems to mind when women become men.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 9, 2018)

smokedout said:


> In my experience some people who reject the term cis when you meet them are very typical for their gender



I'd say I am very typical for my gender. Typicality (if such a word exists) means nowt because it's been learned. "Trousers are for boys"; "You're a young girl and not a lad so quit thinking you're one"; "No wonder you have no [girl] friends, trivial pursuit is for know-it-alls"; "You're making your brother's bed because no matter what else you do you're the one who will have to keep a house too" (well, that worked! ).
If everything, including our tastes, is subject to socialisation why not the way we present ourselves to others given the mix of approval/rejection of behaviours according to gender roles?



> But I didn’t come to like those things in a cultural or social vacuum, but against a backdrop of powerful social messages about what kinds of things women ought to like, so it’s no surprise that I should come to like some of these things. And anyway, I don’t feel that these things reflect anything deep, essential or natural about my identity. They are just my tastes and preferences. Had I been raised in a different culture, I might have had different ones, but I would still have been basically the same person.



If if had been raised within my mum's original tribe I'd probably present like this, when young,






or these women at several other maturity stages:






I'd immerse my hair in a mix of cow pat and mud with some oils, I'd dress, dance and be assigned tasks according to age, development, menses, marital status, having had kids or not, reached menopause, hierarchical place, etc, etc.

Perhaps life in the desert is a bit too hard to allow for one to imagine indulgence in "Why can't I do as/go with my brother?" (not sure) but the fact that one learns to conform to what is expected and demanded by society does not mean one's happy with whatever role and role-playing one's one has to conform to.



smokedout said:


> Is it incumbent on us to accept their lack of gender identity and not label them cis, even though as far as anyone looking or interacting with them might tell they do have a gender identity - perhaps not an internal one, but an external one?



So we should accept some people aren't the gender they seem to be as evidenced by their sex but we should accept other people are the cis as evidenced by the degree of conformity to artificial outer criteria such as the clothes one wears and whether one shoulders domestic chores? even though pressure to conform to those goes beyond formative years and the confines of your mother and father's reach?



smokedout said:


> I recognise that gender is imposed, but not everyone performs gender according to their biological sex, trans people don't, so is there a valid distinction to be made between people who do and people who don't?



What I don't like about the word cis is that it presupposes everyone to have a gender identity. I don't. I have learned it's easier to get on in life if I pick my battles. When I was younger and still under my mum's thumb that meant wearing my hair long and after that it still took me till after my son was born to grow the ovaries to cut my hair very short and being around my mum means I still snap at her when she implies I should be more mindful of how I present.



smokedout said:


> I'm not saying I 'm really sure about any of this



I'm suspicious of claims to certainty.



smokedout said:


> I'm just posing the question, possibly due to a certain amount of irritation at people declaring themselves genderless who are very visibly gendered.



I don't see myself as agendered. But I don't apportion my "womanhood" to having the "soul" of a woman.



smokedout said:


> Not all aimed at you by the way MochaSoul just that post made me think about it.



I didn't take it as such. Glad to have more to ponder on. 



8ball said:


> Still, there’s the odd curveball that can get you - a friend’s father is transgender and refers to herself as “X’s Dad”.  Easy enough to navigate around, but I wouldn’t have been sure if she didn’t announce herself as such at X’s wedding during the speech.



My son called me by my first name until he went to primary school. Why? Because he didn't have anyone telling him "Go to mummy..."; "Tell mummy.", "Mum's not going to like it if..."; "Mum's over here." "Mum's over there". All he heard were people calling me C-. so he called me C-. The weird bit is that he ended up never calling me "mamã" or "mãe" given we spoke Portuguese in the house. He went straight to "mum"; then he had a "mother" stage and now it depends on his mood. In any case, it seems to me that going to school and hearing the other kids "My mum this", "My mum that" changed his mind. Of course, with primary school, so also went his use of Portuguese (I worked from home at the time and was always speaking English on the phone and with no Portuguese neighbours, or friends around, it just became more difficult for both of us to change mindsets depending on whether we were alone or in company).

I only know of a transgender acquaintance (through their sister) and her children addressing her was a bit fraught. She wanted them to call her mum but they didn't because "they already had a mum". That was agreed but only at home; outside the house they called her by her first name because they found it difficult to have to go through the explaining. After a while they stopped calling her Dad even at home.



littlebabyjesus said:


> especially when someone is trying to explain your existence to you by calling you that


It's the assumptions behind the word that make me go nuts


littlebabyjesus said:


> Twitter has a lot to answer for in this respect, imo,


First time I heard it was on the Rachel Dolezal thread. I made a cursory google search got the non-trans sense came away thinking I knew all about it. I'm glad I didn't then.



Miranda Yardley said:


> This is not the case, some of the people who reject this term the strongest are lesbians and gay men, who are about as gender non-conforming as you can get. Also, on the basis that part of the woman's gender role is to be submissive, any woman who has ever told a man to 'fuck off' is definitely not gender conformant!



I'd heard about this but it didn't make sense to me. Is sexuality the pinnacle of gender performativity?


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 9, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I always hated the term non-white, because why should there be an opposite of white? And why lump so many people in either group and for what reason? PoC is the fashionable way of saying the same thing nowadays.


I "cis" was simply non-trans I'd accept that comparison. I don't think it is. I hate "people of colour" btw. Just because it's used it doesn't mean it's acceptable.


----------



## bimble (Jan 9, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Some rad fems and butch lesbians, and some feminine gay men I would concede do not perform gender to the usual extent, but it's rare to meet someone who is not trans who radically appears to reject gender.  If all other things were equal or obscured such as facial features and body shape, *the average person would easily be able to identify their gender of almost everyone who is not trans based on their clothes, mannerisms, speech patterns, interests and social role.*



I've read this a few times now and still don't get it. You're saying trans people are basically the only ones who do _not_ perform gender roles in a conformist way? Are you extending the word trans to include all 'gender non conforming' people or what?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 9, 2018)

Ralph Llama said:


> The social root of this fear about men becoming women probably is rooted in the defence of patriarchy and macho masculinity as nobody seems to mind when women become men.



It's nice of the feminists to be helping the patriarchy out with the masculinity crisis.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 9, 2018)

I've come across the #DroptheT hashtag this morning, presumably referring to _LGBT_ ...Does anyone know much about it?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 9, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> I've come across the #DroptheT hashtag this morning, presumably referring to _LGBT_ ...Does anyone know much about it?



I thought there were a lot more letters than four now anyway - are we having a contraction? 

My prediction is the B will be next to go...


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 9, 2018)

8ball said:


> I thought there were a lot more letters than four now anyway - are we having a contraction?
> 
> My prediction is the B will be next to go...



There are more letters now yes LGBTQ+ ? Happy to be corrected if wrong.

I only went as far as the T above because I was referring to and asking about the #DroptheT hashtag...nothing more sinister than that.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 9, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> I've come across the #DroptheT hashtag this morning, presumably referring to _LGBT_ ...Does anyone know much about it?



I've come across the shout out several times on twitter (it never occurred to me that a hashtag might have been created - which is pretty daft of me really). Anyhoo when I searched for it I found this among other things
Sign the Petition
Not sure it's representative but it more or less concurred with comments I had found.

E2a: I've also found that some people think the gay rights movement should be confined to matters to do with sexuality. Transgender encompasses identity.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 9, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> There are more letters now yes LGBTQ+ ? Happy to be corrected if wrong.
> 
> I only went as far as the T above because I was referring to and asking about the #DroptheT hashtag...nothing more sinister than that.



Wasn't implying anything sinister. 
Yeah, I'd seen the "+" before - I assumed they put that in because there were formulations knocking about that were getting on for 10 letters. 

It's like the DHSS.  They dropped the H.  They seem to be getting close to dropping the D.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 9, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> There are more letters now yes LGBTQ+ ? Happy to be corrected if wrong.
> 
> I only went as far as the T above because I was referring to and asking about the #DroptheT hashtag...nothing more sinister than that.



I've not used the "Q" when I mention it. Should I be doing that?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 9, 2018)

krtek a houby said:


> I've not used the "Q" when I mention it. Should I be doing that?



What was the difference between the Q and the LGB bit again?  And does the plus mean anything specific?


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 9, 2018)

8ball said:


> What was the difference between the Q and the LGB bit again?  And does the plus mean anything specific?



Honestly couldn't tell you! A variation of the previous letters?


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 9, 2018)

smokedout said:


> the average person would easily be able to identify their gender of almost everyone who is not trans based on their clothes, mannerisms, speech patterns, interests and social role.


When I was young and I sat with my legs apart I'd be told off. Later I found that was because of an inference of promiscuity. The kind of moment when you realise that it's not what is in your head or your words that really counts. You become self-conscious and that colours your behaviour. Later on, someone comes along and calls you "gender conforming" or cis . you do it because there is something in your head that tells you are a woman not because you've been compelled to it. Nah...


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 9, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> When I was young and I sat with my legs apart I'd be told off. Later I found that was because of an inference of promiscuity.


 To add to that, as someone who was told exactly the same thing, it was also to protect me from predatory men. My elders feared for my safety. It was an acknowledgement that as a female child I was at risk more than them thinking I was doing it in any kind of encouraging way.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 9, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> To add to that, as someone who was told exactly the same thing, it was also to protect me from predatory men. My elders feared for my safety. It was an acknowledgement that as a female child I was at risk more than them thinking I was doing it in any kind of encouraging way.



Exactly. The last thing one wants is for men around to regard you in a "free for all" (in the same way a lot do prostitutes by virtue of their occupation) because (when your word is already seen as second-best) nothing you might say will count if they perceive a mismatch in your behaviour. It's a risk you're not willing to take even if you see your elders as antiquated or yada.


----------



## Signal 11 (Jan 9, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> I've come across the #DroptheT hashtag this morning, presumably referring to _LGBT_ ...Does anyone know much about it?


https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2017/10/christian-rights-new-strategy-divide-conquer-lgbt-community/


> “For all of its recent success, the LGBT alliance is actually fragile, and the trans activists need the gay rights movement to help legitimize them,” said Meg Kilgannon, a parent and director of Concerned Parents and Educators of Fairfax County, during a panel discussion called “Transgender Ideology in Public Schools: Parents Fight Back.”
> [...]
> “Gender identity on its own is just a bridge too far. If you separate the T from the alphabet soup, we’ll have more success,” Kilgannon added.
> [...]
> Attendees were also told to wrap their transphobic rhetoric in the language of feminism, claiming gender identity is a concept offensive to women.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 9, 2018)

Signal 11 said:


> The Christian right’s new strategy: Divide and conquer the LGBT community



That seems like blatant piggy backing and exploiting an existing campaign/situation doesn't it? The other links go back much further FWICS...



> “For all of its recent success, the LGBT alliance is actually fragile, and the trans activists need the gay rights movement to help legitimize them,”



Cards on the table there I think. 

I also wonder how big and how much support the #DroptheT campaign actually has from within the LBGTQ+ community.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 9, 2018)

Sue said:


> Really? I must either know a lot of unusual people or this is crass stereotyping.



Are social roles and interests not part of how gender is imposed then?  Is it just about frocks or trousers?


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 9, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Are social roles and interests not part of how gender is imposed then?



Of course who they are. Who’s argued otherwise?

Are you saying now that those who don’t conform to socially imposed gender roles/interests are trans (or not Cis)?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 9, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Of course who they are. Who’s argued otherwise?
> 
> Are you saying now that those who don’t conform to socially imposed gender roles/interests are trans (or not Cis)?



They are demigenderqueerambigurecipriverse.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 9, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Of course who they are. Who’s argued otherwise?
> 
> Are you saying now that those who don’t conform to socially imposed gender roles/interests are trans (or not Cis)?



No I quite clearly said that gender is made up of appearance, mannerisms, speech patterns, interests and social roles, and from that combination it is usually very easy to identify whether someone is performing the male or female gender role.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 9, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> When I was young and I sat with my legs apart I'd be told off. Later I found that was because of an inference of promiscuity. The kind of moment when you realise that it's not what is in your head or your words that really counts. You become self-conscious and that colours your behaviour. Later on, someone comes along and calls you "gender conforming" or cis . you do it because there is something in your head that tells you are a woman not because you've been compelled to it. Nah...



I completely accept that gender is imposed, and that usually trans people simply switch gender rather than reject it, although I was including non-binary people under the trans umbrella.

But as a taxonomical term, is it fair to label someone cis if their gender performance is easily identifiable with their biological sex, and they do not experience gender dysphoria, even if it is a label they reject?  I've conceded there are some people who fall between the cis/trans camps, I'd suggest weepiper might be one, but a lot of people who reject the cis label have not actually rejected their assigned gender - they are still visibly the gender they were assigned due to their biological sex.

And I'm only really interested in it as a taxonomical term.  I recognise it is often used in an ideological way, and often pejoratively, much like white, black, het and other taxonomical descriptors, but I'm not sure that means it shouldn't exist.  I've used cis and non-trans interchangeably on this thread, but 'cis' feels better as a word and I suspect that any term would end up being attacked - and spat as a weapon by the more annoying trans supporters.  But there has to be a term, it's impossible to really examine transgenderism without a word that means not transgender.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 9, 2018)

Insisting that cis means gender conforming, or anything other than 'not trans' is not going to let you any closer to understanding what trans people experience.

Refusal to acknowledge that there are masculine or butch trans women and there are feminine trans men is just going to tie you up in knots.

Not acknowledging that gender identity and gender expression are different things will prevent you from being able to even listen to what trans people say.

And you wonder why we can't debate this stuff with people who won't even give us the basic respect of believing that we're not lying, that we're not making this stuff up, we're adults who have lived this and suffered by it, and that the unique experiences of trans people also gives us unique insight.


----------



## Athos (Jan 9, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Insisting that cis means gender conforming, or anything other than 'not trans' is not going to let you any closer to understanding what trans people experience.
> 
> Refusal to acknowledge that there are masculine or butch trans women and there are feminine trans men is just going to tie you up in knots.
> 
> ...



Please would you share some of that insight by explaining what you mean when you say 'gender identity'? And how it differs from 'gender', 'gender roles', and 'gender expression'?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 9, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Not acknowledging that gender identity and gender expression are different things will prevent you from being able to even listen to what trans people say.



I'm not sure we're all meaning the same thing by the term 'gender identity'...


----------



## Sue (Jan 9, 2018)

smokedout said:


> *Are social roles and interests not part of how gender is imposed then?  *Is it just about frocks or trousers?


Of course they are. But what about people whose social roles and interests don't conform to what is apparently expected by their gender?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> And you wonder why we can't debate this stuff with people who won't even give us the basic respect of believing that we're not lying, that we're not making this stuff up, we're adults who have lived this and suffered by it, and that the unique experiences of trans people also gives us unique insight.


unique insight into what?


----------



## Athos (Jan 9, 2018)

smokedout said:


> I completely accept that gender is imposed, and that usually trans people simply switch gender rather than reject it, although I was including non-binary people under the trans umbrella.
> 
> But as a taxonomical term, is it fair to label someone cis if their gender performance is easily identifiable with their biological sex, and they do not experience gender dysphoria, even if it is a label they reject?  I've conceded there are some people who fall between the cis/trans camps, I'd suggest weepiper might be one, but a lot of people who reject the cis label have not actually rejected their assigned gender - they are still visibly the gender they were assigned due to their biological sex.
> 
> And I'm only really interested in it as a taxonomical term.  I recognise it is often used in an ideological way, and often pejoratively, much like white, black, het and other taxonomical descriptors, but I'm not sure that means it shouldn't exist.  I've used cis and non-trans interchangeably on this thread, but 'cis' feels better as a word and I suspect that any term would end up being attacked - and spat as a weapon by the more annoying trans supporters.  But there has to be a term, it's impossible to really examine transgenderism without a word that means not transgender.



This doesn't work.   Closeted trans people don't become cis by virtue of the fact that their gender appears to match their sex. And it doesn't account for e.g. butch trans women.

More importantly, that's not what trans people report. They say that what defines their gender (and, so, makes them trans)  is an internal identity, not the outward trappings.

'Not trans' is an adequate description of people who are not trans. There's no need for another word. Especially since it can be mistaken for a binary, when you've conceded some people are neither. And given some of those to whom it is applied take offence.

The biggest issue with using it as an antonym for trans is that it implies that cis people have an internal gender identity which matches their sex, whereas many people report having no such gender identity.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 9, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Insisting that cis means gender conforming



Who is doing this?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 9, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> I'd heard about this but it didn't make sense to me. Is sexuality the pinnacle of gender performativity?



Which part?

This: This is not the case, some of the people who reject this term the strongest are lesbians and gay men, who are about as gender non-conforming as you can get.

Or this: Also, on the basis that part of the woman's gender role is to be submissive, any woman who has ever told a man to 'fuck off' is definitely not gender conformant!


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 9, 2018)

elbows said:


> I'm tempted to conclude that Miranda Yardley doesnt have enough pigeon holes, those that are available are too limited in depth, and the system is way too rigid to respond to the variations actually present in the world. At best this feeble array of choices may on odd occasion reveal some awkward complication that fancier systems fear to dwell on, at worst it leads to something resembling a parody of historical medical literature concerning homosexual tendencies.



On the contrary, I'm not into pigeon holes or 983 different gender identities. I think people should just be themselves without complying with stereotypes or labels, and I've said this zillions of times. I particularly worry for those who feel the need to describe themselves as a collection of different stereotypes, how can you have a fulfilling relationship with other people, never mind yourself, if you see individuals as fragmented collections of identities and stereotypes, rather than as rounded individuals?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> On the contrary, I'm not into pigeon holes or 983 different gender identities. I think people should just be themselves without complying with stereotypes or labels, and I've said this zillions of times. I particularly worry for those who feel the need to describe themselves as a collection of different stereotypes, how can you have a fulfilling relationship with other people, never mind yourself, if you see individuals as fragmented collections of identities and stereotypes, rather than as rounded individuals?


How does that attitude fit with your insistence on calling trans women 'he'? Is that not you labelling them?


----------



## bimble (Jan 9, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> unique insight into what?


What it feels like to be a woman, perhaps, because I haven’t got a clue.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2018)

bimble said:


> What it feels like to be a woman, perhaps, because I haven’t got a clue.


that much at least is clear.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 9, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How does that attitude fit with your insistence on calling trans women 'he'? Is that not you labelling them?



It's a reflection of reality, not identity. It's not me than makes the rule that 'trans women' are male.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> It's a reflection of reality, not identity. It's not me than makes the rule that 'trans women' are male.


so that's a 'yes'.


----------



## elbows (Jan 9, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> It's a reflection of reality, not identity. It's not me than makes the rule that 'trans women' are male.



Well I dont think I'll be wasting any more time on your strange ideas about who makes the rules. Especially as yours dont even match the rich variations found in the world, and attempts to bring this to your attention are met with crap copouts about outliers.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 9, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> It's a reflection of reality, not identity. It's not me than makes the rule that 'trans women' are male.


It's a contested reality though. I'm not chipping in to say what that 'reality' is, just reiterating the point made to you before: why use _he_ or _male_ when you know that will hurt someone and when gender free language is available.  As someone said to you a page or two back (sorry, can't remember who) your own views and position is not compromised where you to go with 'they' or similar.


----------



## andysays (Jan 9, 2018)

8ball said:


> I'm not sure we're all meaning the same thing by the term 'gender identity'...


I'm not even sure that certain people are using that and other terms consistently from one post to the next, TBH


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2018)

andysays said:


> I'm not even sure that certain people are using that and other terms consistently from one post to the next, TBH


Yeh, I've been fluid in my meaning of gender identity throughout


----------



## Ralph Llama (Jan 9, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> unique insight into what?



Are you taking the piss ?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2018)

Ralph Llama said:


> Are you taking the piss ?


You certainly are


----------



## Ralph Llama (Jan 9, 2018)

Where you just talking the piss?


----------



## snadge (Jan 9, 2018)

Ralph Llama said:


> Where you just talking the piss?



Why would you think he is taking the piss?

I don't think I would like to work out what 'talking' the piss is


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2018)

Ralph Llama said:


> Where you just talking the piss?


----------



## Ralph Llama (Jan 9, 2018)

OK. Sorry. Wrong end of stick.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2018)

Ralph Llama said:


> OK. Sorry. Wrong end of stick.


I quite like you and hope you stick around


----------



## Ralph Llama (Jan 9, 2018)

Thanks. Exuse me I thought you where just being propper wrong! I need some sleep. I will sleep now


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 9, 2018)

This is weird now. Especially Pickmans being nice to someone.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 9, 2018)

Wilf said:


> It's a contested reality though. I'm not chipping in to say what that 'reality' is, just reiterating the point made to you before: why use _he_ or _male_ when you know that will hurt someone and when gender free language is available.  As someone said to you a page or two back (sorry, can't remember who) your own views and position is not compromised where you to go with 'they' or similar.



It's contested ideologically, sure. Nothing in science makes men women.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 9, 2018)

andysays said:


> I'm not even sure that certain people are using that and other terms consistently from one post to the next, TBH



'Gender identity' is just culturally constructed thoughts and feelings. It can also be interpreted as 'sexism'.


----------



## bimble (Jan 9, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> 'Gender identity' is just culturally constructed thoughts and feelings. It can also be interpreted as 'sexism'.



In the absence of this (a strong feeling of 'female gender identity') can you say anything about what is it that made you go through all those painful surgeries?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> It's contested ideologically, sure. Nothing in science makes men women.


Science doesn't define words. You are considering your own ideology to be naturalised here.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 9, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> It's contested ideologically, sure. Nothing in biology makes men women.



FIFY. Other sciences are available where men can be women and women men, particularly the social ones. Psychology, for instance. Linguistics. Anthropology. Sociology. _Material Reality_ is only part of ''Reality'' the lived experience.

It's really too late to go on with this, I'm working very early tomorrow.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> It's a reflection of reality, not identity. It's not me than makes the rule that 'trans women' are male.


And here's the evidence of your ideology. I'm not commenting here on whether or not it is right. I'm merely commenting on its ideological nature.  Your appeal to some external authority demonstrates it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> FIFY. Other sciences are available where men can be women and women men, particularly the social ones. Psychology, for instance. Linguistics. Anthropology. Sociology. _Material Reality_ is only part of ''Reality'' the lived experience.
> 
> It's really too late to go on with this, I'm working very early tomorrow.


This is a bigger question than my wants to concede. To them questions of material reality have been settled. That is also ideology.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 9, 2018)

bimble said:


> In the absence of this (a strong feeling of 'female gender identity') can you say anything about what is it that made you go through all those painful surgeries?



I’ve been thinking this also! Miranda’s arguments appear to be against transition, yet they have done precisely that.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 9, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> On the contrary, I'm not into pigeon holes or 983 different gender identities. I think people should just be themselves without complying with stereotypes or labels, and I've said this zillions of times. I particularly worry for those who feel the need to describe themselves as a collection of different stereotypes, how can you have a fulfilling relationship with other people, never mind yourself, if you see individuals as fragmented collections of identities and stereotypes, rather than as rounded individuals?




lol 

it is you who defines which I you think of when you say I

Did the person make the moment? Or, Did the moment make the person?

you heard of ram dass?


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 10, 2018)




----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 10, 2018)

I find lots to agree with on my's website. I like them generally on here, and the fact that they declare themself an amateur mathematician endears me to them a great deal. But they don't acknowledge their own ideology. They don't acknowledge properly their reliance on very dodgy sources such as Blanchard. And I'm sorry but sometimes they appear to be arguing from someone else's pov. Do they really feel the need to misgender other posters here, or is that something they feel they ought to do because certain associates might be reading. 

And then of course, they've changed their name to Miranda but would prefer to be called 'they'. tbh it would be far easier to just say 'she'. This isn't a question of ideology, just one of linguistic convention. To confuse one for the other is a bad mistake, imo, one that leads people into acting like vicious fuckers while pretending that they're not.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 10, 2018)

i dont think they really actually know themselves. smacks of it.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 10, 2018)

Don't get the deliberate misgendering, at all. What does it achieve, apart from causing unecessary grief and resentment?


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 10, 2018)

makes em look like candace owens on rubin report, not a good look.


----------



## campanula (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> It's a reflection of reality, not identity. It's not me than makes the rule that 'trans women' are male.



Um, I had more or less abandoned this topic, having no particular axe to grind and zero grounding in academic gender positions...but that statement seems a bit narrow, Miranda. While reality may be 'socially constructed' it hardly makes it less 'real' to those experiencing it (ie.everyone). And whilst it argues against definition and certainty (given the huge historical and cultural surges which have rampaged across human history (or even herstory), I can only speak for myself by saying I have definitely experienced what seems to be a profound feeling of womanliness (usually because of because the sheer enormous physicality of biology but also a fever dream of imagination) but my God, over 6 decades of femaleness, I can find nothing, outside of the purely biological which has any consistency or compelling agenda - certainly not based on fragile states of being such as sexual attraction (where I have been all over the shop and currently distinctly non)...and as for tastes, preference, social acceptance (I was called 'lad for years until I discovered biscuits,grew a granny bosom and menopause did for my once luxurious moustache).  Anyway, the  slippery nature of this topic encourages multiple positions on a very colourful spectrum. Still floundering really.
Without being prurient, do you refer to yourself as 'he' Miranda? ( still remember the fuss about Ms so, on principle, I am on board with changeable pronouns).
I can also see the dilemma in being a obvious member of a very small minority, yet having to resist the position of being either the self-appointed or unwillingly nominated spokesperson for all other minority members...as though there was no such thing as complexity.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> It's a reflection of reality, not identity. I*t's not me than makes the rule that 'trans women' are male*.


Actually, that's _exactly_ what it is.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 10, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And then of course, they've changed their name to Miranda but would prefer to be called 'they'. tbh it would be far easier to just say 'she'.



You argue this after arguing that pronouns should be applied out of respect of the recipient’s choosing.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 10, 2018)

miranda dunno about respect tho init


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 10, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> miranda dunno about respect tho init



They disagree with a point of view. I haven’t seen them name calling over it.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 10, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> They disagree with a point of view. I haven’t seen them name calling over it.




you havent? we all have


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 10, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> You argue this after arguing that pronouns should be applied out of respect of the recipient’s choosing.


I've lost patience with the person who refuses to give that respect.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I've lost patience with the person who refuses to give that respect.


Yeh not much r e s p e c t from m y


----------



## bimble (Jan 10, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But they don't acknowledge their own ideology.


What does that mean?  What about their point of view are they not spelling out or acting on to your satisfaction?


----------



## weepiper (Jan 10, 2018)

WALSH: This Cross-Dressing Child Is Not 'Expressing' Himself. He Is Being Sexually Abused.

Some may find some of the language involved in this article extreme but it's definitely a worrying situation for the child in question.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2018)

weepiper said:


> WALSH: This Cross-Dressing Child Is Not 'Expressing' Himself. He Is Being Sexually Abused.
> 
> Some may find some of the language involved in this article extreme but it's definitely a worrying situation for the child in question.


has yer man taken as strong a line against child beauty contests, like those in which jonbenet ramsey was involved in? by no means making light of this situation: nonetheless it seems to me that there's also an element of identifying homosexuality with paedophilia in there, for example



which i imagine refers to pride.


----------



## LDC (Jan 10, 2018)

weepiper said:


> WALSH: This Cross-Dressing Child Is Not 'Expressing' Himself. He Is Being Sexually Abused.
> 
> Some may find some of the language involved in this article extreme but it's definitely a worrying situation for the child in question.



I do generally find myself agreeing with lots of what you say weepiper, but that source is fucking awful. Have you seen what other shit they have on their main page?

Not to say that it isn't at first glance a awful thing, it's just with these sources it's often that there's more to it than what seems to be the case at first.


----------



## Signal 11 (Jan 10, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> has yer man taken as strong a line against child beauty contests,


He's taken a strong line against feminism, marriage equality and atheism:


> demands that conservative voters make a last stand and fight for the moral center of America. The Trump presidency and Republican Congress provides an urgent opportunity to stop the Left's value-bending march to destroy the culture of our country.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2018)

Signal 11 said:


> He's taken a strong line against feminism, marriage equality and atheism:


i don't think i'd want him in my team


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 10, 2018)

Signal 11 said:


> He's taken a strong line against feminism, marriage equality and atheism:



"the Left's value-bending march to destroy the culture of our country."

Ugh. Got to be a weak culture if the idea of equality threatens it so much.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 10, 2018)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I do generally find myself agreeing with lots of what you say weepiper, but that source is fucking awful. Have you seen what other shit they have on their main page?
> 
> Not to say that it isn't at first glance a awful thing, it's just with these sources it's often that there's more to it than what seems to be the case at first.


Yeah, sure, sorry, it's a story I've seen floating around on twitter for a few days and I just grabbed the first 'article' at hand. He has some shitty opinions and I don't want to appear to be allying myself with him or others like him so apologies for that.
I do worry for that kid though, and yes perhaps it is 'just the same' as female children being paraded in beauty pageants but that doesn't make it less wrong to be grotesquely overtly sexualising a pre-pubescent child for adult entertainment.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 10, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But they don't acknowledge their own ideology.
> They don't acknowledge properly their reliance on very dodgy sources such as Blanchard.
> And I'm sorry but sometimes they appear to be arguing from someone else's pov.
> Do they really feel the need to misgender other posters here, or is that something they feel they ought to do because certain associates might be reading.



If you read my work, I quote my ideological sources and these primarily are classic liberal or based on Marxist materialism and class analysis, and the critique of Engels on the family.
Blanchard is not dodgy, his work stands up and you can see that many trans people do have autogynephilic histories. How else would you interpret the narratives I quote in that piece? As Alice Dreger has said, objections to B's work is ideological.
No, I don't buy into the zeitgeist. I make and defend my own arguments.
Complaints or 'misgendering' are themselves purely ideological: it is our convention that females and males have particular pronouns, it is transgender ideology that attempts to compel us to bend this law for a small minority.



littlebabyjesus said:


> And then of course, they've changed their name to Miranda but would prefer to be called 'they'. tbh it would be far easier to just say 'she'. This isn't a question of ideology, just one of linguistic convention. To confuse one for the other is a bad mistake, imo, one that leads people into acting like vicious fuckers while pretending that they're not.



Does that mean you would not respect the pronouns of those who claim 'non-binary identity' and wish for 'they'? Or 'zie'/'hir' etc?

Please show me anything I have ever said that is 'vicious'.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Complaints or 'misgendering' are themselves purely ideological: it is our convention that females and males have particular pronouns, it is transgender ideology that attempts to compel us to bend this law for a small minority.


 _Law_?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 10, 2018)

bimble said:


> In the absence of this (a strong feeling of 'female gender identity') can you say anything about what is it that made you go through all those painful surgeries?



I've had only one painful surgery! The idea that we have a 'female gender identity' is a recent invention, it used to be called 'gender identity disorder', no that I think this is a great description either, just showing how things have changed: the whole idea this 'female gender identity' is innate is pretty much unsupported scientifically. 

As for reasons/motivations, I've written some bits about this here and here.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 10, 2018)

Wilf said:


> _Law_?



Convention, or law. Using the terms synonymously in that context.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Convention, or law. Using the terms synonymously in that context.


It's a choice - a choice you are making. You are - obviously - entitled to your own opinions as to whether someone 'really' is male or female. But I wish you'd stop hiding behind appeals to scientific authority, 'laws' and definitions when what you are engaged in is a political and ideological battle.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 10, 2018)

krtek a houby said:


> "the Left's value-bending march to destroy the culture of our country."
> 
> Ugh. Got to be a weak culture if the idea of equality threatens it so much.



Equality is a complex thing and sometimes the most unfair thing to do is treat everyone equally: ideas of equality can be separated into equalities of opportunity, outcome, etc., and also be at odds with concepts like equity (fairness) and liberation/freedom. To quote myself, 'equality is bunk: in a prison everyone is equal'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> If you read my work, I quote my ideological sources and these primarily are classic liberal or based on Marxist materialism and class analysis, and the critique of Engels on the family.
> <snip>
> No, I don't buy into the zeitgeist. I make and defend my own arguments.


yeh. your own arguments. based on mill, marx and engels.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 10, 2018)

Wilf said:


> It's a choice - a choice you are making. You are - obviously - entitled to your own opinions as to whether someone 'really' is male or female. But I wish you'd stop hiding behind appeals to scientific authority, 'laws' and definitions when what you are engaged in is a political and ideological battle.



No, not really: like it or not, there is a convention we have which recognises males as males and females as females, and language and rights follow. Enforcing the belief on others that a small number of males should be treated as females is a purely ideological position.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> No, not really: like it or not, there is a convention we have which recognises males as males and females as females, and language and rights follow. Enforcing the belief on others that a small number of males should be treated as females is a purely ideological position.


And that ^ is a purely conservative position.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 10, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I've lost patience with the person who refuses to give that respect.


But you do this with cis? Wheres your respect?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2018)

TopCat said:


> But you do this with cis? Wheres your respect?


He's a liberal so everyone should show him respect


----------



## TopCat (Jan 10, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> He's a liberal so everyone should show him respect


Or he will scweem and squeem.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 10, 2018)

Wilf said:


> And that ^ is a purely conservative position.



Recognising biological sex matters is conservative? Holy shit

Demanding everyone submit to one's own personal subjective identity thus prioritising thoughts and feelings over reality is forcibly imposing ideology. It is neofascist. Touche!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Recognising biological sex matters is conservative? Holy shit
> 
> Demanding everyone submit to one's own personal subjective identity thus prioritising thoughts and feelings over reality is forcibly imposing ideology. It is neofascist. Touche!


Yeh this would be the common use of neofascist, that is, something you don't like


----------



## bimble (Jan 10, 2018)

Wilf said:


> It's a choice - a choice you are making. You are - obviously - entitled to your own opinions as to whether someone 'really' is male or female. But I wish you'd *stop hiding behind appeals to scientific authority*, 'laws' and definitions when what you are engaged in is a political and ideological battle.



From reading MR's stuff it's quite simple really; when calling someone male or female they're talking about biology, not identity. They've been consistent and clear about that, and whether you agree with it or not the common practice currently of choosing identity over biology as the defining factor that decides whether a person is a man or a woman is arguable more 'ideological' isn't it.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 10, 2018)

I've made a couple of seemingly (or perhaps actually ) naïve interventions on this thread. Random interjections about the whole thing as a debate, as a form of politics. Things like 'what would this debate look like in the absence of identity politics' and 'what is the potential for solidarity'?  Another way of saying all that is to ask about the terrain on which the battle is taking place. Seems to me both sides are taking fro granted society's inequalities and oppressions around gender and sexuality, seeking to attack each other within those oppressions.  I've not seen much that might prefigure the way people would want to live in a better society, that moves _beyond_ biological and social restrictions on who we are and who we want to be.  Still less making links to other social forces, austerity, class...

As I've also said in a couple of posts, all very easy for me to say, white, male, heterosexual, middle class. P_rivileges checked - _but more to the point, not someone who is likely to be threatened on grounds of my sexuality or other bits of my identity.  But then this is also a debate with key pinch points around university student unions, de-invited speakers and like.  What does it link to, how does it create a better society?


----------



## Wilf (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Recognising biological sex matters is conservative? Holy shit
> 
> Demanding everyone submit to one's own personal subjective identity thus prioritising thoughts and feelings over reality is forcibly imposing ideology. It is neofascist. Touche!


Yes, but thoughts and feelings are a reality - and so we go round and round. Yes, I get it, you are choosing to use biological terms and language. 'I'm not a postmodernist but'... you are still making an active, ideological choice to prioritise the biological.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 10, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Things like 'what would this debate look like in the absence of identity politics' and 'what is the potential for solidarity'?



Identity politics is causing a huge rift in the left, particularly with regard to transgenderism; look at the situation on the left here and in the USA.



Wilf said:


> Another way of saying all that is to ask about the terrain on which the battle is taking place. Seems to me both sides are taking fro granted society's inequalities and oppressions around gender and sexuality, seeking to attack each other within those oppressions.



The thing is that gender is, itself, an oppressive system which positions one sex above the other in a hierarchy.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Identity politics is causing a huge rift in the left, particularly with regard to transgenderism; look at the situation on the left here and in the USA.
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is that gender is, itself, an oppressive system which positions one sex above the other in a hierarchy.


Well, y'know, I get that. I'm just not convinced that this policing of the boundaries of what genders are, who is in and who is out, does much to challenge that oppression.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 10, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Yes, but thoughts and feelings are a reality - and so we go round and round. Yes, I get it, you are choosing to use biological terms and language. 'I'm not a postmodernist but'... you are still making an active, ideological choice to prioritise the biological.



Think about what this means in the most fraught of the disputes that the claims made by trans males causes: should the subjective internal thoughts and feelings of biological males be taken equally to the lived reality of being biologically female? Or even should the rights biological females have, as females, be trumped by a claim made by biological males based entirely on thoughts and feelings?

Can you see what I am trying to get at here?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 10, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Well, y'know, I get that. I'm just not convinced that this policing of the boundaries of what genders are, who is in and who is out, does much to challenge that oppression.



My argument is that biological sex matters. Gender is a social system. What is someone's 'gender'?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> If you read my work, I quote my ideological sources and these primarily are classic liberal or based on Marxist materialism and class analysis, and the critique of Engels on the family.
> Blanchard is not dodgy, his work stands up and you can see that many trans people do have autogynephilic histories. How else would you interpret the narratives I quote in that piece?


No-one has ever denied some trans people experience autogynephilia, that's a whole world away from the reactionary homophobic shit Blanchard spouts.  I'll ask you again, how do you justify the gender essentialism inherent to Blanchard's taxonomy of naturally feminine "extreme homosexual" transsexual men?





> Complaints or 'misgendering' are themselves purely ideological: it is our convention that females and males have particular pronouns, it is transgender ideology that attempts to compel us to bend this law for a small minority.



Tables have particular pronouns in a lot of languages.  Get over yourself, good manners costs nothing.



> Please show me anything I have ever said that is 'vicious'.



I think you and your cronies know exactly how vicious a lot of your rhetoric is.  You know misgendering people not only puts people at risks but hurts people, you know calling trans-activists men's rights activists is possibly the nastiest political slur you can make, and the veiled accusations of criminal, liar, rapist, paedophile or male sexual predator are never far from the surface either.  Almost everything that comes out of the trans critical rad fem camp is precision targetted to cause as much damage as possible, both to whichever individual who you are currently picking on to how transsexuals are viewed and treated within society.

This butter doesn't melt shit doesn't wash from you or any of your cult, you know exactly what you are doing - and that is trying to create a society that is even more vicious and hostile to trans people.  And if this is not your intention then what the fuck are you playing at because that's what it looks like.

Do you condemn the transcrime website?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 10, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh this would be the common use of neofascist, that is, something you don't like



I think that's the first time anyone has accused someone of fascism on this thread, although I do remember trans-activists elsewhere being attacked for doing this as if it were a solely trans-activist phenomena.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Think about what this means in the most fraught of the disputes that the claims made by trans males causes: should the subjective internal thoughts and feelings of biological males be taken equally to the lived reality of being biologically female? Or even should the rights biological females have, as females, be trumped by a claim made by biological males based entirely on thoughts and feelings?
> 
> Can you see what I am trying to get at here?


I, or more to the point, trans people might dispute some of that as specifics, as words, as definitions. But I won't.   Actually, yes, I can entirely see where you are coming from.  I might personally have a problem a problem with some of the arguments put by _some_ trans activists, that personal/subjective identification should in itself automatically bring a full set of social and legal responses. But then I don't feel that drawing tight boundaries around gender helps either. _It's messy, it need to be worked out_. That's why I keep asking where does this go, how does it link to anything else, how does it undermine the sources of oppression and sexual violence in society?  Is this debate in any way prefigurative of the way people would want to live in a better society?


----------



## campanula (Jan 10, 2018)

seems like a lot of nasty stuff on all sides - MRA Terf ffs.  Shitty way to behave and does fuck all to actually remove oppressive practice and behaviour. Total (and inevitable) failure of Pomo ideology. It wqs shit being forced to sit through endless crapulous expositions of the female gaze and bloody Luce Irigaray/Lacanian wanking, back in 1991...and am now despairing to see how the grasping and vindictive hold this individual onanism has rubbished the idea of commonality, collectivism, solidarity. Shit all round.
Retires from thread in despair.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 10, 2018)

smokedout said:


> No-one has ever denied some trans people experience autogynephilia, the a whole world away from the reactionary homophobic shit Blanchard spouts.



Julia Serano, Andrea James, Zinnia Jones and a bunch of 'rationalists' (LOL) do exactly that:

The real "autogynephilia deniers" | Whipping Girl
Autogynephilia: a disputed diagnosis
Alice Dreger, autogynephilia, and the misrepresentation of trans sexualities (Book review: Galileo’s Middle Finger)
Autogynephilia - RationalWiki



smokedout said:


> I'll ask you again, how do you justify the gender essentialism inherent to Blanchard's taxonomy of inherently feminine "extreme homosexual" transsexual men?



Please define 'gender essentialism' and how this relates to Blanchard's ideas?



smokedout said:


> Tables have particular pronouns in a lot of languages.  Get over yourself, good manners costs nothing.



So, we are taught to refer to motor cars, boats and other vessels as 'she' but calling an adult human male 'he' is taboo?



smokedout said:


> I think you and your cronies know exactly how vicious a lot of your rhetoric is.  You know misgendering people not only puts people at risks but hurts people



'Cronies'? Get a grip. Also, much transperbole: 'misgendering' puts nobody 'at risk'.



smokedout said:


> you know calling trans-activists men's rights activists is possibly the nastiest political slur you can make, and the veiled accusations of criminal, liar, rapist, paedophile or male sexual predator are never far from the surface either.



Transgender activism *IS* men's rights activism: it out of hand dismissed women's biology and lived reality.



smokedout said:


> Almost everything that comes out of the trans critical rad fem camp is precision targetted to cause as much damage as possible, both to whichever individual who you are currently picking on to how transsexuals are viewed and treated within society.



Why are you again trying to make me responsible for something I'm nothing to do with?



smokedout said:


> This butter doesn't melt shit doesn't wash from you or any of your cult, you know exactly what you are doing - and that is trying to create a society that is even more vicious and hostile to trans people.  And if this is not your intention then what the fuck are you playing at because that's what it looks like.



Again, more transperbole. My work is dripping with compassion and empathy, something largely absent from transgender culture.



smokedout said:


> Do you condemn the transcrime website?



In the absence of credible governmental information, this website serves a function. And no, I do not believe trans males are more likely to commit crimes than other males.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 10, 2018)

Wilf said:


> I, or more to the point, trans people might dispute some of that as specifics, as words, as definitions. But I won't.   Actually, yes, I can entirely see where you are coming from.  I might personally have a problem a problem with some of the arguments put by _some_ trans activists, that personal/subjective identification should in itself automatically bring a full set of social and legal responses. But then I don't feel that drawing tight boundaries around gender helps either. _It's messy, it need to be worked out_. That's why I keep asking where does this go, how does it link to anything else, how does it undermine the sources of oppression and sexual violence in society?  Is this debate in any way prefigurative of the way people would want to live in a better society?



Thanks for the reply. What does the word 'gender' mean to you?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 10, 2018)

campanula said:


> seems like a lot of nasty stuff on all sides - MRA Terf ffs.  Shitty way to behave and does fuck all to actually remove oppressive practice and behaviour. Total (and inevitable) failure of Pomo ideology. It wqs shit being forced to sit through endless crapulous expositions of the female gaze and bloody Luce Irigaray/Lacanian wanking, back in 1991...and am now despairing to see how the grasping and vindictive hold this individual onanism has rubbished the idea of commonality, collectivism, solidarity. Shit all round.
> Retires from thread in despair.



Radical feminism is a materialist ideology.

I read much of Lacan's 'ecrits' last year, it made my head hurt. And I read maths books for fun.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Thanks for the reply. What does the word 'gender' mean to you?


Both a social structure and a social construction, which is why I'm not convinced biology should be deployed as the trump card. Lived experiences _are_ complex - that's why I said 'it's messy and needs to be worked out'.  In fact a recognition of that messiness, of the need for good will, of the need to work things through has been entirely missing from all this.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 10, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Both a social structure and a social construction, which is why I'm not convinced biology should be deployed as the trump card. Lived experiences _are_ complex - that's why I said 'it's messy and needs to be worked out'.  In fact a recognition of that messiness, of the need for good will, of the need to work things through has been entirely missing from all this.



Thanks again for the reply!

What do you mean by 'social structure'? What is the effect of this structure? What does it mean to be 'a social construction'? What does it mean for example when someone like Kellie Maloney, who lived 60+ years as 'a man' and benefited from this, then claims to be 'a woman' and claim access to women's culture and spaces?

Are you aware that in transgender culture 'gender' is taken to be 'one's internal sense of being a man or a woman'? What does that definition male you think?


----------



## Athos (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Radical feminism is a materialist ideology.



Is it? All of it?


----------



## Wilf (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> What does that definition male you think?


 K and L _are_ very close on the keyboard.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Thanks again for the reply!
> 
> What do you mean by 'social structure'? What is the effect of this structure? What does it mean to be 'a social construction'? What does it mean for example when someone like Kellie Maloney, who lived 60+ years as 'a man' and benefited from this, then claims to be 'a woman' and claim access to women's culture and spaces?
> 
> Are you aware that in transgender culture 'gender' is taken to be 'one's internal sense of being a man or a woman'? What does that definition male you think?


Well, it's not ultimately for me to pronounce on women's spaces and who is let in. Yes, there should be self awareness from someone like Kellie Maloney (I don't personally know what she has claimed access to), there should be mutual awareness of the way different oppressions have shaped people's lives. There's a need for, well, _dialogue_. But then where are those oppressions located?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 10, 2018)

Manter said:


> Well, you didn't challenge anything Mary King said, which is interesting- but I do understand you aren't responsible for fellow travellers.



I'm not on Twitter an awful lot as I get hundreds of @ notifications a day. I can't possibly reply to even most of the notifications I get.



Manter said:


> And for the islamophobia read pragmatic chick's timeline. She didn't tag you in- she appears to be one of Mary King's mates.



Neither myself or Mary King are responsible for the words of others. What anyway is 'Islamophobic' about statements like:

'Please put the Gramsci down for a bit Stella and put your huge intellect and considerable influence to good use and help Muslims have choices in Iran. Just little things like what headscarf to wear today or no I won't wear a headscarf today.'

(I am certain Gramsci would support the to women of autonomy).


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 10, 2018)

Wilf said:


> K and L _are_ very close on the keyboard.



Thank goodness someone else here has a sense of humour!


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 10, 2018)

Athos said:


> Is it? All of it?



The parts about recognising sex differences and use of (dialectical materialist) class analysis certainly are. I'd be interested in what aspects you'd consider are metaphysical rather than materialist?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 10, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Well, it's not ultimately for me to pronounce on women's spaces and who is let in. Yes, there should be self awareness from someone like Kellie Maloney (I don't personally know what she has claimed access to), there should be mutual awareness of the way different oppressions have shaped people's lives. There's a need for, well, _dialogue_. But then where are those oppressions located?



Let's talk about oppression: please provide three examples related to women and 'trans women'. How do you differentiate between oppression and discrimination?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Let's talk about oppression: please provide three examples related to women and 'trans women'. How do you differentiate between oppression and discrimination?



Why don't you provide some examples and stop demanding answers from other people?


----------



## Wilf (Jan 10, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Why don't you provide some examples and stop demanding answers from other people?


*Hides behind Rutita* Yeah!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Let's talk about oppression: please provide three examples related to women and 'trans women'. How do you differentiate between oppression and discrimination?


you don't know what the fuck you're on about you daft rabbit 

"let's talk about oppression ... how do you differentiate between oppression and discrimination"  you fucking muppet


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 10, 2018)

Wilf said:


> *Hides behind Rutita* Yeah!



LOL  I'm not trying to be rude Miranda Yardley but you ask people to define and provide x, y, z a lot and then critique when you could give your own examples and let people interact with them too.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> LOL  I'm not trying to be rude Miranda Yardley but you ask people to define and provide x, y, z a lot and then critique when, you could give your own examples and let people interact with them too.


not to mention the muppetry implicit in declaring "let's talk about oppression" and then puling "how do you differentiate between oppression and discrimination?"

seems our miranda knows neither the meaning of oppression nor discrimination.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 10, 2018)

Wilf said:


> *Hides behind Rutita* Yeah!



You said:



Wilf said:


> But then where are those oppressions located?



So, I ask you to describe the oppressions you speak of and what 'oppression' means to you. I am examining your statement and claims. BTW I have always said there is need for dialogue.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 10, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> not to mention the muppetry implicit in declaring "let's talk about oppression" and then puling"how do you differentiate between oppression and discrimination?"



Do you know the difference yourself? If so, please explain.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> You said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, I ask you to describe the oppressions you speak of and what 'oppression' means to you. I am examining your statement and claims. BTW I have always said there is need for dialogue.


yeh once more you're with the binaries.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 10, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> LOL  I'm not trying to be rude Miranda Yardley but you ask people to define and provide x, y, z a lot and then critique when you could give your own examples and let people interact with them too.



I'm not the one making the claims!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Do you know the difference yourself? If so, please explain.


yes, yes i do. but i'm waiting on you supporting your claim that animals know no gender, chuck.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I'm not the one making the claims!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I'm not the one making the claims!


yeh? you claimed animals know no gender. but when invited to back up your assertion you fell silent. come on, show your spunk and support your claim.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 10, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> yes, yes i do. but i'm waiting on you supporting your claim that animals know no gender, chuck.



Oooooh sexism klaxon!

What do you mean by 'gender'? Do animals have sex-based social hierarchies? Yes some do. Do they always work against females? No they don't. Do animals have an inner sense of whether they are male or female, or are an animal other than the animal they are? I don't believe so. This and the related paper are interesting:

What Is It Like to Be a Bat?


----------



## bimble (Jan 10, 2018)

Some animals have the very cool ability to actually change sex, depending on circumstance, but I don't think even they've got genders.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Oooooh sexism klaxon!


so ready to accuse others of fascism and sexism.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Oooooh sexism klaxon!
> 
> What do you mean by 'gender'? Do animals have sex-based social hierarchies? Yes some do. Do they always work against females? No they don't. Do animals have an inner sense of whether they are male or female, or are an animal other than the animal they are? I don't believe so. This and the related paper are interesting:
> 
> What Is It Like to Be a Bat?


pick another paper. this time pick one which at least includes the word gender. you're full of fail, miranda.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 10, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> you don't know what the fuck you're on about you daft rabbit
> 
> "let's talk about oppression ... how do you differentiate between oppression and discrimination"  you fucking muppet




ahahahaha reading this after waking up proper sets you up for the day


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 10, 2018)

bimble said:


> Some animals have the very cool ability to actually change sex, depending on circumstance, but I don't think even they've got genders.



As ever it depends on what we mean by 'gender'. If we are talking about 'sex based social hierarchy' these certainly exist, but they don't mean male animals become female animals:

FEMALES DOMINATE HYENAS' HIERARCHY

If we are talking about male animals having an inner sense of maleness or femaleness, I have doubt.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 10, 2018)

is anyone else only looking at this thread now for jokes? it's the only reason i look at it

hyenas now ffs hahahahasha you couldnt make this up

the only thing anyone needs to know about hyena is that it will rip yer face off without killing you so look about


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 10, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> pick another paper. this time pick one which at least includes the word gender. you're full of fail, miranda.



That moment you realise Pickman doesn't actually understand the claim transgenderists are making about gender.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 10, 2018)

hahahahahahhA pssing meself


----------



## Wilf (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> That moment you realise Pickman doesn't actually understand the claim transgenderists are making about gender.


All threads go through this.  In fact on the Corbyn thread there was a whole 6 months where everybody just shouted _BOGIES_!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> That moment you realise Pickman doesn't actually understand the claim transgenderists are making about gender.


if you remember, i was asking you to support your claim that animals know no gender. you've signally failed to do this and wriggling like a loathsome worm does nothing to change that fact.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 10, 2018)

LOL loathsome worm 

leatherjacket init


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 10, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> hyenas now ffs hahahahasha you couldnt make this up


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 10, 2018)

wtf is that supposed to be?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 10, 2018)

Wilf said:


> All threads go through this.  In fact on the Corbyn thread there was a whole 6 months where everybody just shouted _BOGIES_!



That's far more pertinent than what PM was saying, seems to be arguing a position they don't understand themselves.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 10, 2018)

freudian


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> As ever it depends on what we mean by 'gender'. If we are talking about 'sex based social hierarchy' these certainly exist, but they don't mean male animals become female animals:
> 
> FEMALES DOMINATE HYENAS' HIERARCHY
> 
> If we are talking about male animals having an inner sense of maleness or femaleness, I have doubt.


yeh. can you not find an article from a peer-reviewed journal? you're full of fail, miranda


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> That's far more pertinent than what PM was saying, seems to be arguing a position they don't understand themselves.


i'm not in fact arguing. i asked you to substantiate a claim you made about animals knowing no gender and the furthest we've got is the illiterate 'i have doubt': it's fucking pitiful.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 10, 2018)

I think you should clarify what 'peer reviewed' means


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 10, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. can you not find an article from a peer-reviewed journal? you're full of fail, miranda



Daily Patterns of Activity in the Spotted Hyena | Journal of Mammalogy | Oxford Academic


----------



## bimble (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


>



That person is really confused.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 10, 2018)

bimble said:


> That person is really confused.





aghahahahahahaaaaaaa this killed me, I gotta go and smoke, jeeeeeeesus D:


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 10, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm not in fact arguing. i asked you to substantiate a claim you made about animals knowing no gender and the furthest we've got is the illiterate 'i have doubt': it's fucking pitiful.



I substantiated it by linking to a piece which shows self-knowledge as one being something else than the self is a daft idea. Please try to engage brain before fingers. Thank you. Also, you seem unfamiliar with what transgenderists believe.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 10, 2018)

bimble said:


> That person is really confused.



It's hilarious.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 10, 2018)

well you still kept all yer traits despite the therapies


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Daily Patterns of Activity in the Spotted Hyena | Journal of Mammalogy | Oxford Academic


yeh. there's a lack of gender in that article, my friend. can i call you my friend, at least in jest? 


do you see a mention of gender in the stated purpose of the study? i would be grateful if you could point it out.


----------



## bimble (Jan 10, 2018)

What are you on about Mr Pick. Funny thing is the first of the hyena articles blithely used the word gender where they meant to say sex. Nobody knows what they are talking about anymore.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Let's talk about oppression: please provide three examples related to women and 'trans women'. How do you differentiate between oppression and discrimination?


Well, go on, I'll nibble if not exactly bite. I could probably come up with working definitions of exploitation, oppression, discrimination and a range of other things, right through to lack of respect etc. All different, many if not all change their meaning over time and in different contexts. Definitions are important, as is language - full stop. But this debate seems to have got to the point where definitions aren't helping and are only being used to firm up positions and take another spin round the maypole. Again, I'd rather start with this debate as the problem itself - something that from my, admittedly inadequate, understanding sees the victories played out as lines added to or taken out of legislations, speakers de-invited and more and more exaggerated claims made about the logic of each side's position.

Again, I'm just about wise to the possibility of mansplaining, but I'll plough on: if you take something as central as sexual violence - which affect women, trans people (and indeed men) - what does any of this do to address sexual violence?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I substantiated it by linking to a piece which shows self-knowledge as one being something else than the self is a daft idea.


read that back to yourself. now explain what this novel variation on endogenous growth theory actually means.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 10, 2018)

I hate people who cant use the terms sex and gender correctly, everyone is thick imo.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2018)

bimble said:


> What are you on about Mr Pick. Funny thing is the first of the hyena articles blithely used the word gender where they meant to say sex. Nobody knows what they are talking about anymore.


i know very well what i'm talking about. i am asking miranda to support a claim they made upthread about animals knowing no gender. and i must say they're doing a shit job.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 10, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Again, I'm just about wise to the possibility of mansplaining, but I'll plough on: if you take something as central as sexual violence - which affect women, trans people (and indeed men) - what does any of this do to address sexual violence?




I wouldnt worry about that, miranda LOVES mansplaining.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 10, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. there's a lack of gender in that article, my friend. can i call you my friend, at least in jest?
> 
> View attachment 124980
> do you see a mention of gender in the stated purpose of the study? i would be grateful if you could point it out.



It is 'gender' in the sense of it being a social hierarchy. Apropos the 'inner sense of being male or female' which is central to the transgender claim, I have already given you this information, the piece by Nagel.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 10, 2018)

bimble said:


> What are you on about Mr Pick. Funny thing is the first of the hyena articles blithely used the word gender where they meant to say sex. Nobody knows what they are talking about anymore.



The conflation of sex and gender is a huge problem.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Well, go on, I'll nibble if not exactly bite. I could probably come up with working definitions of exploitation, oppression, discrimination and a range of other things, right through to lack of respect etc. All different, many if not all change their meaning over time and in different contexts. Definitions are important, as is language - full stop. But this debate seems to have got to the point where definitions aren't helping and are only being used to firm up positions and take another spin round the maypole. Again, I'd rather start with this debate as the problem itself - something that from my, admittedly inadequate, understanding sees the victories played out as lines added to or taken out of legislations, speakers de-invited and more and more exaggerated claims made about the logic of each side's position.
> 
> Again, I'm just about wise to the possibility of mansplaining, but I'll plough on: if you take something as central as sexual violence - which affect women, trans people (and indeed men) - what does any of this do to address sexual violence?


you're falling into miranda's trap - she doesn't in fact want to talk about oppression but to muddy the waters by going into the difference between oppression and discrimination.


----------



## andysays (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Convention, or law. Using the terms synonymously in that context.


The two terms aren't synonymous, any more than the terms sex and gender are.
And underhand appeals to the authority of the law won't win you many arguments or many friends here, even among those of us who are gender critical and reject transideology


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> It is 'gender' in the sense of it being a social hierarchy. Apropos the 'inner sense of being male or female' which is central to the transgender claim, I have already given you this information, the piece by Nagel.


yeh. which post is it in?


----------



## Athos (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> The parts about recognising sex differences and use of (dialectical materialist) class analysis certainly are. I'd be interested in what aspects you'd consider are metaphysical rather than materialist?



My point was to challange your apparant assertion that all radical feminism is materialist, which your response seems to acknowledge.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 10, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Definitions are important, as is language - full stop. But this debate seems to have got to the point where definitions aren't helping and are only being used to firm up positions and take another spin round the maypole.



The problem is, unless terms are defined people won't know what the other person means, and instead of debate we talk cross-purposes. When I ask for definitions, it's to clarify; we need to know what we are discussing! A great example itself is the word 'gender':

feminists say gender is a collection of stereotypes used to enforce hierarchy of men over women
transgenderists say gender is their inner sense of being male or female
most other people for whatever reason thing sex and gender are synomyms!



Wilf said:


> Again, I'd rather start with this debate as the problem itself - something that from my, admittedly inadequate, understanding sees the victories played out as lines added to or taken out of legislations, speakers de-invited and more and more exaggerated claims made about the logic of each side's position.



There is exaggeration and false claims made on both sides of this debate.



Wilf said:


> Again, I'm just about wise to the possibility of mansplaining, but I'll plough on: if you take something as central as sexual violence - which affect women, trans people (and indeed men) - what does any of this do to address sexual violence?



This is a complex question where, for example, acts of violence by trans males are recorded and reported as acts by females, where such crimes by the latter are small enough in number that the addition of the former distorts the reported numbers.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 10, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. which post is it in?
> 
> View attachment 124981



See your own post #5024


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 10, 2018)

you contribute to the 'problems'  if you really actually felt like this then you'd stop presenting yourself as a woman if you werent already dead inside.

actually you might find more people willing to listen to yer shit.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> This is a complex question where, for example, acts of violence by trans males are recorded and reported as acts by females, where such crimes by the latter are small enough in number that the addition of the former distorts the reported numbers.


yeh. could you stop conflating sex and gender pls.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2018)

strangely nagel doesn't mention gender


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 10, 2018)

Athos said:


> My point was to challange your apparant assertion that all radical feminism is materialist, which your response seems to acknowledge.





Miranda Yardley said:


> Radical feminism is a materialist ideology.



Please go ahead and show me where it's not materialist or metaphysical. (I know some talk about 'earth spirit' and 'women's energy', there are more personal interpretations of separate and unrelated spiritual beliefs).


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 10, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. could you stop conflating sex and gender pls.



Have never done that.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 10, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> strangely nagel doesn't mention gender



I used that piece to support the argument made.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> This is a complex question where, for example, acts of violence by trans males are recorded and reported as acts by females, where such crimes by the latter are small enough in number that the addition of the former distorts the reported numbers.


yeh right chuck you'd never ever do that 

don't you mean trans women? or do you mean trans men? or do you know what the fuck you mean?


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 10, 2018)

you contribute to ALL of the problems you say transwomen cause so how to remedy that?

confusion about the self is never easy is it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I used that piece to support the argument made.


i'm looking for a piece which mentions gender and says 'no, animals know nothing of it'. not some vague round the houses shaggy dog are we nearly there yet argument.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Julia Serano, Andrea James, Zinnia Jones and a bunch of 'rationalists' (LOL) do exactly that:
> 
> The real "autogynephilia deniers" | Whipping Girl
> Autogynephilia: a disputed diagnosis
> ...



I can't be bothered to look at rationalwiki and only note it because it shows how desperate you are for sources.  None of the other three links deny that autogynephilia exists in the sense that some trans people have experienced arousal at the thought of themselves in their aquired gender.  What they criticise is Blanchard's extrapulation from this that:  "All gender dysphoric males who are not sexually oriented toward men are instead sexually oriented toward the thought or image of themselves as women. (Blanchard, 1989b)"

The essentialism comes from Blanchard's claim that the 'extreme homosexual' transsexuals possess a natural or innate femininity - and in fact this femininity is somehow intrinsically linked to homosexuality - the more gay you are the more likely you are to be trans.  Of course his theses also denies bisexuality, there are 'heterosexual' trans woman purely attracted to their own bodies (who pair match with and fall in love with themselves according to Anne Lawrence's evidence free speculation) and there are men who  are so gay they become women because their intrinsic or essential femininity is so strong.




> So, we are taught to refer to motor cars, boats and other vessels as 'she' but calling an adult human male 'he' is taboo?
> 
> 'Cronies'? Get a grip. Also, much transperbole: 'misgendering' puts nobody 'at risk'.



In a social setting, to continunously out and misgender someone does put someone at risk - first by identifying them as trans and outing them in every single social interaction when they might not want that, especially in the context of rising hate crimes against transpeople.  And secondly because most people recognise that this is something upsetting and provocative, and that to encourage or normalise it excludes some trans people from social interactions and also creates an environment where it is normal and legitimate to be rude and offensive about and to trans people.



> Transgender activism *IS* men's rights activism: it out of hand dismissed women's biology and lived reality.



No it is not, even if you accept the premise that transwomen are really men.  Men's Rights Activism is an openly misogynist quite specific political movement which seeks to erode the gains made by women in society and create a society where women are subservient to men in every sphere of life.  It is fundamentally anti-feminist in every possible manifestation.  Most trans-activists call themselves, and work alongside feminists, oppose rather than apologise for male violence and seek gender parity.  To conflate the two is yet another attempt to deliberately hurt individual trans women and to portray trans women to wider society as predatory misogynist men who support the aims of the MRA movement.



> In the absence of credible governmental information, this website serves a function. And no, I do not believe trans males are more likely to commit crimes than other males.



This is it in a nutshell.  Such an innocent explanation, and yet the only justification for this website on statistical grounds is either that crimes committed by the fraction of a percentage of people who identify and live in a gender different to their biological sex might dangerously skew government statistics on how many men or women commit crimes - or more perniciously that crimes by trans people should be specifically recorded in statistics in a way that no other group in society is.  That in effect trans women should become a sub class that need special monitoring.

And the solution, in the absence of credible government information, is to start a website that records every single reported crime they can find committed by someone transgender (or quite often, just a man who in some way expressed some degree of gender non-conformity) by searching the archives of a couple of tabloid newspapers.  A website that includes driving offences and people nicked for cannabis, and a significant number of people who were aquitted.  A website that is statistically worthless as you well know as an amateur mathematician, but also a website that is very useful if your real aim is to generate fear and hatred of trans women and anyone else who doesn't confirm to rigid gender roles.

Like I said, the butter wouldn't melt routine doesn't wash, and if you can't tell what the people behind that website are doing then you aren't very bright.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> This is a complex question where, for example, acts of violence by trans males are recorded and reported as acts by females, where such crimes by the latter are small enough in number that the addition of the former distorts the reported numbers.


 But why is that your first thought?  Why isn't issue of sexual violence faced by trans people _and_ women the focus?


----------



## no-no (Jan 10, 2018)

we


----------



## Wilf (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> The problem is, unless terms are defined people won't know what the other person means, and instead of debate we talk cross-purposes. When I ask for definitions, it's to clarify; we need to know what we are discussing! A great example itself is the word 'gender':
> 
> feminists say gender is a collection of stereotypes used to enforce hierarchy of men over women
> transgenderists say gender is their inner sense of being male or female
> ...


Oh and sorry for answering bits of your post at once, but I wanted to come back to this: yes, of course, definitions really are important. _Really_. But this - at least this phase of the debate - started as a punchy camera thing, followed by twitter storms and the like. It has escaped the definitional and the rational, become a battle of ownership, a battle around _privileges_. It's about emotions and power, a (not very productive) battle where definitions become insults and ways of denying other people's identities (on both sides). SNAFU of course, but definitions do very little to strip this back and stop it being anything other than an almost arcane theological battle (with rubbish inquisition thrown in).  Whither the comfy chair etc.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 10, 2018)

smokedout said:


> I can't be bothered to look at rationalwiki and only note it because it shows how desperate you are for sources.  None of the other three links deny that autogynephilia exists in the sense that some trans people have experienced arousal at the thought of themselves in their aquired gender.  What they criticise is Blanchard's extrapulation from this that:  "All gender dysphoric males who are not sexually oriented toward men are instead sexually oriented toward the thought or image of themselves as women. (Blanchard, 1989b)"



This is presented as a hypothesis which a number of studies were devised to test. This context is important because it is part of a scientific enquiry:


Blanchard (1985; 1988; in press) conducted three studies to test the hypothesis that the nonhomosexual gender dysphorias, together with transvestism, constitute a family of related disorders. *This hypothesis, in the terminology used in the present paper, may be stated as follows*. Gender identity disturbance in males is always accompanied by one of two erotic anomalies. All gender dysphoric males who are not sexually orient- Classification of Gender Dysphorias 323 324 Blanchard ed toward men are instead sexually oriented toward the thought or image of themselves as women. The latter erotic (or amatory) propensity is, of course, the phenomenon labeled by Hirschfeld as automonosexualism.
https://www.researchgate.net/profil...beling-of-nonhomosexual-gender-dysphorias.pdf

The fundamental point Blanchard makes is that transsexuals are not a monolith, there are two apparent types, and the existence of this appears to be correct.



smokedout said:


> The essentialism comes from Blanchard's claim that the 'extreme homosexual' transsexuals possess a natural or innate femininity - and in fact this femininity is somehow intrinsically linked to homosexuality - the more gay you are the more likely you are to be trans.  Of course his theses also denies bisexuality, there are 'heterosexual' trans woman purely attracted to their own bodies (who pair match with and fall in love with themselves according to Anne Lawrence's evvidence free speculation) and there are men who  are so gay they become women because there intrinsic or essential femininity is so strong.



See my earlier comments about gender non-conformity in homosexuals. This appears to be supported by neurological evidence.

A Review of the Status of Brain Structure Research in Transsexualism


Following this line of thought, Cantor (2011, 2012, but also see Italiano, 2012) has recently suggested that Blanchard’s predictions have been fulfilled in two independent structural neuroimaging studies. Specifically, Savic and Arver (2011) using VBM on the cortex of untreated nonhomosexual MtFs and another study using DTI in homosexual MtFs (Rametti et al., 2011b) illustrate the predictions. Cantor seems to be right. Nonhomosexual MtFs present differences with heterosexual males in structures that are not sexually dimorphic (Savic & Arver, 2011), while homosexual MtFs (as well as homosexual FtMs) show differences with respect to male and female controls in a series of brain fascicles (Rametti et al., 2011a, 2011b). 
*A Review of the Status of Brain Structure Research in Transsexualism*
Antonio Guillamon,
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





1,2 Carme Junque,3,4 and Esther Gómez-Gil4,5
This also supports the two-type hypothesis.



smokedout said:


> In a social setting, to continunously out and misgender someone does put someone at risk - first by identifying them as trans and outing them in every single social inetraction when they might not want that, especially in the context of rising hate crimes against transpeople.  And secondly because most people recognise that this is something upsetting and provocative, and that to encourage or normalise it excludes some trans people from social interactions and also creates an environment where it is normal and legitimate to be rude and offensive about trans people.



I disagree. Further, I'd suggest that to insist that males are females is not just cruel to those affected, it is also creating an unsustainable environment for us by making acceptance of who and what we are based upon a lie.



smokedout said:


> No it is not, even if you accept the premise that transwomen are really men.  Men's Rights Activism is an openly misogynist quite specific political movement which seeks to erode the gains made by women in society and create a society where women are subservient to men in every sphere of life.  It is fundamentally anti-feminist in every possible manifestation.  Most trans-activists call themselves, and work alongside feminists, oppose rather than apologise for male violence and seek gender parity.  To conflate the two is yet another attempt to deliberate hurt individual trans women and to portray trans women to wider society as predatory misogynist men who supports the aims of the MRA movement.



Men's rights activism is any activism that seeks to support the rights of men. It does men, and men's rights activism, a disservice for you to say that it is inherently misogynistic: is men's rights activism for shelters for gay men battered by their partners misogynistic? Or that raising breast, prostate or testicular cancer awareness/resources misogynistic?



smokedout said:


> This is it in a nutshell.  Such an innocent explanation, and yet the only justification for this website on statistical grounds is either that crimes committed by the fraction of a percentage of people who identify and live in a gender different to their biological sex might dangerously skew government statistics on how many men or women commit crimes - or more perniciously that crimes by trans people should be specifically recorded in statistics in a way that no other group in society is.  That in effect trans women should become a sub class that need special monitoring.



No, it's more to do with the truth: having fact based research helps all of us. See for example this study:

Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden 
(Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden
Cecilia Dhejne, Paul Lichtenstein, Marcus Boman, Anna L. V. Johansson, Niklas Långström, Mikael Landén)

which shows trans people have a better post-surgical outcome when pre- and post-surgical somatic and psychological care protocols are combined. We cannot collate meaningful data to undertake studies like this if our stats aren't rigorous.



smokedout said:


> And the solution, in the absence of credible government information, is to start a website that records every single reported crime they can find committed by someone transgender (or quite often, just a man who in some way expressed some degree of gender non-conformity) by searching the archives of a couple of tabloid newspapers.  A website that includes driving offences and people nicked for cannabis, and a significant number of people who were aquitted.  A website that is statistically worthless as you well know as an amateur mathematician, but also a website that is very useful if your real aim is to generate fear and hatred of trans women and anyone else who doesn't confirm to rigid gender roles.



I don't know why you want me to defend the website. BTW the driving offence was dangerous driving whilst intoxicated. Again, if trans males have the same or greater risk of criminality, we need to know why. Class? Discrimination? Reaction to hormones? Untreated psychological issues?



smokedout said:


> Like I said, the butter wouldn't melt routine doesn't wash, and if you can't tell what the people behind that website are doing then you aren't very bright.



Please attack my arguments not me. Thank you.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 10, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> you're falling into miranda's trap - she doesn't in fact want to talk about oppression but to muddy the waters by going into the difference between oppression and discrimination.



They are different things, whether you like it or not.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> They are different things, whether you like it or not.



Again, why not outline what you see the difference to be and give examples yourself?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 10, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Oh and sorry for answering bits of your post at once, but I wanted to come back to this: yes, of course, definitions really are important. _Really_. But this - at least this phase of the debate - started as a punchy camera thing, followed by twitter storms and the like. It has escaped the definitional and the rational, become a battle of ownership, a battle around _privileges_. It's about emotions and power, a (not very productive) battle where definitions become insults and ways of denying other people's identities (on both sides). SNAFU of course, but definitions do very little to strip this back and stop it being anything other than an almost arcane theological battle (with rubbish inquisition thrown in).  Whither the comfy chair etc.



It's okay, thanks for engaging. The 'punchy camera thing' was an assault classified as actual bodily harm on a woman. Now, whereas for the sake of argument we could agree to disagree on what actually happened, three things happened in the aftermath which cause great concern for anyone opposed to the legitimisation of violence against women, or anyone else for that matter:

trans organisations were told not to condemn the violence
transgender activists actively condoned the violence
transgender activists incited further violence ('punch a TERF')
What really worries me is the supporting of these positions by people who are not trans, in particular the willingness of many of the latter group to verbally and physically attack trans people they themselves disagree with on trans issues. This is not to say trans voices should be prioritised above everyone else in this debate (as it is a debate) rather that I am seeing a situation arise where trans allyship means to support one type of trans person only, and the trans people who transgress the dominant ideology are subjected to threats and abuse and physical assault and violence.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> They are different things, whether you like it or not.


yes, i know that. yes, i can tell the difference - i discriminate in the wines i drink, i do not oppress the wines i drink.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 10, 2018)

Wilf said:


> But why is that your first thought?  Why isn't issue of sexual violence faced by trans people _and_ women the focus?



It is, because these acts are committed mainly by males, and reclassifying the perpetrator as female conceals he identity of the agent of violence.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> It is, because these acts are committed mainly by males, and reclassifying the perpetrator as female conceals he identity of the agent of violence.


but imposing your own views on the situation - 'miranda knows best' - sorts everything out. right.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 10, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Again, why not outline what you see the difference to be and give examples yourself?



Discrimination can be both positive or negative. With respect to our preferences and orientations, we are absolutely allowed to discriminate.

Oppression is always negative: it is long-lasting and structural (enforced by the state or within culture, think of apartheid or other forms of racial segregation) and if far-reaching (think of the internment of Japanese US citizens in WW2). The oppressor derives a benefit from the oppression, this is usually economic (think slavery).


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 10, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> but imposing your own views on the situation - 'miranda knows best' - sorts everything out. right.



You're welcome to challenge my views by reasoned meaningful argument.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> You're welcome to challenge my views by reasoned meaningful argument.


Yeh, if I saw some reasoned meaningful argument emanating from you I daresay I might


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Discrimination can be both positive or negative. With respect to our preferences and orientations, we are absolutely allowed to discriminate.
> 
> Oppression is always negative: it is long-lasting and structural (enforced by the state or within culture, think of apartheid or other forms of racial segregation) and if far-reaching (think of the internment of Japanese US citizens in WW2). The oppressor derives a benefit from the oppression, this is usually economic (think slavery).


Oppression also very much a value-laden term, and curiously you don't seem to see power at the heart of it. There's something lacking from a view of oppression which doesn't mention power, and something that makes one wonder about the nous of the person proposing such a view.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 10, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Oppression also very much a value-laden term, and curiously you don't seem to see power at the heart of it. There's something lacking from a view of oppression which doesn't mention power, and something that makes one wonder about the nous of the person proposing such a view.



*Oppression is always negative: it is long-lasting and structural (enforced by the state or within culture*


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> *Oppression is always negative: it is long-lasting and structural (enforced by the state or within culture*


Yeh like I said, no mention of the issue of power, no analysis of power. Repeating things in bold doesn't give them special status, you know


----------



## Wilf (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> It's okay, thanks for engaging. The 'punchy camera thing' was an assault classified as actual bodily harm on a woman. Now, whereas for the sake of argument we could agree to disagree on what actually happened, three things happened in the aftermath which cause great concern for anyone opposed to the legitimisation of violence against women, or anyone else for that matter:
> 
> trans organisations were told not to condemn the violence
> transgender activists actively condoned the violence
> ...


I agree with you about the assault, I just went with camera punchy thing to save me digging out the names.  I also agree with you about the apparent dragooning of people to say/not say things about it (at least from what I've heard, I've only seen bits on here about the aftermath).  Regardless of your overall position, you should be able to call things what they are. It was a somewhat 'provoked' attack, but an attack still, from someone who had physical advantages regardless of any gender labels.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 10, 2018)

Wilf said:


> I agree with you about the assault, I just went with camera punchy thing to save me digging out the names.  I also agree with you about the apparent dragooning of people to say/not say things about it (at least from what I've heard, I've only seen bits on here about the aftermath).  Regardless of your overall position, you should be able to call things what they are. It was a somewhat 'provoked' attack, but an attack still, from someone who had physical advantages regardless of any gender labels.



I think as well it is clear that at least two of the males who participated in the assault had turned up ready for trouble. Again, this really does worry me.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> This is presented as a hypothesis which a number of studies were devised to test. This context is important because it is part of a scientific enquiry:
> 
> 
> Blanchard (1985; 1988; in press) conducted three studies to test the hypothesis that the nonhomosexual gender dysphorias, together with transvestism, constitute a family of related disorders. *This hypothesis, in the terminology used in the present paper, may be stated as follows*. Gender identity disturbance in males is always accompanied by one of two erotic anomalies. All gender dysphoric males who are not sexually orient- Classification of Gender Dysphorias 323 324 Blanchard ed toward men are instead sexually oriented toward the thought or image of themselves as women. The latter erotic (or amatory) propensity is, of course, the phenomenon labeled by Hirschfeld as automonosexualism.
> ...



And yet no other study have confirmed these findings.  Lawrence claims that's because in all the other studies trans women were lying.  Apparantly only Blanchard can get those devious transsexuals to tell the truth.




> See my earlier comments about gender non-conformity in homosexuals. This appears to be supported by neurological evidence.
> 
> A Review of the Status of Brain Structure Research in Transsexualism
> 
> ...



And yet here you say: I do not believe that the brains of transsexuals are inherently different.  Are you now arguing that gay men possess an essential femininity?



> I disagree. Further, I'd suggest that to insist that males are females is not just cruel to those affected, it is also creating an unsustainable environment for us by making acceptance of who and what we are based upon a lie.



What's unsustainable about it.  Trans people have been referred to by their aquired genders for decades.  Is it causing global warming or something?



> Men's rights activism is any activism that seeks to support the rights of men. It does men, and men's rights activism, a disservice for you to say that it is inherently misogynistic: is men's rights activism for shelters for gay men battered by their partners misogynistic? Or that raising breast, prostate or testicular cancer awareness/resources misogynistic?



Men's Rights Activism, capitalised as it usually is, refers to a specific strand of the alt-right movement as well you know.


> No, it's more to do with the truth: having fact based research helps all of us. See for example this study:
> 
> Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden
> (Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden
> ...



We've done this.  The transcrime website is not scientific research, it is a hate site.



> I don't know why you want me to defend the website. BTW the driving offence was dangerous driving whilst intoxicated. Again, if trans males have the same or greater risk of criminality, we need to know why. Class? Discrimination? Reaction to hormones? Untreated psychological issues?



I'm not asking you to defend it, I'm asking if you condemn it?  In the way you have asked trans supportive people if they condemn the more extreme actions of trans rights activists.  And if the transcrime website shows anything, given that they haven't actually found that much, it shows that trans women appear to commit hardly any crimes at all.  Just 38 sexual offences committed by trans women over a number of years (one aquitted on appeal, one never charged, several male fetishists who didn't identify as trans, some over a decade old and at least one for sex work).  Is that what  the website is trying to tell us?  Or is it serving another purpose?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2018)

smokedout said:


> And yet no other study have confirmed these findings.  Lawrence claims that's because in all the other studies trans women were lying.  Apparantly only Blanchard can get those devious transsexuals to tell the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That review Miranda produces doesn't sit very high on the medical evidence pyramid.


----------



## Athos (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Please go ahead and show me where it's not materialist or metaphysical. (I know some talk about 'earth spirit' and 'women's energy', there are more personal interpretations of separate and unrelated spiritual beliefs).



The trans-inclusionary trend within radical feminism isn't materialist or metaphysical in way you appear to understand those terms.

I have some sympathy for some of what you say (albeit I think you do so in a crass way). But your crude attempts to deny that your position is as ideological as your opponents' is weak.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 10, 2018)

smokedout said:


> And yet no other study have confirmed these findings.  Lawrence claims that's because in all the other studies trans women were lying.  Apparantly only Blanchard can get those devious transsexuals to tell the truth.



On the contrary a reading of Veale's 2008 paper says otherwise, contrary to the conclusion reached this paper suggests the sample chosen fell into populations of 'autogynepilic' and 'even more autogynephilic'. Read it! 

Sexuality of Male-to-Female Transsexuals



smokedout said:


> And yet here you say: I do not believe that the brains of transsexuals are inherently different.  Are you now arguing that gay men possess an essential femininity?



What I actually said was:

Being gender critical is incompatible with ‘Harry Benjamin Syndrome’ theories of transsexuality. I do not believe that the brains of transsexuals are inherently different
which in this context means that:


I do not accept the 'Harry Benjamin syndrome' interpretation which claims transsexualism is caused by having a female brain in a male body.



smokedout said:


> Trans people have been referred to by their aquired genders for decades.  Is it causing global warming or something?



On the contrary, the whole 'trans women are women' and 'trans women are female' is a very recent phenomena. Although the genesis of this can be traced back to the early/mid-1990s, it only gained traction in the late 2000s/early 2010s. Hence the reason transvestites and cross-dressers have all but disappeared: they are subsumed by the transgender umbrella thus claim a 'womahood' of sorts.



smokedout said:


> Men's Rights Activism, capitalised as it usually is, refers to a specific strand of the alt-right movement as well you know.



I don't think you understand what either the alt-right of men's rights activism is. You're throwing out buzzowrds to poison the well.



smokedout said:


> We've done this.  The transcrime website is not scientific research, it is a hate site.



Never said it was. Again, I'm not interested in making someone else's argument for them.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 10, 2018)

Athos said:


> The trans-inclusionary trend within radical feminism isn't materialist or metaphysical in way you appear to understand those terms.
> 
> I have some sympathy for some of what you say (albeit I think you do so in a crass way). But your crude attempts to deny that your position is as ideological as your opponents' is weak.



You are aware that even science has ideological vectors?

And you are aware I have never said I don't have an ideological position? Of course I do: it forms the framework of the arguments I make although I always try to support claims through evidence or reasoning.



Athos said:


> The trans-inclusionary trend within radical feminism isn't materialist or metaphysical



I'm not sure what you are saying here, feminism is ideology and this is not a value judgement, it just is what it is.


----------



## Athos (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> You are aware that even science has ideological vectors?
> 
> And you are aware I have never said I don't have an ideological position? Of course I do: it forms the framework of the arguments I make although I always try to support claims through evidence or reasoning.
> 
> ...



My point was that, earlier, you criticised your opponents on the grounds that they sought to impose their ideology, and have consistently implied that your position is different in nature (as well as content) by appeals to (sometimes questionable) 'science'. Whereas you seem to impose your ideology on them e.g. by misgendering.  (And that's not a comment on the value of the content of those competing ideologies.)


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 10, 2018)

Athos said:


> My point was that, earlier, you criticised your opponents on the grounds that they sought to impose their ideology, and have consistently implied that your position is different in nature (as well as content) by appeals to (sometimes questionable) 'science'. Whereas you seem to impose your ideology on them e.g. by misgendering.  (And that's not a comment on the value of the content of those competing ideologies.)



I don't believe the science I have quoted is 'questionable', indeed I have yet to read a convincing repudiation of Blanchard's typology (including Moser, Serano, Veale and Nuttbrock). If you know of one I'd love to read it, I'm always open to have ideas challenged.

'Misgendering' is more a reflection of reality, however as I have said I view that identifying an adult male as a man is a now a revolutionary act. Acquiescing to pronouns is an act of submission.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> On the contrary a reading of Veale's 2008 paper says otherwise, contrary to the conclusion reached this paper suggests the sample chosen fell into populations of 'autogynepilic' and 'even more autogynephilic'. Read it!
> 
> Sexuality of Male-to-Female Transsexuals



In the abstract it says this, which somewhat demolishes Blanchard's typography.


> In contrast to Blanchard’s theory, however, those transsexuals classified as autogynephilic scored higher on average on Sexual Attraction to Males than those classified as non-autogynephilic, and no transsexuals classified as autogynephilic reported asexuality.





> What I actually said was:
> 
> Being gender critical is incompatible with ‘Harry Benjamin Syndrome’ theories of transsexuality. I do not believe that the brains of transsexuals are inherently different
> which in this context means that:
> ...



But you do appear to support Blanchard's claim that androphilic transsexuals possess an innate femininity.  That is gender essentialism.


> On the contrary, the whole 'trans women are women' and 'trans women are female' is a very recent phenomena. Although the genesis of this can be traced back to the early/mid-1990s, it only gained traction in the late 2000s/early 2010s. Hence the reason transvestites and cross-dressers have all but disappeared: they are subsumed by the transgender umbrella thus claim a 'womahood' of sorts.



Weren't we talking about pronouns?



> I don't think you understand what either the alt-right of men's rights activism is. You're throwing out buzzowrds to poison the well.



Of course, it's me using buzzwords, when trans critical rad fems go on and on about Men's Rights Activists and transgenderism being a male sexual rights movement they mean a bit like prostate cancer charities and stuff.  No attempt to smear at all, all perfectly innocent.  You must think people are fucking idiots.



> Never said it was. Again, I'm not interested in making someone else's argument for them.



Do you condemn it?


----------



## Athos (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I don't believe the science I have quoted is 'questionable', indeed I have yet to read a convincing repudiation of Blanchard's typology (including Moser, Serano, Veale and Nuttbrock). If you know of one I'd love to read it, I'm always open to have ideas challenged.
> 
> 'Misgendering' is more a reflection of reality, however as I have said I view that identifying an adult male as a man is a now a revolutionary act. Acquiescing to pronouns is an act of submission.



Critiques of Blanchard have been provided; you don't accept them.

A reflection of *your* reality. A 'reality' that asserts the ideology that 'man' means biological male. Other realities are available.

I agree that enforced recognition of preferred pronouns is an act of domination (though, not so, the voluntary usr of them, of course).  But that works in both directions.  You can take an ideological position about which is to be preferred, of course.  But don't pretend it's (their) ideology versus (your) reality or science.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 10, 2018)

smokedout said:


> In the abstract it says this, which somewhat demolishes Blanchard's typography.



I said:



> On the contrary a reading of Veale's 2008 paper says otherwise, contrary to the conclusion reached this paper suggests the sample chosen fell into populations of 'autogynepilic' and 'even more autogynephilic'.



Reading the paper in full, even without agreeing with my position, I think you would agree it's difficult to reach the same conclusion that Veale does, because it doesn't follow.



smokedout said:


> But you do appear to support Blanchard's claim that androphilic transsexuals possess an innate femininity.  That is gender essentialism.



Androphillic transsexuals are homosexual males so it would not be surprising they demonstrated behaviour society codes as feminine, because that's what society has persecuted gay men for, for a verey long time.



smokedout said:


> Weren't we talking about pronouns?



Pronouns imply our sex.



smokedout said:


> Of course, it's me using buzzwords, when trans critical rad fems go on and on about Men's Rights Activists and transgenderism being a male sexual rights movement they mean a bit like prostate cancer charities and stuff.  No attempt to smear at all, all perfectly innocent.  You must think people are fucking idiots.



Yet you smeared men's rights activism. This makes you a hypocrite.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 10, 2018)

Athos said:


> Critiques of Blanchard have been provided; you don't accept them.



I've quoted the widest known, I have read and analysed these, and more. I don't believe anyone else has offered a different study to any of these, so if you know of one I'd be very interested.



Athos said:


> A reflection of *your* reality. A 'reality' that asserts the ideology that 'man' means biological male. Other realities are available.



Please offer an alternative meaning for 'man'?



Athos said:


> I agree that enforced recognition of preferred pronouns is an act of domination (though, not so, the voluntary usr of them, of course).  But that works in both directions.  You can take an ideological position about which is to be preferred, of course.  But don't pretend it's (their) ideology versus (your) reality or science.



I object to the enforced use.


----------



## Ralph Llama (Jan 10, 2018)

Sorry if I`m covering well-trodden ground -
Personally, I think the attack was stupid and reactionary and I can see why it`s condemmed by most.

Great article here from Milan (Peace News crew) inspired by the Anarchists bookfair incident (trans-activists attempting to silence feminists)

*How to destroy our own movements *

*Editorial: How to destroy our own movements | Peace News*

few snippets :



			
				Milan said:
			
		

> Activists need to find better ways to struggle with each other and to fight with each other, argues Milan Rai
> 
> *People ask me how we would defend the bookfair from a fascist attack, but I’m not worried about them out there. I worry about what we might do to each other in here.’
> 
> ...


----------



## smokedout (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I said:
> 
> Reading the paper in full, even without agreeing with my position, I think you would agree it's difficult to reach the same conclusion that Veale does, because it doesn't follow.



I'm not paying £35 to read it, sorry.


> Androphillic transsexuals are homosexual males so it would not be surprising they demonstrated behaviour society codes as feminine, because that's what society has persecuted gay men for, for a verey long time.



From infanthood?  Is this a gay essence or a feminine essence?  And why do only 'extreme' homosexuals possess these "female typical attitudes, behaviors, and sexual preferences."? 



> Pronouns imply our sex.



Pronouns generally imply gender, unless you are arguing that ships are biological females.


> Yet you smeared men's rights activism. This makes you a hypocrite.



Is this really the latest hoop you want to jump through?  Are you going to attack those criticising the MRA movement because it smears prostate cancer charities?


----------



## Athos (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I've quoted the widest known, I have read and analysed these, and more. I don't believe anyone else has offered a different study to any of these, so if you know of one I'd be very interested.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am not aware of any other criticisms of Blanchard. But I'm persuaded by those I've seen. You're not, which is fine. I'm not really interested in persuing this aspect; we'll have to agree to disagree. 

One alternative could be 'anyone who thinks they're a man'. There are pros and cons of either conception. But it's false to suggest that yours is any more real. 

Of course you object. As do those upon whom you'd impose your preference.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 10, 2018)

Can I just say that I in fact call my car (and bike) _he _and_ him_. Almost all inanimate objects are _he/him_ in my world. My grandfather (from Dorset fwiw) used to do it and I think I picked it up off him.

Oh yeah apart from boats, which are of course biologically female as any fule kno.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 10, 2018)

Athos said:


> we'll have to agree to disagree.



That's fine; disagreement is good.



Athos said:


> One alternative could be 'anyone who thinks they're a man'. There are pros and cons of either conception. But it's false to suggest that yours is any more real.



We are gonna have to disagree on this


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 10, 2018)

smokedout said:


> I'm not paying £35 to read it, sorry.



Try SciHub.



smokedout said:


> From infanthood?  Is this a gay essence or a feminine essence?  And why do only 'extreme' homosexuals possess these "female typical attitudes, behaviors, and sexual preferences."?



You're wilfully misrepresenting my words. Anyway, what could possibly be more gender essentialist than innate gender identity?



smokedout said:


> Pronouns generally imply gender, unless you are arguing that ships are biological females.



Usually they imply biological sex. And so what? I's not personal.



smokedout said:


> Is this really the latest hoop you want to jump through?  Are you going to attack those criticising the MRA movement because it smears prostate cancer charities?



You didn't make a meaningful criticism of the men's rights movement, rather you decided all men's rights activism is misogynistic. Which is factually incorrect.


----------



## Athos (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> That's fine; disagreement is good.
> 
> 
> 
> We are gonna have to disagree on this



What makes your conception more 'real?


----------



## bimble (Jan 10, 2018)

Athos said:


> What makes your conception more 'real?


The other day you said


Athos said:


> .. I know a woman who says she's clever;  she's not.  I walk past a homeless bloke who claims he's part of the royal family; I disagree.  I'm not saying they don't honestly believe those things, and I wouldn't try to force them to conceive of themselves otherwise.
> Whilst it's incumbent on me to treat them courteously, there can be no moral imperative for me to adopt their beliefs.  That way lies madness!



What are you saying now, is it that you just happen to disagree with the homeless bloke but neither of you are any more right than the other?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 10, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> You didn't make a meaningful criticism of the men's rights movement, rather you decided all men's rights activism is misogynistic. Which is factually incorrect.


Where activists campaign on particular issues by framing them as 'men's rights' issues, ime the campaign is invariably misogynistic. 

That's not the same as simply taking part in a prostate cancer awareness drive. You can campaign on health issues without framing them as rights issues.


----------



## Athos (Jan 10, 2018)

bimble said:


> The other day you said
> 
> 
> What are you saying now, is it that you just happen to disagree with the homeless bloke but neither of you are any more right than the other?



No. I'm saying that I don't make any claim that one is more 'real' than the other. And, as I said in that post, I wouldn't seek to impose my conception on them.  But nor is it morally incumbent on me to adopt theirs. And that taking that approach doesn't invalidate them as a person, as was suggested.


----------



## bimble (Jan 10, 2018)

Athos said:


> No. I'm saying that I don't make any claim that one is more 'real' than the other


Far out man. ok.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 10, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Where activists campaign on particular issues by framing them as 'men's rights' issues, ime the campaign is invariably misogynistic.
> 
> That's not the same as simply taking part in a prostate cancer awareness drive. You can campaign on health issues without framing them as rights issues.


To add to that. Of course, MY and their chums think mtf trans rights activists are by definition men's rights activists. But they need to recognise that many others do not accept that. That's them imposing their ideology again. It's not a question of us needing to be edumacated cos we're missing some of the important facts.


----------



## bimble (Jan 10, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> To add to that. Of course, MY and their chums think mtf trans rights activists are by definition men's rights activists. But they need to recognise that many others do not accept that. That's them imposing their ideology again.



Of course they recognise that - nobody is denying that they've got an ideology here are they?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 10, 2018)

bimble said:


> Of course they recognise that - nobody is denying that they've got an ideology here are they?


Yes.


----------



## bimble (Jan 10, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes.


Not MR anyway, they've been very open about having axes to grind.


----------



## Athos (Jan 10, 2018)

bimble said:


> Not MR anyway, they've been very open about having axes to grind.



They repeatedly set up a spurious dichotomy between opponents' ideology and their reality/ science.


----------



## bimble (Jan 10, 2018)

Athos said:


> They repeatedly set up a spurious dichotomy between opponents' ideology and their reality/ science.


That's how people argue their point of view, isn't it? Unless it's just 'but I strongly _feel_...blah'


----------



## Athos (Jan 10, 2018)

bimble said:


> That's how people argue their point of view, isn't it? Unless it's just 'but I strongly _feel_...blah'



No.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 10, 2018)

bimble said:


> That's how people argue their point of view, isn't it? Unless it's just 'but I strongly _feel_...blah'


'I don't make the rules'

It's like arguing with a religious person. Their pov is validated by an external authority.


----------



## bimble (Jan 10, 2018)

I don't see that, I reckon the religiousness is more on the other side of things but you know, we'll have to disagree, which is fine cos nothing is true or real anyway.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 10, 2018)

bimble said:


> I don't see that, I reckon the religiousness is more on the other side of things but you know, we'll have to disagree, which is fine cos nothing is true or real anyway.


Nah, you don't get to agree to disagree when you put a dig at the end of it. 

Nobody here is disputing the reality of biological facts. But MY posts in a way that explicitly states that those facts mandate a particular ideology, that there is no other possible way to think in light of those facts. That's akin to religious thinking - 'it's not my law, guv, it's god's law'. And ironically enough, many of those with whom MY's group now make common cause think in exactly that way.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 10, 2018)

Athos said:


> No. I'm saying that I don't make any claim that one is more 'real' than the other. And, as I said in that post, I wouldn't seek to impose my conception on them.  But nor is it morally incumbent on me to adopt theirs. And that taking that approach doesn't invalidate them as a person, as was suggested.



So there is no such thing as a delusion?


----------



## Athos (Jan 10, 2018)

Red Cat said:


> So there is no such thing as a delusion?



No, that's not what I'm saying.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 10, 2018)

Athos said:


> No, that's not what I'm saying.



It's not clear to me what you are saying. Maybe I missed something you posted earlier, I haven't been keeping up lately.


----------



## Athos (Jan 10, 2018)

Red Cat said:


> It's not clear to me what you are saying. Maybe I missed something you posted earlier, I haven't been keeping up lately.



Essentially, that words mean different things to different people, and, in this case, any individual's decision to favour one basis of meaning over another (e.g. biological sex versus self-identity) is an ideological choice (and that attempts to protray it as some fundamental truth are misconceived).  It doesn't make it any particular meaning any more 'real' for anyone else (even if it more widely held).  I think there are pros and cons of seeing trans women as women, and of seeing them as men.  On that ideological question, I favour the former (largely for compassinate reasons, and the balance of harms); that doesn't make it any more 'true', or give me any right to impose that on other's ahead of their legitimate concerns.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 10, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> yes, i know that. yes, i can tell the difference - i discriminate in the wines i drink, i do not oppress the wines i drink.



I'm oppressing some beer right now.


----------



## spanglechick (Jan 10, 2018)

I'm confused and I'm genuinely wondering if I've missed something here.  Miranda Yardley I believe you prefer gender neutral pronouns for  yourself- and you are opposed to using feminine pronouns for trans women (and presumably masculine pronouns for trans men). I think I've got all that right.  


Why don't you use gender neutral pronouns for other transsexual people? Or for that matter, why don't you prefer masculine pronouns for yourself?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 10, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> I'm confused and I'm genuinely wondering if I've missed something here.  Miranda Yardley I believe you prefer gender neutral pronouns for  yourself- and you are opposed to using feminine pronouns for trans women (and presumably masculine pronouns for trans men). I think I've got all that right.
> 
> 
> Why don't you use gender neutral pronouns for other transsexual people? Or for that matter, why don't you prefer masculine pronouns for yourself?


Dunno what they've said elsewhere, but I've followed what they have been saying on here pretty closely. It started with a statement that they are going to uphold the right of people not to be forced into using a pronoun that is contrary to their beliefs. A little bit later they then took up misgendering with a large degree of gusto themself (which they had not done previously), as if to demonstrate the point. It climaxed with them being a total cunt towards two posters here (in one case, not even realising what a twat they were making of themself by getting their stupid fucking assumptions wrong). 

If MY thinks that's a misrepresentation, let them say so, please. What about the above is wrong?  I'm being careful not to misrepresent them here as imo it has important implications. 

It reminds me of nothing more than the defence homophobic Northern Irish bakers gave for refusing to serve homosexual customers. Let's call out homophobia when we see it, and let's give this shit a name as well.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Jan 10, 2018)

Athos said:


> On that ideological question, I favour the former (largely for compassinate reasons, and the balance of harms); that doesn't make it any more 'true'.



The pompous plonker award of 2018 has an early runner.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 11, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> you contribute to the 'problems'  if you really actually felt like this then you'd stop presenting yourself as a woman if you werent already dead inside.
> 
> actually you might find more people willing to listen to yer shit.


Cunt post thus far 2018


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 11, 2018)

glad i got you monitoring me 5/10 for timely response tho, could do better

it's a legitimate point in response to their position.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 11, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> To add to that. Of course, MY and their chums think mtf trans rights activists are by definition men's rights activists. But they need to recognise that many others do not accept that. That's them imposing their ideology again. It's not a question of us needing to be edumacated cos we're missing some of the important facts.



I think you misunderstand me, this is not about me and my 'chums'. It's a statement of opinion that that transgender rights are men's rights. The interpretation of 'men's rights' as a value system is of course open to interpretation, as the other poster showed they suggested men's rights are misogynistic, a strangely intolerant position.

What is a 'transgender woman'? At what point does someone come to be able to claim that label and on what basis? What moral rights follow and at what point, are they inherited on a simple declaration 'I am transgender' or does there have to be transition? What should be involved in that?

At what point does someone who has been living 'as a man' become this 'transgender woman', and thus rights accrue 'as a woman'? Are women to have this imposed, to share resources and spaces with someone who hitherto has lived 'as a man'? Or do they have any recourse to object?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 11, 2018)

Athos said:


> They repeatedly set up a spurious dichotomy between opponents' ideology and their reality/ science.



That's a factually incorrect statement. Please don't misrepresent me.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 11, 2018)

There’s a woman in my team from China.  She told me that they have no different pronouns for men and women in Chinese.  That’s interesting in and of itself, I think.  But more interesting to me is that when she first arrived in the UK, she says she had massive difficulty in identifying when to use each pronoun, and used to regularly refer to men as “she” and women as “he”.  Now, that either says something trivial about learning language or it says something really quite profound about the way we learn to categorise.  I’m not sure which.


----------



## bimble (Jan 11, 2018)

huh. 
"The character for "she" [..] was invented in the early twentieth century due to western influence; prior to this, the character indicating "he" today was used for both genders — it contains the "person" radical, which, as noted above, is not gender-specific."
Gender neutrality in genderless languages - Wikipedia


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 11, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> 'I don't make the rules'
> 
> It's like arguing with a religious person. Their pov is validated by an external authority.



Well, no it isn't really. If one accepts that a woman is an adult human female, and that 'trans women' are male, one follows the other. It's reasoning not appeal to authority. The suggestion by activists and others (including on this board) that a man, or a woman, is someone who identifies themselves as such is itself an ideological position, and it's what this is foundational upon and the consequences which follow that matter. Does treating what it is to be a man or a woman as being an identity help any of us? Does it help us to challenge negative stereotypes for men, and women? 

As cultural categories, both have a set of 'rules' society makes: these are stereotypes, and there is a difference between being born into these and opting into them. Likewise there is a difference between opting into positive (imposed) stereotypes, which could be seen as a positive act of rebellion, and opting into negative (imposed) stereotypes, which when approached from the position of being part of the powerful group has negative consequences as it reinforces negativity.

One of the biggest issues I see with imposing identity-based categorisation is it appears to be anathema to any debate, as the person making the claim it their own authority on the validity of their identity-based claim. This is where post-structuralism and post-modernism begin to strangle the left, because suddenly we are unable to discuss or debate social categories and hierarchies, the very thing the left is supposed to challenge.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 11, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nobody here is disputing the reality of biological facts. But MY posts in a way that explicitly  states that those facts mandate a particular ideology, that there is no other possible way to think in light of those facts. That's akin to religious thinking - 'it's not my law, guv, it's god's law'. And ironically enough, many of those with whom MY's group now make common cause think in exactly that way.



I don't think you have been reading my posts here very closely. Facts are facts, yes they are open to interpretation, and yes two ideologies can interpret facts in different ways yet have similar outcomes.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 11, 2018)

kabbes said:


> There’s a woman in my team from China.  She told me that they have no different pronouns for men and women in Chinese.  That’s interesting in and of itself, I think.  But more interesting to me is that when she first arrived in the UK, she says she had massive difficulty in identifying when to use each pronoun, and used to regularly refer to men as “she” and women as “he”.  Now, that either says something trivial about learning language or it says something really quite profound about the way we learn to categorise.  I’m not sure which.


The former. English speakers learning French or Spanish will regularly get their gender agreement wrong with adjectives because we don't have gender agreement with adjectives in English. 

Different languages have gender embedded in them in different ways (and some not at all), but I don't think that's too significant tbh about wider things. It's just a problem we're stuck with where we do have different gender forms.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 11, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> I'm confused and I'm genuinely wondering if I've missed something here.  Miranda Yardley I believe you prefer gender neutral pronouns for  yourself- and you are opposed to using feminine pronouns for trans women (and presumably masculine pronouns for trans men). I think I've got all that right.
> 
> Why don't you use gender neutral pronouns for other transsexual people? Or for that matter, why don't you prefer masculine pronouns for yourself?



My starting point was not giving a damn about pronouns. I do object to the unconditional expectation that we are submit to someone's subjective sense of personal identity, or suffer consequences. And I think that the way pronouns have become such a tinder box is bad for trans people, as treating them as indicative of hate creates fear and cultural instability. It's not hate to 'misgender'.

As far as it goes for me, I have no pronoun preference, I am bigger than that. I support anyone who as an act of political rebellion refuses to submit to calling a man a woman.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 11, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It climaxed with them being a total cunt towards two posters here (in one case, not even realising what a twat they were making of themself by getting their stupid fucking assumptions wrong).



You are aware that use of the word 'cunt' is misogynistic?

Also, I don't know what it is you are referring to here.



littlebabyjesus said:


> It reminds me of nothing more than the defence homophobic Northern Irish bakers gave for refusing to serve homosexual customers. Let's call out homophobia when we see it, and let's give this shit a name as well.



How is this even the same?


----------



## kabbes (Jan 11, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The former. English speakers learning French or Spanish will regularly get their gender agreement wrong with adjectives because we don't have gender agreement with adjectives in English.
> 
> Different languages have gender embedded in them in different ways (and some not at all), but I don't think that's too significant tbh about wider things. It's just a problem we're stuck with where we do have different gender forms.


I think your premise has led to the wrong conclusion.  We have difficulty getting gender agreement with adjectives in French because _we don't think of the noun in question as masculine or feminine_.  We haven't categorised things like "chair" as male or female in our heads, and so learning which it is becomes difficult for us.  The extension of this logic implies that the reason my friend X (the Chinese get the best initials) struggled to apply the correct pronoun to people is maybe because she also was not categorising by gender in her head.  And to some extent, this is also her interpretation of why she struggled with it.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 11, 2018)

kabbes said:


> There’s a woman in my team from China.  She told me that they have no different pronouns for men and women in Chinese.  That’s interesting in and of itself, I think.  But more interesting to me is that when she first arrived in the UK, she says she had massive difficulty in identifying when to use each pronoun, and used to regularly refer to men as “she” and women as “he”.  Now, that either says something trivial about learning language or it says something really quite profound about the way we learn to categorise.  I’m not sure which.



It's exactly the same in Hungarian (which was my first language). There are no pronouns for anything, people or objects. So nothing comes under feminine or masculine at all. There are occasions where professions might add the suffix "nő" (woman) but it's quite rare. So teachers are "teachers" or "teacher woman", but nowadays they are kinda used interchangeably. 

Infact the term "gender" (nemű) in Hungarian literally translated means "gaseous" or "essence" or "soul. 

So even the term gender in different languages will conjure up different images and ideas.

Polish is a right head fuck for gender (Linguistically speaking) because there are three of the fuckers and they all have to match other grammatical components. It's a headfuck not to misgender people, children, inanimate objects.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 11, 2018)

kabbes said:


> I think your premise has led to the wrong conclusion.  We have difficulty getting gender agreement with adjectives in French because _we don't think of the noun in question as masculine or feminine_.  We haven't categorised things like "chair" as male or female, and so learning which it is becomes difficult for us.  The extension of this logic implies that the reason my friend X (the Chinese get the best initials) struggled to apply the correct pronoun to people is maybe because she also was not categorising by gender in her head.  And to some extent, this is also her interpretation of why she struggled with it.


People also get adjectives wrong in talking about themselves, where we do think of the noun in question as masculine or feminine. We have to get used to choosing the right form of a word so that it agrees. I would still contend that this is mostly a trivial fact about learning languages. English-speaking learners of Russian then have the headfuck (for us) of remembering to change the form of a noun depending on its function - subject, object etc.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 11, 2018)

kabbes said:


> There’s a woman in my team from China.  She told me that they have no different pronouns for men and women in Chinese.  That’s interesting in and of itself, I think.  But more interesting to me is that when she first arrived in the UK, she says she had massive difficulty in identifying when to use each pronoun, and used to regularly refer to men as “she” and women as “he”.  Now, that either says something trivial about learning language or it says something really quite profound about the way we learn to categorise.  I’m not sure which.



My grandmother was Dutch and used to mix up "he" and "she" (usually defaulting to "she" for both genders).  Which is much odder given the relative similarity of English and Dutch and the fact that Dutch has more gender stuff going on than English.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 11, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> You are aware that use of the word 'cunt' is misogynistic?


You are aware that there are different opinions about that?


----------



## bimble (Jan 11, 2018)

I grew up speaking German, where everything is either masculine feminine or neutral, which when i think about it now is pretty weird, how it gets into your head. In German for instance all cats are she's and all dogs he.


----------



## JimW (Jan 11, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> It's exactly the same in Hungarian (which was my first language). There are no pronouns for anything, people or objects. So nothing comes under feminine or masculine at all. There are occasions where professions might add the suffix "nő" (woman) but it's quite rare. So teachers are "teachers" or "teacher woman", but nowadays they are kinda used interchangeably.
> 
> Infact the term "gender" (nemű) in Hungarian literally translated means "gaseous" or "essence" or "soul.
> 
> ...


One depressing recent phenomenon in China has been a tendency to add a prefix denoting woman to non-gendered job descriptions like police officer etc, also a return to old-fashioned and far more sexist terms for spouse. I persist with the revolutionary era unisex _爱人_ which is dying out.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 11, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You are aware that there are different opinions about that?



Sure! We are entitled to disagree on things yanno.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 11, 2018)

bimble said:


> I grew up speaking German, where everything is either masculine feminine or neutral, which when i think about it now is pretty weird, how it gets into your head. In German for instance all cats are she's and all dogs he.



I'd always wondered about that - ie. whether _your _female dog would be called 'she' and dogs in general were 'he', or wtf was going on, and whether conversations got very confusing at the vet's office.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 11, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Sure! We are entitled to disagree on things yanno.



In Soviet Urban 'cunt' is an equal opportunities insult.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 11, 2018)

8ball said:


> I'd always wondered about that - ie. whether _your _female dog would be called 'she' and dogs in general were 'he', or wtf was going on, and whether conversations got very confusing at the vet's office.



Mate when I try to speak my shitty Polish (which is REALLY shitty) I fuck that bit up ALL THE TIME. Whichever one I think it is it's ALWAYS wrong.

I think you use "your" to match the noun, (so if a dog is masculine "your" would be masculine even in the owner is a female?) but honestly that's probably wrong..


----------



## 8ball (Jan 11, 2018)

The only thing I know in Polish is "not my circus, not my monkeys".

Which my work colleagues think means "I'll get onto it right away"...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 11, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Mate when I try to speak my shitty Polish (which is REALLY shitty) I fuck that bit up ALL THE TIME. Whichever one I think it is it's ALWAYS wrong.
> 
> I think you use "your" to match the noun, (so if a dog was male "your" would be masculine) but honestly that's probably wrong..


A cat is masculine in Spanish. El gato. But Spanish doesn't require the use of pronouns, so that particular problem doesn't necessarily arise. Each language has its own unique head fucks.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 11, 2018)

I just checked.. 

Twój pies (your dog) - masculine dog so "your" is masculine even if yer a lady. 
Twoja ryba (your fish) fish is feminine so "your" is feminine even if u r gentlemenz

See? Its fucked.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 11, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> A cat is masculine in Spanish. El gato. But Spanish doesn't require the use of pronouns, so that particular problem doesn't necessarily arise. Each language has its own unique head fucks.



Female cat in Spanish is "la gata"


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 11, 2018)

I love Hungarian cuz we don't need to worry about this shitty pronoun bullshit at all, no one gets misgendered!  The trans debate in Hungary is all about whether people have feminine or masculine essences or not.

I still tend to do a lot of my "working out" thinking in Hungarian when it comes to complex issues because the language is so malleable it's much easier to come up quickly with a solution. On the flipside no one ever gets where you're coming from so you gotta translate your working out.

Mad, it is.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 11, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Female cat in Spanish is "la gata"


Yes, true that does exist. Bad example. Caballo for horse would be a better one.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 11, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, true that does exist. Bad example. Caballo for horse would be a better one.



Female horse in Spanish is yegua - la yegua or una yegua


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 11, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> The trans debate in Hungary is all about whether people have feminine or masculine essences or not.



It is here too, in the sense it centres on 'gender identity' which is held to be innate.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 11, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Female horse in Spanish is yegua - la yegua or una yegua


Yes, equivalent to 'mare' in English. But you would commonly talk of a female horse as a caballo as well.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 11, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> It is here too, in the sense it centres on 'gender identity' which is held to be innate.



So there's an innate thing that no one seems to have an agreed definition for, and we're arguing over what kind of thing without a definition it actually is.

More parallels with religion...


----------



## Wilf (Jan 11, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I think you misunderstand me, this is not about me and my 'chums'. It's a statement of opinion that that transgender rights are men's rights. The interpretation of 'men's rights' as a value system is of course open to interpretation, as the other poster showed they suggested men's rights are misogynistic, a strangely intolerant position.
> 
> *What is a 'transgender woman'? At what point does someone come to be able to claim that label and on what basis? What moral rights follow and at what point, are they inherited on a simple declaration 'I am transgender' or does there have to be transition? What should be involved in that?
> 
> At what point does someone who has been living 'as a man' become this 'transgender woman', and thus rights accrue 'as a woman'? Are women to have this imposed, to share resources and spaces with someone who hitherto has lived 'as a man'? Or do they have any recourse to object*?


 I think those are entirely proper questions - both philosophically and practically/politically. However, where we differ (or more importantly, where trans activists might differ) is where you go next, how much of a problem these things are seen to be, whether solutions are available.  I've seen the odd example of someone saying they identify with a new gender identity and demanding the full rights, access and services that follow from day one. But is this a widespread issue?  Is it really disrupting the work of many women's groups?  Or to put it another way, does this rather reductive battle, where gender identities are claimed and owned. not make it more likely that problems will occur? 

If you take the example we touched on yesterday, opposing sexual violence, you posed the question as one of sexual crimes _committed by_ mtf trans women being wrongly recorded. Using that as an example of the point I'm raising here, *is that the key point*? Is not opposing sexual violence per se not the starting point, the thing that has political potential?  Doesn't sticking on the issue of who is in and who is out harm the chances of successful campaigns against sexual violence.  Even _within_ postmodern/intersectional politics there is the idea of 'minimally cohesive coalitions', coming together of people with different agendas and identities, but for common purposes. Doesn't the, for want of a better term, the 'terf v trans' battle preclude even that level of campaigning?


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 11, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, equivalent to 'mare' in English. But you would commonly talk of a female horse as a caballo as well.



You're talking shit. My Spanish is shit too but I know that just like in Portuguese, most animals have feminine and masculine names. Unless you're speaking in very general terms you always use those names. So if I say, "Lions live in prairies" (los leones viven en las praderas), yes, the masculine terms tend to prevail because that's what happens when you're speaking of groups. If I speak of a particular lion then I'll tend to specify the sex of the lion, pronouns, adjectives, possessives will follow suit. Same with dogs, cats, horses and chickens


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 11, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> It is here too, in the sense it centres on 'gender identity' which is held to be innate.



Yeah, except in Hungary we don't have a genders linguistically as such and so it isn't confused with sex, because sex is just that. No one uses "gender identity" because it's unnecessary "gender" in this case means the same thing. 

So when we're talking about gender,  the translation of "gender" in and of itself being "essence/gas",  it takes the linguistic confusion out of it.

Reading the Hungárian wiki page and then translating it (as a Hungarian would read it)  into English is really interesting because it's ALL about essence and the lack of it.

Infact if you literally translate (as a Hungarian would understand it) Transgenderism (Transzneműseg - its the wiki article title) to English it comes out as something like Trans-essence-ism


----------



## Athos (Jan 11, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> That's a factually incorrect statement. Please don't misrepresent me.



I disagree. Whether or not you intendd it, that's the subtext of much of what you've said.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 11, 2018)

8ball said:


> So there's an innate thing that no one seems to have an agreed definition for, and we're arguing over what kind of thing without a definition it actually is.
> 
> More parallels with religion...



This is the definition given in the Yogyakarta Principles, note it is circular.


Gender identity is understood to refer to each person’s deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex assigned at birth, including the personal sense of the body (which may involve, if freely chosen, modification of bodily appearance or function by medical, surgical or other means) and other expressions of gender, including dress, speech and mannerisms.
http://data.unaids.org/pub/manual/2007/070517_yogyakarta_principles_en.pdf

(Footnote on page 6).


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 11, 2018)

8ball said:


> So there's an innate thing that no one seems to have an agreed definition for, and we're arguing over what kind of thing without a definition it actually is.
> 
> More parallels with religion...



Well yeah, you said my post before was a bit crazy but thinking about it I reckon it's cuz I'm doing my thinking and writing in two different languages.

I don't know if I'm getting the picture across right. Even "essence" isn't the right word because "nemű" is somewhere in between gas/essence/soul. So in between the physical and supernatural.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that scientists used to try to measure the weights of souls, as if it had a real physical presence.

Ah ha! Found it! The 21 grams experiment over 100 years ago. 

21 grams experiment - Wikipedia

Anyway, us fuckin bilinguals, innit!


----------



## 8ball (Jan 11, 2018)

“God is a gas… but not a small gas like Calor Gas”

Alan Partridge


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 11, 2018)

Wilf said:


> I think those are entirely proper questions - both philosophically and practically/politically. However, where we differ (or more importantly, where trans activists might differ) is where you go next, how much of a problem these things are seen to be, whether solutions are available.  I've seen the odd example of someone saying they identify with a new gender identity and demanding the full rights, access and services that follow from day one. But is this a widespread issue?  Is it really disrupting the work of many women's groups?  Or to put it another way, does this rather reductive battle, where gender identities are claimed and owned. not make it more likely that problems will occur?



The problem is that the starting point is 'trans women are women no debate'. How on earth do we move forward from that point?



Wilf said:


> If you take the example we touched on yesterday, opposing sexual violence, you posed the question as one of sexual crimes _committed by_ mtf trans women being wrongly recorded. Using that as an example of the point I'm raising here, *is that the key point*? Is not opposing sexual violence per se not the starting point, the thing that has political potential?  Doesn't sticking on the issue of who is in and who is out harm the chances of successful campaigns against sexual violence.  Even _within_ postmodern/intersectional politics there is the idea of 'minimally cohesive coalitions', coming together of people with different agendas and identities, but for common purposes. Doesn't the, for want of a better term, the 'terf v trans' battle preclude even that level of campaigning?



To oppose sexual violence, one needs to be able to identify the agent. If the agent is misreported, for example as female when male, we are not identifying where the problem lies. For example, the imprisonment statistics for sexually violent women are often quoted by transactivists claiming 'woman can be violent too'. Yes, they can, sure. But as the figures released by the government last year show, a proportion of the 110-odd women reported for being in prison for sexual violence are 'trans women' with gender recognition certificates.

Note I am not saying 'trans women' are at higher risk of being sexually violent.


----------



## bimble (Jan 11, 2018)

It sounds like the Hungarian way of talking about this gets right to the point. FabricLiveBaby! is it that if you believe in gendered 'souls' you are a Transzneműse -ist?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 11, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> The problem is that the starting point is 'trans women are women no debate'. How on earth do we move forward from that point?



I think the degree to which the proposition 'trans women are women' is accepted is a matter for women.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 11, 2018)

bimble said:


> It sounds like the Hungarian way of talking about this gets right to the point. FabricLiveBaby! is it that if you believe in gendered 'souls' you are a Transzneműse -ist?



It's difficult to answer because "nemű" isnt founded in any overt religious belief. Souls have overtly religious connotations and it's own word (lélek). So it would be unfair of me to say it's EXACTLY the same. 

But yes, in a roundabout way in Hungarian if you kinda have to believe in gendered "souls/essence" if you are trans, because otherwise there is only sex (which is different). Miranda said the closest equivalent in English is "gender identity" and that is probably true.

However the belief in it doesn't just include transpeople. Plenty of people of all stripes *do* believe that men and women have different essences. It's certainly believed in Hungary (otherwise we wouldn't have a word for it), Abrahamic religions certainly believe it to be true, secular antifeminists also. Infact most people probably do believe on some level that men and women have different (sometimes opposing)  essences.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 11, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> The problem is that the starting point is 'trans women are women no debate'. How on earth do we move forward from that point?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So, unless I'm reading you wrong, you could see no chance of co-operation between women's groups and trans activists (on sexual violence) until trans activists accept your view that trans women are still men?  I might be extrapolating, making things explicit that are only hinted at, but can see no other conclusion from what you have said.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 11, 2018)

8ball said:


> I think the degree to which the proposition 'trans women are women' is accepted is a matter for women.



And right there is the problem, because 'trans women are women no debate' it means that women cannot even discuss this without being accused of 'transphobia'.

"trans women are women" transphobe - Twitter Search


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 11, 2018)

Wilf said:


> So, unless I'm reading you wrong, you could see no chance of co-operation between women's groups and trans activists (on sexual violence) until trans activists accept your view that trans women are still men?  I might be extrapolating, making things explicit that are only hinted at, but can see no other conclusion from what you have said.



It's more that co-operation is impeded because transactivists insist 'trans women' are women and should be recognised as such. We could suggest compromise, say 'why not report crimes by trans women separately' but the objection will be 'we can only do this if we are saying that trans women are not women' and that 'this will allow people to say trans women are men'. 

This (dogmatic) statement is a huge obstacle to progress.

Finding Middle Ground Between Women’s Rights and Transgender Rights

And Ruth Hunt at Stonewall has bought into it, even though it creates for her a conflict of interest.

Ma Vie En Rose: Ruth Hunt’s Rose-Tinted Trans*Goggles and the anti-Woman Politics of Stonewall


----------



## 8ball (Jan 11, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> And right there is the problem, because 'trans women are women no debate' it means that women cannot even discuss this without being accused of 'transphobia'.
> 
> "trans women are women" transphobe - Twitter Search



I'm pretty sure I could find a corner of the internet making the opposing case in an equally shrill manner.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 11, 2018)

8ball said:


> I'm pretty sure I could find a corner of the internet making the opposing case in an equally shrill manner.



You probably could, but it's not relevant to the point I am making.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 11, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> You probably could, but it's not relevant to the point I am making.



It's relevant to whether there is a one-sided dogma preventing discussion.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 11, 2018)

smokedout said:


> I completely accept that gender is imposed


So we have shit system of categorisation which puts males at the top and socialises everyone accordingly...


smokedout said:


> and that usually trans people simply *switch gender* rather than reject it


Do they want to switch gender or sex?


smokedout said:


> is it fair to label someone cis if their gender performance is easily identifiable with their biological sex


How to "fairly" evaluate cis when everyone, cis and trans alike, lives under the shit system? Furthermore, since no one is a walking stereotype, where are the lines drawn? Where do you, for instance, put an authoritarian male entrepeneur who chooses a dominatrix for a wife? Where do you put an aggressive pink wearing woman who loves kittens, a la Dolores Umbrige?


smokedout said:


> But there has to be a term, it's impossible to really examine transgenderism without a word that means not transgender.


To be [brutally] honest, I don't care. As long as any newer term doesn't position my experience of under "gender" as somehow "normal" against that of transgender people (which "cis" does. Who benefits from that? Not women like me who have suffered under and have opposed the idea that what's thrown at me and/or expected of me (as a woman) is somehow unavoidable or inescapable. That's the idea behind "gender is innate" and "gender identity is "choosable"". As far as I'm concerned "cis" is doubly harmful. It posits I'm on the "normal" side of something artificially devised that is used to oppress me while claiming, by virtue of of my possessing boobs and a vagina, that my identity is somehow inextricably linked to both the boobs and the vagina. I say, "'da fuck!?!?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> And right there is the problem, because 'trans women are women no debate' it means that women cannot even discuss this without being accused of 'transphobia'.
> 
> "trans women are women" transphobe - Twitter Search


and is this accusation justified?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> How to "fairly" evaluate cis when everyone, cis and trans alike, lives under the shit system? Furthermore, since no one is a walking stereotype, where are the lines drawn? Where do you, for instance, put an authoritarian male entrepeneur who chooses a dominatrix for a wife? Where do you put an aggressive pink wearing woman who loves kittens, a la Dolores Umbrige?


what does loving kittens, what does wearing pink, have to do with gender?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 11, 2018)

8ball said:


> It's relevant to whether there is a one-sided dogma preventing discussion.



How can we have any discussion, whatever one's beliefs, if the position is 'trans women are women no debate'?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 11, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> what does loving kittens, what does wearing pink, have to do with gender?


 
You might want to have a wander round _Toys R Us_ and report back.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 11, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> How can we have any discussion, whatever one's beliefs, if the position is 'trans women are women no debate'?



Whose position?


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 11, 2018)

8ball said:


> You might want to have a wander round _Toys R Us_ and report back.


Or just read Harry Potter


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 11, 2018)

8ball said:


> Whose position?



It's the transactivist position.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2018)

8ball said:


> You might want to have a wander round _Toys R Us_ and report back.


there's a lot of things i might want to do.


----------



## bimble (Jan 11, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> To be [brutally] honest, I don't care. As long as any newer term doesn't position my experience of under "gender" as somehow "normal" against that of transgender people (which "cis" does. Who benefits from that? Not women like me who have suffered under and have opposed the idea that what's thrown at me and/or expected of me (as a woman) is somehow unavoidable or inescapable. That's the idea behind "gender is innate" and "gender identity is "choosable"". As far as I'm concerned "cis" is doubly harmful. It posits I'm on the "normal" side of something artificially devised that is used to oppress me while claiming, by virtue of of my possessing boobs and a vagina, that my identity is somehow inextricably linked to both the boobs and the vagina. I say, "'da fuck!?!?



Yep this. A while ago on here we had a 'toxic masculinity' thread, where I said that i'm trying to get rid of some of what I think of as my 'toxic feminity', which one of the ways it manifests is being unable to express my opinion clearly and unappologetically (in work emails especially) and always hedging my 'no' with language like i'm really sorry to bother you with this but I feel... 
To which Sea Star responded saying they do this too and hadn't before realised that this is maybe because of being female. I've pondered that a bit since and actually no. I do this stuff because of how i've been taught to behave in this culture as a woman, not because my innate womanly soul is just born feeble overly polite and frightened of conflict.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 11, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> It's the transactivist position.



You might have more luck if your opening statement wasn't "trans women are men".

Also, the transactivist position would seem to cover a very small proportion of women generally.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2018)

bimble said:


> Yep this. A while ago on here we had a 'toxic masculinity' thread, where I said that i'm trying to get rid of some of what I think of as my 'toxic feminity', which one of the ways it manifests is being unable to express my opinion clearly and unappologetically (in work emails especially) and always hedging my 'no' with language like i'm really sorry to bother you with this but I feel...
> To which Sea Star responded saying they do this too and hadn't before realised that this is maybe because of being female. I've pondered that a bit since and actually no. I do this stuff because of how i've been taught to behave in this culture as a woman, not because my innate womanly soul is just born feeble overly polite and frightened of conflict.


i thought it was because you'd been wrong so often


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 11, 2018)

8ball said:


> You might have more luck if your opening statement wasn't "trans women are men".
> 
> Also, the transactivist position would seem to cover a very small proportion of women generally.



What's that political/business negotiation technique called where both people make as leftfield a negotiating position in order to get the best outcome for themselves and open up the middle ground? I think it has a name. 

If one side are gonna come out with "Transwomen are women" why shouldn't the other go "Transwomen are men"?

Also, is there room in this debate for discussing the "golden middle" (or argument to moderation)  as a logical fallacy? Does it apply here?

Argument to moderation - Wikipedia


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 11, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> what does loving kittens, what does wearing pink, have to do with gender?



The point I wanted to make is that one could be gender conforming in tastes (aesthetic or otherwise) whilst being gender non conforming in attitude. The gender role rules are not set by me. You prefer to nitpick. Keep doing it if it makes you happy.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 11, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> What's that political/business negotiation technique called where both people make as leftfield a negotiating position in order to get the best outcome for themselves and open up the middle ground? I think it has a name.
> 
> If one side are gonna come out with "Transwomen are women" why shouldn't the other go "Transwomen are men"?
> 
> ...



That's a business technique for when both sides want a favourable resolution.
Doesn't work when your motive is to continue hating the other side and raise your standing in your own camp.

Argument to moderation, on the other hand, is sometimes practical for diplomatic reasons but can lead to absurdities.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 11, 2018)

8ball said:


> You might have more luck if your opening statement wasn't "trans women are men".
> 
> Also, the transactivist position would seem to cover a very small proportion of women generally.



How about 'trans women are trans women'? What is wrong with this?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 11, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> How about 'trans women are trans women'? What is wrong with this?



Few people argue with tautologies unless they are loaded in a particular way.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> The point I wanted to make is that one could be gender conforming in tastes (aesthetic or otherwise) whilst being gender non conforming in attitude. The gender role rules are not set by me. You prefer to nitpick. Keep doing it if it makes you happy.


yeh. and the point i'm making is that picking certain attributes that you associate with a particular gender and reading them as signs of that gender will lead you astray. your point benefits from being expressed without the semiotick nonsense you introduced it with.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> How about 'trans women are trans women'? What is wrong with this?


it's a mayism and therefore suspect.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 11, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. and the point i'm making is that picking certain attributes that you associate with a particular gender and reading them as signs of that gender will lead you astray. your point benefits from being expressed without the semiotick nonsense you introduced it with.


Thank you


----------



## 8ball (Jan 11, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> The point I wanted to make is that one could be gender conforming in tastes (aesthetic or otherwise) whilst being gender non conforming in attitude. The gender role rules are not set by me. You prefer to nitpick. Keep doing it if it makes you happy.



I'm unsure of the exact boundary or difference between 'tastes' and 'attitude' here.  

Do you just mean the difference between, say, a girl liking 'boy' things and a girl feeling that she is really a boy?


----------



## Wilf (Jan 11, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> How about 'trans women are trans women'? What is wrong with this?


But it carries on, round and round... sometimes biological definitions, sometimes social, sometimes psychological. Either 'terfs' get to own the boundaries of female or trans activists get to redefine those boundaries. There's perhaps a psychological pay off in 'winning' this battle, there's the odd victory about this that or the other bit of legislation to be had. But again, where is the bigger victory, what does this do to oppose oppression?


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 11, 2018)

8ball said:


> I'm unsure of the exact boundary or difference between 'tastes' and 'attitude' here.
> 
> Do you just mean the difference between, say, a girl liking 'boy' things and a girl feeling that she is really a boy?



No. I asked where was the border between being "cis" and not and where do people who use the "cis" label put a woman who is aggressive (an attitude ttributed to masculinity) and likes pink (attributed to femininity).


----------



## Santino (Jan 11, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I don't know if I'm getting the picture across right. Even "essence" isn't the right word because "nemű" is somewhere in between gas/essence/soul. So in between the physical and supernatural.
> 
> I seem to remember reading somewhere that scientists used to try to measure the weights of souls, as if it had a real physical presence.
> 
> ...


The English word 'spirit', which can mean ghost, soul or essence (as in the spirit of a rule) is derived from the Latin _spiritus, _which also meant 'breath', as in respiration.

The Greek word for spirit, _pneuma_, is also related to gas/air - pneumatic etc.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 11, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> No. I asked where was the border between being "cis" and not and where do people who use the "cis" label put a woman who is aggressive (an attitude ttributed to masculinity) and likes pink (attributed to femininity).



I’d put that in cis.  Unless you were talking about a trans woman.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 11, 2018)

Wilf said:


> But again, where is the bigger victory, what does this do to oppose oppression?



This is not the war. This is only a battle. To me, the war is to abolish gender altogether. This particular battle is whether it is useful to win that war, to cast gender as an innate identity.

E2a: This is my particular perspective. Other feminists share some of it. Others I'm no longer sure.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 11, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> This is not the war. This is only a battle. To me, the war is to abolish gender altogether. This particular battle is whether it is useful to win that war, to cast gender as an innate identity.



I thought gender was socially constructed by definition.  So not innate.


----------



## Santino (Jan 11, 2018)

kabbes said:


> There’s a woman in my team from China.  She told me that they have no different pronouns for men and women in Chinese.  That’s interesting in and of itself, I think.  But more interesting to me is that when she first arrived in the UK, she says she had massive difficulty in identifying when to use each pronoun, and used to regularly refer to men as “she” and women as “he”.  Now, that either says something trivial about learning language or it says something really quite profound about the way we learn to categorise.  I’m not sure which.


I used to sing a song to my daughter about five monkeys, and whether they were or were not at any one time on the bed. Because of my overbearing liberalism instead of referring to all the monkeys as 'he', as many would, I would arbitrarily refer to each of them as 'he' or 'she' as the fancy took me, and I think perhaps as a result of this my daughter often used the incorrect pronoun with humans as she learned to talk.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 11, 2018)

8ball said:


> I thought gender was socially constructed by definition.  So not innate.



Carry that idea to the comment you made to me in your #5202 comment.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2018)

Santino said:


> The English word 'spirit', which can mean ghost, soul or essence (as in the spirit of a rule) is derived from the Latin _spiritus, _which also meant 'breath', as in respiration.
> 
> The Greek word for spirit, _pneuma_, is also related to gas/air - pneumatic etc.


lots of pneumatic women in brave new world


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 11, 2018)

Santino said:


> The English word 'spirit', which can mean ghost, soul or essence (as in the spirit of a rule) is derived from the Latin _spiritus, _which also meant 'breath', as in respiration.
> 
> The Greek word for spirit, _pneuma_, is also related to gas/air - pneumatic etc.



Yeah, the work "lélek" in Hungarian covers both spirit and soul. Lélek is also derived from the word for breath. Levegő also means air so it's connected too! Interesting cuz Hungarian isn't Indo-European at all!


----------



## 8ball (Jan 11, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Carry that idea to the comment you made to me in your #5202 comment.



If there's a contradiction there I'm totally missing it.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 11, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> This is not the war. This is only a battle. To me, the war is to abolish gender altogether. This particular battle is whether it is useful to win that war, to cast gender as an innate identity.
> 
> E2a: This is my particular perspective. Other feminists share some of it. Others I'm no longer sure.


I think this goes to something I was on about before about prefigurative politics. I, I suspect like the majority on this thread, would like to see a world where people are immensely relaxed about gender identities and sexualities (with the usual and obvious caveat about consenting adults). I'd like to see this discussion take place with at least one eye on that. That doesn't make it some kind of utopian struggle/politics, there are very obvious, concrete and structural issues to address in the here and now. But at the very least those struggles should be fought in a way that puts solidarity at the heart of day to day politics.  FWIW I think class politics has the potential to do that, so I suppose I'm also saying that these problems arise from identity politics.


----------



## Santino (Jan 11, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> lots of pneumatic women in brave new world


_Grishkin is nice: her Russian eye
Is underlined for emphasis;
Uncorseted, her friendly bust
Gives promise of pneumatic bliss._


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 11, 2018)

8ball said:


> If there's a contradiction there I'm totally missing it.


I didn't say there was a contradiction. I said "cis" positions some people against "trans" as if those people were "normal" when the whole system is mad to start with. I disagree with the label on those grounds. 
I had a tomboy phase in my adolescence. I hated everything to do with "woman" including, of course, everything that was happening to my body (boobs hurting in their growth, menstrual pain, learning to wear pads, my mum constantly telling "now you're a young lady...", etc, etc).  Might anyone have called me cis then? And if lots of people go through changes, conflicts, etc with their identities throughout life how does that stack up against this idea of an internal gender inclination?
Where is the boundary?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 11, 2018)

Wilf said:


> But it carries on, round and round... sometimes biological definitions, sometimes social, sometimes psychological. Either 'terfs' get to own the boundaries of female or trans activists get to redefine those boundaries. There's perhaps a psychological pay off in 'winning' this battle, there's the odd victory about this that or the other bit of legislation to be had. But again, where is the bigger victory, what does this do to oppose oppression?



Oh, yes, it's circular. But we need to be able to recognise our differences, if we can't how can we address conflicts of rights and needs?

My position has consistently been that there's common ground and compromise to be reached.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 11, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> I didn't say there was a contradiction. I said "cis" positions some people against "trans" as if those people were "normal" when the whole system is mad to start with. I disagree with the label on those grounds.
> I had a tomboy phase in my adolescence. I hated everything to do with "woman" including, of course, everything that was happening to my body (boobs hurting in their growth, menstrual pain, learning to wear pads, my mum constantly telling "now you're a young lady...", etc, etc).  Might anyone have called me cis then? And if lots of people go through changes, conflicts, etc with their identities throughout life how does that stack up against this idea of an internal gender inclination?
> Where is the boundary?



I don't see anything there as not sitting with my definition of 'cis' because I only use it to mean 'not trans' (rather than happy with the gender pressures imposed on you, or conforming comfortably to gendered norms) and I think it is way overused generally since the number of trans people is very small.  

It's useful if you need an antonym to 'trans' (there's a bit of organic chemistry in my academic background so it feels natural), but I think aside from on Urban the only times I've used it was to explain what it meant to someone when they had heard or read it somewhere.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 11, 2018)

Wilf said:


> I think this goes to something I was on about before about prefigurative politics. I, I suspect like the majority on this thread, would like to see a world where people are immensely relaxed about gender identities and sexualities (with the usual and obvious caveat about consenting adults). I'd like to see this discussion take place with at least one eye on that. That doesn't make it some kind of utopian struggle/politics, there are very obvious, concrete and structural issues to address in the here and now. But at the very least those struggles should be fought in a way that puts solidarity at the heart of day to day politics.  FWIW I think class politics has the potential to do that, so I suppose I'm also saying that these problems arise from identity politics.


Argh... different thread


----------



## Wilf (Jan 11, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Argh... different thread


It's taken me ages to get even a toe hold on this one. Ploughing through the ID politics thread is too daunting task for a lazy man even whiling away the hours till home time from work!


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 11, 2018)

8ball said:


> I only use it to mean 'not trans'


"You" only use it to mean "not trans" but the term itself does posit a gender identity
'Cisgender' has been added to the Oxford English Dictionary


> The term is defined as 'designating a person whose sense of personal identity corresponds to the sex and gender assigned to him or her at birth'


----------



## bimble (Jan 11, 2018)

8ball said:


> It's useful if you need an antonym to 'trans' (there's a bit of organic chemistry in my academic background so it feels natural), but I think aside from on Urban the only times I've used it was to explain what it meant to someone when they had heard or read it somewhere.



I mostly see it as part of the list 'white het ..' etc used to mark your position on the old intersectional wheel of privilidge / oppression, so as to say that being cis is an advantage structurally in a similar way to being white or straight or a man.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 11, 2018)

Wilf said:


> It's taken me ages to get even a toe hold on this one. Ploughing through the ID politics thread is too daunting task for a lazy man even whiling away the hours till home time from work!



I just find it intimidating. I don't feel I have read enough or developed sufficient debating skills to get in there even if I have been slowly reading it.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 11, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> "You" only use it to mean "not trans" but the term itself does posit a gender identity
> 'Cisgender' has been added to the Oxford English Dictionary



Yes, I think we can agree on the problems with that.  I don't have a problem with it meaning 'not-trans' which was actually the original intention from what I can tell, but the usage given there can easily lead to reinforcing simplistic gender expectations.

I don't know why these problems aren't more generally flagged up by institutions like the OED who are presumably trying to be 'progressive', but I can also see why they will have problems coming up with a concise definition that doesn't define something in reference to its negative (which would also cause issues).


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 11, 2018)

bimble said:


> I mostly see it as part of the list 'white het ..' etc used to mark your position on the old intersectional wheel of privilidge / oppression, so as to say that being cis is an advantage structurally in a similar way to being white or straight or a man.



Except its used against women and complete strangers too. My first run into the term was to be accused of "showing my cis privilege" because I dared to express not taking kindly to having the thread (about race) derailed a second time with questions about transgender issues.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 11, 2018)

8ball said:


> Yes, I think we can agree on the problems with that.  I don't have a problem with it meaning 'not-trans' which was actually the original intention from what I can tell, but the usage given there can easily lead to reinforcing simplistic gender expectations.
> 
> I don't know why these problems aren't more generally flagged up by institutions like the OED who are presumably trying to be 'progressive', but I can also see why they will have problems coming up with a concise definition that doesn't define something in reference to its negative (which would also cause issues).



The OED is meant to be merely descriptive of people's usage of words. It's done that and nothing more should be demanded of it. I have a problem with people ascribing me with a term ideologically applied to me in total disregard of my experience or even my own word that I have no such thing as a gender identity by people who claim their own words to be final on the matter.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 11, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> The OED is meant to be merely descriptive of people's usage of words. It's done that and nothing more should be demanded of it. I have a problem with people ascribing me with a term ideologically applied to me in total disregard of my experience or even my own word that I have no such thing as a gender identity by people who claim their own words to be final on the matter.



As for 'people's usage of words', outside discussions like these I've usually just seen it used to mean 'not trans'.
I don't think the OED is beyond bowing to PR and political concerns.


----------



## Santino (Jan 11, 2018)

Whatever the intentions of speakers I don't think any term that is supposed to simply mean not-x ever maintains that sort of neutral meaning. They always acquire other connotations.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 11, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> At what point does someone who has been living 'as a man' become this 'transgender woman', and thus rights accrue 'as a woman'? Are women to have this imposed, to share resources and spaces with someone who hitherto has lived 'as a man'? Or do they have any recourse to object?



What rights are these, other than protection from discrimination, which really just means that people who are victims of gender related violemce can access gender specific services.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 11, 2018)

Santino said:


> Whatever the intentions of speakers I don't think any term that is supposed to simply mean not-x ever maintains that sort of neutral meaning. They always acquire other connotations.



Would have been easier to stick with 'not trans', but when you start with a prefix which has a ready-made antonym it should be obvious what's going to happen...


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 11, 2018)

bimble said:


> I mostly see it as part of the list 'white het ..' etc used to mark your position on the old intersectional wheel of privilidge / oppression, so as to say that being cis is an advantage structurally in a similar way to being white or straight or a man.


Yeah, because it's a barrel of laughs to be told all of your life to be beautiful and behave in a quiet and demure way and still be raped if you're "unlucky" to be beautiful regardless of how demurely you're dressed and then probably be blamed for the rape anyway.


----------



## bimble (Jan 11, 2018)

Don’t be angry MochaSoul it’s unladylike.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 11, 2018)

bimble said:


> Don’t be angry MochaSoul it’s unladylike.


I'm mad as hell and I can't take this shit anymore!!!


----------



## smokedout (Jan 11, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> The problem is that the starting point is 'trans women are women no debate'. How on earth do we move forward from that point?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Can you link to these figures, because the proprotion is obviously quite significant.


----------



## bimble (Jan 11, 2018)

Its in the indie but its quite good, shows how impossible it is to actually get the facts as they are not available.
A recent study claimed that 41 per cent of transgender prisoners are sex offenders – this is why it's false

edit: To add, this is what the above article was arguing against.
Half of all transgender prisoners are sex offenders or dangerous...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2018)

not to mention If you really want women to be safe in prisons, it's not transgender prisoners you need to be wary of


----------



## smokedout (Jan 11, 2018)

bimble said:


> Its in the indie but its quite good, shows how impossible it is to actually get the facts as they are not available.
> A recent study claimed that 41 per cent of transgender prisoners are sex offenders – this is why it's false



No Miranda Yardley specifically said figures released by the government last year, not figures made up by the trans critical rad fem movement.  I can't find them though so a link would be useful.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> But as the figures released by the government last year show, a proportion of the 110-odd women reported for being in prison for sexual violence are 'trans women' with gender recognition certificates.


a proportion. what proportion, precisely?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 11, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Well, no it isn't really. If one accepts that a woman is an adult human female, and that 'trans women' are male, one follows the other. It's reasoning not appeal to authority.



Except within the scientific field, where you draw your authority from, the idea of what makes  someone male or female is contested: Sex redefined


----------



## smokedout (Jan 11, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> No. I asked where was the border between being "cis" and not and where do people who use the "cis" label put a woman who is aggressive (an attitude ttributed to masculinity) and likes pink (attributed to femininity).



It's very difficult not to gender someone when you meet them, based on physical characteristics but also dress, mannerisms, speech patterns etc.  Surely that's where the line is drawn, and it's something we do with every new social interaction.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 11, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Can you link to these figures, because the proprotion is obviously quite significant.



Key facts - Women in Prison

Prison population figures: 2017 - GOV.UK

We don't know how many transgender prisoners are incarcerated who have a GRC and are thus counted by their legal, as opposed to biological, sex.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> No. I asked where was the border between being "cis" and not and where do people who use the "cis" label put a woman who is aggressive (an attitude ttributed to masculinity) and likes pink (attributed to femininity).


if you work in an office you'll see a fair proportion of men (at any rate in london) wearing pink, pink ties, pink shirts... it is lazy and untrue to say that liking pink, let alone wearing pink, is exclusively attributed to femininity. in addition, what you discern as aggression in women may be but assertion.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Key facts - Women in Prison
> 
> Prison population figures: 2017 - GOV.UK
> 
> We don't know how many transgender prisoners are incarcerated who have a GRC and are thus counted by their legal, as opposed to biological, sex.


where does it say how many women are imprisoned for crimes involving sexual violence (the only mention of sex or sexual comes with 53% of women inmates having experienced emotional, sexual or physical abuse in childhood, in your key facts; the 29/12/17 excel spreadsheet is silent on the matter)? and .'. where's the evidence for your claim about a proportion of women prisoners inside for sexual violence derived from? it seems to me to be based on nothing more than your imagination. but i am sure that cannot be the case. you wouldn't _lie_ to us, now, would you?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 11, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Key facts - Women in Prison
> 
> Prison population figures: 2017 - GOV.UK
> 
> We don't know how many transgender prisoners are incarcerated who have a GRC and are thus counted by their legal, as opposed to biological, sex.



Neither of those links support the claim you made.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 11, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Except within the scientific field, where you draw your authority from, the idea of what makes  someone male or female is contested: Sex redefined



Bollocks is it. One oped piece does not scientific consensus make.

I can find geneticists who deny evolutionary biology. Climate change scientists who deny climate change. Then I can  say the science is contested. 

Don't start science denislism.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 11, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Except within the scientific field, where you draw your authority from, the idea of what makes  someone male or female is contested: Sex redefined



Yet every single person who has ever lived was made by an egg taken from a female human being who was fertilised by sperm from a male human being...

The nature op ed is interestng but misleading, possibly because it would have had editorial rather than peer review. Whatever, it's not very helpful to the transgender cause, and obscures that for DSDs the person can ultimately be shown to be either male or female. This is a good piece written by someone I know, who is a professional biologist, which is interesting for the way he attempts to work through sex determination by reference to half a dozen or so characteristics. Obviously it's an opinion piece, and I'm linking you to it because of that discussion in it:

Is Julia Serano right that transwomen are female? – Marcus – Medium

It does however remain that we as a species remain dimorphic, we don't appear to have a third sex. And on the basis that sex is based upon reproductive class, again that type of argument isn't going to help 'trans women' claim 'female'.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 11, 2018)

Shit man. I'd better tell my gynecologist to retrain.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Neither of those links support the claim you made.


yeh but answer came there none


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 11, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Bollocks is it. One oped piece does not scientific consensus make.
> 
> I can find geneticists who deny evolutionary biology. Climate change scientists who deny climate change. Then I can  say the science is contested.
> 
> Don't start science denislism.



Some of the DSDs identified in that piece are incredibly rare, and themselves hardly redefine sex (based of course on reproductive class):



> We report herein a remarkable family in which the mother of a woman with 46,XY complete gonadal dysgenesis was found to have a 46,XY karyotype in peripheral lymphocytes, mosaicism in cultured skin fibroblasts (80% 46,XY and 20% 45,X) and a predominantly 46,XY karyotype in the ovary (93% 46,XY and 6% 45,X).



Report of Fertility in a Woman with a Predominantly 46,XY Karyotype in a Family with Multiple Disorders of Sexual Development


----------



## smokedout (Jan 11, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Bollocks is it. One oped piece does not scientific consensus make.
> .



Which I why I used the word contested.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 11, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Neither of those links support the claim you made.



See this: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...fender-equalities-annual-report-2016-2017.pdf



> There were 125 prisoners currently living in, or presenting in, a gender different to their sex assigned at birth and who have had a local transgender case board.



(page 9)



> For the purposes of this report, transgender prisoners are defined as those individuals known within prison to be currently living in, or are presenting in, a gender different to their sex assigned at birth and who have had a case conference (as defined by PSI 17/2016 The Care and Management of Transgender Offenders16).
> 
> *The number of prisoners who have already transitioned and have a full Gender Recognition Certificate are thought to be excluded*. Statistics on the number of all applications to the Gender Recognition Panel are published in Tribunals and gender recognition statistics quarterly at www.gov.uk/government/collections/tribunals-statistics.
> 
> The figures give an estimate of the number of transgender prisoners and are likely to underestimate the true number. *There may be some transgender prisoners who have not declared that they are transgender or had a local transgender case board, and some who have a Gender Recognition Certificate*



(page 13)



> The gender is self-reported on reception to the prison and based on information recorded on central administrative databases. It is not possible to determine if this is the legal gender or whether the gender has changed.



(footnote 18, page 13)


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> See this: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...fender-equalities-annual-report-2016-2017.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> ...


just to clarify, are you saying you were wrong in your earlier claim about the prison stats and key facts?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> See this: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...fender-equalities-annual-report-2016-2017.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> ...


yeh. sexual violence. you're not mentioning it now. why not?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2018)

it's quieter than a library on the stats front


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 11, 2018)

This is absurd:



> So if the law requires that a person is male or female, should that sex be assigned by anatomy, hormones, cells or chromosomes, and what should be done if they clash? “My feeling is that since there is not one biological parameter that takes over every other parameter, at the end of the day, gender identity seems to be the most reasonable parameter,” says Vilain. In other words, if you want to know whether someone is male or female, it may be best just to ask.



Sex redefined


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 11, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> if you work in an office you'll see a fair proportion of men (at any rate in london) wearing pink, pink ties, pink shirts... it is lazy and untrue to say that liking pink, let alone wearing pink, is exclusively attributed to femininity. in addition, what you discern as aggression in women may be but assertion.



I wear pink a lot, frankly I look great in it.  This is not pertinent to the thread but I think it needed saying anyway.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 11, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> See this: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...fender-equalities-annual-report-2016-2017.pdf



No this doesn't support your claim either, it doesn't mention sexual offences.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2018)

smokedout said:


> No this doesn't support your claim either, it doesn't mention sexual offences.


Once, twice - will it be three times a failure?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 11, 2018)

smokedout said:


> No this doesn't support your claim either, it doesn't mention sexual offences.



The point is that we just don't know how many transgender prisoners are in the estate. There were 93 women in prison in 2015 for sexual offences, and this rose to 120 in 2016 (source http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04334/SN04334.pdf). Even if a small number of transgnder prisoners form part of this statistic, they distort the true numbers.

There is another issue in that it would appear that a large number of transgender prisoners are incarcerated in a facility for sex offenders. Whether these prisoners are sex offenders themselves, or are in there because (as has been suggested) that facility best serves their need for personal safety from other prisoners, is again not known.

Transgender prisoners have very different needs to other prisoners. Many are fearful, depressed or suffering other mental health disorders, or are isolated from family. Treating them as a homogeneous part of a homogeneous male or female population doesn't serve them well at all. As more people transition, ceterus paribus there will be more trans prisoners, and this problem will get worse (and, undoubtedly with all the funding cuts, so will our prisons).


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 11, 2018)

smokedout said:


> It's very difficult not to gender someone when you meet them, based on physical characteristics but also dress, mannerisms, speech patterns etc.  Surely that's where the line is drawn, and it's something we do with every new social interaction.



When I mentioned to you the day before yesterday how I was taught to sit was to make the point that dress, mannerisms, etc are taught and/or have reasons behind them some of them to do with one's sex. I find hard to believe my mannerisms and speech patterns come from an inner gender identity rather than the way I have been socialised. Of course, I come to choose some things, and some of those things I may even come to like like clothes or wearing make-up. But those things will be confined to the [artificially] ascribed feminine millieu. If I decide to go outside of that millieu I pay a price that can go from being looked at suspiciously all the way to being taught a "lesson" such as a "corrective rape" as has been the case with some lesbians. Moreover, even though keeping confined to the feminine millieu is not a guarantee of safety. Which means some of us grow in a semi-permanent conflict within ourselves and the unfairness of the society that thus treat us for a long time until we can come to terms with not being able to fight it (at least not by ourselves).


Pickman's model said:


> if you work in an office you'll see a fair proportion of men (at any rate in london) wearing pink, pink ties, pink shirts... it is lazy and untrue to say that liking pink, let alone wearing pink, is exclusively attributed to femininity.


Replace wearing pink with wearing a lot of make-up. The example is not the important thing. It's just an example.


Pickman's model said:


> in addition, what you discern as aggression in women may be but assertion.


I discern nothing. I'm simply giving examples of what has been thought to be attributed to masculinity/femininity. It's not as if assertion has not been deliberately classed as aggression by society when it needs to "put a woman in her place" so to speak.
You could choose to see them as an hyperbolic means to get a point across but nah.... You're obviously having fun. Ah well...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> When I mentioned to you the day before yesterday how I was taught to sit was to make the point that dress, mannerisms, etc are taught and/or have reasons behind them some of them to do with one's sex. I find hard to believe my mannerisms and speech patterns come from an inner gender identity rather than the way I have been socialised. Of course, I come to choose some things, and some of those things I may even come to like like clothes or wearing make-up. But those things will be confined to the [artificially] ascribed feminine millieu. If I decide to go outside of that millieu I pay a price that can go from being looked at suspiciously all the way to being taught a "lesson" such as a "corrective rape" as has been the case with some lesbians. Moreover, even though keeping confined to the feminine millieu is not a guarantee of safety. Which means some of us grow in a semi-permanent conflict within ourselves and the unfairness of the society that thus treat us for a long time until we can come to terms with not being able to fight it (at least not by ourselves).
> 
> Replace wearing pink with wearing a lot of make-up. The example is not the important thing. It's just an example.
> 
> ...


I am reminded of the posters in bookies' windows: when the fun stops, stop. I don't see your examples as hyperbolick, I think they were ill chosen.


----------



## Ralph Llama (Jan 11, 2018)

Someone asked me to call them `it` once FFS. I refused because I thought it was a little demeaning. It is amazing what an Oxford education combined with a Crimethink obsession can achieve; Facism(the attack) as was pointed out by the Peace News article I linked to many moons ago on this quite interesting thread.

I`m sticking with good old-fashioned Queer Theory


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 11, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> I am reminded of the posters in bookies' windows: when the fun stops, stop. I don't see your examples as hyperbolick, I think they were ill chosen.





Spoiler



http://i.onionstatic.com/avclub/5479/16/16x9/1200.jpg


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> http://i.onionstatic.com/avclub/5479/16/16x9/1200.jpg


Yeh. Bit of a fail there, you should have put the [img ] code round the url


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 11, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. Bit of a fail there, you should have put the [img ] code round the url


Ooops!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> To oppose sexual violence, one needs to be able to identify the agent. If the agent is misreported, for example as female when male, we are not identifying where the problem lies. For example, the imprisonment statistics for sexually violent women are often quoted by transactivists claiming 'woman can be violent too'. Yes, they can, sure. But as the figures released by the government last year show, a proportion of the 110-odd women reported for being in prison for sexual violence are 'trans women' with gender recognition certificates.
> 
> Note I am not saying 'trans women' are at higher risk of being sexually violent.





Miranda Yardley said:


> The point is that we just don't know how many transgender prisoners are in the estate. There were 93 women in prison in 2015 for sexual offences, and this rose to 120 in 2016 (source http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04334/SN04334.pdf). Even if a small number of transgnder prisoners form part of this statistic, they distort the true numbers.


oh dear oh dear. how yesterday's claim about women incarcerated for sexual violence becomes today's goalpost shifting sexual offences. 

not only that but i see you've retreated from the claim about the figures showing some of the women are trans women with grcs.

once, twice, three times a failure, miranda.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 11, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> The point is that we just don't know how many transgender prisoners are in the estate. There were 93 women in prison in 2015 for sexual offences, and this rose to 120 in 2016 (source http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04334/SN04334.pdf). Even if a small number of transgnder prisoners form part of this statistic, they distort the true numbers.



126 according to Table 5b, plus another 86 under 18s.  But you don't know if any of these are trans, whether they are trans women or trans men, or how trans people are recorded for the purpose of those statistics.  And given how low the figure is - and that according to the Women and the Criminal Justice System report in 2015, prisoner statistics are far from exact, use the measure of biological sex rather than gender, and in some cases neither is known - would a handful of trans women really make such a difference to the statistics?  Enough of a difference that it justifies treating trans people seperately?  Let's say five of them are trans, what does this actually tell us in any kind of meaningful way, what policy decisions would be made differently?


All government statistics are a bodge, the fact that it might skew crime statistics by a fraction of a percent, or even a couple of percent, has always struck me as a pretty desperate reason for denying trans people the right to be legally seen as their acquired gender.


And whilst you say trans prisoners have very specific needs, I'm willing to bet you've never been to prison.  What trans prisoners seem to want is to be treated according to their acquired gender.  Who are you to go round telling them what they really want and need?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 11, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> This is absurd:
> 
> 
> 
> Sex redefined



More absurd than defining someone's sex purely on their reproductive function which clearly doesn't work for everyone?  Strikes me as a clash of ideology rather than delusions versus hard science.  Which reminds me, would you respect an intersex person's gender if they lived in the gender role counter to their reproductive potential?

And do you condemn the transcrime website?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 12, 2018)

.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 12, 2018)

Absurd. Right.


----------



## Athos (Jan 12, 2018)

smokedout said:


> More absurd than defining someone's sex purely on their reproductive function which clearly doesn't work for everyone?  Strikes me as a clash of ideology rather than delusions versus hard science.  Which reminds me, would you respect an intersex person's gender if they lived in the gender role counter to their reproductive potential?
> 
> And do you condemn the transcrime website?



What is absurd about defining sex by reproductive system (regardless of whether or not it functions)?  That's the single most obvious material difference, the one that the vast majority of people subscribe to, and one which reflects arguably the most important basis for the subjugation of women.  It's fine to recognise that there can be other other arguments for alternative bases of gender, and recognise that the decision about which to adopt is ideological, but to claim that it's absurd to define sex by reproductive system is, itself, absurd.


----------



## bimble (Jan 12, 2018)

Timely:


(you have to click on it to read the thread, in which Lily Madigan is explaining to a female person who rejects self definition that they are not a woman, as far as Young Labour is concerned.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2018)

bimble said:


> Timely:
> 
> 
> (you have to click on it to read the thread, in which Lily Madigan is explaining to a female person who rejects self definition that they are not a woman, as far as Young Labour is concerned.


that's why you should post screen grabs


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 12, 2018)

bimble said:


> Timely:
> 
> 
> (you have to click on it to read the thread, in which Lily Madigan is explaining to a female person who rejects self definition that they are not a woman, as far as Young Labour is concerned.




OMG! We go from struggling to be treated as "humans" to having to fight for a place at the fucking table to continue the struggle by reasons of refusing the very thing that "keeps us in our place". I have no words.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 12, 2018)

Told ya.

Lily Madigan is a teflon coated piss taker. And a massively gynophobic.

Trolling the whole of the Labour Party, who are bending over backwards lest they by deemed less than woke.

It's masterful trolling. And shows labour to be totally sexist.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 12, 2018)

The screen grabs. The first one should come last. It's a response to Madigan.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 12, 2018)

Oh My God.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 12, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Told ya.
> 
> Lily Madigan is a teflon coated piss taker. And a massively gynophobic.
> 
> ...



I'm behind on the whole debate so I've always been skeptical of accusations of men's rights activism. It's hard to dismiss them now as merely hyperbolic.
P.S. Hate "woke" btw.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 12, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> I'm behind on the whole debate so I've always been skeptical of accusations of men's rights activism. It's hard to dismiss it now as hyperbolic.



No,  it isn't hyperbolic at all. The nasty side of the Men's Rights Movement (MRA's) say that we, by our very biology, opress those who are born male. It also asserts that we have a female essence that makes us act the way we do. The way to rectify this is to remove rights for women either by being "Egalitarian" (read, ignoring gender as a socialised imposition) and removing sex based shortlists, protections etc.

Current trans rhetoric seems to be that women who are "cis" opress those born male (trans women) by their biology. It also asserts we have some female essence which makes us act a certain way. The way to rectify this is to redefine woman to include males, thus eroding sex based protections, shortlists etc

Looks like the same shit. Smells like the same shit.

It doesn't have to be like this.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 12, 2018)

It does feel like feminism and what certainly used to be called “women’s studies” increasingly starts with and is focussed as a primary concern on transsexual views and issues.  At the best, it’s the tail wagging the dog.  At worst, such as in the example posted there, it’s a way of writing women out of their own equality activism.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 12, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> No,  it isn't hyperbolic at all. The nasty side of the Men's Rights Movement (MRA's) say that we, by our very biology, opress those who are born male. It also asserts that we have a female essence that makes us act the way we do. The way to rectify this is to remove rights for women either by being "Egalitarian" (read, ignoring gender as a socialised imposition) and removing sex based shortlists, protections etc.
> 
> Current trans rhetoric seems to be that women who are "cis" opress those born male (trans women) by their biology. It also asserts we have some female essence which makes us act a certain way. The way to rectify this is to redefine woman to include males, thus eroding sex based protections, shortlists etc
> 
> ...


And this stuff has side effects.  Creating ways of short-cutting equality legislation sets up perverse incentives.  My company is setting up a French entity, where they have gender quotas for the board (yes, I know, who cares about board members etc etc, but stay with it).  They want to use the UK board, give or take, but this is too male-heavy.  It seriously came up in conversation that for the purposes of French board meetings, they could have some board members self-define as women.  As a proposal, it was rejected quickly.  But the fact that it is even mentioned, and not as a joke, shows a worrying direction of travel.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 12, 2018)

It' hijacking a whole movement. It only benefits capitalists


----------



## Wilf (Jan 12, 2018)

If ever there was an appropriate point to trot out the line 'the is the (il)logical ends of identity politics', this is it.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 12, 2018)

kabbes said:


> And this stuff has side effects.  Creating ways of short-cutting equality legislation sets up perverse incentives.  My company is setting up a French entity, where they have gender quotas for the board (yes, I know, who cares about board members etc etc, but stay with it).  They want to use the UK board, give or take, but this is too male-heavy.  It seriously came up in conversation that for the purposes of French board meetings, they could have some board members self-define as women.  As a proposal, it was rejected quickly.  But the fact that it is even mentioned, and not as a joke, shows a worrying direction of travel.



Seriously? Fucking hell. I thought those jokes about the boardroom being full of white dudes but self-defining as women and black to get the quotas through were bad taste. 

That it actually is being taken seriously as a strategy? Fukin hell.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 12, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Seriously? Fucking hell. I thought those jokes about the boardroom being full of white dudes but self-defining as women and black to get the quotas through were bad taste.
> 
> That it actually is being taken seriously as a strategy? Fukin hell.


And why not?  You weigh up the strengths and weaknesses of all the options.  If you already have difficulty getting the right person for a role and something presents you with the opportunity to expand your list of potential options, it has to at least be considered.  My company is unusually good at least wanting to comply with things in good faith and show themselves as being aboveboard (in many ways, they are liberal in the soul), so this meant the option was quickly dismissed.  Other companies are rather more cynical and sneaky and I have no doubt they will test the idea more thoroughly.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 12, 2018)

kabbes You've proper shocked me.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 12, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> kabbes You've proper shocked me.


Today’s joke is tomorrow’s left field idea and next Tuesday’s everyday occurrence.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 12, 2018)

I guess we're fucked then girls. 

Back to the kitchen we go.


----------



## Athos (Jan 12, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I guess we're fucked then girls.
> 
> Back to the kitchen we go.



The perfect place to reflect on your cis privilege. 

#beyondirony


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 12, 2018)

Athos said:


> The perfect place to reflect on your cis privilege.
> 
> #beyondirony



It does feel rather like watching the worst of a 70s satirical film come to pass.


----------



## bimble (Jan 12, 2018)

kabbes said:


> And this stuff has side effects.  Creating ways of short-cutting equality legislation sets up perverse incentives.  My company is setting up a French entity, where they have gender quotas for the board (yes, I know, who cares about board members etc etc, but stay with it).  They want to use the UK board, give or take, but this is too male-heavy.  It seriously came up in conversation that for the purposes of French board meetings, *they could have some board members self-define as women*.  As a proposal, it was rejected quickly.  But the fact that it is even mentioned, and not as a joke, shows a worrying direction of travel.


No wait, please explain - you haven't done a typo, the idea mooted was seriously for some of the board members to just _pretend_ that they identify as women to satisfy the quota requirement ? Not even to dress as one / feel like they have the soul of one etc?


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 12, 2018)

I can't wait to hear from those who routinely accuse those questioning trans ideology of creating "moral panics"


----------



## kabbes (Jan 12, 2018)

bimble said:


> No wait, please explain - you haven't done a typo, the idea mooted was seriously for some of the board members to just _pretend_ that they identify as women to satisfy the quota requirement ? Not even to dress as one / feel like they have the soul of one etc?


I’m sure (at least I hope) that if the idea had been entertained for longer than a few seconds, research would have revealed that more was necessary.  But yes, the idea seriously mooted (by, it must be said, those with no in-depth knowledge of how the law works in practice) was that some of the board members could claim _on the day of the board meeting and only in the relevant country_ that they self-identify as a woman.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 12, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> I'm confused and I'm genuinely wondering if I've missed something here.  Miranda Yardley I believe you prefer gender neutral pronouns for  yourself- and you are opposed to using feminine pronouns for trans women (and presumably masculine pronouns for trans men). I think I've got all that right.
> 
> 
> Why don't you use gender neutral pronouns for other transsexual people? Or for that matter, why don't you prefer masculine pronouns for yourself?



Forgive me if you already responded to this and I have missed it Miranda Yardley ... It's something I have been wanting to ask you as well.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 12, 2018)

bimble said:


> No wait, please explain - you haven't done a typo, the idea mooted was seriously for some of the board members to just _pretend_ that they identify as women to satisfy the quota requirement ? Not even to dress as one / feel like they have the soul of one etc?



No one would need to dress up as a woman to identify as one under the new GRA. It follows from the same reasoning Pickman employed yesterday to object to my argument. Wearing pink dresses does not "feminine" make. Indeed wearing dresses or putting make-up on is neither here nor there really. Last time I wore make-up was two or three years ago and that was only for an afternoon photo session for a photographer's portfolio.

Correction: "new GRA" should read "proposed GRA"


----------



## bimble (Jan 12, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> No one would need to dress up as a woman to identify as one under the new GRA. It follows from the same reasoning Pickman employed yesterday to object to my argument. Wearing pink dresses does not "feminine" make. Indeed wearing dresses or putting make-up on is neither here nor there either. Last time I wore make-up was two or three years ago and that was only for an afternoon photo session for a photographer's portfolio.


Yes, but this is where it gets tricky (in my head anyway) - the current situation requires you to convince a panel and doctors that you are 'living as a woman', which basically does mean pink dresses.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 12, 2018)

bimble said:


> Yes, but this is where it gets tricky (in my head anyway) - the current situation requires you to convince a panel and doctors that you are 'living as a woman', which basically does mean pink dresses.


Yeah, I think under the current GRA they would have found that the idea was not workable in practice.  But under the proposed GRA, I’m not so sure.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 12, 2018)

bimble said:


> Yes, but this is where it gets tricky (in my head anyway) - the current situation requires you to convince a panel and doctors that you are 'living as a woman', which basically does mean pink dresses.



The main proposal of the new GRA is to do away with doctors. Self-identification.
Frankly, I'm not sure which is dodgier


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 12, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> I can't wait to hear from those who routinely accuse those questioning trans ideology of creating "moral panics"


Ok, I'll mount a partial defence of the Labour policy. It strikes me as a clumsy attempt at a form of trans inclusion that would not require the trans person to have completed all the requirements for legal gender reassignment to be considered for gender-specific roles. It doesn't work, for the reasons given in the tweets, but its intentions are not necessarily sinister, imo.  

Lily Madigan's interpretation of what it means is quite mad, but she is a 19-year-old student politician, irrc. Such people very often have badly thought out, very firmly held opinions, no? We've had many instances of confused student politics discussed on here, such as when Goldsmith's LGBT group sided with a bunch of vile misogynist men against Maryam Namazie: exclusion resulting from an ill-thought-out attempt at inclusion. Wasn't it ever thus?


----------



## bimble (Jan 12, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> The main proposal of the new GRA is to do away with doctors. Self-identification.
> *Frankly, I'm not sure which is dodgier*


Exactly. The current system which requires trans people to jump through hoops convincing various people that they are 'living as a woman' must heavily enforce the rules of what women are supposed to look and act like.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 12, 2018)

bimble said:


> Yes, but this is where it gets tricky (in my head anyway) - the current situation requires you to convince a panel and doctors that you are 'living as a woman', which basically does mean pink dresses.



It doesn't matter when, it seems, large political parties and companies  are already ignoring the current law as if the new law has already passed.

Under the proposed law (now it seems the law needs to catch up with people's denands.. Not sure that's how legislation should work) a panel of doctors would not be required or recognition as living as a woman (whatever the fuck that is).
*
The problem in and of itself is that people can only see "living as a woman" as either a pink box, female essences or both.

Not simply just going about yer business having female reproductive potential. *

Because people are sexist.

"Surely, when the curtain closes,  that can't be all there is to it right? There *must* be something more!"


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 12, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ok, I'll mount a partial defence of the Labour policy.



You would.



littlebabyjesus said:


> It doesn't work, for the reasons given in the tweets, but its intentions are not necessarily sinister, imo.



No. It became sinister when gender went from being regarded one of the most dangerous and effective tools of oppression to just being regarded as an identity


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 12, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> You would.


I'll duck back out now, then. This debate remains toxic.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> No one would need to dress up as a woman to identify as one under the new GRA. It follows from the same reasoning Pickman employed yesterday to object to my argument. Wearing pink dresses does not "feminine" make. Indeed wearing dresses or putting make-up on is neither here nor there really. Last time I wore make-up was two or three years ago and that was only for an afternoon photo session for a photographer's portfolio.


yeh. pls could you link to your source for the rationale behind the proposals, which as i understand it are not a new gra in that they haven't as yet passed through parliament.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 12, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. pls could you link to your source for the rationale behind the proposals, which as i understand it are not a new gra in that they haven't as yet passed through parliament.


Corrected. I wrote "new GRA" I'd meant "proposed GRA".


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 12, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'll duck back out now, then. This debate remains toxic.


What exactly do you expect after you decide to "defend" a policy that, in effect, would erase a younger me from a political party on the grounds of it being "ill-thought out"?


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 12, 2018)

kabbes said:


> And why not?  You weigh up the strengths and weaknesses of all the options.  If you already have difficulty getting the right person for a role and something presents you with the opportunity to expand your list of potential options, it has to at least be considered.  My company is unusually good at least wanting to comply with things in good faith and show themselves as being aboveboard (in many ways, they are liberal in the soul), so this meant the option was quickly dismissed.  Other companies are rather more cynical and sneaky and I have no doubt they will test the idea more thoroughly.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 12, 2018)

smokedout said:


> All government statistics are a bodge, the fact that it might skew crime statistics by a fraction of a percent, or even a couple of percent, has always struck me as a pretty desperate reason for denying trans people the right to be legally seen as their acquired gender.



I have never advocated for trans people as a group to be denied the ability to been 'seen as their acquired gender'. That said, I do not believe sexual offenders should be allowed to undertake this process. And you're missing the point: if you look at 2015 and 2016, male prisoners for sexual offences are 12,117 and 13,114 respectively, a vastly greater population. All other things remaining equal, some of these are likely on average to seek to change legal gender and this will have a material effect on the statistics. Look also at situations this has created, with double rapist Martin Ponting housed with female prisoners, who he then (SURPRISE) harassed. Rapists do bad shit and they shouldn't be in women's facilities, Ponting's needs were put before the safety of women.



smokedout said:


> And whilst you say trans prisoners have very specific needs, I'm willing to bet you've never been to prison.  What trans prisoners seem to want is to be treated according to their acquired gender.  Who are you to go round telling them what they really want and need?



Coming from someone who is apparently not even trans who is lecturing someone who has been out almost three decades, I find that rather rich.

Are trans people psychologically vulnerable or not? This is the claim made by activists all the time. We can also see live on social media the effect of mental health problems. Why are these not taken seriously? Why is our treatment protocol all about facilitating reassignment surgery than helping trans people deal with their co-morbid mental health issues? Why are trans people given such little support before and after surgery?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 12, 2018)

Athos said:


> What is absurd about defining sex by reproductive system (regardless of whether or not it functions)?  That's the single most obvious material difference, the one that the vast majority of people subscribe to, and one which reflects arguably the most important basis for the subjugation of women.  It's fine to recognise that there can be other other arguments for alternative bases of gender, and recognise that the decision about which to adopt is ideological, but to claim that it's absurd to define sex by reproductive system is, itself, absurd.



The whole point about the definition of sex is that it is based on reproductive class. If we change it to be defined by something else, then whatever it ends up defining isn't sex.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 12, 2018)

kabbes said:


> It does feel like feminism and what certainly used to be called “women’s studies” increasingly starts with and is focussed as a primary concern on transsexual views and issues.  At the best, it’s the tail wagging the dog.  At worst, such as in the example posted there, it’s a way of writing women out of their own equality activism.



What was 'women's studies' which was about women, has now been usurped by 'gender studies' which is decidedly penis-centric.


----------



## Athos (Jan 12, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> The whole point about the definition of sex is that it is based on reproductive class. If we change it to be defined by something else, then whatever it ends up defining isn't sex.



Indeed. The idea that it's absurd to define sex with reference to reproduction is ridiculous.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 12, 2018)

Wilf said:


> If ever there was an appropriate point to trot out the line 'the is the (il)logical ends of identity politics', this is it.



True dat.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 12, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Forgive me if you already responded to this and I have missed it Miranda Yardley ... It's something I have been wanting to ask you as well.



It's up there somewhere.

Edit: Transgender is it just me that is totally perplexed?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 12, 2018)

bimble said:


> Exactly. The current system which requires trans people to jump through hoops convincing various people that they are 'living as a woman' must heavily enforce the rules of what women are supposed to look and act like.



The height and difficulty of the jump are consistently overstated. Anyone who has gone through 2-3 visits to the GI Clinic would already have had these opinions on file by qualifying individuals. I don't think a two-year period of 'living as a...' is particularly onerous either. The panel is merely part of a process, they exist to adjudicate and all they do is review paperwork, one doesn't actually go up and 'plead for one's gender'!


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 12, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> The main proposal of the new GRA is to do away with doctors. Self-identification.
> Frankly, I'm not sure which is dodgier



Both are dodgy. I have never had a satisfactory reply to the question of 'what does it mean for a man to "live as a woman"?'


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I have never advocated for trans people as a group to be denied the ability to been 'seen as their acquired gender'. That said, I do not believe sexual offenders should be allowed to undertake this process. And you're missing the point: if you look at 2015 and 2016, male prisoners for sexual offences are 12,117 and 13,114 respectively, a vastly greater population. All other things remaining equal, some of these are likely on average to seek to change legal gender and this will have a material effect on the statistics. Look also at situations this has created, with double rapist Martin Ponting housed with female prisoners, who he then (SURPRISE) harassed. Rapists do bad shit and they shouldn't be in women's facilities, Ponting's needs were put before the safety of women.


i thought the point you were trying to make above was that there were some transpeople in women's prisons who held grcs.

but given your abject failure to prove the point over three attempts, it's no great surprise you're trying to put the ignoble episode behind you, now preferring to pursue comparisons of 'sexual offences' rather than your previously stated crimes of 'sexual violence'.

have you any evidence martin ponting/jessica winfield possesses a grc?


----------



## bimble (Jan 12, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Both are dodgy. I have never had a satisfactory reply to the question of 'what does it mean for a man to "live as a woman"?'


Did you go through the process of proving this about yourself and end up none the wiser? Its quite funny, in a bleak sort of way.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I have never advocated for trans people as a group to be denied the ability to been 'seen as their acquired gender'. That said, I do not believe sexual offenders should be allowed to undertake this process. And you're missing the point: if you look at 2015 and 2016, male prisoners for sexual offences are 12,117 and 13,114 respectively, a vastly greater population. All other things remaining equal, some of these are likely on average to seek to change legal gender and this will have a material effect on the statistics. Look also at situations this has created, with double rapist Martin Ponting housed with female prisoners, who he then (SURPRISE) harassed. Rapists do bad shit and they shouldn't be in women's facilities, Ponting's needs were put before the safety of women.


and another thing, the independent reported that winfield's segregation was not due to harassment or similar of other prisoners. is it your contention that the independent story is fake news?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 12, 2018)

bimble said:


> Did you go through the process of proving this about yourself and end up none the wiser? Its quite funny, in a bleak sort of way.



Yes, I did, in a funny, bleak kind of way. I kept to my preferred uniform of black jeans, band tshirt and some form of boots on my feet yet I got through the process fine. I saw an awful lot of what I would describe as 'parodies of womanhood' as well as, of course, the majority of people just trying to live their lives. It's the latter who are truly silenced in this debate.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 12, 2018)

On the issue of 'trans women are women' I've done two videos with my friend Rya Jones (who doesn't actually agree with me on this). The first one is here, with a short write-up:

‘Transwomen’ are not Women

The second one is here, and is a debate:



The point I make in the first video about culture is carried over to the second video: it is my belief that 'trans women' attain only a limited understanding of what it is to live 'as a woman' in a world of men: this is a 'thin cultural understanding' which it limited to more performative aspects, like identification with artefacts and performative femininity. The 'thick' understanding comes from the material consequences of living in a female sexed body in a world of men, and as I state int he second video, we can twist ideas of gender presentation, pass Gender Recognition Acts and legislate for trans equality all we like, but at the end of the day there's always one biological sex class left to pick up all the shit. And the 'thick' understanding of what it means to be a woman in this world is based upon the hard graft this entails.

The remaining key points in the debate are:

I reframe the debate over 'trans women are women' as being in reality all about 'what it is to be a man' because and then argue...
...transgender 'women' claiming women's culture and spaces for themselves pushes women out of the way, 'trans women' become colonists of women's lives, culture and spaces rather than immigrants (or, as I coined some years ago, 'refugees from masculinity').
Rya goes out of the way to avoid attaching any significance to biology to the definition of 'woman' reducing it instead to a social category, which I disagree with strongly.
My own view on pronouns and use of the term 'woman'.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 12, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> and another thing, the independent reported that winfield's segregation was not due to harassment or similar of other prisoners. is it your contention that the independent story is fake news?



Funny how The Mail and The Sun becomes such bastions of integrity and honest reporting when it serves some people's purpose.

I'd really urge people, whatever their position, to view any stories in the tabloid press about trans women with the same kind of scepticism you might if they were about benefit claimants.  It doesn't help the debate that lies in Murdoch's rags keep getting presented as credible on this thread.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> On the issue of 'trans women are women' I've done two videos with my friend Rya Jones (who doesn't actually agree with me on this). The first one is here, with a short write-up:
> 
> ‘Transwomen’ are not Women
> 
> ...


you seem to have forgotten how exercised you were about transpeople in women's prisons harassing the natal women inmates. perhaps you'd like to address that little issue of your lying before we move too far further on, being as until you do i don't see how any more unsourced claims you make can be believed.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 12, 2018)

Women's bike project, great!

 

Open to all who self-define as women, oh.


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 12, 2018)

That does seem an odd thing to add doesn't it?


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 12, 2018)

weepiper said:


> Women's bike project, great!
> 
> View attachment 125159
> 
> Open to all who self-define as women, oh.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 12, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> That does seem an odd thing to add doesn't it?


I wouldn't have a problem with it if it said 'trans women welcome' tbh. The way they're phrasing it is really off-putting.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 12, 2018)

weepiper said:


> I wouldn't have a problem with it if it said 'trans women welcome' tbh. The way they're phrasing it is really off-putting.



Don't go then.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 12, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Don't go then.



Excellent.  Cis women shouldn't go because people who "self-identify" as women are more important.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 12, 2018)

weepiper said:


> I wouldn't have a problem with it if it said 'trans women welcome' tbh. The way they're phrasing it is really off-putting.



Essentially it's saying 'women's bike ride: all welcome'.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 12, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Excellent.  Cis women shouldn't go because people who "self-identify" as women are more important.



'Cis woman' = 'adult human female who identifies with the cultural stereotypes our society dictates for women, and any material consequences thereof.'


----------



## weepiper (Jan 12, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Don't go then.


I won't, and neither will lots of other women (you know, the ones they're trying to attract) either, I expect.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 12, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Excellent.  Cis women shouldn't go because people who "self-identify" as women are more important.



How exactly does making it clear that trans women and non binary people are welcome imply that cis women are less important? The only people that wording excludes are (a) men and (b) bigots who are so offended by the existence of trans people that they’d rather exclude themselves than attend the same event as them.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 12, 2018)

What's a man tho?

No self-defining men want to answer this?


----------



## weepiper (Jan 12, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> (b) bigots who are so offended by the existence of trans people that they’d rather exclude themselves than attend the same event as them.


*waves* yes, that's it Nigel, that's why it makes me not want to go, because I'm a bigot, offended by someone else's very existence.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 12, 2018)

weepiper said:


> I wouldn't have a problem with it if it said 'trans women welcome' tbh. The way they're phrasing it is really off-putting.


This one maybe not but I wonder if the Young Labour requirement might not even be illegal. To require of women to self-identify as women to stand for any posts restricted to women. It's all going backwards


----------



## weepiper (Jan 12, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> What's a man tho?


I might go and tell them I self define as a man, shit them right up.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 12, 2018)

weepiper said:


> Women's bike project, great!
> 
> View attachment 125159
> 
> Open to all who self-define as women, oh.



Cool, might pop along, depending on how binary I'm feeling that day.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 12, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> How exactly does making it clear that trans women and non binary people are welcome imply that cis women are less important? The only people that wording excludes are (a) men and (b) bigots who are so offended by the existence of trans people that they’d rather exclude themselves than attend the same event as them.



I didn't see any mention of "Trans women" in the poster.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 12, 2018)

weepiper said:


> I won't, and neither will lots of other women (you know, the ones they're trying to attract) either, I expect.



And therein is the problem: you can bet the lefty men on this board won't support you, as a woman, being allowed to define your own spaces.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 12, 2018)

It doesn't even exclude men anyway, you just have to say you're non-binary, and you're in!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> This one maybe not but I wonder if the Young Labour requirement might not even be illegal. To require of women to self-identify as women to stand for any posts restricted to women. It's all going backwards


I imagine the conversation might go "so you want to join" "yes" "are you a woman?" "yes" "sorted"
Or maybe even just a tick box on the form


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 12, 2018)

weepiper said:


> *waves* yes, that's it Nigel, that's why it makes me not want to go, because I'm a bigot, offended by someone else's very existence.



It can be hard to come to terms with our own failings, but you do seem to be finally starting to grapple with some of your own.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 12, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> I imagine the conversation might go "so you want to join" "yes" "are you a woman?" "yes" "sorted"



I hope so. Because if the question is "Do you identify as a woman?" that's a lot of women out.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 12, 2018)

weepiper said:


> I might go and tell them I self define as a man, shit them right up.



I think it's clear from the sign that you wouldn't be allowed in.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 12, 2018)

weepiper said:


> *waves* yes, that's it Nigel, that's why it makes me not want to go, because I'm a bigot, offended by someone else's very existence.



Which is exactly this:


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> And therein is the problem: you can bet the lefty men on this board won't support you, as a woman, being allowed to define your own spaces.


Yeh. And I think I'd win a bet on whether your certainty was based solely on speculation


----------



## smokedout (Jan 12, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Excellent.  Cis women shouldn't go because people who "self-identify" as women are more important.



Isn't there a difference between self identifying as and self defining as?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 12, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I didn't see any mention of "Trans women" in the poster.



Even you were capable of understanding which groups of people the ad was including.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 12, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Even you were capable of understanding which groups of people the ad was including.



Even me?

No, it definitely said those who self-identify as women.

No mention of transpeople.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 12, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Isn't there a difference between self identifying as and self defining as?



I figured it was like self-certifying as having food poisoning.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 12, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Which is exactly this:



Has Nigel told someone they were born in the wrong body?


----------



## andysays (Jan 12, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> How exactly does making it clear that trans women and non binary people are welcome imply that cis women are less important? The only people that wording excludes are (a) men and (b) bigots who are so offended by the existence of trans people that they’d rather exclude themselves than attend the same event as them.


How does 'all who self define as women' include non-binary people? The latter term seems to me to mean people who don't define as either men or women, unless someone can explain why this wouldn't be the case


----------



## 8ball (Jan 12, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> And therein is the problem: you can bet the lefty men on this board won't support you, as a woman, being allowed to define your own spaces.



Awful lot of hatred in those pics badly dressed up as feminism.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2018)

8ball said:


> Awful lot of hatred in those pics badly dressed up as feminism.


I'd expect nothing less from Miranda


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 12, 2018)

8ball said:


> Awful lot of hatred in those pics badly dressed up as feminism.



Exactly what in there is hateful?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 12, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Even me?
> 
> No, it definitely said those who self-identify as women.
> 
> No mention of transpeople.



Yes, even you are capable of understanding from that language what groups of people the women who created this event are seeking to include. And you and certain others here are offended by their choice and by their implication that those who want to police the boundaries of gender are not themselves welcome.


----------



## bimble (Jan 12, 2018)

Oh good, Nigel is back. That's what this thread was missing.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 12, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Exactly what in there is hateful?



I'm not even going to pretend to buy the faux naif act any more.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 12, 2018)

andysays said:


> How does 'all who self define as women' include non-binary people? The latter term seems to me to mean people who don't define as either men or women, unless someone can explain why this wouldn't be the case



Why don’t you try reading the ad again? “All those who self-identify as women” doesn’t include non binary people. The organisers of this event listed non binary people as a separate category of people who are welcome.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 12, 2018)

8ball said:


> I'm not even going to pretend to buy the faux naif act any more.



You said it was hateful; what is hateful? Or can't you quite put your finger on it?


----------



## snadge (Jan 12, 2018)

What do people here think of Blaire White?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 12, 2018)

True story:

I self-identified that I had an ear infection yesterday so I went to the doctor who confirmed it by looking into my ear with an earoscope and seeing a HUGE build up of fluid. 

It was quite funny, he wrote me a prescription and then said while doing it "Take these antibiotics after two days if you don't feel better, I'll give you them cos I can tell you're not faking"

I must have looked at him funny because he followed it up with "you wouldn't believe the amount of people come to me faking ear infections."

I looked at him and said "why would anyone fake an ear infection when you can so easily check"? He shrugged his shoulders.

I didn't self define me ear infection. I identified it on the basis that I felt like I was swimming underwater, couldn't hear properly and had a massive pain in my ear. And then the doctor confirmed it by observing it.

Had I self defined my ear infection I'd be telling a different story..

There's an allegory in there somewhere.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2018)

snadge said:


> What do people here think of Blaire White?



The my of the trans world apparently, Milo yadayada


----------



## kabbes (Jan 12, 2018)

weepiper said:


> Women's bike project, great!
> 
> View attachment 125159
> 
> Open to all who self-define as women, oh.


It’s a great example of what I meant when I said that the tail is wagging the dog, where trans issues are being considered first or as a primary focus in relation to things where they more properly belong as an adjunct.  If you want to put on a woman’s ride, your attention should be on the issues women might face on that ride and your poster should be about how to encourage women to come along.

You can of course work out your trans policy separately so that it is available to be applied as required and you can answer any questions people might have about it, but this is a niche issue that really doesn’t need to go into the headline information.  Anything you put on the poster, you are basically saying is the most important information for people to know, and it sets the whole tone and message of the event.  Bringing it front and centre like this is making yet another event that is supposed to be about women’s issues into an event about trans issues.


----------



## bimble (Jan 12, 2018)

snadge I've watched a couple of their videos (Blaire White's ), liked her for the not giving a shit about being liked, but still it came across as a totally individualist perspective, though more self-aware than many.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 12, 2018)

kabbes said:


> IAnything you put on the poster, you are basically saying is the most important information for people to know, and it sets the whole tone and message of the event.  Bringing it front and centre like this is making yet another even that is supposed to be about women’s issues into an event about trans issues.



Might not have been as calculated as that - might just have been the case that one of the people involved in the event is trans and wanted it clear on the poster that trans people are welcome.  People organising bike rides often don't have media and branding consultants on staff.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 12, 2018)

Blaire white? Mainly wrong, occasionally right but fir the wrong reasons.


----------



## Sue (Jan 12, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It can be hard to come to terms with our own failings, but you do seem to be finally starting to grapple with some of your own.


Oh fuck off Nigel.


----------



## bimble (Jan 12, 2018)

Crap i've just looked again, and Blaire White's more recent stuff is all about the 'cultural marxists' and being unapologeticaly white.


----------



## crossthebreeze (Jan 12, 2018)

bimble said:


> Exactly. The current system which requires trans people to jump through hoops convincing various people that they are 'living as a woman' must heavily enforce the rules of what women are supposed to look and act like.


I've got two trans women friends who I've talked about this with, and they have very different experiences of the hoops.

One friend was told she had to do the whole dresses, heels, and make up thing - which really is not her style - before she had any access to surgical treatment to ease the overwhelming sex dysphoria she experienced or was able to get a GRC, and says that she got zero psychological/psychiatric support for anything she might have needed help with, and found the whole process very distressing.

Another friend said she found the doctors really helpful in challenging what were then her rigid ideas about gender (she says at that point she was almost living two separate lives) and letting her explore her identity and different ways of being, and credits the therapy she had at that point with her being able to live a full and happy life - and she worries that if doctors aren't part of the official process then the NHS will stop providing this therapy to trans people (and people who don't define at trans but have similar issues) who need it.

Obviously that's just conversations I've had and its as much "100s of pms of support" as anything, and other people might have different experiences again (I see MY has written about theirs).  Personally, I have a massive distrust of psychiatry  (its history of sexism and homophobia, the way it pathologises trauma, the horrendous side effects of some drugs, etc), and I can see that the current process is shit for non-binary people especially.  But at the same time, I think that self-definition goes too much the other way - I think the key thing is there has to be some sort of social process and any legal definitions or official process also need to have some kind of basis in the social (and also needs to weed out sex offenders and the like).


----------



## 8ball (Jan 12, 2018)

bimble said:


> Crap i've just looked again, and Blaire White's more recent stuff is all about the 'cultural marxists' and being unapologeticaly white.



I'm not sure how to be apologetically white so I'm probably doing a bit of that,


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 12, 2018)

kabbes said:


> It’s a great example of what I meant when I said that the tail is wagging the dog, where trans issues are being considered first or as a primary focus in relation to things where they more properly belong as an adjunct.  If you want to put on a woman’s ride, your attention should be on the issues women might face on that right and your poster should be about how to encourage women to come along.
> 
> You can of course work out your trans policy separately so that it is available to be applied as required and you can answer any questions people might have about it, but this is a niche issue that really doesn’t need to go into the headline information.  Anything you put on the poster, you are basically saying is the most important information for people to know, and it sets the whole tone and message of the event.  Bringing it front and centre like this is making yet another even that is supposed to be about women’s issues into an event about trans issues.



There’s a generational war going on in British feminism. If an event is organised for women on a feminist political basis and is likely to draw a reasonable turnout, the issue of who is or is not included as a woman can’t really be sidestepped. Increasingly younger feminists tend to make it clear from the start that their events are organised on their terms, which means trans inclusive. That way there are unlikely to be ugly scenes where some anti-trans obsessive turns up and starts shouting at any trans participants and if such a thing does happen everyone knows from the start who is getting thrown out and who isn’t. They know that their rules will offend a number of older anti-trans people and discourage from showing up at all and for the most part they regard that as a bonus.


----------



## snadge (Jan 12, 2018)

bimble said:


> Crap i've just looked again, and Blaire White's more recent stuff is all about the 'cultural marxists' and being unapologeticaly white.




She's a troll and a very good one, get's a fantastic wage for being one etc.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 12, 2018)

8ball said:


> Might not have been as calculated as that - might just have been the case that one of the people involved in the event is trans and wanted it clear on the poster that trans people are welcome.  People organising bike rides often don't have media and branding consultants on staff.


Don’t look now, but that’s exactly what I’m talking about.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 12, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> There’s a generational war going on in British feminism. If an event is organised for women on a feminist political basis and is likely to draw a reasonable turnout, the issue of who is or is not included as a woman can’t really be sidestepped. Increasingly younger feminists tend to make it clear from the start that their events are organised on their terms, which means trans inclusive. That way there are unlikely to be ugly scenes where some anti-trans obsessive turns up and starts shouting at any trans participants and if such a thing does happen everyone knows from the start who is getting thrown out and who isn’t. They know that their rules will offend a number of older anti-trans people and discourage from showing up at all and for the most part they regard that as a bonus.



It's like when you have two mates who really can't stand each other.  Only option is to meet up with them separately.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 12, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> There’s a generational war going on in British feminism. If an event is organised for women on a feminist political basis and is likely to draw a reasonable turnout, the issue of who is or is not included as a woman can’t really be sidestepped. Increasingly younger feminists tend to make it clear from the start that their events are organised on their terms, which means trans inclusive. That way there are unlikely to be ugly scenes where some anti-trans obsessive turns up and starts shouting at any trans participants and if such a thing does happen everyone knows from the start who is getting thrown out and who isn’t. They know that their rules will offend a number of older anti-trans people and discourage from showing up at all and for the most part they regard that as a bonus.


This is also exactly what I am talking about.  At what point did it just become all about trans, ffs.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 12, 2018)

crossthebreeze said:


> I've got two trans women who I've talked about this with, and they have very different experiences of the hoops.
> 
> One friend was told she had to do the whole dresses, heels, and make up thing - which really is not her style - before she had any access to surgical treatment to ease the overwhelming sex dysphoria she experienced or was able to get a GRC, and says that she got zero psychological/psychiatric support for anything she might have needed help with, and found the whole process very distressing.
> 
> ...


I share your distrust of psychiatry, for the reasons you give and others, but this is something I agree with Miranda Yardley about: the disputed Swedish study that was quoted earlier in the thread had as its aim the desire to put numbers on the way that ongoing post-transition care brings benefits, and those numbers do appear to be impressive. I agree that this is a legitimate concern.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 12, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Don’t look now, but that’s exactly what I’m talking about.



Ok, I took you as meaning there was a trans agenda foremost "the tail wagging the dog" whereas it could have been just a feminist event, feminist issues etc. with no heavy trans thing going on, but due to having a trans person in the group they didn't want it turning into a terfy shouting match.


----------



## bimble (Jan 12, 2018)

Nigel Irritable If this is generational, as you say, then what is the thing that has changed - what is the defining feature of this new generation of trans-inclusive feminists as you see it that sets them at odds with the feminists who came before and who are now obsolete?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 12, 2018)

kabbes said:


> This is also exactly what I am talking about.  At what point did it just become all about trans, ffs.



My initial instinct is that it's just timing.  The struggle for women's equality is in the middle of it's curve just as you have some increased tolerance for trans people meaning more are becoming visible and vocal.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 12, 2018)

crossthebreeze said:


> One friend was told she had to do the whole dresses, heels, and make up thing - which really is not her style - before she had any access to surgical treatment to ease the overwhelming sex dysphoria she experienced or was able to get a GRC, and says that she got zero psychological/psychiatric support for anything she might have needed help with, and found the whole process very distressing.



I think anyone who is advising people to do that should be fired. I am totally with your friend as well on the appalling lack of theraputic support before and after surgery.



crossthebreeze said:


> Another friend said she found the doctors really helpful in challenging what were then her rigid ideas about gender (she says at that point she was almost living two separate lives) and letting her explore her identity and different ways of being, and credits the therapy she had at that point with her being able to live a full and happy life - and she worries that if doctors aren't part of the official process then the NHS will stop providing this therapy to trans people (and people who don't define at trans but have similar issues) who need it.



Is the difference mainly one friend had therapy and one didn't? I had therapy for years, pre- and post-, it was a huge benefit. I think talking the process out of mental health is likely to make it a Cinderella condition and governments will lose enthusiasm for funding treatment.



crossthebreeze said:


> Obviously that's just conversations I've had and its as much "100s of pms of support" as anything, and other people might have different experiences again (I see MY has written about theirs).  Personally, I have a massive distrust of psychiatry  (its history of sexism and homophobia, the way it pathologises trauma, the horrendous side effects of some drugs, etc), and I can see that the current process is shit for non-binary people especially.  But at the same time, I think that self-definition goes too much the other way - I think the key thing is there has to be some sort of social process and any legal definitions or official process also need to have some kind of basis in the social (and also needs to weed out sex offenders and the like).



Another point about self-definition is people are able to flat out not believe us. And I don't think sex offenders should be allowed to change their legal gender.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 12, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> There’s a generational war going on in British feminism. If an event is organised for women on a feminist political basis and is likely to draw a reasonable turnout, the issue of who is or is not included as a woman can’t really be sidestepped. Increasingly younger feminists tend to make it clear from the start that their events are organised on their terms, which means trans inclusive. That way there are unlikely to be ugly scenes where some anti-trans obsessive turns up and starts shouting at any trans participants and if such a thing does happen everyone knows from the start who is getting thrown out and who isn’t. They know that their rules will offend a number of older anti-trans people and discourage from showing up at all and for the most part they regard that as a bonus.



In fairness this attitude reflects more the lack of life experience of living as a woman in a world of men (especially apropos childbirth, sexual harassment and assault, and the 'double shift' of working and raising a family, and that young women are being brainwashed into accepting males as being females. The letter extends to dating, and is attacking lesbian culture.

I'd also add that the attitude is more 'pro-woman' than 'anti-trans' and this is being spun into a dichotomy of 'pro-woman is anti-trans' by trans activists in order to gain ground. This dichotomy doesn't have to be there.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 12, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Nigel Irritable If this is generational, as you say, then what is the thing that has changed - what is the defining feature of this new generation of trans-inclusive feminists as you see it that sets them at odds with the feminists who came before and who are now obsolete?



I'd say that it's growing up in a neo-liberal world. They have no class consciousness and this rubs the wrong way with a generation of radicals who remember how to do class. The only reference point the younger generation have is how to do "me". 

Also a lifetime of sexism vs less than a decade. As you hit yer thirties shit really starts to grate on you. 

It was coming to these forums that saved me early on from the same path. Some of my very early posts on here are a bit


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 12, 2018)

kabbes said:


> This is also exactly what I am talking about.  At what point did it just become all about trans, ffs.



It isn’t “all about trans”, but making an event’s stance on trans issues clear from the start is a good way to head off the possibility that the event becomes yet another flashpoint squabble endlessly discussed on social media and turned into a shock of the day by the TERFs allies in the right wing press. As trans inclusivity slowly becomes a settled issue in the British feminist movement (as it already is in the rest of the anglophone West), the need to tell “gender critical” types from the start that anti-trans outbursts aren’t welcome will start to fade.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 12, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> the disputed Swedish study that was quoted earlier in the thread had as its aim the desire to put numbers on the way that ongoing post-transition care brings benefits, and those numbers do appear to be impressive. I agree that this is a legitimate concern.



In discussions about this study, this incredibly important point is almost always completely overlooked. In fact, I have not ever seen anyone else bring it up.


----------



## bimble (Jan 12, 2018)

kabbes said:


> This is also exactly what I am talking about.  At what point did it just become all about trans, ffs.


I think this is where it connects to the wider picture of everything becoming more individualist and consumerist and all about the Self as the center of everything, not shared experience / structural analysis of what's wrong just a question of what do_ I _want, who am I and how do I get to feel good.
eta:what FabricLiveBaby! said.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 12, 2018)

bimble said:


> Nigel Irritable If this is generational, as you say, then what is the thing that has changed - what is the defining feature of this new generation of trans-inclusive feminists as you see it that sets them at odds with the feminists who came before and who are now obsolete?


None of them have had kids yet.


----------



## Athos (Jan 12, 2018)

bimble said:


> Nigel Irritable If this is generational, as you say, then what is the thing that has changed - what is the defining feature of this new generation of trans-inclusive feminists as you see it that sets them at odds with the feminists who came before and who are now obsolete?



They've grown up knowing nothing but liberalism, and think identity politics is radicalism.


----------



## bimble (Jan 12, 2018)

weepiper said:


> None of them have had kids yet.


I haven't had kids, and i'm still the wrong kind of feminist.  Wednesday night though I had the classic 'Hi babe how you doin' when I was walking home really late in the dark, and for sure years and years of accumulated irritation at having to deal with and appease that stuff definitely informs my attitude to this whole issue.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 12, 2018)

Athos said:


> They've grown up knowing nothing but liberalism, and think identity politics is radicalism.



Really it's neoliberalism: totally centred on the individual, materialist (as in they want $tuff).


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 12, 2018)

I’m very impressed by those “pro woman” arguments that younger feminists are “brainwashed”, “neoliberal” and “all about me” because they don’t agree with your anti-trans politics.


----------



## bimble (Jan 12, 2018)

That's why I was asking Nigel Irritable who thinks 'trans women are women' is the apogee of radical left thinking and everyone standing in the way is 'a minor adjunct to the regressive right' or something. What do you think Nigel, what has changed leaving 'terfs' behind?


----------



## snadge (Jan 12, 2018)

bimble said:


> Crap i've just looked again, and Blaire White's more recent stuff is all about the 'cultural marxists' and being unapologeticaly white.



This is the video that got me interested in Blaire, ripping shreds out of broken brained Onision.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 12, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> There’s a generational war going on in British feminism. If an event is organised for women on a feminist political basis and is likely to draw a reasonable turnout, the issue of who is or is not included as a woman can’t really be sidestepped. Increasingly younger feminists tend to make it clear from the start that their events are organised on their terms, which means trans inclusive. That way there are unlikely to be ugly scenes where some anti-trans obsessive turns up and starts shouting at any trans participants and if such a thing does happen everyone knows from the start who is getting thrown out and who isn’t. They know that their rules will offend a number of older anti-trans people and discourage from showing up at all and for the most part they regard that as a bonus.


How fucking DARE you tell women what to do and how to behave. I don't even care what we're arguing about. But how FUCKING DARE YOU.

Just fuck off. I am sick to the back teeth of the MEN on here telling women what they should do and how they should feel, how they should behave and what happens in meetings, given they're not even in the fucking room. 

Christ.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 12, 2018)

bimble said:


> That's why I was asking Nigel Irritable who thinks 'trans women are women' is the apogee of radical left thinking and everyone standing in the way is 'a minor adjunct to the regressive right' or something. What do you think Nigel, what has changed leaving 'terfs' behind?



I'm still baffled how anyone who understands left wing politics at all could believe that an inner sense of personal identity is more important than a physical reality, the position is that far removed from leftist thought.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 12, 2018)

snadge said:


> This is the video that got me interested in Blaire, ripping shreds out of broken brained Onision.




Now there really is one hell of a creepy fucker.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 12, 2018)

8ball said:


> Ok, I took you as meaning there was a trans agenda foremost "the tail wagging the dog" whereas it could have been just a feminist event, feminist issues etc. with no heavy trans thing going on, but due to having a trans person in the group they didn't want it turning into a terfy shouting match.


No, I mean what I say — I mean that the people running an event about women’s issues just took it for granted — for whatever reason — that one of the few very most important things to talk about in relation to that event was not its purpose or message or its approach to childcare or safety or any number of 100 things relevant to women as a whole but rather the identity profile of the trans people that will be included.

The fact that it might not be a calculated move but just assumed as key on the part of the organisers just exacerbates the point that it is the tiny trans tail wagging the massive feminist dog.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 12, 2018)

trashpony said:


> How fucking DARE you tell women what to do and how to behave. I don't even care what we're arguing about. But how FUCKING DARE YOU.
> 
> Just fuck off. I am sick to the back teeth of the MEN on here telling women what they should do and how they should feel, how they should behave and what happens in meetings, given they're not even in the fucking room.
> 
> Christ.


 *applause*


----------



## snadge (Jan 12, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Now there really is one hell of a creepy fucker.



He's far creepier in his real life than his internet acting, he's someone that is going to get locked up.


----------



## bimble (Jan 12, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I'm still baffled how anyone who understands left wing politics at all could believe that an inner sense of personal identity is more important than a physical reality, the position is that far removed from leftist thought.


Me too I don't understand this. How did accepting a reified idea of a gendered  soul-type-thing become central to 'left' thinking Nigel Irritable ?


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 12, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> that younger feminists are “brainwashed”, “neoliberal” and “all about me” because they don’t agree with your anti-trans politics.



Add to that "monumentally lacking in ambition". There used to be a time when gender was defined as a set of power structures used to subdue women and feminism was meant to destroy those forces. Now gender seems to have been relegated to mere identity. Some of us refuse to identify with that which is used to shackle us. Some of us still hold to higher dreams.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 12, 2018)

bimble said:


> Nigel Irritable If this is generational, as you say, then what is the thing that has changed - what is the defining feature of this new generation of trans-inclusive feminists as you see it that sets them at odds with the feminists who came before and who are now obsolete?



The phenomenon that requires special explanation is not that younger British feminists are broadly in step with the feminist movement internationally but that an unusually strong cohort of older feminists in Britain are so wildly out of step with it. I’ve tried to give an explanation for that oddity repeatedly in this thread: a combination of the survival of various 80s subcultural scenes linked to an unusually strong radfem movement then with the work done by the Blairites at the New Statesman to make anti-trans sentiments respectable to non social conservatives. 

The idea that the conflict is actually caused by some failing of youth is no doubt very attractive to older TERFs who can sense themselves being marginalized, but that self serving explanation can’t account for the relative weakness of generational conflict over this issue elsewhere.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 12, 2018)

Word salad.


----------



## bimble (Jan 12, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The phenomenon that requires special explanation is not that younger British feminists are broadly in step with the feminist movement internationally but that an unusually strong cohort of older feminists in Britain are so wildly out of step with it. I’ve tried to give an explanation for that oddity repeatedly in this thread: a combination of the survival of various 80s subcultural scenes linked to an unusually strong radfem movement then with the work done by the Blairites at the New Statesman to make anti-trans sentiments respectable to non social conservatives.
> 
> The idea that the conflict is actually caused by some failing of youth is no doubt very attractive to older TERFs who can sense themselves being marginalized, but that self serving explanation can’t account for the relative weakness of generational conflict over this issue elsewhere.



2/10. You are totally avoiding the question and hiding in your politico pidgeonholes. I think you don't even understand the question.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 12, 2018)

snadge said:


> He's far creepier in his real life than his internet acting, he's someone that is going to get locked up.



Yes, I can see that happening.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 12, 2018)

kabbes said:


> No, I mean what I say — I mean that the people running an event about women’s issues just took it for granted — for whatever reason — that one of the few very most important things to talk about in relation to that event was not its purpose or message or its approach to childcare or safety or any number of 100 things relevant to women as a whole but rather the identity profile of the trans people that will be included.
> 
> The fact that it might not be a calculated move but just assumed as key on the part of the organisers just exacerbates the point that it is the tiny trans tail wagging the massive feminist dog.



Like I said, maybe they had a trans person among them and didn’t want a screaming match.  Their choices being to either cancel the event, ostracise a friend in advance, or ostracise a friend via said screaming match. 

Refer back to what I said about what you do when you have two mates who can’t get on.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 12, 2018)

trashpony said:


> How fucking DARE you tell women what to do and how to behave. I don't even care what we're arguing about. But how FUCKING DARE YOU.
> 
> Just fuck off. I am sick to the back teeth of the MEN on here telling women what they should do and how they should feel, how they should behave and what happens in meetings, given they're not even in the fucking room.
> 
> Christ.



If you are going to indulge in this kind of entertainingly stupid posturing, you will probably find it more effective to deploy your strategic outrage in response to a post that actually does tell anyone what they should do or feel or how to behave.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 12, 2018)

Who gives a fuck what nigel thinks.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 12, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The phenomenon that requires special explanation is not that younger British feminists are broadly in step with the feminist movement internationally but that an unusually strong cohort of older feminists in Britain are so wildly out of step with it. I’ve tried to give an explanation for that oddity repeatedly in this thread: a combination of the survival of various 80s subcultural scenes linked to an unusually strong radfem movement then with the work done by the Blairites at the New Statesman to make anti-trans sentiments respectable to non social conservatives.
> 
> The idea that the conflict is actually caused by some failing of youth is no doubt very attractive to older TERFs who can sense themselves being marginalized, but that self serving explanation can’t account for the relative weakness of generational conflict over this issue elsewhere.



Most of the women who object to transgender identity politics and the colonisation of women's lives and spaces are not radical feminists.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 12, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The phenomenon that requires special explanation is not that younger British feminists are broadly in step with the feminist movement internationally but that an unusually strong cohort of older feminists in Britain are so wildly out of step with it. I’ve tried to give an explanation for that oddity repeatedly in this thread: a combination of the survival of various 80s subcultural scenes linked to an unusually strong radfem movement then with the work done by the Blairites at the New Statesman to make anti-trans sentiments respectable to non social conservatives.
> 
> The idea that the conflict is actually caused by some failing of youth is no doubt very attractive to older TERFs who can sense themselves being marginalized, but that self serving explanation can’t account for the relative weakness of generational conflict over this issue elsewhere.


Wow that really is mansplaining writ large. And yet, here you are, banging on and on. Bros before hos


----------



## spanglechick (Jan 12, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> If you are going to indulge in this kind of entertainingly stupid posturing, you will probably find it more effective to deploy your strategic outrage in response to a post that actually does tell anyone what they should do or feel or how to behave.


Oh shut up you patronising wanker.  I'm on the inclusionary side of this debate, and the overwhelming majority of your posts make me face palm.


----------



## bimble (Jan 12, 2018)

Red Cat said:


> Who gives a fuck what nigel thinks.


me. Because I see him as a symptom of what's going on. He talks like he's a mouthpiece for 'The Left' and I want him to spell it out, what memo have the silly old 'terf' feminists not seen.


----------



## snadge (Jan 12, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> If you are going to indulge in this kind of entertainingly stupid posturing, you will probably find it more effective to deploy your strategic outrage in response to a post that actually does tell anyone what they should do or feel or how to behave.




Lol, you're a bigger cunt than I am.


----------



## snadge (Jan 12, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Wow that really is mansplaining writ large. And yet, here you are, banging on and on. Bros before hos



That's not mansplaining, that's just fascistsplaining.


----------



## bimble (Jan 12, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Add to that "immensely lacking in ambition". There used to be a time when gender was defined as a set of power structures used to subdue women and feminism was meant to destroy those forces. Now gender seems to have been relegated to mere identity. Some of us refuse to identify with that which is used to shackle us. Some of us still hold to higher dreams.


Nail, meet head. How on earth is it progressive to turn the former definition of gender here into the purely personal and a bit esoteric currently fashionable one?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 12, 2018)

bimble said:


> Nail, meet head. How on earth is it progressive to turn the former definition of gender here into the purely personal and a bit esoteric currently fashionable one?



Gender is seen not an oppressive power structure, but as a civil liberty.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 12, 2018)

8ball said:


> Like I said, maybe they had a trans person among them and didn’t want a screaming match.  Their choices being to either cancel the event, ostracise a friend in advance, or ostracise a friend via said screaming match.
> 
> Refer back to what I said about what you do when you have two mates who can’t get on.


You think it’s all ok then?  Justified?  Nothing to worry about?

You don’t think it’s the tail wagging the dog, what, because you’ve made up a story as to what might have happened to get the poster to this point?  Even if your story is true, that somehow makes it non-tail?

Bizarre.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 12, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Most of the women who object to transgender identity politics and the colonisation of women's lives and spaces are not radical feminists.



Yes that’s entirely true. The overwhelming majority of transphobic women are social conservatives, just as a large majority of transphobic men are. Those whose transphobia is rooted in some variant of a Radical Feminist analysis of gender are a noisy but small fringe. There’s also a further subset almost unique to Britain of transphobes who deploy a radfem gender analysis on trans issues and sometimes certain other gender related issues but otherwise are not political radicals of any sort (ie the New Statesman types).


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 12, 2018)

bimble said:


> Nail, meet head. How on earth is it progressive to turn the former definition of gender here into the purely personal and a bit esoteric current one.



It's just not progressive at all.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 12, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> Oh shut up you patronising wanker.  I'm on the inclusionary side of this debate, and the overwhelming majority of your posts make me face palm.


And yet Nigel is at the forefront of leftist activism, relishing the joy in telling women what to think. 

The enthusiasm of a lot of lefty dudes for trans rights has fuck all to do with trans and an awful lot to do with misogyny. As this thread demonstrates.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 12, 2018)

kabbes said:


> You think it’s all ok then?  Justified?  Nothing to worry about?
> 
> You don’t think it’s the tail wagging the dog, what, because you’ve made up a story as to what might have happened to get the poster to this point?  Even if your story is true, that somehow makes it non-tail?
> 
> Bizarre.



I was just saying you don't know the full story behind that poster, like I don't.
But hey, whatever suits your agenda...


----------



## planetgeli (Jan 12, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> noisy but small



...


----------



## bimble (Jan 12, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Gender is seen not as an oppressive power structure, but as a civil liberty.


And that is the fucked up kernel at the heart of this, in my opinion.
Have you got any idea of a way forward please?
Trans people aren't going away, and I can totally see the positive potential in messing with gender, skewing it, wearing the 'wrong' clothes etc (I've just bought a pinstripe mens suit but am not in any way trans) so what is the way to make this a good moment for women and everyone not a shit get back in your box one?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 12, 2018)

snadge said:


> That's not mansplaining, that's just fascistsplaining.



This thread is getting too confusing for me now.  Have fun guys - pub is calling..


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 12, 2018)

kabbes said:


> You think it’s all ok then?  Justified?  Nothing to worry about?.



Nobody with the slightest sense of proportion thinks that some feminists organizing a bike ride and saying in their promotional material that their bike ride is trans inclusive is something to worry about. You’d have to be an anti-trans obsessive to get worried about it.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 12, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> Oh shut up you patronising wanker.  I'm on the inclusionary side of this debate, and the overwhelming majority of your posts make me face palm.



To be fair, I'm struggling to think of any response to that particular tantrum that would have been productive.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 12, 2018)

8ball said:


> I was just saying you don't know the full story behind that poster, like I don't.
> But hey, whatever suits your agenda...


I don’t need to in order to observe the result.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 12, 2018)

Has anyone noticed how few women are on this thread? Why would that be?


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 12, 2018)

bimble said:


> And that is the fucked up kernel at the heart of this, in my opinion.
> Have you got any idea of a way forward please?
> Trans people aren't going away, and I can totally see the positive potential in messing with gender, skewing it, wearing the 'wrong' clothes etc (I've just bought a pinstripe mens suit but am not in any way trans) so what is the way to make this a good moment for women and everyone not a shit get back in your box one?



Join a campaign. Talk to your friends, that kind of thing. That's the way forward


----------



## 8ball (Jan 12, 2018)

kabbes said:


> I don’t need to in order to observe the result.



Yeah, shouting match either way.
Best to just leave it alone, I think.


----------



## snadge (Jan 12, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Yes that’s entirely true. The overwhelming majority of transphobic women are social conservatives, just as a large majority of transphobic men are. Those whose transphobia is rooted in some variant of a Radical Feminist analysis of gender are a noisy but small fringe. There’s also a further subset almost unique to Britain of transphobes who deploy a radfem gender analysis on trans issues and sometimes certain other gender related issues but otherwise are not political radicals of any sort (ie the New Statesman types).



This is oxymorinic, I don't even...


----------



## campanula (Jan 12, 2018)

Ah, I had hoped to be done with this thread, being both naive and hopelessly adrift regarding the often circular arguments but here is my non-ideological, real world example (I had so hoped to have no dog in this race). My daughter has organised a 'sister circle' (!) for this Easter in our woods...but the whole thing is unravelling  because a person currently identifying as female is insisting on going. As we know this person to be a narcissist and massive pita, she has not been invited. More importantly, before her recent transformation, she has had dodgy sexual relationships with a couple of the women (afaik, she has never had any sexual relationships with men)...plus she is a demanding and abusive drunk. All the women who know her are on board with using whatever personal pronoun and first name she prefers...but less keen on sharing a firepit in the woods....while other women who do not know her, have rapidly come down on what they percieve to be an anti-trans agenda...and yep, it is turning into a terf war... gleefully exacerbated by person in question now she has been left off the invite list.

While woman are feeling annoyed and enraged, being told what to do, think and accept...after a decades long battle to overturn the oppressive tenets of patriarchal hegemony, I can't really think that this current handwringing and name-calling, offers any benefit at all, in terms of rights, equality, accessibility, for those transpeople (including the seemingly invisible trans men) who have struggled to define and challenge a restrictive, exclusive system of labelling, yet desperately need community, solidarity and acceptance.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 12, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Yes that’s entirely true. The overwhelming majority of transphobic women are social conservatives, just as a large majority of transphobic men are. Those whose transphobia is rooted in some variant of a Radical Feminist analysis of gender are a noisy but small fringe. There’s also a further subset almost unique to Britain of transphobes who deploy a radfem gender analysis on trans issues and sometimes certain other gender related issues but otherwise are not political radicals of any sort (ie the New Statesman types).



There's not much more socially conservative than defining 'woman' based upon a personal identity with sex-based stereotypes.

This is what is known as 'sexism'. Bro'.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 12, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Excellent.  Cis women shouldn't go because people who "self-identify" as women are more important.



Is that what the poster says?


----------



## snadge (Jan 12, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Nobody with the slightest sense of proportion thinks that some feminists organizing a bike ride and saying in their promotional material that their bike ride is trans inclusive is something to worry about. You’d have to be an anti-trans obsessive to get worried about it.



Here's some cuntsplaining for you, it doesn't say it is trans inclusive at all, it is actually inviting anybody that says they are female on the day if they fancy it.

Dumb cunt.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 12, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> There's not much more socially conservative than defining 'woman' based upon a personal identity with sex-based stereotypes.
> .



You mean like the current gender recognition process for trans people does?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 12, 2018)

bimble said:


> And that is the fucked up kernel at the heart of this, in my opinion.
> Have you got any idea of a way forward please?
> Trans people aren't going away, and I can totally see the positive potential in messing with gender, skewing it, wearing the 'wrong' clothes etc (I've just bought a pinstripe mens suit but am not in any way trans) so what is the way to make this a good moment for women and everyone not a shit get back in your box one?



I have a few ideas in here:

Finding Middle Ground Between Women’s Rights and Transgender Rights


----------



## 8ball (Jan 12, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Has anyone noticed how few women are on this thread? Why would that be?



Demographics has already been suggested.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 12, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> You mean like the current gender recognition process for trans people does?



No, this is how 'woman' is being defined. See earlier in this thread, and as a for example:



> Woman: a human being who self-identifies as a woman, based on elements of importance to the individual, such as gender roles, behaviour, expression, identity, and/or physiology.



*World Professional Association for Transgender Health -
The Standards of Care 7TH VERSION*
http://www.phsa.ca/transgender/Documents/Glossary of Terms - 3 sources.pdf


----------



## Athos (Jan 12, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Nobody with the slightest sense of proportion thinks that some feminists organizing a bike ride and saying in their promotional material that their bike ride is trans inclusive is something to worry about. You’d have to be an anti-trans obsessive to get worried about it.



You tell those uppity bitches, Nige.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 12, 2018)

Athos said:


> You tell those uppity bitches, Nige.


----------



## bimble (Jan 12, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Finding Middle Ground Between Women’s Rights and Transgender Rights


This is good. Not sure how JS Mill would be feeling about your use of him but yes.

"If you are categorising disagreement as hate (‘transphobia’): when your central claim is untouchable, unassailable, how can we possibly have any honest or productive discussion or debate? [..] disagreement is not hate, on the contrary, it is how our ideas and communities evolve."


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 12, 2018)

8ball said:


>


Sarcasm alert


----------



## 8ball (Jan 12, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Sarcasm alert



Indeed.  But sometimes these things can go two ways.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 12, 2018)

8ball said:


> Indeed.  But sometimes these things can go two ways.


They can but how much poorer will we be if we're too ready to pounce at minutest sign of dodginess.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 12, 2018)

bimble said:


> This is good. Not sure how the man JSMill would be feeling about your use of him but yes.
> "If you are categorising disagreement as hate (‘transphobia’): when your central claim is untouchable, unassailable, how can we possibly have any honest or productive discussion or debate?"



I think Mill would be really cool on much of the positions I associate with him. He recognised the importance of class, for example, and championed the work of Harriet Taylor and her sister Helen. I have had some correspondence with Helen Pringle, author of this piece, who is an authority on Mill and her work seems to corroborate much of what I derive from Mill's work. I think also he'd have ripped apart the whole concept of identifying with social roles which in Mill's time were the structural leverage that really kept women on the bottom. Harriet Taylor's own work is worth reading too, 'The Enfranchisement of Women' was essentially rewritten by JS Mill and Helen Taylor to produce 'The Subjection of Women'.

A Civilised Approach to Prostitution: Re-reading John Stuart Mill –			   Opinion –			   ABC Religion & Ethics		  (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

And thank you for the words of encouragement.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 12, 2018)

Athos said:


> You tell those uppity bitches, Nige.



Perhaps you could elaborate on your condescending view that younger feminists in Britain and the large majority of feminists internationally “know nothing but liberalism”.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 12, 2018)

8ball said:


> Demographics has already been suggested.


It's because women are constantly shouted over and ignored. As Nigel has amply demonstrated. He's not only helpfully outlined the demographics of how women of different ages feel, he's told us how we behave! He's neglected to describe how white/black women behave or wc/mc women do - or indeed how we interact with one another. And how all those groups of women negotiate their complex relationships. But none of that matters. nigel has been present (virtually) at every single one of our meetings and can now tell us how to behave.

Over to you, nigel!


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 12, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Perhaps you could elaborate on your condescending view that younger feminists in Britain and the large majority of feminists internationally “know nothing but liberalism”.



Here's how 'modern' or 'liberal feminism' is a neoliberal Trojan Horse used to convince women hat prostitution is sexy and that men can be better women than they could ever.

How ‘modern’ or ‘third-wave’ feminism benefits men


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 12, 2018)

8ball said:


> Demographics has already been suggested.



More likely that it's because there's always a man that knows better.


----------



## bimble (Jan 12, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Over to you, nigel!


----------



## weepiper (Jan 12, 2018)

trashpony said:


> It's because women are constantly shouted over and ignored. As Nigel has amply demonstrated. He's not only helpfully outlined the demographics of how women of different ages feel, he's told us how we behave! He's neglected to describe how white/black women behave or wc/mc women do - or indeed how we interact with one another. And how all those groups of women negotiate their complex relationships. But none of that matters. nigel has been present (virtually) at every single one of our meetings and can now tell us how to behave.
> 
> Over to you, nigel!


And this is the problem with the poster. In their desperation to include everybody they're opening the door to tedious self important dudebros who are identifying as non-binary this week who will dominate the conversation and the women will have to tolerate it out of politeness and niceness and no-one will tell them to sit doon. Like always happens when  we let men join our conversations. Which makes it not worth bothering with.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 12, 2018)

He hasn’t told anyone what to think or how to behave, though (iirc), he’s just referencing the reasons for his opinions. 

I’m not familiar enough with the subject matter to dispute it myself, but it could be disputed.

A few pages back there was some quite extreme (imo) relativism about what male and female mean that went largely unchallenged so it seems odd now that he’d jumped on quite so hard for these particular statements.  

The thread seems to swing about quite a bit depending on who is in..


----------



## bimble (Jan 12, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Here's how 'modern' or 'liberal feminism' is a neoliberal Trojan Horse used to convince women hat prostitution is sexy and that men can be better women than they could ever.
> 
> How ‘modern’ or ‘third-wave’ feminism benefits men



 "Second-wave feminism is foundational upon a Marxist analysis of class, and is fundamentally anti-capitalist. *It recognises that focussing on an individual’s choices can ignore the structural problems that lead to inequalities. *The ‘choice’ in ‘choice feminism’ as a synonym for third wave feminism originates with its neoliberal canonisation of the sanctity of personal choice, ‘choice feminism’ is inherently neoliberal. "

Nigel Irritable ?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 12, 2018)

8ball said:


> A few pages back there was some quite extreme (imo) relativism about what male and female mean



What was that...?


----------



## bimble (Jan 12, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> What was that...?


Oh you know, nobody is really a woman, or there's no such thing, nothing is actually the case its all a matter of perception etc. Athos was surprisingly out there with the relativism.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 12, 2018)

8ball said:


> He hasn’t told anyone what to think or how to behave, though (iirc), he’s just referencing the reasons for his opinions.



Yes, and those reasons have never nowt to do with women and are all to do with trans people's rights, bogeymen of political projects elsewhere, etc. It's exhausting.


----------



## planetgeli (Jan 12, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Yes, and those reasons have never nowt to do with women and are all to do with trans people's rights, bogeymen of political projects elsewhere, etc. It's exhausting.



Personally I find this whole thread exhausting. Interesting (mostly) but exhausting. Be nice to get back to the class war. One day.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 12, 2018)

weepiper said:


> And this is the problem with the poster. In their desperation to include everybody they're opening the door to tedious self important dudebros who are identifying as non-binary this week who will dominate the conversation and the women will have to tolerate it out of politeness and niceness and no-one will tell them to sit doon. Like always happens when  we let men join our conversations. Which makes it not worth bothering with.



How annoying that these younger feminists would rather risk even the possibility of being bored by your imaginary “tedious self important dudebros who are identifying as non-binary this week“ rather than put up with people of your politics.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 12, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> How annoying that these younger feminists would rather risk even the possibility of being bored by your imaginary “tedious self important dudebros who are identifying as non-binary this week“ rather than put up with people of your politics.


Well, I'm a female mechanic with 24 years' experience of riding bikes in Edinburgh, so I would probably be quite useful in helping out at an Edinburgh women's bike workshop, but whatever, Nige.


----------



## Athos (Jan 12, 2018)

bimble said:


> Oh you know, nobody is really a woman, or there's no such thing, nothing is actually the case its all a matter of perception etc. Athos was surprisingly out there with the relativism.



That wasn't what I was trying to say, to be honest.


----------



## Athos (Jan 12, 2018)

weepiper said:


> Well, I'm a female mechanic with 24 years' experience of riding bikes in Edinburgh, so I would probably be quite useful in helping out at an Edinburgh women's bike workshop, but whatever, Nige.



Yeah, but do you self-define as a woman?


----------



## bimble (Jan 12, 2018)

Athos said:


> That wasn't what I was trying to say, to be honest.


To be honest, yes it was. I got my cat from a local loon who was walking around with it in his jacket pocket trying to sell a kitten for a tenner. He told me it was called Fifi and was a girl. The vet when I took her there informed me it was actually a boy cat. Your posts suggest neither of them was right, I just decided out of my ideology to rename him and get his bollocks chopped off.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 12, 2018)

bimble said:


> Oh you know, nobody is really a woman, or there's no such thing, nothing is actually the case its all a matter of perception etc. Athos was surprisingly out there with the relativism.



LOL yes!


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 12, 2018)

bimble said:


> To be honest, yes it was. I got my cat from a local loon who was walking around with it in his jacket pocket trying to sell a kitten for a tenner. He told me it was called Fifi and was a girl. The vet when I took her there informed me it was actually a boy cat. Your posts suggest neither of them was right, I just decided out of my ideology to rename him and get his bollocks chopped off.



Schroedinger's transcat.


----------



## bimble (Jan 12, 2018)

I do look at him sometimes and wonder if he has any idea at all that he's male, or was once a girl called Fifi. I still feel bad about the chopping off of his fluffy white bollocks tbh but he seems fine with it.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 12, 2018)

bimble said:


> To be honest, yes it was. I got my cat from a local loon who was walking around with it in his jacket pocket trying to sell a kitten for a tenner. He told me it was called Fifi and was a girl. The vet when I took her there informed me it was actually a boy cat. Your posts suggest neither of them was right, I just decided out of my ideology to rename him and get his bollocks chopped off.



That was really funny!!! Thanks for that


----------



## Athos (Jan 12, 2018)

bimble said:


> To be honest, yes it was.



It really wasn't. As I explained.



Athos said:


> No. I'm saying that I don't make any claim that one is more 'real' than the other. And, as I said in that post, I wouldn't seek to impose my conception on them.  But nor is it morally incumbent on me to adopt theirs. And that taking that approach doesn't invalidate them as a person, as was suggested.





Athos said:


> Essentially, that words mean different things to different people, and, in this case, any individual's decision to favour one basis of meaning over another (e.g. biological sex versus self-identity) is an ideological choice (and that attempts to protray it as some fundamental truth are misconceived).  It doesn't make it any particular meaning any more 'real' for anyone else (even if it more widely held).  I think there are pros and cons of seeing trans women as women, and of seeing them as men.  On that ideological question, I favour the former (largely for compassinate reasons, and the balance of harms); that doesn't make it any more 'true', or give me any right to impose that on other's ahead of their legitimate concerns.


----------



## bimble (Jan 12, 2018)

Right. So my cat (I'm not telling you his real post-Fifi name cos its embarassing for both of us) is he male or female? Or can nobody say for sure.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 12, 2018)

You aren’t allowed to stay in the TERF hate cult if you try to qualify your bigotry Athos. Gratuitously hurting and offending trans people is a central part of the point, not an optional extra.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 12, 2018)

bimble said:


> I do look at him sometimes and wonder if he has any idea at all that he's male, or was once a girl called Fifi. I still feel bad about the chopping off of his fluffy white bollocks tbh but he seems fine with it.



http://the-toast.net/2014/01/06/predicting-human-behavior-100-accuracy-misgender-cat/

You'll enjoy this bimble


----------



## Athos (Jan 12, 2018)

bimble said:


> Right. So my cat (I'm not telling you his real post-Fifi name cos its embarassing for both of us) is he male or female? Or can nobody say for sure.



You and I understand him to be male, because we define his sex by biology (which, in my opinion is the only sensible way to sex a cat).


----------



## bimble (Jan 12, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> http://the-toast.net/2014/01/06/predicting-human-behavior-100-accuracy-misgender-cat/
> 
> You'll enjoy this bimble


I just proper laughed in a way to disconcert the neighbours, it is true. thank you. 
Every time i talk to my mother she misgenders my cat, because she thinks in German, where all cats are she.


----------



## Athos (Jan 12, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> You aren’t allowed to stay in the TERF hate cult if you try to qualify your bigotry Athos. Gratuitously hurting and offending trans people is a central part of the point, not an optional extra.



I don't want to be part of a TERF hate cult. Never have been part of any such.  And I'm not a bigot.  Which is why I've never gratuitously hurt or offended anyone because they're trans, or used their trans status to do so.


----------



## Santino (Jan 12, 2018)

8ball said:


> He hasn’t told anyone what to think or how to behave, though (iirc), he’s just referencing the reasons for his opinions.
> 
> I’m not familiar enough with the subject matter to dispute it myself, but it could be disputed.
> 
> ...


Hey ladies, this guy says that other guy wasn't telling you what to do. So I hope that's the end of it.


----------



## bimble (Jan 12, 2018)

Athos said:


> I don't want to be part of a TERF hate cult. Never have been part of any such. Which is why I've never gratuitously hurt or offended anyone because they're trans, or used their trans status to do so.


Nope, you're part of a "hate cult". According to Nigel.

Nigel Irritable What defines membership of this hate cult please?


----------



## Santino (Jan 12, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Yes that’s entirely true. The overwhelming majority of transphobic women are social conservatives, just as a large majority of transphobic men are. Those whose transphobia is rooted in some variant of a Radical Feminist analysis of gender are a noisy but small fringe. There’s also a further subset almost unique to Britain of transphobes who deploy a radfem gender analysis on trans issues and sometimes certain other gender related issues but otherwise are not political radicals of any sort (ie the New Statesman types).


Pickman's model , will you be relentlessly demanding documentary evidence of these assertions? Thanks in advance.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 12, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> You aren’t allowed to stay in the TERF hate cult if you try to qualify your bigotry Athos. Gratuitously hurting and offending trans people is a central part of the point, not an optional extra.


Are you ignoring me Nigel? Is it because I've got a vagina? 

I've just searched for all our interactions over the years. And there are very few. And you are putting forward the Men's Point Of View. Every single time. I'd like to say that I'm shocked but that would be a big fat lie. 

So, in summary. Women don't want to fuck Nigel. Nigel hates women. Nigel thinks women are really horrible for excluding anyone who identifies as a woman from anything women want to do. Nigel feels utterly vindicated.


----------



## bimble (Jan 12, 2018)

planetgeli said:


> ...


new tagline, thank you.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 12, 2018)

Athos said:


> I don't want to be part of a TERF hate cult. Never have been part of any such. Which is why I've never gratuitously hurt or offended anyone because they're trans, or used their trans status to do so.



Some people think you have. How can we tell?


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 12, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Are you ignoring me Nigel? Is it because I've got a vagina?



He didn't reply to my comment either come to think of it


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2018)

Santino said:


> Pickman's model , will you be relentlessly demanding documentary evidence of these assertions? Thanks in advance.


I will should your own efforts prove too feeble


----------



## Athos (Jan 12, 2018)

Red Cat said:


> Some people think you have. How can we tell?



Anyone who's interested can look at what I've posted, and make up their own mind.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 12, 2018)

Athos said:


> Anyone who's interested can look at what I've posted, and make up their own mind.



I think you should self-identdefiney yerself.  Are you a member of TERF Hate Cult™?


----------



## trashpony (Jan 12, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> He didn't reply to my comment either come to think of it


(((vagina holders)))
I would call us women but I don't want to offend people


----------



## bimble (Jan 12, 2018)

Athos said:


> Anyone who's interested can look at what I've posted, and make up their own mind.


So someone who says you're a member of a Hate Cult is just as right as someone who says maybe you're not, fair enough, you're consintent anyhoo.


----------



## Athos (Jan 12, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I think you should self-identdefiney yerself.  Are you a member of TERF Hate Cult™?


I got thrown out for not paying my subs.


----------



## Athos (Jan 12, 2018)

bimble said:


> So someone who says you're a member of a Hate Cult is just as right as someone who says maybe you're not, fair enough, you're consintent anyhoo.



It's a bit tiresome you misrepresenting my position simply because you appear not to have understood it.  It wasn't some pomo relativism, but a rebuttal of MY's spurious (at least implied) dichotomy between opponents ideology and 'reality', on the basis that their position failed to acknowledge that their truth rests wholly on a choice about the basis of definition of gender.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 12, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Are you ignoring me Nigel?



I’ve responded directly to your deeply stupid views once already today. Your two comments since have just been repetitions of the same dishonest posturing. In the unlikely event that you ever say something of interest I might respond to you again, but I feel no need to respond to each and every statement by every bigot on this thread. I’m not here to have a polite discussion with you or to humor your transphobia. You should really let go of this apparent need for my attention.


----------



## bimble (Jan 12, 2018)

Athos said:


> It's a bit tiresome you misrepresenting my position simply because you appear not to have understood it.  It wasn't some pomo relativism, but a rebuttal of MY's spurious (at least implied) dichotomy between opponents ideology and 'reality', on the basis that their position failed to acknowledge that their truth rests wholly on a choice about the basis of definition of gender.



No. The choice MY makes is to prioritise the material over the esoteric, and you're saying they're both equally valid.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 12, 2018)

Athos said:


> It's a bit tiresome you misrepresenting my position simply because you appear not to have understood it.  It wasn't some pomo relativism, but a rebuttal of MY's spurious (at least implied) dichotomy between opponents ideology and 'reality', on the basis that their position failed to acknowledge that their truth rests wholly on a choice about the basis of definition of gender.


What's your definition of gender?


----------



## Athos (Jan 12, 2018)

bimble said:


> No. The choice MY makes is to prioritise the material over the esoteric, and you're saying they're both equally valid.



I've not talked about validity. I specifically addressed the idea that one was more "real".  Both conceptions are equally real; they exist in the mind of the person conceiving then then.


----------



## Athos (Jan 12, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> What's your definition of gender?



The attributes and expectations society imposes on people according to their sex.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 12, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I’ve responded directly to your deeply stupid views once already today. Your two comments since have just been repetitions of the same dishonest posturing. In the unlikely event that you ever say something of interest I might respond to you again, but I feel no need to respond to each and every statement by every bigot on this thread. I’m not here to have a polite discussion with you or to humor your transphobia. You should really let go of this apparent need for my attention.


I'm deeply stupid, dishonest and a bigot? None of those are true but kudos for big words! But I'll give you a massive handclap for displaying your misogyny. 
If I told you I was black, do you want to add some additional slurs? I'm sure you can think of some


----------



## bimble (Jan 12, 2018)

Athos said:


> I've not talked about validity. I specifically addressed the idea that one was more "real".  *Both conceptions are equally really; they exist in the mind of the person conceiving then then.*


They are "equally really". ok. So reality = someone thinking that any particular thing is true.
How the fuck do you combine this extreme relativism and centrality of the self/ perception with any of your other ideas about what matters in the world or how you want to see things move forwards structurally?


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 12, 2018)

Athos said:


> The attributes and expectations society imposes on people according to their sex.



Given that definition of gender what do you think of the claim that "transgender women are women" (or its counterpart: "transgender men are men" - we never talk about this one)?


----------



## Athos (Jan 12, 2018)

bimble said:


> They are "equally really". ok. So reality = someone thinking that any particular thing is true. How the fuck do you combine this extreme relativism and centrality of the self/ perception with any of your other ideas about what matters in the world or how you want to see things move forwards structurally?



I don't have to reconcile any relativism.  You're confusing the fact of the conceptions being qualitatively the same with the truth of the content of those conceptions.


----------



## bimble (Jan 12, 2018)

Athos said:


> I don't have to reconciled any relativism.  You're confusing the fact of the conceptions being qualitatively the sane with the truth of the content of those conceptions.


Oh so there is such a thing as truth, or reality, which is a separate thing from what you or the next person might _believe t_o be true ?

What are you on about then. My cat is a boy cat right?


----------



## Athos (Jan 12, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Given that definition of gender what do you think of the claim that "transgender women are women" (or its counterpart: "transgender men are men")?



It's one I choose to subscribe to, insofar as it has any significance to my life, notwithstanding the philosophical incongruity, because of the balance of harms when compared to trans exclusion, and the political opportunities it presents.  But,  I don't expect others to think the same, as such an approach might have more significance/a different balance of harms to them. And I actively resist the attempt to bully women into submitting to this new orthodoxy.


----------



## Athos (Jan 12, 2018)

bimble said:


> My cat is a boy cat right?



I think so.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 12, 2018)

Athos said:


> I've not talked about validity. I specifically addressed the idea that one was more "real".  Both conceptions are equally real; they exist in the mind of the person conceiving then then.



Athos, is that a long way of  saying that the mind forms reality thus any reality a mind forms is basically true? Becuase that's idealism, which is the basis of postmodernism. And the opposite is of materialism.

Edit : not jumping on you Athos, but that's what it sounds like to me.


----------



## Athos (Jan 12, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Athos, is that a long way of  saying that the mind forms reality thus any reality a mind forms is basically true? Becuase that's idealism, which is the basis of postmodernism. And the opposite is of materialism.
> 
> Edit : not jumping on you Athos, but that's what it sounds like to me.



No. That's not what I was saying.


----------



## bimble (Jan 12, 2018)

Athos said:


> No. That's not what I was saying.


Yes it was. You said neither perception, material or esoteric/ personal is more 'real' than the other.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 12, 2018)

Athos said:


> No. That's not what I was saying.



Fair enough. Then I do not understand what you are saying.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 12, 2018)

trashpony said:


> I'm deeply stupid, dishonest and a bigot? None of those are true but kudos for big words! But I'll give you a massive handclap for displaying your misogyny.
> If I told you I was black, do you want to add some additional slurs? I'm sure you can think of some



I've been assuming that you are simply disingenuous but I'm beginning to wonder if you really don't understand that you are not in fact the voice of all womankind? And that people can be hostile to your nasty, bigoted opinions without that reflecting a general hostility to women?

In either case, this apparently desperate need for the attention of someone who holds you in contempt is a bit unseemly.


----------



## Athos (Jan 12, 2018)

bimble said:


> Yes it was.



You think it was, because you haven't grasped the point I was making. I've tried to explain it to you, but to no avail. I don't really see where else to go on this, now.


----------



## bimble (Jan 12, 2018)

Athos said:


> You think it was, because you haven't grasped the point I was making. I've tried to explain it to you, but to no avail. I don't really see where else to go on this, now.


Your point of view is equally real though, no matter if you can communicate it in shared language or if anyone else can understand it, so thats cool.


----------



## Athos (Jan 12, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Fair enough. Then I do not understand what you are saying.



I've tried to clarify. But it doesn't really matter.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 12, 2018)

Athos said:


> It's one I choose to subscribe to, insofar as it has any significance to my life, notwithstanding the philosophical incongruity, because of the balance of harms when compared to trans exclusion.  But,  I don't expect others to think the same, as such an approach might have more significance/a different balance of harms to them. And I actively resist the attempt to bully women into submitting to this new orthodoxy.


?

So, because it doesn't really affect you, you choose to subscribe to it.


----------



## Athos (Jan 12, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> ?
> 
> So, because it doesn't really affect you, you choose to subscribe to it.



 No.  More like, insofar as I encounter trans women, treating them as men would do more harm than good. But, I recognise that, as a man,  I don't encounter those difficult marginal cases e.g. rape shelters.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jan 12, 2018)

This is going well


----------



## Athos (Jan 12, 2018)

bimble said:


> Your point of view is equally real though, no matter if you can communicate it in shared language or if anyone else can understand it, so thats cool.



Whether you think it's right or wrong, it's undeniably real.


----------



## bimble (Jan 12, 2018)

twentythreedom said:


> This is going well


That's all a matter of perception. There is no such thing as well.


----------



## Santino (Jan 12, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> I will should your own efforts prove too feeble


I am saddened to note your inconsistent approach to unsubstantiated claims on this thread.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 12, 2018)

twentythreedom said:


> This is going well



Could be worse. 

I'm enjoying Nigel's contributions the most. Gold, they are.


----------



## Athos (Jan 12, 2018)

bimble said:


> That's all a matter of perception. There is no such thing as well.



Yawn.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2018)

Santino said:


> I am saddened to note your inconsistent approach to unsubstantiated claims on this thread.


I'm disappointed you don't have the gumption to ask yer man yourself, puling for someone else to do the job


----------



## bimble (Jan 12, 2018)

Athos said:


> Whether you think it's right or wrong, it's undeniably real.


What does real mean ? 
This is my idea of fun.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 12, 2018)

twentythreedom said:


> This is going well



It's a conversation. What did you want?


----------



## Athos (Jan 12, 2018)

bimble said:


> What does real mean ?
> This is my idea of fun.



You need to get out more.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 12, 2018)

bimble said:


> What does real mean ?
> This is my idea of fun.



Lol. I'm in bed suffering from this fucking ear infection and deafening tinnitus as a result of said infection (it was a true story.. all of it). What's your excuse?


----------



## bimble (Jan 12, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Lol. I'm in bed suffering from this fucking ear infection and deafening tinnitus as a result of said infection (it was a true story.. all of it). What's your excuse?


Good question. I actually have no excuse, apart from the deep and awkward stuff that might account for my being much happier talking about my ideas on here to doing so in real life, which nobody wants to know and i am not about to try to put into a sentence. Right, time to do some spaghetti.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 12, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I've been assuming that you are simply disingenuous but I'm beginning to wonder if you really don't understand that you are not in fact the voice of all womankind? And that people can be hostile to your nasty, bigoted opinions without that reflecting a general hostility to women?
> 
> In either case, this apparently desperate need for the attention of someone who holds you in contempt is a bit unseemly.


Of course I'm not the voice of all womankind! And of course you're entirely entitled to be hostile. Being as you're a man and all.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 12, 2018)

Athos said:


> No.  More like, insofar as I encounter trans women, treating them as men would do more harm than good. But, I recognise that, as a man,  I don't encounter those difficult marginal cases e.g. rape shelters.


Aargh... I really don't want to sound unkind or personal but this is so typical of men. You know a trans woman or two, you don't know what to do with them "Let's lump them on the women." Never a word about what may happen to trans men btw.
It's not enough we already carry the many caring burdens of society (at home, professionally and in solidarity with each other) we now have also to carry individuals messed up by a whole system which already benefits men above all. Not only that but we have to share what little power and resources we've carved out in order to change our fates and help each other with a bunch of over grown men; and to top it all we're now also having to share the pulpits we've conquered to speak our truth to power with them too, only to hear the likes of Lily Maddigan dictating to us how to make ourselves eligible to stand at those pulpits.


----------



## Athos (Jan 12, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Aargh... I really don't want to sound unkind or personal but this is so typical of men. You know a trans woman or two, you don't know what to do with them "Let's lump them on the women." Never a word about what may happen to trans men btw.
> It's not enough we already carry the many caring burdens of society (at home, professionally and in solidarity with each other) we now have also to carry individuals messed up by a whole system which already benefits men above all. Not only that but we have to share what little power and resources we've carved out in order to change our fates and help each other with a bunch of over grown men; and to top it all we're now also having to share the pulpits we've conquered to speak our truth to power with them too, only to hear the like of Lily Maddigan dictating to us how to make ourselves eligible to stand at those pulpits.



No, I've explicitly said I don't expect women to treat them as women, and, throughout have recognised the risks to women of doing so (which has earned me dog's abuse as a TERF bigot etc.).  I don't ask or expect anything of women in this question. Nor did I think that my trans acceptance - in reality nothing more than courtesy - has any detrimental effect on women (but might avoid causing unnecessary distress to trans people).


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 12, 2018)

Athos said:


> which has earned me dog's abuse as a TERF bigot etc.



All TERF means is that some feminists think that the problems of men have nothing to do with feminism. I may just get a T-Shirt printed. The fact it may get on some people's pants is starting to sound like an added bonus.

*TERF and fucking proud*


----------



## Athos (Jan 12, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> All TERF means is that some feminists think that the problems of men have nothing to do with feminism. I may just get a T-Shirt printed. The fact it may get on some people's pants is starting to sound like an added bonus.
> 
> *TERF and fucking proud*



Unfortunately, the word has come to have some other associations.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 12, 2018)

Athos said:


> Unfortunately, the word has come to have some other associations.



Time to reclaim it then. It does not follow that because one might be a TERF feminist that they think trans people don't have a human rights.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 12, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The phenomenon that requires special explanation is not that younger British feminists are broadly in step with the feminist movement internationally but that an unusually strong cohort of older feminists in Britain are so wildly out of step with it. I’ve tried to give an explanation for that oddity repeatedly in this thread: a combination of the survival of various 80s subcultural scenes linked to an unusually strong radfem movement then with the work done by the Blairites at the New Statesman to make anti-trans sentiments respectable to non social conservatives.
> 
> The idea that the conflict is actually caused by some failing of youth is no doubt very attractive to older TERFs who can sense themselves being marginalized, but that self serving explanation can’t account for the relative weakness of generational conflict over this issue
> ,


----------



## Athos (Jan 12, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Time to reclaim it then. It does not follow that because one might be a TERF feminist that they think trans people don't have a human rights.



I agree. And (to the extent it's my place to say) I'd like to see an accommodation that benefits women and trans people. I think the opportunities for solidarity mean it needn't be a zero sum game.


----------



## bimble (Jan 12, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> All TERF means is that some feminists think that the problems of men have nothing to do with feminism. I may just get a T-Shirt printed. The fact it may get on some people's pants is starting to sound like an added bonus.
> 
> *TERF and fucking proud*



I would be very frightened to wear that T-shirt down the road. Just putting TERF in speech brackets feels like a thing.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 12, 2018)

bimble said:


> I would be very frightened to wear that T-shirt.



Rosa Parks must have been pissing herself with fear too on that bus seat


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 12, 2018)

bimble said:


> Just putting TERF in speech brackets feels like a thing.



Bunch of men try to frighten women out of using their own words. Story of our lives!


----------



## bimble (Jan 12, 2018)

Also my very right on feminist boyfriend would probably dump me, if I got the t shirt. We have regular arguments about this, which vary in quality but are worth having. He called me a 'basic transphobe' last time.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 12, 2018)

bimble said:


> I haven't had kids, and i'm still the wrong kind of feminist.  Wednesday night though I had the classic 'Hi babe how you doin' when I was walking home really late in the dark, and for sure years and years of accumulated irritation at having to deal with and appease that stuff definitely informs my attitude to this whole issue.


I meant to respond to this earlier but was busy with my kids  sure, of course you can still be 'the wrong kind of feminist' without having children, it's just that the whole pregnancy/childbirth/early years experience will totally pull any wool away from your eyes about the thin veil of women's equality. These 'young feminists' that Nigel approves of so much (not like us old argumentative awkward hags) are in for a cold hard shock in a few years, either for themselves or seeing it happen to their friends.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 12, 2018)

bimble said:


> Also my very right on feminist boyfriend would probably dump me, if I got the t shirt. We have regular arguments about this, which vary in quality but are worth having. He called me a 'basic transphobe' last time.


Yeah... Single here. But my son has noted my tendency to rant about this of late so he's always overdoing the condescending tone "Hush, my child! It's going to be alright." or as last night when, on opening the fridge, I complained of how fast the food's going, "I can handle my food 'cos I'm a man" (His voice has broken too so it's hard to keep a serious face).


----------



## smokedout (Jan 12, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Time to reclaim it then. It does not follow that because one might be a TERF feminist that they think trans people don't have a human rights.



Arch terf Sheila Jeffries believes that transsexuality itself is a violation of human rights and any medical treatment should be banned.

Also given most societies accord even the most dangerous prisoners some kind of human rights this in itself is not a wholly supportive position.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 12, 2018)

weepiper said:


> And this is the problem with the poster. In their desperation to include everybody they're opening the door to tedious self important dudebros who are identifying as non-binary this week who will dominate the conversation and the women will have to tolerate it out of politeness and niceness and no-one will tell them to sit doon. Like always happens when  we let men join our conversations. Which makes it not worth bothering with.



Is this happening in trans and non-binary inclusive women's spaces though? In fashionable London it's been quite normal to see feminist meetings and events quite openly stating trans and non binary inclusive policies.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 12, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Arch terf Sheila Jeffries believes that transsexuality itself is a violation of human rights and any medical treatment should be banned.
> 
> Also given most societies accord even the most dangerous prisoners some kind of human rights this in itself is not a wholly supportive position.



I don't take kindly to men invading spaces women worked hard to conquer so it naturally follows that I must be just like Sheila Jeffries because no two people in a group ever diverged in opinion, innit?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 12, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> I don't take kindly to men invading spaces women worked hard to conquer so it naturally follows that I must be just like Sheila Jeffries because no two people in a group ever diverged in opinion, innit?



I wasn't saying that, just pointing out the usual terf position on trans people and human rights.

Are men really invading women's spaces, some women's spaces have become trans and non binary inclusive, but I'm not sure it's fair to describe that as a male invasion.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 12, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Arch terf



Gold.

Is that the official leader of the _TERF Hate Cult_™


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 12, 2018)

campanula said:


> Ah, I had hoped to be done with this thread, being both naive and hopelessly adrift regarding the often circular arguments but here is my non-ideological, real world example (I had so hoped to have no dog in this race). My daughter has organised a 'sister circle' (!) for this Easter in our woods...but the whole thing is unravelling  because a person currently identifying as female is insisting on going. As we know this person to be a narcissist and massive pita, she has not been invited. More importantly, before her recent transformation, she has had dodgy sexual relationships with a couple of the women (afaik, she has never had any sexual relationships with men)...plus she is a demanding and abusive drunk. All the women who know her are on board with using whatever personal pronoun and first name she prefers...but less keen on sharing a firepit in the woods....while other women who do not know her, have rapidly come down on what they percieve to be an anti-trans agenda...and yep, it is turning into a terf war... gleefully exacerbated by person in question now she has been left off the invite list.
> 
> While woman are feeling annoyed and enraged, being told what to do, think and accept...after a decades long battle to overturn the oppressive tenets of patriarchal hegemony, I can't really think that this current handwringing and name-calling, offers any benefit at all, in terms of rights, equality, accessibility, for those transpeople (including the seemingly invisible trans men) who have struggled to define and challenge a restrictive, exclusive system of labelling, yet desperately need community, solidarity and acceptance.



#solidarity with your daughter and you.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 12, 2018)

smokedout said:


> I wasn't saying that, just pointing out the usual terf position on trans people and human rights.
> 
> Are men really invading women's spaces, some women's spaces have become trans and non binary inclusive, but I'm not sure it's fair to describe that as a male invasion.



Only a man would say this.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 12, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Gold.
> 
> Is that the official leader of the _TERF Hate Cult_™




I'm quite happy to call Jeffries and her ilk terfs and I do think they are little more than a hate group.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 12, 2018)

Athos said:


> You and I understand him to be male, because we define his sex by biology (which, in my opinion is the only sensible way to sex a cat).



... or any mammal...


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 12, 2018)

smokedout said:


> I wasn't saying that, just pointing out the usual terf position on trans people and human rights.



So you say. I know already that there are a variety of positions on the subject.


smokedout said:


> Are men really invading women's spaces, some women's spaces have become trans and non binary inclusive, but I'm not sure it's fair to describe that as a male invasion.



I've been on this conversation for a very short while and I've learned enough from the contradictions I have found to be worried about all womens spaces. The events at Young Labour have taught me I should be worried about all women's spaces. Complacency is not something that should be indulged not when the balance of power is against you and yours already.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 12, 2018)

Athos said:


> It's a bit tiresome you misrepresenting my position simply because you appear not to have understood it.  It wasn't some pomo relativism, but a rebuttal of MY's spurious (at least implied) dichotomy between opponents ideology and 'reality', on the basis that their position failed to acknowledge that their truth rests wholly on a choice about the basis of definition of gender.



You already agree sex is based on reproductive class, what does identity have to do with it?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 12, 2018)

bimble said:


> Oh so there is such a thing as truth, or reality, which is a separate thing from what you or the next person might _believe t_o be true ?
> 
> What are you on about then. My cat is a boy cat right?



Karl Popper would go grey reading this.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 12, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> I don't take kindly to men invading spaces women worked hard to conquer so it naturally follows that I must be just like Sheila Jeffries because no two people in a group ever diverged in opinion, innit?



You said this and this sounds a bit like that therefore you must think that and I couldn't be bothered actually finding out what you really think because my view is fully formed therefore yours must be too and you are wrong.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 12, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> All TERF means is that some feminists think that the problems of men have nothing to do with feminism. I may just get a T-Shirt printed. The fact it may get on some people's pants is starting to sound like an added bonus.
> 
> *TERF and fucking proud*



I'd wear this. Because it matters.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 12, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Arch terf Sheila Jeffries believes that transsexuality itself is a violation of human rights and any medical treatment should be banned.
> 
> Also given most societies accord even the most dangerous prisoners some kind of human rights this in itself is not a wholly supportive position.



I've met Shelia. She's lovely. You're misinformed and vomiting more of the MRA you've over consumed.


----------



## bimble (Jan 12, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Karl Popper would go grey reading this.


We’re not in kansas anymore, it’s a brave new world of feelings and souls, science and objectivity is irrelevant get with the program sister.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 12, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Only a man would say this.



300 sexual assault and domestic violence organisations in the states recently said pretty much the same thing.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 12, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I've met Shelia. She's lovely. You're misinformed and vomiting more of the MRA you've over consumed.



I'm not misinformed, I read it in a paper she wrote.  She was also very worried about lesbians and gay men getting tattooes and piercings.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 12, 2018)

smokedout said:


> I'm quite happy to call Jeffries and her ilk terfs and I do think they are little more than a hate group.



www.TerfIsASlur.com


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 12, 2018)

smokedout said:


> I'm not misinformed, I read it in a paper she wrote.  She was also very worried about lesbians and gay men getting tattooes and piercings.



You're thinking about 'Beauty and Misogyny' which is an incredible piece of work, I rate it as highly as Dworkin's 'Pornography'. Are you into porn?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 12, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I've met Shelia. She's lovely. You're misinformed and vomiting more of the MRA you've over consumed.


She has been pretty specific:



> [Transsexual surgery] could be likened to political psychiatry in the Soviet Union. I suggest that transsexualism should best be seen in this light, as directly political, medical abuse of human rights. The mutilation of healthy bodies and the subjection of such bodies to dangerous and life-threatening continuing treatment violates such people’s rights to live with dignity in the body into which they were born, what Janice Raymond refers to as their “native” bodies. It represents an attack on the body to rectify a political condition, “gender” dissatisfaction in a male supremacist society based upon a false and politically constructed notion of gender difference.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 12, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> She has been pretty specific:



That could have easily been written about Michael Jackson and his doctors had he not suffered from vetiligo.
I mean, should the motivations of patients and doctors alike never be questioned/explored against a socio/political background?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 12, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> You're thinking about 'Beauty and Misogyny' which is an incredible piece of work, I rate it as highly as Dworkin's 'Pornography'. Are you into porn?



No, I think it's almost all universally vile, with a few feminist, queer and kink exceptions.  But I would rather change society so that mainstream misogynist porn no longer had the appeal it does than attack the working class women in the industry and take away their ability to make money in the here and now.

And what a creepy question.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 12, 2018)

You're reverting to type now Miranda Yardley, attack the individual, see if you can smear them as a pervert.


----------



## snadge (Jan 12, 2018)

smokedout said:


> I'm not misinformed, I read it in a paper she wrote.  She was also very worried about lesbians and gay men getting tattooes and piercings.



Citation please, also context needed, coming out with the above statement stinks of bias.


----------



## snadge (Jan 12, 2018)

smokedout said:


> No, I think it's almost all universally vile, with a few feminist, queer and kink exceptions.  But I would rather change society so that mainstream misogynist porn no longer had the appeal it does than attack the working class women in the industry and take away their ability to make money in the here and now.
> 
> And what a creepy question.



What the fuck is misogynist porn? Isn't all porn misogynist?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 12, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> I mean, should the motivations of patients and doctors alike never be questioned/explored against a socio/political background?


Of course they should. Especially when you're talking about psychiatry. But Jeffries isn't just questioning. She very clearly has the answer. And she has also called for transsexual surgery to be made illegal. 

Transgender Activism a Lesbian Feminist Perspective | Gender Role | Transgender


----------



## smokedout (Jan 12, 2018)

snadge said:


> Citation please, also context needed, coming out with the above statement stinks of bias.



Think this link should work (pdf)


----------



## smokedout (Jan 12, 2018)

snadge said:


> What the fuck is misogynist porn? Isn't all porn misogynist?



Is feminist, queer, kink or gay porn necessarily misogynist?


----------



## snadge (Jan 13, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Is feminist, queer, kink or gay porn necessarily misogynist?



Yes.



smokedout said:


> Think this link should work (pdf)



That paper does not portray personal feelings but a trend for certain people to exhibitionist behavior for 'reasons', those views tie into what I see happening also.


----------



## bimble (Jan 13, 2018)

snadge said:


> What the fuck is misogynist porn? Isn't all porn misogynist?


No. But that’s a different conversation isn’t it.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 13, 2018)

bimble said:


> Also my very right on feminist boyfriend would probably dump me, if I got the t shirt. We have regular arguments about this, which vary in quality but are worth having. He called me a 'basic transphobe' last time.



Maybe he wants you to graduate to 'advanced transphobe'.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 13, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Bunch of men try to frighten women out of using their own words. Story of our lives!



Hint: don't tell them your words!


----------



## 8ball (Jan 13, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Only a man would say this.



We like to cut our dicks off so we can keep an eye on women.


----------



## snadge (Jan 13, 2018)

bimble said:


> No. But that’s a different conversation isn’t it.




Well we should agree to disagree because I really do believe differently.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 13, 2018)

8ball said:


> Hint: don't tell them your words!



I used to think that. Then I found out it makes them angrier if I keep on using them. I'm a sadist like that.


----------



## snadge (Jan 13, 2018)

8ball said:


> We like to cut our dicks off so we can keep an eye on women.



You don't have to cut your dick off, you can also double up on serious HRT 
.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 13, 2018)

snadge said:


> Well we should agree to disagree because I really do believe differently.


I've told there is such a thing. But yeah, it's hard for me to believe it. I stopped exploring when I got tired of tasting my own gastric fluids.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 13, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> I used to think that. Then I found out it makes them angrier if I keep on using them. I'm a sadist like that.



But then you can't really complain about their reactions to your words.  Once you start using them in front of the enemy they become the enemy's words too.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 13, 2018)

8ball said:


> But then you can't really complain about their reactions to your words.  Once you start using them in front of the enemy they become the enemy's words too.


That's a recipe for women to be gagged. We've been silent for too long already.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 13, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> That's a recipe for women to be gagged. We've been silent for too long already.



Well, it's also a recipe for keeping your own private space.  You can't really be in your own private space and in public space at the same time.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 13, 2018)

snadge said:


> That paper does not portray personal feelings but a trend for certain people to exhibitionist behavior for 'reasons', those views tie into what I see happening also.



Her language about it betrays her personal attitude, imo, perhaps more than she thinks - piercings and tattoos are included among acts of 'self-mutilation', which have been 'promoted [among lesbians] in the last decade' (this was written in the 90s). She doesn't say who was doing the promoting.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 13, 2018)

8ball said:


> Well, it's also a recipe for keeping your own private space.  You can't really be in your own private space and in public space at the same time.



What exactly are you on about? Shouldn't feminist books be published or something?


----------



## snadge (Jan 13, 2018)

8ball said:


> Well, it's also a recipe for keeping your own private space.  You can't really be in your own private space and in public space at the same time.



Sometimes it is the same space, why shouldn't women be allowed to dictate what is comfortable for them, is that a male only attribute because the male undermines that space anyway.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 13, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> What exactly are you on about? Shouldn't feminist books be published or something?



Not if you want them to remain private, no.
But that's not really the point of publishing books.


----------



## snadge (Jan 13, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Her language about it betrays her personal attitude, imo, perhaps more than she thinks - piercings and tattoos are included among acts of 'self-mutilation', which have been 'promoted [among lesbians] in the last decade' (this was written in the 90s). She doesn't say who was doing the promoting.




Answer me this then, why do people get tattoos or piercings?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 13, 2018)

snadge said:


> Sometimes it is the same space.



Not if you want it to be female-only space.  Unless you have a private language to use in that space.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 13, 2018)

snadge said:


> Answer me this then, why do people get tattoos or piercings?



This is a good question.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 13, 2018)

snadge said:


> Sometimes it is the same space, why shouldn't women be allowed to dictate what is comfortable for them, is that a male only attribute because the male undermines that space anyway.



You seem to be talking about something different to what I was talking about here.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 13, 2018)

8ball said:


> Not if you want them to remain private, no.
> But that's not really the point of publishing books.



You drunk o' sumink????


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 13, 2018)

8ball said:


> You seem to be talking about something different to what I was talking about here.


Well I was talking about the word TERF and reclaiming it from the men who turned it into a slur and a mysogynistic one at that


----------



## 8ball (Jan 13, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> You drunk o' sumink????



A bit.  I may have misread what you meant earlier, you seemed to be talking about men wanting to frighten women out of using their words.
I'm happy for anyone to use their own words, so long as I'm allowed to not understand them.  But I got banned from the patriarchy lodge for backchat so I've missed a few meetings.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 13, 2018)

8ball said:


> about men wanting to frighten women out of using their words.



Yes, like the word TERF.


----------



## snadge (Jan 13, 2018)

8ball said:


> This is a good question.




It's a basic question, it makes an individual different from the norm, it creates attention.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 13, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Well I was talking about the word TERF and reclaiming it from the men who turned it into a slur and a mysogynistic one at that



Ok.  I don't really use the word, but I've seen women on this forum use the word TERF in a very uncomplimentary way.

Also, I tend to think it should be up to women to determine the extent to which trans women are accepted as women, but apparently that is making trans women into women's problem.  Which feels a little loaded to me because I wasn't inclined to see trans women as necessarily a 'problem'.

Not more than humans are in general, anyway.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 13, 2018)

snadge said:


> It's a basic question, it makes an individual different from the norm, it creates attention.


Or it makes an individual more like the norm, the tribe they want to be a part of.

I don't see why there would be a straightforward answer to such a question. Piercings and tattoos can be public or private, for instance, depending on where they are. Why the desire to reduce something in that way, or worse, to pathologise it?


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 13, 2018)

snadge said:


> It's a basic question, it makes an individual different from the norm, it creates attention.



Self-branding? "'Cos you're not different enough", kind of thing?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 13, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Self-branding? "'Cos you're not different enough", kind of thing?



I don't understand piercings tbf, but I kind of get tattoos, though I don't have any.
I have lots of scars, though.  They're a little like tattoos in how they tell your story, though you don't choose them*.

* except for those scarification people


----------



## snadge (Jan 13, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Or it makes an individual more like the norm, the tribe they want to be a part of.
> 
> I don't see why there would be a straightforward answer to such a question.




The norm are not pierced or tattooed, the norm  accept their shit because that's the world that has worked for centuries, the norm work mundane jobs and try their best to make a better life for them and theirs.

For the record I am tattooed and have had piercings in the past.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 13, 2018)

snadge said:


> The norm are not pierced or tattooed, the norm  accept their shit because that's the world that has worked for centuries, the norm work mundane jobs and try their best to make a better life for them and theirs.
> 
> For the record I am tattooed and have had piercings in the past.



Why did you get the piercings, out of interest?


----------



## snadge (Jan 13, 2018)

8ball said:


> Why did you get the piercings, out of interest?




Nose, Ear and dick, because people took a second glance.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 13, 2018)

snadge said:


> Nose, Ear and dick.



Question was "why" but thanks anyway. 

And ouch!!


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 13, 2018)

snadge said:


> because people took a second glance.



You mean you wanted the attention? I don't have tattoos either (but I'm nosy)


----------



## snadge (Jan 13, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> You mean you wanted the attention? I don't have tattoos either (but I'm nosy)




The tattoos I have are pretty well hidden, my mates a tattooist and I got a lot of freebies as did a lot of my friends, one of my mates is covered bar face, I got piercings to take difference to the next stage. I lasted about a year with the piercings until it slowly dawned on me that the attention I craved was coming from people I wanted fuck all to do with.

I have said this before about myself, I have a genuine dog in this race due to medical intervention and have struggled for years to come to terms with my personal situation and to be able to be the individual that I imagine myself to be, I have also learned that testosterone is a crazy hormone and trans MtF that keep their junk  are going to be crazy fuckers, especially if they start doing HRT to transition whilst still producing natural testosterene.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 13, 2018)

I'm sorry you've had to go through all that shit. big hug to you


----------



## snadge (Jan 13, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> I'm sorry you've had to go through all that shit. big hug to you




It's not a problem now, it was a problem when I binned my then partner of 14 years because she wanted children but was determined to stay with me, that devastated me but she did go on and have children with a good partner.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 13, 2018)

That must have been hell. I mean, I keep thinking it was difficult to leave my son's dad but I was relieved when I left the fiend. Best thing I ever did even I've never really recovered from the whole experience. This having gone through stuff leaves people with dogs in many races. Women's Aid helped me and I made some friends there. This whole thing is touches me more personally than I thought before or cared to admit even when I only tentatively started contributing to this thread.


----------



## Sue (Jan 13, 2018)

So I guess I'm like many women. I haven't read the books on feminist theory, my views on feminism are based on my experience/the experience of people I know.

I've spent the last 25 years studying/working in areas that are generally perceived as male. I've dealt with/seen all kinds of shit on the way. As have most women I know.

So I can't even begin to express how utterly fucking annoying it is when people like Nigel Irritable tell me how this works and how I should be acting.

Nigel Irritable, you are a fucking disgrace. I guess at least you've united the women on here though...

(And if you paid attention to such things, you might wonder why/how this has happened and why people on 'your' side think you're a fucking liability. Actually listening to other people rather than always knowing best would a start. )


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 13, 2018)

8ball said:


> Might not have been as calculated as that - might just have been the case that one of the people involved in the event is trans and wanted it clear on the poster that trans people are welcome.  People organising bike rides often don't have media and branding consultants on staff.



It’s simply about ticking all the right-on boxes without thinking any of it through.


----------



## snadge (Jan 13, 2018)

Sue said:


> (And if you paid attention to such things, you might wonder why/how this has happened and why people on 'your' side think you're a fucking liability. Actually listening to other people rather than always knowing best would a start. )



He's a fucking fascist and won't accept his frustration that he is immaterial to whatever the conversation is.

Right wing have quotas and the left wing have lists, both mean people who do not deserve attention are attacked and purged.

It's always about power, no matter what their political views are, may as well get a tattoo, at least that is more in your face.


----------



## Sue (Jan 13, 2018)

snadge said:


> He's a fucking fascist and won't accept his frustration that he is immaterial to whatever the conversation is.
> 
> Right wing have quotas and the left wing have lists, both mean people who do not deserve attention are attacked and purged.
> 
> It's always about power, no matter what their political views are, may as well get a tattoo, at least that is more in your face.


I believe Nigel Irritable is involved in 'progressive politics'.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 13, 2018)

Sue said:


> I believe Nigel Irritable is involved in 'progressive politics'.


In his mind, he certainly is. If progressive is to dismiss women on a subject women are simultaneously the subject and the specialist, I suppose he is.


----------



## snadge (Jan 13, 2018)

Sue said:


> I believe Nigel Irritable is involved in 'progressive politics'.



About as progressive as a burnt out car.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 13, 2018)

I'm just gonna interject here to say that I hate the term "progressive". It's such a bullshit meaningless term and a huge exercise in virtue signalling - which a year back I thought was just hyperbolic term, but now I think virtue signalling does exist as a political thing. 

"I'm a progressive"... Yeah? Well where are you progressing to? Cuz you can progress into a ditch or into dog shit and ain't nobody that wants to go there.

Whenever I hear the term "let's do the *PROGRESSIVE* thing" it makes me run a mile. Usually ill thought out, mantra repeating bollocks follows.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 13, 2018)

Sue said:


> So I guess I'm like many women. I haven't read the books on feminist theory, my views on feminism are based on my experience/the experience of people I know.
> 
> I've spent the last 25 years studying/working in areas that are generally perceived as male. I've dealt with/seen all kinds of shit on the way. As have most women I know.
> 
> ...



Yeh, I haven't felt this much of a feminist for some time. Having kids made be very aware of how much my oppression is linked to raising children and unpaid labour, but fuck me, the assumptions, the lack of curiosity about what women think demonstrated on here.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 13, 2018)

Point of order: many people who identify as non-binary would be placed in the 'female' category by those determined to ensure that everyone is one thing or the other, so the idea of 'non-binary' being nothing but a free pass for men to enter women-only spaces doesn't stack up.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 13, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I'm just gonna interject here to say that I hate the term "progressive". It's such a bullshit meaningless term and a huge exercise in virtue signalling - which a year back I thought was just hyperbolic term, but now I think virtue signalling does exist as a political thing.
> 
> "I'm a progressive"... Yeah? Well where are you progressing to? Cuz you can progress into a ditch or into dog shit and ain't nobody that wants to go there.
> 
> Whenever I hear the term "let's do the *PROGRESSIVE* thing" it makes me run a mile. Usually ill thought out, mantra repeating bollocks follows.



LOL I think "Progressive" is American-Democratese for "Let's turn a little bit social democrat, but only a little bit, while fooling the young, the poor and the virtual signalling classes we're going full on socialist"



Red Cat said:


> Yeh, I haven't felt this much of a feminist for some time. Having kids made be very aware of how much my oppression is linked to raising children and unpaid labour, but fuck me, the assumptions, the lack of curiosity about what women think demonstrated on here.



This is a hard one. Sometimes I just get tired. Last weekend I started a line of thinking based on a brief stint at a women's only college where I met loads of women with all sorts of problematic backgrounds from domestic violence, sexual abuse, having been in prison, yada. When a pointed question [quite pertinent] about it came [from a man, of course] I suddenly became exhausted. I had wanted to get somewhere else on the conversation and it just became daunting to have to go through a lot of typing on too emotional a level just to get to that point. The best analogy I can find that explains what I felt is explaining racism to white people who don't want to see it. You just can't be bothered sometimes and sometimes that is for a long time. There are things they won't get without a lot of words and the very prospect of having to explain saps all of the energy out of me. It doesn't mean I'm not capable of it but just definitely not at that moment.


----------



## Athos (Jan 13, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> You already agree sex is based on reproductive class, what does identity have to do with it?



Identity and sex are different bases on which people can choose to define gender.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Point of order: many people who identify as non-binary would be placed in the 'female' category by those determined to ensure that everyone is one thing or the other, so the idea of 'non-binary' being nothing but a free pass for men to enter women-only spaces doesn't stack up.


Point of information: points of order relate to conduct of the meeting, e.g. move to vote, quorum count


----------



## bimble (Jan 13, 2018)

I did feel a bit of a twit using the word 'progressive' yesterday so what's a better alternative for saying  'the sort of change we want to see' ?


----------



## Athos (Jan 13, 2018)

bimble said:


> I did feel a bit of a twit using the word 'progressive' yesterday so what's a better alternative for saying  'the sort of change we want to see' ?


It might help to be more explicit. Because I suspect that some of the most significant difference between people on this issue is their aims.  Some prioritise the end of gender categories, whilst others prioritise freedom to find a comfortable place within gender categories.  (There may be an element of balancing short term versus long term aims.)


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 13, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Point of order: many people who identify as non-binary would be placed in the 'female' category by those determined to ensure that everyone is one thing or the other, so the idea of 'non-binary' being nothing but a free pass for men to enter women-only spaces doesn't stack up.



But not all of them. Are you still talking about the bike ride?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 13, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Are you still talking about the bike ride?



I think mountains enough have been made from that particular molehill already.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 13, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Point of order: many people who identify as non-binary would be placed in the 'female' category by those determined to ensure that everyone is one thing or the other, so the idea of 'non-binary' being nothing but a free pass for men to enter women-only spaces doesn't stack up.


If they're non-binary why do they want to come to a women's workshop?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 13, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> I think mountains enough have been made from that particular molehill already.



What's your perspective on micro-agressions? (where the numerous micro small together things end up  forming the macro)

Do you accept that perhaps the small informs the large?

Is this a molehill? :


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 13, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> I think mountains enough have been made from that particular molehill already.



Why do we have to be mother all of the time. How come men are never "expected" to "show solidarity"?


----------



## smmudge (Jan 13, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Aargh... I really don't want to sound unkind or personal but this is so typical of men. You know a trans woman or two, you don't know what to do with them "Let's lump them on the women." Never a word about what may happen to trans men btw.



That's a really weird thing to say about people. Trans people aren't like babies or animals or something.

And tbh there's not much talk of trans men on _either_ side. This definition that a woman is someone with "female reproductive potential", what about the trans men who have that but don't want to be a woman, they should just sit down and shut up?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 13, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> What's your perspective on micro-agressions? (where the micro small things end up being the macro)
> 
> Do you accept that perhaps the small informs the large?
> 
> Is this a molehill :



No, I don't even think it's a microagression. I think it's macroagression; something done for no purpose other than to upset people.

But lets not conflate that with people making a genuine effort to be sensitive and inclusive and, at worst, fudging the wording a little bit.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 13, 2018)

smmudge said:


> That's a really weird thing to say about people. Trans people aren't like babies or animals or something.



So why don't they organise as trangesnder? Why don't they demand transrights instead with the added value of including trans men?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 13, 2018)

smmudge said:


> And tbh there's not much talk of trans men on _either_ side.



As far as the men are concerned I've come to the conclusion they don't really want to talk about it.

I've asked the dudes pontificating what it means to be a woman several times what it means to be a man but there have been no takers so far.

If one thinks a woman is a person with female reproductive capacity going about their daily business without any other judgement, then there's not much else to say about transmen from that perspective.

However it's much easier for all the dudes here to give transmen AND transwomen and non-binary issues to the women to deal with.

Lest we might discover what it is that *really* makes a man.

So I'll ask the men on here again :

Men: what makes a man?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 13, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> So why don't they organise as trangesnder? Why don't they demand transrights instead with the added value of including trans men?



Do they not?

'They' of course being a disparate group of people with no single party line, political methodology or secret volcano lair.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 13, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> However it's much easier for all the dudes here to give transmen AND transwomen and non-binary issues to the women to deal with.



Wait, are men dominating the issue or offloading it onto women to deal with?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 13, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Wait, are men dominating the issue or offloading it onto women to deal with?



Men dominate the issue BY offloading it onto women and then telling women they're doing it wrong.

A bit like a CEO might do with his workers.


You wanna answer the question?

What is it that's makes you a man, Frank?


----------



## Athos (Jan 13, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> As far as the men are concerned I've come to the conclusion they don't really want to talk about it.
> 
> I've asked the dudes pontificating what it means to be a woman several times what it means to be a man but there have been no takers so far.
> 
> ...



Ok, I'll have a go, in good faith.

I consider myself to be a man because I'm an adult human male, and not because of any gender identity. But, for all intents and purposes I'm happy to treat others as a man if that's how they'd like me to.  In reality that's little more than not 'misgendering' them, as I try not to treat people differently according to sex, anyway (accepting that there's likely some unconscious bias as a result of how I've been socialised).


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 13, 2018)

Athos said:


> for all intents and purposes I'm happy to treat others as a man if that's how they'd like me to.  In reality that's little more than not 'misgendering' them, as *I try not to treat people differently according to sex, anyway *



This is also I'm good faith. I  genuinely interested to hear from the guys on this one. I don't know if they ever talk about it. Women do *all the time*.

Two follow on questions:

How would one "treat" a man In accordance with sex? What does that mean?



> (accepting that there's likely some unconscious bias as a result of how I've been socialised).



That's cool and all. In a situation where you met a transman and became consciously aware they were female, is it possible then that you would end up subconsciously treating them like a woman anyway as your socialisation kicks in?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 13, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> What is it that's makes you a man, Frank?



What makes me a man is the fact that that's what people assume I am based on a bunch of arbitrary criteria. I don't identify with idealised male or masculine traits but I have to admit that I probably exhibit lots of them in various ways, much as I might try not to. 

I would openly describe myself as non-binary but for three main reasons; firstly I'm a shy and anxious person and I don't like to draw attention to myself or do anything which might mean I have to explain myself to random strangers, secondly I don't like the idea of implying that other people _are_ adequately defined by binary notions of gender but not me because I'm different, and thirdly because I have to accept that people perceive me as a man and might therefore be uncomfortable with my presence in certain spaces and not upsetting other people is more important to me than being included in stuff that I really don't need to be incuded in.

People who do identify as non-binary often have coherent and compelling reasons for doing so, this is all just my personal response to gender stuff.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 13, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Yes, I understand that; hence why my replies have always been courteous even where I've had abuse hurled at me on here.



That is simply a lie.
Continuously calling people "he" who have said they wish to be called "she" does not equate to your "replies have always been courteous." It shows a staggering ignorance regarding the feelings of others and a huge amount of arrogance.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 13, 2018)

As for trans men, speaking as someone born inside the 'male' category I can see all too clearly that it's not that great over here, it should not be a source of pride or identity being here and if anyone else feels that they belong in this category with me then it is not my place to tell them they can't be, even if there was anything for me to gain by doing so which there isn't.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 13, 2018)

Ok nice one.

Some follow up questions for you too:



SpookyFrank said:


> I have to admit that I probably exhibit lots of them in various ways, much as I might try not to.



Why do you think it is you exhibit some "masculine" traits? Can you give examples.



SpookyFrank said:


> I would openly describe myself as non-binary but for three main reasons; firstly I'm a shy and anxious person



What is it about being shy and anxious that makes a man non-binary?

Isn't this just stereotypes?



SpookyFrank said:


> I have to accept that people perceive me as a man and might therefore be uncomfortable



What is it that makes people percieve you as a man. Apart from discomfort how do others, including other men, respond to that perception?

Is it  mainly a positive experience or negative?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 13, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> As for trans men, speaking as someone born inside the 'male' category I can see all too clearly that it's not that great over here, *it should not be a source of pride or identity being here and if anyone else feels that they belong in this category with me *then it is not my place to tell them they can't be, even if there was anything for me to gain by doing so which there isn't.



Last one: 

What do you think identifying into the "man" category entails?


----------



## Athos (Jan 13, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> This is also I'm good faith. I  genuinely interested to hear from the guys on this one. I don't know if they ever talk about it. Women do *all the time*.
> 
> Two follow on questions:
> 
> ...




As I said, in practice, it'd not mean much more than using the correct pronouns. Because, as a man, I don't have as many sex based concerns; I don't have to guard men only spaces for safety.  I don't think the two situations are comparable, really. 

I think it's almost inevitable that my socialising would kick in. But I'd try to be mindful of that, and consciously adapt.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 13, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> What is it about being shy and anxious that makes a man non-binary?
> 
> Isn't this just stereotypes?



I meant that I'm too shy to go around explaining to people what 'non-binary' is. I don't think of shyness as a stereotypically male or female trait, although my behaviour and personality would most likely be described and perceived differently if I appeared to be female.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 13, 2018)

I do notice Frank, and this isn't having a go I realise you're doing your best, is that you've talked a lot and very specifically about what a man *isn't*

But not much about what a man *is*


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 13, 2018)

Athos said:


> I think it's almost inevitable that my socialising would kick in. But I'd try to be mindful of that, and consciously adapt.



And what would you do specifically to try and adapt?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 13, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I do notice Frank, and this isn't having a go I realise you're doing your best, is that you've talked a lot and very specifically about what a man *isn't*
> 
> But not much about what a man *is*



Too many different levels on which to answer that, and none where I would feel able to do so coherently.

Boy children grow up knowing they should become men, but are never told what that actually entails beyond a bunch of vague, arbitrary and often self-contradictory expectations.


----------



## spanglechick (Jan 13, 2018)

The debate is becoming in danger of being misrepresented and misframed as being one of men vs women, especially here of late.  

The majority of women and within that group, the majority of feminists that I know and am aware of, view trans people as a subset of their trans gender.  I've felt increasingly reluctant to talk about that openly online, in part due to a sincere desire of not  wanting to dismiss what other women are saying (because many women who are not or are less trans inclusive seem to have a particularly distressing history either at the hands of male violence or[and] of a troubled personal relationship to their own gender, especially vis the societal expectations that I never felt any pressure to conform to.  This has changed as the debate has gone on.  I've heard a lot that has made me understand these women differently, and while my views on trans acceptance haven't materially changed, I'm less willing to womansplain to my *ahem* sisters.   

The other odd thing is the framing of trans inclusionary debate as misogyny. Trans acceptance (especially ftm) is overwhelmingly Less accepted point blank by men, as part of the toxic masculinity that also creates greater (male) homophobia among men.  Urban is somewhat progressive, but there is a very small cohort of men posting here largely to gleefully troll anyone with a pro trans point - especially if they are women.  

The other limiting factor though, is the hyperbole and shameless emotive provocation that the debate seems to invoke in its most fervent participants.   People on both sides disingenuously laying traps for others, claiming to be abused and so on.   It makes moderate debate completely impossible.  A moderated GRA seems like it would have been worth discussing... but the debate on both sides isn't interested in compromise.  It's enormously upsetting all round.


----------



## Athos (Jan 13, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> And what would you do specifically to try and adapt?



E.g. remember not to refer to them as she. I think that's probably it.


----------



## bimble (Jan 13, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> People on both sides disingenuously laying traps for others, *claiming to be abused and so on*.


Can you explain what you mean here please? Do you just mean people accusing others of being hateful to them?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 13, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I’ve responded directly to your deeply stupid views once already today. Your two comments since have just been repetitions of the same dishonest posturing. In the unlikely event that you ever say something of interest I might respond to you again, but I feel no need to respond to each and every statement by every bigot on this thread. I’m not here to have a polite discussion with you or to humor your transphobia. You should really let go of this apparent need for my attention.



Do you talk like this to people irl? I imagine you’re put on your arse fairly regularly.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 13, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> As far as the men are concerned I've come to the conclusion they don't really want to talk about it.
> 
> I've asked the dudes pontificating what it means to be a woman several times what it means to be a man but there have been no takers so far.
> 
> ...





mojo pixy said:


> Someone Assigned Female at Birth, can they be A Man?
> 
> This is an area of the discussion we haven't really heard, it's all framed as AFAB women complaining that trans women are really men playing pretendy dress-up. Where are the AMAB men complaining that there are loads of women pretending to be men? Would anyone care about that argument anyway? Is there anything about being an AMAB man and experiencing childhood being treated and socialised as a boy rather than a girl, that makes _true man-ness _unavailable to a trans man? Of course the reproduction issue isn't an issue, but then it isn't for every woman either, or even every AFAB woman, so what's left beyond that? Is there anything that _makes a man_, which a trans man could not access, in the way it's being argued trans women can not access things that _make a woman? _
> 
> Simplistic language attempted on purpose because for me there are manifold unresolved issues and I want to avoid building in assumptions to the questions.



This whole debate is centering on women and femininity, like femininity is some holy grail and if only we could settle what it means to be a woman and who gets to be called woman and make sure women are happy about it all  then everything will be ok.

It seems as if half the debate is going unhad.

I'd genuinely like to hear what those leaning towards trans-exclusivity feel about _trans men_. Especially what trans-exclusive tendency men (do we have any of those? Bet we do) think about women presenting as men and claiming male pronouns.

I can't add more because I don't really care any more if people want to be men or women or what they want to be called. I think I did care a bit, even as recently as the first day of this thread, but by now I'm feeling the apathy more than ever. For which I think I'm grateful, on reflection.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 13, 2018)

Athos said:


> E.g. remember not to refer to them as she. I think that's probably it.



But you see this is the problem. Isn't it?

If you are *subconsciously* treating a transman as a woman that'll come out in the way you behave towards them. It'll be recognised (correctly) as gender specific behaviour - you say you treat men and women the same, but admit sometimes you may subconsciously not,  thus belying the fact that you don't actually see them as men.

Using 'he" in this instance would just be humouring and be picked up as such.

Now, you say you broadly treat men and women equal, but what if it's so subconscious in your behaviour that you don't notice you don't? What good would calling someone "he" do, when your behaviour points you to be hiding your true feelings?


----------



## Athos (Jan 13, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> But you see this is the problem. Isn't it?
> 
> If you are *subconsciously* treating a transman as a woman that'll come out in the way you behave towards them. It'll be recognised (correctly) as gender specific behaviour - you say you treat men and women the same, but admit sometimes you may subconsciously not,  thus belying the fact that you don't actually see them as men.
> 
> ...



I can only try to overcome my subconsciousness/ socialisation. Accepting I won't always be successful. It's a way of trying to minimise upset to them. Not sure why that's a problem, really.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 13, 2018)

Not trying to upset them is not a problem. The problem comes from knowing the treatment, despite the pronouns, is still misgendered.

I'm not trying to be cruel or anything but it's impossible to be self aware all the time. This doesn't apply to only you but everyone.


----------



## Athos (Jan 13, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Not trying to upset them is not a problem. The problem comes from knowing the treatment despite the pronouns is still misgendered.
> 
> I'm not trying to be cruel or anything but it's impossible to be self aware all the time. This doesn't apply to you but everyone.



What's the alternative?  How is it better?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 13, 2018)

Athos said:


> What's the alternative?  How is it better?



I dunno. Honestly.

As an immediate response it might work, but then also it might not. I don't know if anyone was watching big brother, but India was constantly talking about how she wasn't seen as a "real woman" despite everyone doing their best to use the right pronouns.

At one point she had a go at one of the males because he wouldn't consider her a viable partner.

Another contestant told her that everyone sees her as a real woman but being completely oblivious to the fact that noone born female is ever reassured by other females "we really do see you as a woman.. Honest". It just isn't done that way. 

That very statement is paradoxical in and of itself and caused further anguish.

I don't know what the solution to that problem is. But there ain't a short term one.

Socialising boys and girls the same might be a start, but we're a long way from that.


----------



## spanglechick (Jan 13, 2018)

bimble said:


> Can you explain what you mean here please? Do you just mean people accusing others of being hateful to them?



Yep.  The hyperbole from some individuals on both sides is exhausting, irritating, and makes moderate debate impossible.


----------



## elbows (Jan 13, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> The debate is becoming in danger of being misrepresented and misframed as being one of men vs women, especially here of late.
> 
> The majority of women and within that group, the majority of feminists that I know and am aware of, view trans people as a subset of their trans gender.  I've felt increasingly reluctant to talk about that openly online, in part due to a sincere desire of not  wanting to dismiss what other women are saying (because many women who are not or are less trans inclusive seem to have a particularly distressing history either at the hands of male violence or[and] of a troubled personal relationship to their own gender, especially vis the societal expectations that I never felt any pressure to conform to.  This has changed as the debate has gone on.  I've heard a lot that has made me understand these women differently, and while my views on trans acceptance haven't materially changed, I'm less willing to womansplain to my *ahem* sisters.
> 
> The other odd thing is the framing of trans inclusionary debate as misogyny. Trans acceptance (especially ftm) is overwhelmingly Less accepted point blank by men, as part of the toxic masculinity that also creates greater (male) homophobia among men.  Urban is somewhat progressive, but there is a very small cohort of men posting here largely to gleefully troll anyone with a pro trans point - especially if they are women.



It's been interesting, I feel like I have learnt some things, even if some of those things are troubling the picture is at least more nuanced. 

I've never been entirely convinced that there are less trans acceptance issues from women than men. This stuff seems to work at numerous different levels and whilst most of the most obvious, loud and even violent non-acceptance comes from men, I dont want to get the wrong idea about whether some potentially fairly widespread exclusionary attitudes are held by plenty of women. It might just be less visible, for reasons including all the usual reasons why womens voices may be drowned out.

I can understand why some aspects of the whole 'TERF vs' thing might leave some wanting to reclaim labels from negative use, but I really dont get it when it comes to TERF - its an acronym not a word, and I dont understand how it can be reclaimed in a decent and positive way when two of its letters stand for trans-exclusionary.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 13, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> The debate is becoming in danger of being misrepresented and misframed as being one of men vs women, especially here of late.
> 
> The majority of women and within that group, the majority of feminists that I know and am aware of, view trans people as a subset of their trans gender.  I've felt increasingly reluctant to talk about that openly online, in part due to a sincere desire of not  wanting to dismiss what other women are saying (because many women who are not or are less trans inclusive seem to have a particularly distressing history either at the hands of male violence or[and] of a troubled personal relationship to their own gender, especially vis the societal expectations that I never felt any pressure to conform to.  This has changed as the debate has gone on.  I've heard a lot that has made me understand these women differently, and while my views on trans acceptance haven't materially changed, I'm less willing to womansplain to my *ahem* sisters.
> 
> ...



What I'd like is a discussion that people can come to without having to know what they think already, without having to provide the 'evidence', and without the framing of others words in terms that act as straightjackets. Otherwise, even when it's relatively polite, it can feel like a competition, not a conversation.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 13, 2018)

elbows said:


> It's been interesting, I feel like I have learnt some things, even if some of those things are troubling the picture is at least more nuanced.
> 
> I've never been entirely convinced that there are less trans acceptance issues from women than men. This stuff seems to work at numerous different levels and whilst most of the most obvious, loud and even violent non-acceptance comes from men, I dont want to get the wrong idea about whether some potentially fairly widespread exclusionary attitudes are held by plenty of women. It might just be less visible, for reasons including all the usual reasons why womens voices may be drowned out.
> 
> I can understand why some aspects of the whole 'TERF vs' thing might leave some wanting to reclaim labels from negative use, but I really dont get it when it comes to TERF - its an acronym not a word, *and I dont understand how it can be reclaimed in a decent and positive way when two of its letters stand for trans-exclusionary.*



Well apparently not... 







I've had to read this a few times to be honest.


----------



## elbows (Jan 13, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> I've had to read this a few times to be honest.



I can sort of get my head round it and empathise with chunks of it. But it cant escape falling into the realm of 'dangerous conflation' in my book. We're doomed to quagmire if we cant remove the artificial joins between some of these things, just as we are if we dismiss all the parts out of hand because of the way they've been welded together.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 13, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> It’s simply about ticking all the right-on boxes without thinking any of it through.



Yep could be.  Which says something about how the background culture has moved, perhaps.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Well apparently not...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


not surprised, the background's a foul colour


----------



## 8ball (Jan 13, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Point of order: many people who identify as non-binary would be placed in the 'female' category by those determined to ensure that everyone is one thing or the other, so the idea of 'non-binary' being nothing but a free pass for men to enter women-only spaces doesn't stack up.



I dunno.  It means you can put on a pink tie and boom, you're in.
I can understand why women feel it undermines their space.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 13, 2018)

weepiper said:


> If they're non-binary why do they want to come to a women's workshop?



It could include very young people who might be on an early part of their journey to transitioning.  It means trans people are welcome without having to be solidly transitioned.  I get your objections, I just see what they're trying to do too.  I think.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 13, 2018)

smmudge said:


> And tbh there's not much talk of trans men on _either_ side. This definition that a woman is someone with "female reproductive potential", what about the trans men who have that but don't want to be a woman, they should just sit down and shut up?



I think there is not much talk of trans women because there are much fewer of them and men do not consider them a threat (afaik).


----------



## 8ball (Jan 13, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> As far as the men are concerned I've come to the conclusion they don't really want to talk about it.
> 
> I've asked the dudes pontificating what it means to be a woman several times what it means to be a man but there have been no takers so far....
> 
> Men: what makes a man?



I'm not aware of having pontificated on what makes a woman at any point, but the "what makes a man" thing currently seems to something also going through a bit of flux, in terms of gender expectations if not in terms of biology.

However, depending on other factors like socioeconomic bracket, degree of social power etc. I think being a man leaves more options open for breaking rules (albeit some men are threatened by the most minor of rule breaking).  

I was never terribly good at being a typical boy, so I've really felt part of "team bloke".  It's fortunate that "team bloke" is optional for men, though.  I was once told I must be gay because I didn't like football. 

Not sure whether making this about men could derail things too far...


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 13, 2018)

8ball said:


> I think there is not much talk of trans women because there are much fewer of them and men do not consider them a threat (afaik).



The equivalent would be spaces they’re excluded from (or not) so maybe there’s not a mad dash to join snooty golf clubs or the Freemasons.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 13, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> The equivalent would be spaces they’re excluded from (or not) so maybe there’s not a mad dash to join snooty golf clubs or the Freemasons.



It's a good point.  I'm not aware of whether that's actually been tested.

edit: on Googling it seems it has been tested.  Also, there's the case of these people's acceptance or otherwise of trans women who were members before transitioning.  I think it's only partly relevant because these are institutions based around excluding people generally in the first place.

On reflection, considering the case of trans men it does make it feel more personally relevant how a trans man wasn't socialised on "my side of the fence".  That fence is pretty high when you're very young.  Or it was when I was growing up, anyway.


----------



## elbows (Jan 13, 2018)

elbows said:


> I've never been entirely convinced that there are less trans acceptance issues from women than men. This stuff seems to work at numerous different levels and whilst most of the most obvious, loud and even violent non-acceptance comes from men, I dont want to get the wrong idea about whether some potentially fairly widespread exclusionary attitudes are held by plenty of women. It might just be less visible, for reasons including all the usual reasons why womens voices may be drowned out.



I went looking for primitive surveys as a starting point to understanding the scale of this better. 

I've only found one so far, and it was a survey of under 2500 Sky customers a few years back and only asked a couple of rather specific questions. So I'm only using it for initial clues.

Poll VI tabs - TG.pdf

To what extent, if at all, do you agree or disagree with the following statements: "Clinical treatment to change a person's gender is morally wrong" 

Agree (combined): Female 14% Male 25%
Disagree (combined): Female 54% Male 43%
Neither agree nor disagree: Female 23% Male 27%
Dont know: Female 2% Male 1%
Prefer not to say: Female 7% Male 4%

To what extent, if at all, do you agree or disagree with the following statements: "The NHS should pay for clinical treatment to change a person’s gender where desired by a patient and deemed appropriate by doctors" 

Agree (combined): Female 29% Male 21%
Disagree (combined): Female 44% Male 60%
Neither agree nor disagree: Female 18% Male 14%
Dont know: Female 3% Male 1%
Prefer not to say: Female 6% Male 3%

I have simplified these results for the sake of brevity and the full results are also broken down by region, age, political party voting and 'experian mosaic'.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 13, 2018)

Oh, I just remembered.

We had a trans man in work several years ago.  The only one I'm aware of having met, as it happens.
He was a bit eccentric but very likeable and I didn't find out he was a trans man until after he left the company (a very small number at the company knew before this).

I remember quite a few women being dubious about him for reasons they couldn't put their finger on.  Most of the men just thought of him as a funny nutter.  Though a lot of men weren't terribly surprised when they found out about his history whereas I was very surprised.


----------



## campanula (Jan 13, 2018)

8ball said:


> I think there is not much talk of trans women because there are much fewer of them and men do not consider them a threat (afaik).



I tend to think that transmen are largely silent having been previously socialised as women, with all the self-effacement, unwillingness to shout out, take up space, be loud and proud...ie. the usual modest, demure compliance...which mitigates against ensuring their demands  take precedence. Put such  limiting social constraints on people who are already feeling anxious, different, alone...and it is unsurprising that transmen have become a largely invisible presence within the noisy trans rights demands from MtF (who, of course, have not been compromised by a lifetime of deference).


----------



## 8ball (Jan 13, 2018)

campanula said:


> I tend to think that transmen are largely silent having been previously socialised as women, with all the self-effacement, unwillingness to shout out, take up space, be loud and proud...ie. the usual modest, demure compliance...which mitigates against ensuring their demands  take precedence. Put such  limiting social constraints on people who are already feeling anxious, different, alone...and it is unsurprising that transmen have become a largely invisible presence within the noisy trans rights demands from MtF (who, of course, have not been compromised by a lifetime of deference).



Maybe in terms of organising as trans men as a group that makes sense, but doesn't fit the personality of the one trans man I've met.  Modest demure, compliance wasn't a big thing for him.

Not for the majority of women I know either, to be fair.


----------



## campanula (Jan 13, 2018)

8ball said:


> Maybe in terms of organising as trans men as a group that makes sense, but doesn't fit the personality of the one trans man I've met.  Modest demure, compliance wasn't a big thing for him.
> 
> Not for the majority of women I know either, to be fair.



It is an ongoing struggle, 8Ball - however much we like to think we have transcended our societal pressures, they are always there...and as a (much) older woman (2nd wave feminist) than many of the media savvy and apparently confident generation (who have never known anything but the neo-liberal consensus), I feel my internal contradictions very keenly. Although given the ever increasing list of psycho-social disorders and dis-ease, I suspect such confidence to be quite literally skin deep and the latent powers of capital are still holding us in obedient thrall.

Anyway - time to cut and run - the day is slipping away and I need to make my first New year allotment reccie.


----------



## Athos (Jan 13, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I dunno. Honestly.
> 
> As an immediate response it might work, but then also it might not. I don't know if anyone was watching big brother, but India was constantly talking about how she wasn't seen as a "real woman" despite everyone doing their best to use the right pronouns.
> 
> ...



I agree. I try to do my bit towards the later, with my kids and neices and nephews. But in some respects I feel like we're going the other way. I find that depressing for my daughter's.


----------



## Athos (Jan 13, 2018)

elbows said:


> It's been interesting, I feel like I have learnt some things, even if some of those things are troubling the picture is at least more nuanced.
> 
> I've never been entirely convinced that there are less trans acceptance issues from women than men. This stuff seems to work at numerous different levels and whilst most of the most obvious, loud and even violent non-acceptance comes from men, I dont want to get the wrong idea about whether some potentially fairly widespread exclusionary attitudes are held by plenty of women. It might just be less visible, for reasons including all the usual reasons why womens voices may be drowned out.
> 
> I can understand why some aspects of the whole 'TERF vs' thing might leave some wanting to reclaim labels from negative use, but I really dont get it when it comes to TERF - its an acronym not a word, and I dont understand how it can be reclaimed in a decent and positive way when two of its letters stand for trans-exclusionary.



Purely anecdotally, I get the impression that many women just play along so as not to upset people, rather than being fully on-board (whereas men are socialised less for sensitivity).


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 13, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Not trying to upset them is not a problem. The problem comes from knowing the treatment, despite the pronouns, is still misgendered.
> 
> I'm not trying to be cruel or anything but it's impossible to be self aware all the time. This doesn't apply to only you but everyone.


speaking as a trans woman, it comes across fairly clearly if some-one in my life still considers me a man and if i can, and they are not evolving to accept me as i am now, i will write them out of my life as much as i can. 

Example is at work where some people knew me before and some didn't. There is a clear difference in how those two groups interact with me. So i favour being with people who didn't know me before. It's why i moved house when i transitioned - and again, the only people i have problems with here are some guys who found out i was trans when i moved here. Everyone else clearly accepts me as a woman. 

I don't care what others think secretly and certainly wouldn't demand that anyone be self aware all the time and moderate behaviour accordingly, but i do expect some effort from those who profess to love or care about me, and to me it's clear that most people now who meet me and don't know my history, clearly see me as a woman, and i don't need to ask anything of any of those people. That's my goal. 

I'm talking about myself here, but as far i can tell, i think most trans men and women would be thinking in a similar way - the ones I've talked to anyway.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Jan 13, 2018)

campanula said:


> I tend to think that transmen are largely silent having been previously socialised as women, with all the self-effacement, unwillingness to shout out, take up space, be loud and proud...ie. the usual modest, demure compliance...which mitigates against ensuring their demands  take precedence. Put such  limiting social constraints on people who are already feeling anxious, different, alone...and it is unsurprising that transmen have become a largely invisible presence within the noisy trans rights demands from MtF (who, of course, have not been compromised by a lifetime of deference).



I’m sure there’s some truth in this. But I’ve also read/heard trans men saying that they’re much more heard, listened to, able to speak up and be engaged, involved etc, since their transition.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 13, 2018)

campanula said:


> I tend to think that transmen are largely silent having been previously socialised as women, with all the self-effacement, unwillingness to shout out, take up space, be loud and proud...ie. the usual modest, demure compliance...which mitigates against ensuring their demands  take precedence. Put such  limiting social constraints on people who are already feeling anxious, different, alone...and it is unsurprising that transmen have become a largely invisible presence within the noisy trans rights demands from MtF (who, of course, have not been compromised by a lifetime of deference).



Wow! I know many trans men and not one fits this description. They are mainly less visible because society finds female to male transition to be more acceptable, masculinity to be more acceptable; TERFs consider them to be victims of the "trans identified male cult" and most of the trans men i know have successfully gone stealth, something i manage but i think it's much harder for trans women to do this for various reasons. Also - as has been said, men don;t find them to be a threat particularly. 

But to say that the trans movement doesn't talk about trans men is ludicrous. For several years now I know for a fact that many of us have been challenging the TERF rhetoric in part by asking why they keep erasing trans men.

And in the trans community i know many who are in key and prominent positions, very active and very frustrated that they keep getting written out of the "debate" & working for all trans people. We are pretty much  united in fact so attempts at divide and rule won't work. I spent 3/4 years mentoring a trans man for example and it was a trans man who was extremely supportive to me when i first joined the Green Party. 

So this does not ring true, remotely.


----------



## Athos (Jan 13, 2018)

I suspect it's a variety of reasons, including socialisation, ease of passing, and that they're not considered a threat.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Jan 13, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> speaking as a trans woman, it comes across fairly clearly if some-one in my life still considers me a man and if i can, and they are not evolving to accept me as i am now, i will write them out of my life as much as i can.
> 
> Example is at work where some people knew me before and some didn't. There is a clear difference in how those two groups interact with me. So i favour being with people who didn't know me before. It's why i moved house when i transitioned - and again, the only people i have problems with here are some guys who found out i was trans when i moved here. Everyone else clearly accepts me as a woman.
> 
> ...




I know a trans woman through another friend and we are often in the same gathering. The only time I ever feel consciously aware of her pre-trans state is when she refers to it. The problem is that she refers to it a lot, even in passing. Like once I bumped into her in the street and stopped to say Hello, nice to see you and she replied “Well I do stand out don’t I, very visible, me.” I said something ridiculous about her blonde hair, trying to deflect from her apparant reference to her trans-ness. I assume she has some self consciousness around it all, and perhaps some self confidence issues but I don’t know her well enough to broach personal issues with her. But her repeatedly bringing it up in this oblique deflective way means that I am always slightly awkwardly aware of her being trans.

I know it’s not me because I know other LBGTQ... folk with whom it’s really not a Thing.

So it’s not only our (CIS hetero folks) attitudes that dictates how these things work.



ETA Reading this back, I see that I’ve expressed myslef poorly. I start by saying I’m rarely aware of her pre-trans state, and then end by saying she makes me constantly aware of it. I hope the clumsiness of the way I’ve written this can be overlooked and the nuances assumed. Ta.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 13, 2018)

SheilaNaGig said:


> I know a trans woman through another friend and we are often in the same gathering. The only time I ever feel consciously aware of her pre-trans state is when she refers to it. The problem is that she refers to it a lot, even in passing. Like once I bumped into her in the street and stopped to say Hello, nice to see you and she replied “Well I do stand out don’t I, very visible, me.” I said something ridiculous about her blonde hair, trying to deflect from her apparant reference to her trans-ness. I assume she has some self consciousness around it all, and perhaps some self confidence issues but I don’t know her well enough to broach personal issues with her. But her repeatedly bringing it up in this oblique deflective way means that I am always slightly awkwardly aware of her being trans.
> 
> I know it’s not me because I know other LBGTQ... folk with whom it’s really not a Thing.
> 
> So it’s not only our (CIS hetero folks) attitudes that dictates how these things work.



I have always admitted that i also struggle with not misgendering some trans people. If you're in the company of a lot of trans people you have to quickly stop relying on your brain to automatically go to the correct or apporpriate pronoun. Can be exhausting. And i have misgendered trans women at times. I just say sorry and we move on. No biggy.

also - I think being socialised as a cis person puts all kinds of attitiudes in you that then is a struggle to unlearn. I'm kind of towards the end of this process now but i remember how hard it was at the start where i was living and breathing trans issues - every day brought some barrier to overcome and driving a social transition by yourself is hard work. I'm sure plenty of trans people who's lives may fall apart through that process probably struggle to move beyond not thinking about anything but being trans.

Does sound like someone is struggling with self acceptance there. I do this with my partner - constantly asking him for affirmation of my gender and putting myself down like that, but then it lets me get it all out of my system. I know when i'm out with my best mate i barely mention being trans - normally she'll bring it up and not all that often tbh. She's quite sensitive on my behalf - goes for the jugular when she thinks I've been misgendered wheras I usually don't even notice!


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 13, 2018)

8ball said:


> It's fortunate that "team bloke" is optional for men, though.



I'm not sure it's always optional. It may depend on the company you keep, and how much choice you get over that, day-to-day. And then the _optional _you mean may be no more than the options_ Team Bloke_ or _Team Persona Non Grata_, though that may be preferable to _Team Target for Abuse_, so you go _Team Bloke_ because it's less distressing than what happens if you don't. Also there's no real control over how people see you who don't know you from Adam. Like eg you're a potential rapist.

I imagine trans men, especially trans men who pass well, might get some or all of that but it obviously all depends on the company they keep and places they go.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 14, 2018)

Terrified patient treated like ‘transphobic bigot’

Behind a paywall, but a lot can be read without paying.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 14, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> I imagine trans men, especially trans men who pass well, might get some or all of that but it obviously all depends on the company they keep and places they go.



A good friend mine is a transgender man and i remember him getting punched by some bloke in a pub over what was essentially him giving inappropriate eye contact in a slightly fraught situation. Afterwards, he took it as a learning experience. I remember him saying "so now i can't look at women but i can't look at men either". I had to profess that I never learned the rules either but giving eye contact to strange men is just something i always avoided and still do.

I think it's not just something that post transition trans men deal with, but many pre-transition trans women too. I speak from experience. Many of us get misgendered as women even as we attempt to be men. Or we get "girl", or "woman" thrown at us as slurs for not being able to conform to masculinity.

I could write reams about this but not going to because i just don;t have time today.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 14, 2018)

comrade spurski said:


> That is simply a lie.
> Continuously calling people "he" who have said they wish to be called "she" does not equate to your "replies have always been courteous." It shows a staggering ignorance regarding the feelings of others and a huge amount of arrogance.



It is not discourteous nor is it arrogant to refuse to submit to someone's subjective internalised thoughts.


----------



## Jonti (Jan 14, 2018)

That sounds pompous to me.  There's nothing wrong with good manners.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 14, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> It is not discourteous nor is it arrogant to refuse to submit to someone's subjective internalised thoughts.



Because you believe you're colluding with magical thinking? We all collude with something like that all of the time, there's nothing special about trans issues in that respect. 

What is your motivation in needing to tell people how you see reality?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 14, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> It is not discourteous nor is it arrogant to refuse to submit to someone's subjective internalised thoughts.


Hypothetical situation, but one grounded in reality:

You run a club of some kind - sports, martial arts, that kind of thing - and one of your members comes to you after a period away from the club to tell you that they are transitioning and would like to come back training but identifying as the other gender. They have changed their name and are in the process of obtaining a legal gender change (something that still involves, rightly or wrongly, the idea of 'living as that gender'). You discuss various issues, including their concerns wrt changing areas. You agree to find them somewhere discreet to change on their own at first at least as everyone works out the best thing to do (ime, in the real world, this kind of thing is more likely to happen than some kind of demand and imposition). 

You explain the situation to the rest of your members. All but one say they'll do their best to make the person as comfortable as possible. That one says 'no, for me biological sex is a fact that cannot be changed; gender is an oppressive social construct, and I refuse to indulge somebody else's fantasy that they can act out a gender role in a way that makes them like the people of a different biological sex from the one they were born with'. Or something similar - insert your own argument here if you think you have a better one. 

You try to make things work between them, but this one member refuses to use the language appropriate for the trans member's adopted gender. There are complaints. The others support the trans person. 

What do you do? 

I know what I would do. Treating others with respect would be the foundation of any club run by me, and that would include, in this instance, respecting the trans person's wishes wrt how they are addressed. Ironically, I see your position, as given here and demonstrated in what you said about Sea Star and others, as the anti-social one, demanding that an individual's views should trump any wider consensus: an extreme individualism in many respects.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 14, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> As far as the men are concerned I've come to the conclusion they don't really want to talk about it.
> 
> I've asked the dudes pontificating what it means to be a woman several times what it means to be a man but there have been no takers so far.
> 
> ...


Male is the unmarked identity.  Male is default.  You can be male however you like... so long as it doesn't conflict with the marked identity of being a woman.  These questions of "what is a man?" miss the point by missing this basic truth.  It is _woman_ that is marked with a specific set of characteristics, not _man.  _Transgendered men are performing the role of not-woman as determinedly as they can, which helps avoid this conflict.  Beyond that, it threatens nobody else's identity, role or assumptions for them to take on a male (non-)identity.

Being a transgendered woman is a very different proposition.  To be a _woman_ is to take on the characteristics of the marked identity, and society has a distinct concept of what this involves.  Conflicts against this archetype/stereotype can easily be created and in their turn create cognitive disonance. It is threatening.

The fact that the difficulties encountered by those trying to assume the marked identity run headlong into the difficulties encountered by those who already suffer under the yoke of the marked identity is, of course, deeply unfortunate for all involved and lead to the problems we are currently observing.

(I have stated all the above as if it is Truth.  It is not, of course -- it's just my interpretetation of my observerations of current cultural norms and the transgressions against those norms.  I would hope the fact that it is just hypothesis would be obvious, but just in case it is not so: I know it is conjecture, and I will be interested to see reactions, objections and extensions of it.)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 14, 2018)

Why 'transgendered'? 

Whether we like it or not, our language choices matter in this debate.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 14, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why 'transgendered'?
> 
> Whether we like it or not, our language choices matter in this debate.


Yes, this is the kind of response I was interested in having.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 14, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Yes, this is the kind of response I was interested in having.


You plumped for the term 'transgendered'. Was that a considered choice? Are you aware of the issues surrounding that choice? 

I'm sorry if I didn't find your post so sparkling with ideas that I could ask something more worthy of it.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 14, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Hypothetical situation, but one grounded in reality:
> 
> You run a club of some kind - sports, martial arts, that kind of thing - and one of your members comes to you after a period away from the club to tell you that they are transitioning and would like to come back training but identifying as the other gender. They have changed their name and are in the process of obtaining a legal gender change (something that still involves, rightly or wrongly, the idea of 'living as that gender'). You discuss various issues, including their concerns wrt changing areas. You agree to find them somewhere discreet to change on their own at first at least as everyone works out the best thing to do (ime, in the real world, this kind of thing is more likely to happen than some kind of demand and imposition).
> 
> ...



Although it's a hypothetical it illustrates the point you mention very well, which I would like to stress: what is being presented here is a dichotomy, the action can either be pro- the trans person's right to be identified as a member of the opposite sex (when they are not, sex is defined by reference to reproductive class and is immutable), or pro- the other person's right to use language to describe what they see. The take away points are (i) there's a freedom of thought/speech issue here, and (ii) consider that the person's objection can be for a number of reasons:

That person is just mean;
That person views indulging pronouns (including non-binary like xie and hir) as enforced imposition of language, thus to use these is an act of submission;
That person sees males who transition as reinforcing sex-based stereotypes which are damaging to women, and after what women have been through why should they;
That person may consider it cruel to reinforce the idea someone is what they are not;
In this instance we are talking about a contact sport, natal males have longer and denser bones than females on average and this confers a (literal!) mechanical advantage in contact sports: what sort of man anyway wants to fight women?
There is a real problem with the false dichotomy of pro-woman being translated into anti-trans, it doesn't have to be like this. We can recognise 'trans women' as just that, and avoid problems like the recent Labour Party 'self-defined women' fiasco: if the underrepresentation of T, or even LGBT people in parliament needs to be addressed, allowing trans males to occupy women's shortlists doesn't achieve this. Instead it attacks women's representation and entrenches a zero-sum position in the left with regard to women's rights and trans rights. It's incredibly regressive. (For example, where does this policy put any 'trans men' who wish to stand for parliament?).


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 14, 2018)

Red Cat said:


> Because you believe you're colluding with magical thinking? We all collude with something like that all of the time, there's nothing special about trans issues in that respect.
> 
> What is your motivation in needing to tell people how you see reality?



Again, it's an act of submission. So, no.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 14, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Again, it's an act of submission. So, no.



You don't half sound like some UKIP pub bore bravely saying the things that aren't allowed to be said at times.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 14, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> It is not discourteous nor is it arrogant to refuse to submit to someone's subjective internalised thoughts.



You say 'submit to' when you could just say 'respect'. It's not submission if you lose nothing by doing it. And no, losing the opportunity to have a thinly-veiled dig at someone does not count.

If anything you are, by misgendering people, making them submit to your judgement of who they are at the expense of their own. Even if they choose to ignore it, that's still a choice that they wouldn't have to make if you could only bring yourself to be civil.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 14, 2018)

smokedout said:


> You don't half sound like some UKIP pub bore bravely saying the things that aren't allowed to be said at times.



Please stop poisoning the well with your dumb-ass ad hominems. Please engage with the argument I am making. Thank you.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 14, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why 'transgendered'?
> 
> Whether we like it or not, our language choices matter in this debate.



The past participle makes the person an object rather than a subject, and implies existence of a responsible party other than the person themselves. So yeah, to me 'transgendered' seems loaded.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 14, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Please stop poisoning the well with your dumb-ass ad hominems. Please engage with the argument I am making. Thank you.



You said that referring to people with their preferred pronouns is an act of submission. That's not an argument, it's a statement.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 14, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> You say 'submit to' when you could just say 'respect'. It's not submission if you lose nothing by doing it. And no, losing the opportunity to have a thinly-veiled dig at someone does not count.



No, it's not respectful to lie to someone about what they are. And it's not a dig calling a man a man, unless you think there's something wrong with being a man.



SpookyFrank said:


> If anything you are, by misgendering people, making them submit to your judgement of who they are at the expense of their own. Even if they choose to ignore it, that's still a choice that they wouldn't have to make if you could only bring yourself to be civil.



The point is, like it or not, 'trans women' are males who have benefitted from living as men. We *are* men. And it's okay. It's only 'allies' like you and hypersensitive activists who view being a man a judgement. It's not. It's a morally neutral statement of fact. It's not my fault transgender ideology involves people suspending any sense of reality and indulging a lie, in order to be treated as a friend.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 14, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You plumped for the term 'transgendered'. Was that a considered choice? Are you aware of the issues surrounding that choice?
> 
> I'm sorry if I didn't find your post so sparkling with ideas that I could ask something more worthy of it.


.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 14, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> You said that referring to people with their preferred pronouns is an act of submission. That's not an argument, it's a statement.



I have explained why it's an act of submission. See above. Somewhere.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 14, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> No, it's not respectful to lie to someone about what they are. And it's not a dig calling a man a man, unless you think there's something wrong with being a man.



Do you insist on referring to married cis women by their maiden names, because whatever their wishes, you reject the patriarchal system of marriage?  Do you call black people coloureds because no-one truly has black skin and anyway race is a social contruct?  Do you call disabled people cripples or people with learning disabilities retarded because they are perfectly good descriptive terms and why should you submit to their insistence that you use namby pamby politcally correct terms?  Do you refuse to call people gay because gay means happy not homosexual? How far do you insist your beliefs take precedence over people being treated with decency and politeness?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 14, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Do you insist on referring to married cis women by their maiden names, because whatever their wishes, you reject the patriarchal system of marriage?  Do you call black people coloureds because no-one truly has black skin and anyway race is a social contruct?  Do you call disabled people cripples or people with learning disabilities retarded because they are perfectly good descriptive terms and why should you submit to their insistence that you use namby pamby politcally correct terms?  Do you refuse to call people gay because gay means happy not homosexual? How far do you insist your beliefs take precedence over people being treated with decency and politeness?



Well quite. If basic courtesy feels like an act of submission then getting through a typical day must be a real struggle.

Submission is a surrender of agency; courtesy is using your agency to make life slightly more pleasant for someone else, or just to avoid making life needlessly unpleasant for them. If that takes a massive chunk out of your plans for today then maybe you should plan to be less of an arsehole tomorrow.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 14, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> In this instance we are talking about a contact sport, natal males have longer and denser bones than females on average and this confers a (literal!) mechanical advantage in contact sports: what sort of man anyway wants to fight women?


Ok, I'll take this part out. Assume for the sake of the hypothetical that we're discussing a martial art in which men and women do train with one another - which does happen in some martial arts: it happens in the two that I do. In any activity, physical differences between the sexes cannot be ignored, I agree, but that wasn't really what I was driving at, so let us assume that this is not at issue here.

You haven't really answered my question, though, and you've replied in a way that only seems to consider a situation where the trans person in question is mtf, which I didn't specify.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 14, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> No, it's not respectful to lie to someone about what they are.



Except when that's what they need to hear, maybe.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 14, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Please stop poisoning the well with your dumb-ass ad hominems. Please engage with the argument I am making. Thank you.


Not so keen on discussing trans people in prison now I see, after you well and truly pissed on your argument there.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 14, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> Except when that's what they need to hear, maybe.



Not being funny, if one isn't robust enough to deal with pronouns, I don't fancy their chances dealing with the lived reality of being trans, nevermind having then doing aftercare on a penile inversion.


smokedout said:


> Do you insist on referring to married cis women by their maiden names, because whatever their wishes, you reject the patriarchal system of marriage?  Do you call black people coloureds because no-one truly has black skin and anyway race is a social contruct?  Do you call disabled people cripples or people with learning disabilities retarded because they are perfectly good descriptive terms and why should you submit to their insistence that you use namby pamby politcally correct terms?  Do you refuse to call people gay because gay means happy not homosexual? How far do you insist your beliefs take precedence over people being treated with decency and politeness?



I'm respectful enough to all women not to impose the word 'cis' on them. You have no room to speak of decency and politeness.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 14, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ok, I'll take this part out. Assume for the sake of the hypothetical that we're discussing a martial art in which men and women do train with one another - which does happen in some martial arts: it happens in the two that I do. In any activity, physical differences between the sexes cannot be ignored, I agree, but that wasn't really what I was driving at, so let us assume that this is not at issue here.
> 
> You haven't really answered my question, though, and you've replied in a way that only seems to consider a situation where the trans person in question is mtf, which I didn't specify.



I believe I addressed 'trans men' including the unintended consequence of the latest Labour fiasco. Was there something specific? (I'm also working while I do this so apologies if I missed something).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 14, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I believe I addressed 'trans men' including the unintended consequence of the latest Labour fiasco. Was there something specific? (I'm also working while I do this so apologies if I missed something).


I'm putting you in charge of a martial arts club (one in which men and women do train with one another) where this conflict has arisen. I am suggesting to you that none of us has the right to impose our beliefs on others in all situations. One of those situations would be the one I described, in which you need to make a decision. Another, simpler one has arisen on this thread, where you have deliberately misgendered another poster for effect. All claims to be acting courteously went down the plughole when you did that.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 14, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm putting you in charge of a martial arts club (one in which men and women do train with one another) where this conflict has arisen. I am suggesting to you that none of us has the right to impose our beliefs on others in all situations. One of those situations would be the one I described, in which you need to make a decision. Another, simpler one has arisen on this thread, where you have deliberately misgendered another poster for effect. All claims to be acting courteously went down the plughole when you did that.



I didn't 'misgender' for effect. I've explained why.

Apropos your post,like I said it makes a really good point and illustrates a real-life problem.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 14, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I didn't 'misgender' for effect. I've explained why.


I give you enough credit to think that you knew exactly what you were doing, first regarding the trans woman on the Vogue cover, whom you went out of your way to misgender, taking evident glee in doing so, and then soon afterwards regarding the poster here. You appeared to be on something of a roll at the time, and determined to make your point.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 14, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I give you enough credit to think that you knew exactly what you were doing, first regarding the trans woman on the Vogue cover, whom you went out of your way to misgender, taking evident glee in doing so, and then soon afterwards regarding the poster here. You appeared to be on something of a roll at the time, and determined to make your point.



You completely miss my point. It's not personal.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 14, 2018)

smokedout said:


> You don't half sound like some UKIP pub bore bravely saying the things that aren't allowed to be said at times.


Oh no they dont.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 14, 2018)

TopCat said:


> Oh no they dont.


----------



## Athos (Jan 14, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> The past participle makes the person an object rather than a subject, and implies existence of a responsible party other than the person themselves. So yeah, to me 'transgendered' seems loaded.



It's not the past participle (because there's no verb 'to transgender'); it's an adjective. The '-ed' is unnecessary, though.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 14, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm putting you in charge of a martial arts club (one in which men and women do train with one another) where this conflict has arisen. I am suggesting to you that none of us has the right to impose our beliefs on others in all situations. One of those situations would be the one I described, in which you need to make a decision. Another, simpler one has arisen on this thread, where you have deliberately misgendered another poster for effect. All claims to be acting courteously went down the plughole when you did that.


Get off the dojo.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 14, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I didn't 'misgender' for effect. I've explained why.
> 
> Apropos your post,like I said it makes a really good point and illustrates a real-life problem.



In your role as a magazine editor would you refuse to use the pronouns relating to the aquired gender of a trans musician you interviewed or an employee?


----------



## TopCat (Jan 14, 2018)

smokedout said:


> In your role as a magazine editor would you refuse to use the pronouns relating to the aquired gender of a trans musician you interviewed or an employee?


You keep having a pop at peeps for asking questions but you do this and answer few?
It smacks of bullying.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 14, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Not being funny, if one isn't robust enough to deal with pronouns, I don't fancy their chances dealing with the lived reality of being trans, nevermind having then doing aftercare on a penile inversion.



Well lucky you then, paragon of robustness


----------



## smokedout (Jan 14, 2018)

TopCat said:


> You keep having a pop at peeps for asking questions but you do this and answer few?
> It smacks of bullying.



You siding with the management TC?


----------



## bimble (Jan 14, 2018)

Just in case people aren't aware, in response to the Young Labour women's quota being re-defined as for 'people who identify as women', a fundraiser was started 2 days ago that's got just under 10k now.
You can read their statement explaining why this matters here:
Click here to support Keep All-Women Shortlists Female! organised by Jennifer James

In response (or is it an uncanny coincidence) Lily Madigan's written a 'Motion against transphobia in the labour party' today, calling for transphobes to be kicked out of the party. It says "We further believe that trans men are men, and trans women are women and as such should have equal access with cis counterparts to stand for, and participate with, all party programmes and roles within the Party and in government. This includes but is not restricted to allowing trans women equal consideration for all-women shortlists.."

The twitter war between supporters of the crowd-funder and people shouting terf and transphobe at them is not edifying.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 14, 2018)

bimble said:


> Just in case people aren't aware, in response to the Young Labour women's quota being re-defined as for 'people who identify as women', a fundraiser was started 2 days ago that's got just under 10k now.
> You can read their statement explaining why this matters here:
> Click here to support Keep All-Women Shortlists Female! organised by Jennifer James
> 
> ...


Just as long as anything that is supposed to be about equality for women actually remains firmly about trans issues, I guess everybody is happy?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 14, 2018)

Anyway found the answer, seems like Miranda Yardley is quite happy to present a trans woman as a woman in the magazine she edits and owns.  Classic liberal indeed, principles fly out the window the second the bottom line might be affected.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 14, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Anyway found the answer, seems like Miranda Yardley is quite happy to present a trans woman as a woman in the magazine she edits and owns.  Classic liberal indeed, principles fly out the window the second the bottom line might be affected.



TBF that article is dated 2010...It appears that Miranda's opinion on the use of pronouns has changed.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 14, 2018)

Well now I've pointed it out they can change it to reflect the new ideology.

Although as feminist gestures go not putting bands who write songs glorifying rape and violence against women on the front cover of a magazine probably largely read by teenages boys might go a bit further then worrying about pronouns.  But like I said, the bottom line is what counts.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 14, 2018)

smokedout said:


> You siding with the management TC?


Which management? What polarisation are you trying to push?
You wanna shout Terf Cunt at Helen? Where the fuck are you coming from?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 14, 2018)

TopCat said:


> Which management? What polarisation are you trying to push?
> You wanna shout Terf Cunt at Helen? Where the fuck are you coming from?



I was referring to Miranda's role as an employer and business owner, and whether their refusal to gender people the way they want extended into their business practice.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 14, 2018)

The TERFs attempts to influence Labour Party politics in a transphobic direction do not appear to be going well. 

They’ve long ago realized that they have lost all influence on the left of the party, so their lobbying efforts have in recent times been aimed at gaining the support of the party right - not an entirely stupid tactical decision by any means, given that some on the Labour right would have connections to the New Statesman and that others on the Labour right might be tempted to support just about anything if it gave them the opportunity to oppose the Corbynites. However, with the partial exception of Jess Phillips it turns out that Labour right MPs aren’t keen on them either. Stella Creasey for instance rejected their views publicly the other day, which some of them took very badly.

Now they are raising funds to sue the Labour Party, an approach that pretty clearly indicates that they’ve given up hope of winning any policy votes for the foreseeable future and are willing to antagonize the whole party. That they are doing so for a purpose as inconsequential as making sure that a tiny number of trans women don’t make it onto an all women shortlist might seem bizarre. After all, even the most bigoted transphobes can’t seriously think that this will have any significant impact on anything given the handful of people involved, so why create enemies by dragging the party into the courts? The reason, as usual, is that it will further their relationship with the right wing press. It will give the Mail, Sun, Times, Telegraph etc fodder for a large number of scare stories about Corbyn, Labour and trans people, so they will be happy as pigs in shit and the TERFs care more about hurting trans people than any other issue so they don’t give a shit what the broader consequences of their actions are.


----------



## bimble (Jan 14, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> TERFs care more about hurting trans people than any other issue so they don’t give a shit what the broader consequences of their actions are.


You are an idiot Nigel, so blinkered you can’t see a thing outside your tiny narrow perspective.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 14, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Just as long as anything that is supposed to be about equality for women actually remains firmly about trans issues, I guess everybody is happy?



I'm just surprised all of the brogressive types who hector those of us thinking of the potential consequences of such policies never think of ceding mens places to trans women. It's women who will have to "trust" that the transgender women who climb into the pulpits that have been so hard to win don't think  like this one:



Edited to remove quote from another conversation


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 14, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> I'm just surprised all of the brogressive types who hector those of us thinking of the potential consequences of such policies never think of ceding mens places to trans women. It's women who will have to "trust" that the transgender women who climb into the pulpits that have been so hard to win don't think  like this one:
> 
> 
> 
> Edited to remove quote from another conversation



And I'm not even going to go into Lily Madigan's latest motion which she is urging all CLPs to adopt and which, depending on the definition of transphobia, would have any and every radical feminist kicked out of the Labour Party. Soon this saga will need it's own thread especially as people as Jon Lansman (who I've just voted for the NEC) seem to think the party would easily detect abuse while people like Clive Lewis openly mocks women worried about the turn of events


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 14, 2018)

Shut up Nigel Irritable . If you so much as look at that link you'll see the majority of the donations are £5 and £10. Not the trappings of a major and powerful lobby with wealthy friends. Yes, the Sun has contacted the organisers for a comment and they were turned down flat.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 14, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm putting you in charge of a martial arts club (one in which men and women do train with one another) where this conflict has arisen. I am suggesting to you that none of us has the right to impose our beliefs on others in all situations. One of those situations would be the one I described, in which you need to make a decision. Another, simpler one has arisen on this thread, where you have deliberately misgendered another poster for effect. All claims to be acting courteously went down the plughole when you did that.



The problem is though no matter how you dress up these hypothetical situations it’s done with the intent of getting them to concede a political point that is central to their position.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 14, 2018)

Unite (another one I'm a member of) branch secretary: "Women who talk about biology are asking for it."
 
Our representatives trans women and brogressives. Brilliant


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 14, 2018)

smokedout said:


> I was referring to Miranda's role as an employer and business owner, and whether their refusal to gender people the way they want extended into their business practice.



Sounds like a veiled threat.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 14, 2018)

Ruth Serwotka on the right of the Labour Party  uh huh.

This looks rather inconveniently un-pally with the right wing press for Nigel's narrative, too


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 15, 2018)

Ooh I missed ^^that^^ one. We want to abolish gender. Being okay with people becoming gender stereotypes only takes us further away from the goal.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 15, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Ooh I missed ^^that^^ one. We want to abolish gender. Being okay with people becoming gender stereotypes only takes us further away from the goal.



I'm a bit foggy on what "abolishing gender" means.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 15, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Shut up Nigel Irritable . If you so much as look at that link you'll see the majority of the donations are £5 and £10. Not the trappings of a major and powerful lobby with wealthy friends.



I did look at the link, and at the disgusting comments left by contributors. I’ve never suggested that the TERFs are a powerful and well funded lobby. Quite the opposite. Since my first posts on this thread I’ve been arguing that they are a marginal and politically defeated fringe group. They only have any real significance in so far as they provide seemingly progressive arguments and a stream of shock stories for the use of the actually rich and powerful transphobic lobby, the forces of social conservatism, and help to disorient left wing responses to transphobia.

If they didn’t play that role nobody would care about their views at all and the only people who would even have heard of them would be people like me who happen to have an interest in bizarre political sects and subcultures.TERFs are so marginal in fact that I’ve never once heard anyone make a left wing or feminist transphobic argument in real life. It’s almost entirely an online phenomenon, particularly outside of Britain.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 15, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Sounds like a veiled threat.



Not at all, Miranda commrented on real life examples, so here's a real life example Miranda Yardley.  Your office cleaner comes out as trans, do you refuse to use the correct profile for their acquired gender?

I won't post the lyrics here to Stripped, Raped and Strangled by Cannibal Corpse who in 2014 featured on the front cover of the magazine Miranda edits and publishes, but they are easy enough to find.  I can't find any examples of the horrific misogyny that is embedded within some extreme metal scenes being challenged in Terrorizer magazine, all I find is gushing reviews.  It seems Miranda's feminist principles only go as far as misgendering transpeople - promoting bands glorifying rape in a magazine read by children is fine.  To me that seems a strange set of priorities for a radical feminist.  But then I'm sure Miranda's money helps them sleep at night.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jan 15, 2018)

8ball said:


> I'm a bit foggy on what "abolishing gender" means.



Abolishing the idea that there are ‘masculine’ / ‘feminine’ behaviours / ways of being etc. Anyone, regardless of their sex will be able to wear what they want / do what job they want etc etc. Patriarchy will be dismantled basically. 

Sex will be the only difference between men and women.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 15, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> TERFs are so marginal in fact that I’ve never once heard anyone make a left wing or feminist transphobic argument in real life. It’s almost entirely an online phenomenon, particularly outside of Britain.



Like a white person saying they've never seen racism. Gobsmacking. If TERFism only existed online then we could all safely disregard them. 

All the cis women I know who have tried to be allies to trans people have been attacked - not just online. There are anti trans editorials in the Morning Star for fecks sake. TERFs - some who are powerful and wealthy with good political and media links - are managing to lobby government, their arguments particularly seem to appeal to right wing christian Tories who seem to be parroting radical feminist arguments in some of their literature now, and getting their arguments into The Times, The Express (can you believe that the Express have turned feminist all of a sudden just so they have an extra argument against trans people?), the Mail, on to Mumsnet. This stuff is getting into schools now in order to undermine us at the most fundamental level. If children can't transition and have treatment then they devlop in a way that will hurt them and wreck their lives. Trans women will have facial hair, most likely be tall, and have deep voices. Then the TERFs come along and say those trans adults must be excluded because they "look like men" and were "socialised as boys". It's a pretty obvious tactic to us. Cis people on the whole can't see it and will often collude in parts of it without realising or they refuse to challenge their own prejudices on this subject.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 15, 2018)

purenarcotic said:


> Abolishing the idea that there are ‘masculine’ / ‘feminine’ behaviours / ways of being etc. Anyone, regardless of their sex will be able to wear what they want / do what job they want etc etc. Patriarchy will be dismantled basically.



This is right before they attempt to show that our behaviour makes us men and that trans women have a pattern of "male behaviour". Another reason I can't argue with them. Ludicrous. Double standards. Hypocrisy


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 15, 2018)

8ball said:


> I'm a bit foggy on what "abolishing gender" means.


Destroying the structures that make gender a hierarchy where "female", "feminine" and "womanhood" are seen as lesser than or under "male", "masculine" and "manhood".


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 15, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Destroying the structures that make gender a hierarchy where "female", "feminine" and "womanhood" are seen as lesser than or under "male", "masculine" and "manhood".


Which entails...?


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 15, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Like a white person saying they've never seen racism. Gobsmacking. If TERFism only existed online then we could all safely disregard them.
> 
> All the cis women I know who have tried to be allies to trans people have been attacked - not just online. There are anti trans editorials in the Morning Star for fecks sake. TERFs - some who are powerful and wealthy with good political and media links - are managing to lobby government, their arguments particularly seem to appeal to right wing christian Tories who seem to be parroting radical feminist arguments in some of their literature now, and getting their arguments into The Times, The Express (can you believe that the Express have turned feminist all of a sudden just so they have an extra argument against trans people?), the Mail, on to Mumsnet. This stuff is getting into schools now in order to undermine us at the most fundamental level. If children can't transition and have treatment then they devlop in a way that will hurt them and wreck their lives. Trans women will have facial hair, most likely be tall, and have deep voices. Then the TERFs come along and say those trans adults must be excluded because they "look like men" and were "socialised as boys". It's a pretty obvious tactic to us. Cis people on the whole can't see it and will often collude in parts of it without realising or they refuse to challenge their own prejudices on this subject.



Oh yes, because coming up with an infinity of genders from "the sea" to "virgo" ostensibly [but not reaallly] to describe the variety of [now] 7 billion of people is the solution. Care to tell me how that may help my nieces when they go for a job interview after ticking their gender as "pure light" and the prospective employer only sees the probabilities of having to pay them time off to have a baby?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 15, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Which entails...?



Challenging the notion that there are male and female essences. The end of pink/blue marketisation of girl/womanhood and boy/manhood would be a nice goal.

 It's OK for women to wear trousers but how about heels and dresses for men? Poll pocket and jewelry craft for boys and remote controlled cars and train sets for girls without the insinuation io "weirdness"?

The linking of feminine men to gayness (because homophobic stereotypes still exist, and are directly linked to femininity).

Allowing "feminine" to be an acceptable description for men and not one of ridicule would be a start. With an end goal of "masculine and feminine eventually meaning the same thing.

The problem at the moment is that the men need to be active in this to make it work, but they don't really want to because they are too sold to on female/male essence and have too much power to lose.


----------



## bimble (Jan 15, 2018)

[QUOTE="Nigel Irritable, post: 15399778, member: 1131]"..the only people who would even have heard of them would be people like me who happen to have an interest in bizarre political sects and subcultures..[/QUOTE]

This is a classic case of projection i think. All you know about is 'bizarre political sects' so that is all you see. To a man with a hammer etc.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 15, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> The problem is though no matter how you dress up these hypothetical situations it’s done with the intent of getting them to concede a political point that is central to their position.


I wouldn't word it like that but yes, it is intended to take their political position into the real world and see how it works. I used a club rather than work because most of us have to compromise in order to make a living.


----------



## bimble (Jan 15, 2018)

What about the real world situation of women only shortlists in the labour party being redefined as lists for people who self-identify as women ? Do you think that's a good idea ? Do you think people objecting to it are hate-speeching transphobes who should be kicked out of the party?


----------



## Athos (Jan 15, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> This is right before they attempt to show that our behaviour makes us men and that trans women have a pattern of "male behaviour". Another reason I can't argue with them. Ludicrous. Double standards. Hypocrisy



It's possible to aspire to a better future (where there is no gender i.e. when certain traits/ behaviours aren't socially imposed according to sex) whilst recognising the current reality (i.e. that they are).  There's no double standard there; nothing hypocritical in recognising the affects of socialisation - in fact, it's that recognition that inspires the desire to move beyond.

Not that I like the way this is sometimes weaponised against trans people, particularly when it is done so dishonestly e.g. the misrepresentation of the research around trans women's rates of offending.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 15, 2018)

bimble said:


> Just in case people aren't aware, in response to the Young Labour women's quota being re-defined as for 'people who identify as women', a fundraiser was started 2 days ago that's got just under 10k now.
> You can read their statement explaining why this matters here:
> Click here to support Keep All-Women Shortlists Female! organised by Jennifer James
> 
> ...



It's turning to chaos, It will not end well. 

Opening the women's shortlist to 'self-identified women' marginalises all women, and doesn't address problems of under-representation in any way.

I support the fundraiser.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 15, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Challenging the notion that there are male and female essences. The end of pink/blue marketisation of girl/womanhood and boy/manhood would be a start.
> 
> It's OK for women to wear trousers but his about heels and dresses for men?
> 
> ...


the identification of pink with girls and blue with boys is of recent origin https://jezebel.com/5790638/the-history-of-pink-for-girls-blue-for-boys so it's likely to change again in the future, it's not like it's set in stone. one thing i particularly object to is that e.g. blue razors are cheaper than identical but pink razors. there most certainly is a 'pink pound' extracted by supermarkets and chemists and other shops but it's girls and women paying the price. turning to your final sentence i don't entirely agree that men don't want to - some men, no doubt, don't want to, some do: and others won't have given the matter any thought. there's a role incumbent on men who want change to play in persuading other men of both the desirability and necessity of change.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 15, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I did look at the link, and at the disgusting comments left by contributors. I’ve never suggested that WOMEN are a powerful and well funded lobby. Quite the opposite. Since my first posts on this thread I’ve been arguing that WOMEN are a marginal and politically defeated fringe group. WOMEN only have any real significance in so far as they provide seemingly progressive arguments and a stream of shock stories for the use of the MAINLY VOLUNTARY FUNDED WOMEN'S RIGHTS LOBBY, the forces of WOMEN'S RIGHTS, and help to disorient left wing BROCIALISM.
> 
> If WOMEN didn’t play that role nobody would care about WOMEN's views at all and the only people who would even have heard of WOMEN would be people like me who happen to have an interest in MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO. WOMEN are so marginal in fact that I’ve never once heard anyone make a left wing PRO-WOMAN argument in real life. It’s almost entirely an online phenomenon, particularly outside of Britain.


-
Fixed it for ya.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 15, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> It's turning to chaos, It will not end well.
> 
> Opening the women's shortlist to 'self-identified women' marginalises all women, and doesn't address problems of under-representation in any way.
> 
> I support the fundraiser.


how much are you giving?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 15, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> the identification of pink with girls and blue with boys is of recent origin



Yes... I know. I used Pink and blue as the metaphor everyone can understand.

Pink/blue is a representation of the cultural "for girls only" or "for boys only" categories used for marketing purposes. It currently is pink and blue. But however those boxes manifest is pretty nasty stuff.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 15, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Pink/blue is a representation of the cultural "for girls only" or "for boys only" categories used for marketing purposes.


yes... i know. you've said that above.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 15, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> ... the prospective employer only sees the probabilities of having to pay them time off to have a baby?



When gender is truly abolished both men and women will be able to expect paid time off for birth time and parenting, and fathers will be legally required to take compassionate days off equally with mothers to care for children or other relatives who fall ill. Men will all be capable of such caring tasks, as the education system will have made sure they too have the necessary skills because it won't be considered _women's work _any more.

I don't think all this will stop some men and women from wanting to live as the opposite sex, though. I admit that's just a hunch.

EtA, tbf I think the increasing equality between men and women and the overall greater mixing of sexes in public space is a cause of this phenomenon in and of itself. I can't imagine many men wanting to live as women in say medieval Europe. Though I can certainly see how many women might want to live as men in those days.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 15, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> When gender is truly abolished both men and women will be able to expect paid time off for birth time and parenting, and fathers will be legally required to take compassionate days off equally with mothers to care for children or other relatives who fall ill. Men will all be capable of such caring tasks, as the education system will have made sure they too have the necessary skills because it won't be considered _women's work _any more.


legally required? legally entitled, perhaps, but will - or should - it be a requirement to do so?


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 15, 2018)

It would depend on the state of national manhood at that time (to be clear, I'm including trans men in that). These days I think it'd be needed, a kind of gender-based affirmative action. At some imaginary future time, men might already be doing more family caring and it wouldn't.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 15, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> I don't think all this will stop some men and women from wanting to live as the opposite sex, though. I admit that's just a hunch.


What would that actually mean in a truly genderless world?


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 15, 2018)

Genderless, but not sexless unless we evolve an awful lot or remove genitals, hormones etc at birth or something.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 15, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> Genderless, but not sexless unless we evolve an awful lot or remove genitals, hormones etc at birth or something.


So you anticipate people will want to have surgical procedures in order to change nothing about the way they are actually living?


----------



## bimble (Jan 15, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> Genderless, but not sexless unless we evolve an awful lot or remove genitals at birth or something.


But what would 'living as a woman' mean if we imagine a society without masculine / feminine gender roles. Basically just wearing a bra?


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 15, 2018)

kabbes said:


> So you anticipate people will want to have surgical procedures in order to change nothing about the way they are actually living?



Is that what I posted? Read it again. _Live as the opposite sex_ says nothing about surgery. I'm not denying sex may still have meaning in a ''genderless society''. How, I don't know if I can say, but sex itself is a fairly stark division and yes,
- in my opinion however society changes structurally to erase disadvantage between the biological sexes
- even if total and absolute structural equality is conceived and made to exist, yes,

I still think people will create cultural differences of their own around sex, and I do believe people will still want to cross that basic binary divide.

Pure speculation.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 15, 2018)

bimble said:


> But what would 'living as a woman' mean if we imagine a society without masculine / feminine gender roles. Basically just wearing a bra?


sure there's some men already doing that


----------



## Cloo (Jan 15, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> sure there's some men already doing that


'Are you looking at my bra?'







[/facetiousness ]


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 15, 2018)

bimble said:


> But what would 'living as a woman' mean if we imagine a society without masculine / feminine gender roles. Basically just wearing a bra?



Come on, not all women wear such a thing. 
Now look what you're making me do. Mansplaining bras ffs.


----------



## bimble (Jan 15, 2018)

But come on then, what might 'living as a woman' mean in this genderless world we're imagining ?


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 15, 2018)

I think what I mean is that the _equal _in _equality _doesn't mean _identical_. And I'm speculating that people will still create cultural distinctions based on biological sex even when complete structural equality is up and running. Like gender will still exist in a ''genderless society'' (which is why I put ''genderless society'' in quotes before) but _however someone chooses to present their gender _won't cause them any disadvantage - that's the ''genderless'' bit, I think.


----------



## bimble (Jan 15, 2018)

It is true as far as I know that we aren't aware of any societies now or in the past where there has been zero demarcation between the sexes, such that everyone wore the exact same clothes etc.


----------



## Jonti (Jan 15, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> it's not pedantry - it's a crucial point that something called a transwoman cannot be a woman but "trans woman" is a woman who is trans. some people use transwoman out of ignorance but others use it deliberately to make precisely that point - that trans women aren't women.


So, if I'm following this rightly, "Batman" cannot be a man, and to call him Batman makes precisely that point?


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 15, 2018)

It's OK though because _man _once meant and still means _person_, it's even a runic character meaning individual, person, people, group, society, humanity generally.

So Batman _can _be a woman, women can use manholes and a woman can man a lighthouse


----------



## Jonti (Jan 15, 2018)

bimble said:


> It is true as far as I know that we aren't aware of any societies now or in the past where there has been zero demarcation between the sexes, such that everyone wore the exact same clothes etc.


That's true afaik, but what's also interesting is the nature of the sanctions that transgressors might run into.  Folks should be able to dress and express themselves freely.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 15, 2018)

Jonti said:


> what's also interesting is the nature of the sanctions that transgressors might run into.



_Sanctions _and _Transgression _(as a negative act drawing disapproval and punishment, at least) would also need to be gone for a ''genderless society'' to really happen, wouldn't they?


----------



## xenon (Jan 15, 2018)

planetgeli said:


> Personally I find this whole thread exhausting. Interesting (mostly) but exhausting. Be nice to get back to the class war. One day.



Yep. Same. And fair play to MY for joining the thread.
--
Anyway I'm still quite confused TBH. Trans sexual verses trans gender, I think I get that.

e2a

Just to clarify, I don't have a problem with people expressing gender in any way they want. Or rather subverting gender norms which are quite arbitary, (pink was a "boys" colour in the 19C,) wasteful and inhibiting to humanity's potential IMO.  

But trans gender, the latter can theoretically comprise of males, raised and socialised as mails, who then for their own reasons declair themselves to be a woman. Nothing more, than a self declaration. Then demand admittance to women only spaces. Which in this case, is clearly fucked up.

Yes, how often and many trans gender people match that crued extreme, I'd think not many, sure. But that extreme seems to be where most of the argument around this issue is, on that essential point. Where self definition comes into conflict with social reality.

And I still don't really know why trans gender is such a massive thing now. Where did it come from in the last few years. 

Trans sexual, on the other hand, I've always held the crude understanding, born in the wrong body type thing. Yes I know some reject it but it's useful so far as understanding and empathizing. 

But I'm sure all this is cleared up in the next 300 odd messages...


----------



## smokedout (Jan 15, 2018)

kabbes said:


> So you anticipate people will want to have surgical procedures in order to change nothing about the way they are actually living?



Apart from their bodies?  Given the emerging scientific consensus that transgenderism has a biological or genetic root and that symptoms of childhood gender dysphoria include discomfort with body/genitalia (not gender role) at an age where ideas of gender are barely fully formed I suspect you are wrong.

And let's say you are wrong and the trans critical feminists achieve their aim of morally mandating transsexuality out of existence - which in reality would just mean pushing it back underground.  Will you apologise to trans people?  Will you say hey sorry we trashed your lives and thought you were liars, turns out our theory was wrong.

Also, in the event of medical advances that  might make it possible for someone born male bodied to carry a child then why wouldn't some biological men choose this, or some biological women choose to prevent it?  Is wanting to have a baby a purely feminine thing/


----------



## 8ball (Jan 15, 2018)

purenarcotic said:


> Abolishing the idea that there are ‘masculine’ / ‘feminine’ behaviours / ways of being etc. Anyone, regardless of their sex will be able to wear what they want / do what job they want etc etc. Patriarchy will be dismantled basically.
> 
> Sex will be the only difference between men and women.





MochaSoul said:


> Destroying the structures that make gender a hierarchy where "female", "feminine" and "womanhood" are seen as lesser than or under "male", "masculine" and "manhood".



Ok, two different things going on there, guess we can't have both.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 15, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Given the emerging scientific consensus...


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25667367

That doesn't look much like an emerging scientific consensus to me.  Just a paper.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 15, 2018)

8ball said:


> Ok, two different things going on there, guess we can't have both.



I don't see those things as different, I think they are part and parcel of the same thing. What am I missing?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 15, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> I don't see those things as different, I think they are part and parcel of the same thing. What am I missing?



The first one looks a bit like abolishing gender, the second looks like an effort to assign equal value (on various level) to the contents of gender categories.
Which can be subject to a few traps.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 15, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> I think what I mean is that the _equal _in _equality _doesn't mean _identical_. And I'm speculating that people will still create cultural distinctions based on biological sex even when complete structural equality is up and running. Like gender will still exist in a ''genderless society'' (which is why I put ''genderless society'' in quotes before) but _however someone chooses to present their gender _won't cause them any disadvantage - that's the ''genderless'' bit, I think.


It’s not a gendeless society then!


----------



## 8ball (Jan 15, 2018)

kabbes said:


> It’s not a gendeless society then!



More a "freedom of gendered behavior" society.


----------



## bimble (Jan 15, 2018)

8ball said:


> That doesn't look much like an emerging scientific consensus to me.  Just a paper.


Where is the actual paper ? I can't find a link to it, all I can see is that it is a review of the literature that currently exists in support of that idea. Nothing to do with an 'emerging scientific consensus'.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 15, 2018)

8ball said:


> More a "freedom of gendered behavior" society.


Not even that, from the sounds of it.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 15, 2018)

8ball said:


> That doesn't look much like an emerging scientific consensus to me.  Just a paper.



It's a review of the literature so far.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 15, 2018)

bimble said:


> Where is the actual paper ? I can't find a link to it, all I can see is that it is a review of the literature that currently exists in support of that idea. Nothing to do with an 'emerging scientific consensus'.



There's some links and references here.

I think this is interesting: 





> In a meta-analysis of twin studies, nearly 40% of identical twins were concordant for gender dysphoria in comparison with none of the non-identical twins.1 "That is very striking evidence. The non-identical twins who, just like the kids who are identical twins, grew up with the same parents in the same households. The only difference, obviously, is that the identical twins essentially share the same DNA," Dr. Rosenthal said.


----------



## bimble (Jan 15, 2018)

.


----------



## bimble (Jan 15, 2018)

smokedout said:


> There's some links and references here.
> 
> I think this is interesting:


great. "female brain" is back.
Actually read what is written there, his 3 areas of research that support the idea, and how they stand up. Do you find a single piece of that compelling in any way seriously?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 15, 2018)

bimble said:


> great. "female brain" is back.



It's a revolving-door news story.  Comes around in some form every so often.
What's funny in that link is that they use a lack of simple differences between male and female brains to impute an innate non-binaryness and then try to relate that to transgenderism.


----------



## bimble (Jan 15, 2018)

8ball said:


> It's a revolving-door news story.  Comes around in some form every so often.
> What's funny in that link is that they use a lack of simple differences between male and female brains to impute an innate non-binaryness and then try to relate that to transgenderism.


Its bonkers.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 15, 2018)

bimble said:


> great. "female brain" is back.



Or transgendered brain, which is what the evidence actually suggests.  This doesn't necessarily mean anything in terms of gendered behaviour, it could be something we don't understand related to sense of our bodies and how we experience them.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 15, 2018)

bimble said:


> Its bonkers.



So how would  you explain the twin studies?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 15, 2018)

smokedout said:


> So how would  you explain the twin studies?



Hard to say, do you have the protocol to hand?


----------



## bimble (Jan 15, 2018)

smokedout said:


> So how would  you explain the twin studies?


I've only ever known one set of identical twins but they lived their lives in a remarkable closeness that involved doing the same thing at the same uni, dressing very similarly etc. I think hanging 'transness is genetic' onto this finding about 40% of identical twins who are trans having their twin also come out as trans is ridiculous.
As is the claim of the man interviewed in your link saying this number is not higher because hey the other twin might just not have come out yet.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 15, 2018)

Twin studies are notoriously tricky to draw conclusions from.  Confounding factors are plentiful.  This is year 1 social science stuff.

If it is genetic, how come 60% of those individuals with gender dysphoria had a genetically-identical twin that did not have it too?  At the very least, that implies incredibly strong environmental factors.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 15, 2018)

smokedout said:


> consensus











8ball said:


> That doesn't look much like an emerging scientific consensus to me. Just a paper.



Innit! Not only that :

*



			Abstract
		
Click to expand...

*


> *OBJECTIVE:*
> To review current literature *that supports a *biologic basis of gender identity.
> 
> *METHODS:*
> ...



So they reviewed the papers only which supported a biological basis for gender identity, and came to the conclusion from those papers there is a biological basis.

Ben Goldacre has written a lot about it in his All Trials campaign. It is problematic to only look at positive results which which support your theory, and can lead to false positives.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 15, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Twin studies are notoriously tricky to draw conclusions from.  Confounding factors are plentiful.  This is year 1 social science stuff.



None of which is to say there *aren't* any biological or genetic bases to gender issues, but so far this doesn't look like a scientific consensus to me (having admittedly only looked at bits of it, and not in detail).


----------



## bimble (Jan 15, 2018)

Here's what looks like the basis of that twin study smokedout the numbers are tiny as you'd expect and the aim was obviously to find genetic causes. 
Pacific Center for Sex and Society - Transsexuality Among Twins: Identity Concordance, Transition, Rearing, and Orientation


----------



## smokedout (Jan 15, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Twin studies are notoriously tricky to draw conclusions from.  Confounding factors are plentiful.  This is year 1 social science stuff.



But it's not the only evidence is it?  The truth is no-ones knows whether there is a biological basis for transgenderism, including you, but there is growing evidence to support it.  Hanging millions of transgender people out to dry and the basis of a scientific hunch that it's all to do with patriarchy strikes me as a pretty closed minded.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 15, 2018)

There’s actually growing evidence that supports humans having extraordinary brain plasticity that adapts to its environment and is against the idea of pre-written templates.  I don’t know about this opposite thing to that growing consensus as suggested by you.  Certainly, your linked paper is wholly unconvincing.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 15, 2018)

8ball said:


> None of which is to say there *aren't* any biological or genetic bases to gender issues, but so far this doesn't look like a scientific consensus to me (having admittedly only looked at bits of it, and not in detail).



I'd suggest the evidence means it shouldn't be ruled out, so blanket statements about the impossibility of transgenderism having some kind of biological basis are unscientific.  And given the unknowns perhaps taking seriously how transgender people often desribe experiencing their bodies might prove fruitful.


----------



## bimble (Jan 15, 2018)

smokedout said:


> I'd suggest the evidence means it shouldn't be ruled out, so blanket statements about the impossibility of transgenderism having some kind of biological basis are unscientific.  And given the unknowns perhaps taking seriously how transgender people often  experiencing their bodies might prove fruitful.


"growing scientific consensus" not exactly what you meant to say then.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 15, 2018)

If 60% of dysphoric individuals with a genetically identical clone growing up in very, very similar environments have non-dysphoric clones, that strongly implies genes play at most a small part to gender dysphoria.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 15, 2018)

bimble said:


> "growing scientific consensus" not exactly what you meant to say then.



Endocrinologists seems to be heading in that direction



> The medical consensus in the late 20th century was that transgender and gender incongruent individuals suffered a mental health disorder termed “gender identity disorder.” Gender identity was considered malleable and subject to external influences. Today, however, this attitude is no longer considered valid. Considerable scientific evidence has emerged demonstrating a durable biological element underlying gender identity.1,2 Individuals may make choices due to other factors in their lives, but there do not seem to be external forces that genuinely cause individuals to change gender identity.
> 
> Although the specific mechanisms guiding the biological underpinnings of gender identity are not entirely understood, there is evolving consensus that being transgender is not a mental health disorder. Such evidence stems from scientific studies suggesting that: 1) attempts to change gender identity in intersex patients to match external genitalia or chromosomes are typically unsuccessful3,4; 2) identical twins (who share the exact same genetic background) are more likely to both experience transgender identity as compared to fraternal (non-identical) twins5; 3) among individuals with female chromosomes (XX), rates of male gender identity are higher for those exposed to higher levels of androgens in utero relative to those without such exposure, and male (XY)-chromosome individuals with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome typically have female gender identity6; and 4) there are associations of certain brain scan or staining patterns with gender identity rather than external genitalia or chromosomes7,8.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 15, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Innit! Not only that :
> 
> 
> 
> ...


god forbid a literature review on a subject looks at literature on that subject and assesses it.

however, a literature review isn't at the top of the medical evidence pyramid, which is occupied by systematic reviews.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 15, 2018)

An identity is not a “mental health disorder” just because it is environmentally shaped, ffs.  It’s not biological determinism or pathology!


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 15, 2018)

Yeah. This is definitely the "lady brain" sexist shit I was talking about. 

Next week: The black brain and phrenology.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 15, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Yeah. This is definitely the "lady brain" sexist shit I was talking about.
> 
> Next week: The black brain and phrenology.



Are you accusing scientific journals reporting the evidence of sexism or the researchers?  Do you think this research should be prevented?


----------



## kabbes (Jan 15, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Are you accusing scientific journals reporting the evidence of sexism or the researchers?  Do you think this research should be prevented?


I just don't think the actual results say what you think they say.

For example, being exposed to androgens in utero _is_ an environmental factor.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 15, 2018)

kabbes said:


> For example, being exposed to androgens in utero _is_ an environmental factor.



My ring finger is longer than my index finger AND I have gender disphoria. Co incidence?

I.  think. not.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 15, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I did look at the link, and at the disgusting comments left by contributors.


Yes, like both of mine. "No woman should have to identify with her shackles. Gender is the oppressor not a mere "identity"" and "People asking women to give up their hard won seats at the political table should ponder on why do those seats need to be taken from women when men are the one's who are over represented on that table."




Nigel Irritable said:


> Since my first posts on this thread I’ve been arguing that they are a marginal and politically defeated fringe group. Since my first posts on this thread I’ve been arguing that they are a marginal and politically defeated fringe group. They only have any real significance in so far as they provide seemingly progressive arguments and a stream of shock stories for the use of the actually rich and powerful transphobic lobby, the forces of social conservatism, and help to disorient left wing responses to transphobia.


I've no doubt you believe this. I have a suspicion it's all you're willing to believe. Because being led into deserted site by an adult man who makes you touch his fucking penis knowing a priori your word won't be believed if you complain on the grounds that **you're a child** and, if that fails, you can always be deemed a precocious little whore which is somehow all to do with choosing one's woman's "gender identity" and **nothing** to do with you happening to be having a vagina. I'm too fond of my blurb but I may just change it temporarily to 





> unwilling to be emotionally manipulated (again) into letting go of my needs out of compassion towards others who constantly make a race out of suffering in an effort to keep the forces of right wing conservatism at bay.





Nigel Irritable said:


> If they didn’t play that role nobody would care about their views at all and the only people who would even have heard of them would be people like me who happen to have an interest in bizarre political sects and subcultures.TERFs are so marginal in fact that I’ve never once heard anyone make a left wing or feminist transphobic argument in real life. It’s almost entirely an online phenomenon, particularly outside of Britain.


I can but to give you my own example which is pretty much splashed out on this thread. I was asleep and now I've woken up. Tell you more. I'm making it one of my missions to wake other women up to what may lie in waiting for their daughters, grandaughters, nieces and friends. Tell you what more. Even in deep leafy right wing Surrey, women don't forget where they have come from and how they got here. They certainly don't think men like you and your brogressivehood suddenly decided to, by the kindness of your hearts, relinquish power to women. Tell you even more. This is not the only forum I stop at. I also talk to feminists in Portugal and Brazil for example. It may seem strange to you but in my brief voyage of discovery the most informative links I found were not in English even though some linked to some English language thought. Conversations are being had. Have not doubt about it.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 15, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> My ring finger is longer than my index finger AND I have gender disphoria. Co incidence?
> 
> I.  think. not.



But hang on, we could fix your gender issues easily enough in that case, just give me your hand a sec...


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 15, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Like a white person saying they've never seen racism. Gobsmacking.



I thought I could let this go but I really, really can't.
You want to get personal. Let's get fucking personal. Don't you dare come to me with race after insisting on labeling me as cisgender as you did when you knew fuck all about me on the Dolezal thread (yes, it took me a while to work out that was you but I got there... eventually).

Let me enlighten you on something. I DO NOT wake up thinking I'm a woman or having to reassure myself I am one, or having to deny I am one any more than I wake up thinking I am black and having to reassure myself I'm not as unacceptable as society deems me to be. Does that, as CBB India put it, "penetrate"?

I "live" woman. I've always "lived" woman. My mum gave me a woman name because I had a **vagina**. I might have been given a man name like João or Manuel, in which case, I'd also be given a first name of Maria because I had a **vagina**. My biological father felt free to lie to my mum about his being married and get her pregnant and then attempt to compel her into an abortion because my mum had no legal recourse to the law because she had a **vagina**. My dad gave me his name because not doing so would condemn my mum to the fringes of society because she had a **vagina**. Even so, when we lived in right below the roof of a house, an abode for which rent my mum was overcharged because she had a **vagina**, where we didn't have a bath or a shower but only an oversized plastic bowl that my mum also used to do the laundry, my dad (when he turned up, seeing as possessing a **penis** meant he went about his life largely unchallenged for his paternal lack of responsibility) made sure my brother was always the first to be bathed (even though I complained the water was cold when my turn came) because he had a **penis**. And, one year, when I wanted to be dressed as a cowboy, for carnival, like my brother, rather than as a Minnie Mouse as my sister liked or as a Mumuíla girl, as my mum always preferred, my dad told me "no" because I had a **vagina**.
He beat my mum up under the roof which rent she paid because she had a **vagina** and my neighbour never called the police because *vaginas* were below defending.
My mum made me and my sister learn to sew and cross-stitch despite our lack of interest in both because she deemed those skills as needed for people with **vaginas**. And, to this day,in my mums's eyes, I live in the shadow of my brother, that **penis** owner who probably got into cooking more than I did because he wasn't pressured into it and learned out of interest rather than an obligation foisted upon **vagina** owners like moi.
When I was young I remember listening to the gossip around the town's grown ups with a keen interest. I remember one of my teenage neighbours got pregnant by her boyfriend. He, not wanting to take up the responsibility of a child, the case went to court and, this being before the rise of DNA testing, he took all of his friends to stand before the judge and claim they had had sex with her. Her word meant nowt in the face of so many men corroborating the one bastard's story and I can only imagine what a spectacle of woman humilliation those proceedings must have been and the effect of that on my neighbour of a whole society not just abandoning her in her hour of need but also punishing her for the sole sin of possessing a **vagina*. And that's just one of the incidents what yours truly pondered later on opening my mouth about one of my school colleagues friends dad sexually abusing me could mean more trouble to me that it may have been worth.

Your bringing up race to this only diminishes **your** own case. To me, race is one of the oppressors just like gender is. To you gender is an identity and, in your struggle to be accepted as a mere woman, one you seek to foist upon me and in total and complete disregard of me, of my individuality and of my claim to **humanhood**. Got it? Humanhood not womanhood. My sex is female. Womanhood was thrust upon me like a fucking penis and I find it the height of ideological privilege for you to even think you know more about me than *I* do.
No wonder you find it "Gobsmacking". Had you actually been subjected to womanhood quite as profoundly as I have, you wouldn't be so convinced of having somehow seized a moral high ground from which you think yourself justified and entitled to bring race into it on a day when black women are mourning their ancestors whose bodies were used to advance gynecology for the benefit of white women (those with **vaginas* that is). How dare you to try and emotionally manipulate me into thinking sex and race are any way similar outside their raisons dêtre to oppress. Your views on gender are much more insidiously pernicious than any of the KKK on race because they blur the waters so much as to politically disempower women. And you call yourself my sister. Ah! With sisters like you...


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 15, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> There are anti trans editorials in the Morning Star for fecks sake. TERFs - some who are powerful and wealthy with good political and media links - are managing to lobby government, their arguments particularly seem to appeal to right wing christian Tories who seem to be parroting radical feminist arguments in some of their literature now, and getting their arguments into The Times, The Express (can you believe that the Express have turned feminist all of a sudden just so they have an extra argument against trans people?), the Mail, on to Mumsnet.


Last time I checked, The Morning Star was the political voice of those closer to socialism. Where do you think gender critical socialism should have a voice, especially now that you and your sisters want any one with an ounce of doubt about trans ideology or simple concern about the direction of travel for women be expelled from the Labour Party?
And before that, since your tactics were to silence women either 1. by appealing to their, no doubt very feminine, "maternal instincts", or compassion to somehow think that the suicides (or attempts) of transgender women are somehow more worrying or worthier of concern than the suicides of women in general to the point of accusing them of deliberately causing them by pointing to biology as the starting point of woman oppression; or 2. Verbally attacking women who so much put their heads above the parapet online and otherwise; 3. Misrepresenting many of those women's views 4. attempting to get women removed from their jobs such as Kiri Tunks; until 5. the physical attack that's in the origin of this very thread and which, from what I have seen so far, has been the greatest propelling force to getting people to talk about the implications for women of an ideology little understood (even the remote and snoringly boring corner of womanhood that is my local WI is taking an interest in radical feminism, I hear, and I welcome it).
Where exactly should our views be aired when you close all venues to us? Did you not have a responsibility to hear us out as opposed to hounding us out by force or by cunning?


Sea Star said:


> This stuff is getting into schools now in order to undermine us at the most fundamental level.



You mean, stuff like this?

In what way is this liberatory/liberating for **vagina** owners like me and my nieces? Gender is a spectrum how does that help the pangender woman who has to put her career on hold to bear children at some point or be made to feel undervalued humans if they happen to be infertile or just unlucky? How does that help these thousands of baby girls ? Does whatever I see myself as prevent you from classing me as cis, or some men looking at me out in the street referring to me as "that" as in "I'd have a piece of that"? Nah... this kind of view only moves people away from explanations of why the human world works the way it does and solving the cunundrums they find by giving them a sense that all is alright if you pick a *colour* or make your own. Seriously?



Sea Star said:


> Then the TERFs come along and say those trans adults must be excluded because they "look like men" and were "socialised as boys".



Weren't they? Weren't you? Did people believe you when you started protesting? Did they start treating you as a girl because you said so? What is wrong with you? You tell ostensibly one story and you try to push legislation based on that story and then you condemn us for believing it and thus taking our own conclusions by comparing and contrasting it against our own stories which, incidentally, you find no problem whatsoever with erasing and relegating to a second plane as you try to widen the scope of your story to become THE story of gender? And you wonder about how fast it took to reach 12K of relatively small donations?

Fucking hell... You say this on the same breath as you try to speak of race to people who have lived it as well?



Sea Star said:


> Cis people on the whole can't see it and will often collude in parts of it without realising or they refuse to challenge their own prejudices on this subject



There you go again... Lumping us all again as ever as if we were of the same material condition. Because we all asked to be men or women and be treated as such?
You're quite wrong regarding some of us though... We've only just started to think of the implications of what you say about us (more than whatever you say about you - from your side of the magic fence you lot created, we're living the life, innit?).


----------



## smokedout (Jan 15, 2018)

kabbes said:


> I just don't think the actual results say what you think they say.



What I think is that making political and medical decisions based on unknown science is unethical when those decisions might harm people.



> For example, being exposed to androgens in utero _is_ an environmental factor.



And not one that would go away in a post gender society.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 15, 2018)

smokedout said:


> What I think is that making political and medical decisions based on unknown science is unethical when those decisions might harm people.



That's seems to me to be what we're doing all the time with gender re-assignment operations.
Making a guess and hoping it works out.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 15, 2018)

smokedout said:


> What I think is that making political and medical decisions based on unknown science is unethical when those decisions might harm people.


I couldn't agree more.



> > For example, being exposed to androgens in utero _is_ an environmental factor.
> 
> 
> And not one that would go away in a post gender society.


Of course it wouldn't.  But the consequences would be vastly different, because gender is a socialised factor.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 15, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Of course it wouldn't.  But the consequences would be vastly different, because gender is a socialised factor.



Arguably it might mean not having to cut bits off people.  But I guess that depends to what degree all aspects of gender are created by socialisation rather than just shaped by it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 15, 2018)

8ball said:


> That's seems to me to be what we're doing all the time with gender re-assignment operations.
> Making a guess and hoping it works out.


it's certainly what we do with socialisation


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 15, 2018)

Agreeing that one feature of humans is extreme brain plasticity, what that allows is for us to be socialised into very different cultures. But it also means we need to learn an awful lot of stuff in order to be socialised/socialise ourselves (not a passive learning). Some of that learning involves biological sex. I'm not sure how a 'genderless society' would be possible or desirable, for that reason - men and women have different bodies, men are generally bigger and stronger, women give birth and breast feed. All these things require socialisation so that we treat each other well, and that puts us into the realms of gender, no?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 15, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Agreeing that one feature of humans is extreme brain plasticity, what that allows is for us to be socialised into very different cultures. But it also means we need to learn an awful lot of stuff in order to be socialised/socialise ourselves (not a passive learning). Some of that learning involves biological sex. I'm not sure how a 'genderless society' would be possible or desirable, for that reason - men and women have different bodies, men are generally bigger and stronger, women give birth and breast feed. All these things require socialisation so that we treat each other well, and that puts us into the realms of gender, no?


men being bigger and stronger doesn't require socialisation, does it?


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 15, 2018)

kabbes said:


> It’s not a gendeless society then!



Not genderless society, ''genderless society''. ie one where gender is not a source of inequality and oppression. Not one where it absolutely doesn't exist in any form. I thought I'd made that distinction clear, but there it is anyway.


----------



## Athos (Jan 15, 2018)

smokedout said:


> But it's not the only evidence is it?  The truth is no-ones knows whether there is a biological basis for transgenderism, including you, but there is growing evidence to support it.  Hanging millions of transgender people out to dry and the basis of a scientific hunch that it's all to do with patriarchy strikes me as a pretty closed minded.



There's a generic component of schizophrenia. That doesn't mean that what a sufferer believes is true.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 15, 2018)

kabbes said:


> I couldn't agree more.
> 
> Of course it wouldn't.  But the consequences would be vastly different, because gender is a socialised factor.



And who knows what those consequences would be?  But the consequences now are that 5% of biological women born with congenital adrenal hyperplasia end up transgender, whatever the complex mix of biology and socialisation that creates this.  And those people are not instigators of the gender binary they are victims of it.  So to do anything other than support them to live in a way that feels tolerable strikes me as pretty inhumane.


----------



## bimble (Jan 15, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> My ring finger is longer than my index finger AND I have gender disphoria. Co incidence?
> 
> I.  think. not.



Omg me too but you know, there are debates ongoing.. My loon uncle, a ‘geneticist’ , looked at my fingers once and told everyone confidently that I’d turn out gay because testosterone in the womb.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 15, 2018)

bimble said:


> Omg me too but you know, there are debates ongoing.. My loon uncle, a ‘geneticist’ , looked at my fingers once and told everyone confidently that I’d turn out gay because testosterone in the womb.


Hey. Mine too


----------



## Wilf (Jan 15, 2018)

bimble said:


> Omg me too but you know, there are debates ongoing.. My loon uncle, a ‘geneticist’ , looked at my fingers once and told everyone confidently that I’d turn out gay because testosterone in the womb.


My eyes are not great at the moment and I read that as Toblerone in the womb.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 15, 2018)

bimble said:


> Omg me too but you know, there are debates ongoing.. My loon uncle, a ‘geneticist’ , looked at my fingers once and told everyone confidently that I’d turn out gay because testosterone in the womb.



Weird innit.  Quoth my dad "no wonder you're a tomboy"


----------



## bimble (Jan 15, 2018)

Load of old cobblers though the finger thing .. right?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 15, 2018)

bimble said:


> Load of old cobblers though the finger thing .. right?



There are correlations if you look at enough data, but in terms of making predictions about a baby based on the length of their fingers, yeah, it's cobblers.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 15, 2018)

kabbes said:


> What would that actually mean in a truly genderless world?



This contains some ideas.

Judith Lorber ‘Imagining a World without Gender’


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 15, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> This contains some ideas.
> 
> Judith Lorber ‘Imagining a World without Gender’


So it does.


----------



## Jonti (Jan 15, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> _Sanctions _and _Transgression _(as a negative act drawing disapproval and punishment, at least) would also need to be gone for a ''genderless society'' to really happen, wouldn't they?


Would they? Why?

fwiw I think gender (as in the attributes and expectations laid on one by others on account of one's sex) is as ancient as the human race, and will always be with us.  "Genderless" would just mean a relaxed attitude towards "transgressors", and more freedom of expression for the individual.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 15, 2018)

bimble said:


> Load of old cobblers though the finger thing .. right?



I don't think it's controversial that finger length ratios correlate with levels of in utero testosterone.  What can be determined from this is still being examined.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 15, 2018)

AH HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH!

   

Fukkin 'ell.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 15, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> This contains some ideas.
> 
> Judith Lorber ‘Imagining a World without Gender’



Not much materialism in that is there?  Just rampant speculation and reaffirmation of neoliberal values.



> If we can assume nonassortment by other invidious categories, such as racial ethnic group, people would be hired on the basis of their credentials, experience, interviewing skills, and connections. The salary scales and prestige value of occupations and professions depend on the various kinds of social assessments, just as they do now, but the positions that pay best and are valued most are not monopolized by any one type of person. Science is done by scientists, teaching by teachers, cultural production by writers, artists, musicians, dancers, singers, actors, and media producers. The beliefs and values and technologies of the time and place govern the content.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 15, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> AH HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH!
> 
> 
> 
> Fukkin 'ell.



Did you bother to read the link?  There seems to be a real resistance to scientific evidence in this discussion despite the call for an honest evidence based debate.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 15, 2018)

Peer reviewed papers get laughed at and dismissed, bollocks from The Sun and Mail are treated as sacrosant.


----------



## bimble (Jan 15, 2018)

I read it, it’s interesting the sorts of things they sought to find correlations with. I would not have helped the stats for long ring finger = good at sports and or spacial reasoning.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 15, 2018)

bimble said:


> I read it, it’s interesting the sorts of things they sought to find correlations with. I would not have helped the stats for long ring finger = good at sports and or spacial reasoning.



Me neither, but these things are generally correlated over large numbers of people.
Figuring out what the correlations _mean_ is tricky, though.  The article discusses this a little.

For_ Psychology Today_, I think it's not bad.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 15, 2018)

Seek correlations and ye shall find...

15 Insane Things That Correlate With Each Other

Why not find your own?  Hours of fun for all the family:

Discover a correlation

ETA: Ooh, I just found this worrying 97% correlation...

Divorce rate in Virginia correlates with Murders by blunt object


----------



## 8ball (Jan 15, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Seek correlations and ye shall find...
> 
> 15 Insane Things That Correlate With Each Other
> 
> ...



Such things are fun if you're into that, but they're funny because of the lack of relatability to known mechanisms and processes, and just being a result of 'torturing the data'.


----------



## bimble (Jan 15, 2018)

Hormones are definitely interesting though.

But whilst we're on the physical dimension, here's something short and simple and to the point:
Some basic questions about sex and gender for progressives


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 15, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Seek correlations and ye shall find...
> 
> 15 Insane Things That Correlate With Each Other
> 
> ...



I was about to post that.

Glad you did.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 15, 2018)

bimble said:


> I read it, it’s interesting the sorts of things they sought to find correlations with. I would not have helped the stats for long ring finger = good at sports and or spacial reasoning.



Fact is, as well, that we are sexed based on our reproductive class, not our fingers or neurology(!!!)


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 15, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Not much materialism in that is there?  Just rampant speculation and reaffirmation of neoliberal values.



It's an interesting piece. There's plenty of work Lorber has done I don't disagree with. But I'm not a black and white thinking individual.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 15, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I was about to post that.
> 
> Glad you did.



"Number of people who died falling into a pool" correlates with "films Nicolas Cage appeared in".


----------



## kabbes (Jan 15, 2018)

8ball said:


> Such things are fun if you're into that, but they're funny because of the lack of relatability to known mechanisms and processes, and just being a result of 'torturing the data'.


I think that’s rather the point.  If you go digging, you’ll find correlations.  Hence announcing you’ve found a correlation is unconvincing in and of itself.  It’s the starting point for going and finding a mechanism that you can then use to show causality.  Or using experimentation to establish causality.  Without that, you’ve got nothing, frankly.  Or you have a back-worked mechanism that is as likely to be bollocks as meaningful.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 15, 2018)

8ball said:


> "Number of people who died falling into a pool" correlates with "films Nicolas Cage appeared in".


There is a link, clearly - if the number of the former increased by 1, the latter would stop increasing.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 15, 2018)

8ball said:


> "Number of people who died falling into a pool" correlates with "films Nicolas Cage appeared in".



Worldwide non-commercial space launches correlates 78.92% with US sociology doctorates awarded...


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 15, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Fact is, as well, that we are sexed based on our reproductive class, not our fingers or neurology(!!!)



Categorisation by looking at index finger ratio and inutero "washing": Very Good Indeed

Categorisation by sex parts:  PHOBIC


----------



## bimble (Jan 15, 2018)

I'm learning to drive (very belatedly) and looked up the statistics for male v female first time pass rates which were depressing as hell. I find that stuff interesting. Failed twice so far, femininely, despite finger-lengths.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 15, 2018)

kabbes said:


> I think that’s rather the point.  If you go digging, you’ll find correlations.  Hence announcing you’ve found a correlation is unconvincing in and of itself.  It’s the starting point for going and finding a mechanism that you can then use to show causality.  Or using experimentation to establish causality.  Without that, you’ve got nothing, frankly.  Or you have a back-worked mechanism that is as likely to be bollocks as meaningful.



Indeed.  One correlation by itself can mean nothing at all.
Though you have to wonder about the Nicolas Cage thing.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 15, 2018)

Jonti said:


> Would they? Why?



_Sanctions for transgression_ to me suggest gender being prescribed in some way and probably thereby continuing oppression.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 15, 2018)

bimble said:


> I'm learning to drive (very belatedly) and looked up the statistics for male v female first time pass rates which were depressing as hell. I find that stuff interesting. Failed twice so far, femininely, despite finger-lengths.



I passed first time.  Must be my man-brain.

(actually more likely that I was OBSESSED by spacial puzzles, and 3D imagining techniques and thus practised these skills making my very plastic brain better at that sort of stuff... or it could just be man-brain).


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 15, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Categorisation by looking at index finger ratio and inutero "washing": Very Good Indeed
> 
> Categorisation by sex parts:  PHOBIC



It's odd, isn't it...


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 15, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Categorisation by looking at index finger ratio and inutero "washing": Very Good Indeed
> 
> Categorisation by sex parts:  PHOBIC



Unfortunately, trans people are told nonsense like this by 'gender counsellors'.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 15, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Categorisation by looking at index finger ratio and inutero "washing": Very Good Indeed
> 
> Categorisation by sex parts:  PHOBIC



Interestingly, as a study I posted on here about a million posts up shows, for *some* trans males the neurology reflects 'feminisation' of certain areas, but this 'feminisation' is the same as is seen in the neurology of homosexual males. Non-homosexual males show different neurology again. It supports This result is important, because what it does do is show there are two types of transsexual male, one of which is a form of the homosexual male. The meaning of this for wider studies is that neurological tests need to be controlled for sexual orientation, to account for this difference. In the absence of this, any neurological study will likely have limited use.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 15, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I passed first time.  Must be my man-brain.
> 
> (actually more likely that I was OBSESSED by spacial puzzles, and 3D imagining techniques and thus practised these skills making my very plastic brain better at that sort of stuff... or it could just be man-brain).



I think it’s all the practise AND your man-brain.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 15, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Interestingly, as a study I posted on here about a million posts up shows, for *some* trans males the neurology reflects 'feminisation' of certain areas, but this 'feminisation' is the same as is seen in the neurology of homosexual males. Non-homosexual males show different neurology again. It supports This result is important, because what it does do is show there are two types of transsexual male, one of which is a form of the homosexual male. The meaning of this for wider studies is that neurological tests need to be controlled for sexual orientation, to account for this difference. In the absence of this, any neurological study will likely have limited use.



Strange how you dismiss all the neurological evidence except that which slightly fits with your half baked essentialist autogynephile theory


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 15, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Strange how you dismiss all the neurological evidence except that which slightly fits with your half baked essentialist autogynephile theory


Not to mention lying about stats.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 15, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Strange how you dismiss all the neurological evidence except that which slightly fits with your half baked essentialist autogynephile theory



That doesn't follow. And it's not *my* theory. Find me something peer-reviewed that shows it's nonsense, and we can have a constructive discussion. I'm always open to have my mind changed on this.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 15, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> That doesn't follow. And it's not *my* theory. Find me something peer-reviewed that shows it's nonsense, and we can have a constructive discussion. I'm always open to have my mind changed on this.



I think Julie Serano pretty comprehensively demolishes it, but when a theory depends on anyone who doesn't fit it being a liar then it is of course very difficult to falsify.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 15, 2018)

smokedout said:


> I think Julie Serano pretty comprehensively demolishes it, but when a theory depends on anyone who doesn't fit it being a liar then it is of course very difficult to falsify.



I'm really not sure Serano does, indeed Serano's own narrative appears to provide evidence of Serano's own autogynephilia; also you'll be aware, I presume, of Serano's own suggestion of, in essence, rebranding such as 'female embodiment fantasies': I can understand why Serano would wish to do this, and to my mind anything that helps people deal with the reality of how they are is good by me, but it's hardly a substantive scientific objection.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 15, 2018)

smokedout said:


> I think Julie Serano pretty comprehensively demolishes it, but when a theory depends on anyone who doesn't fit it being a liar then it is of course very difficult to falsify.



It's this paper I am referring to:

http://www.juliaserano.com/av/Serano-CaseAgainstAutogynephilia.pdf


----------



## xenon (Jan 15, 2018)

I just been trying to measure my fingers. (Cheers internet.) I think my ring finger is longer. More so on the left hand.  but index finger is further forward... That's normal right? /weird hands


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 15, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I'm really not sure Serano does, indeed Serano's own narrative appears to provide evidence of Serano's own autogynephilia;


Where? In this paper? I don't see any reference to herself _at all_. I do see a pretty comprehensive dismantling of Blanchard's theories (and explanation of the frankly nasty assumptions that underpin them). She does a very good job of explaining the torturous mental gymnastics that Blanchard, Lawrence et al have to engage in in order to cling to their theories. 

Really, regardless of anything else, it's time you dumped Blanchard.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 15, 2018)

xenon said:


> I just been trying to measure my fingers. (Cheers internet.) I think my ring finger is longer. More so on the left hand.  but index finger is further forward... That's normal right? /weird hands


that's right, weird hands are normal.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 15, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Where? In this paper? I don't see any reference to herself _at all_. I do see a pretty comprehensive dismantling of Blanchard's theories (and explanation of the frankly nasty assumptions that underpin them). She does a very good job of explaining the torturous mental gymnastics that Blanchard, Lawrence et al have to engage in in order to cling to their theories.
> 
> Really, regardless of anything else, it's time you dumped Blanchard.


it's sexually violent transwomen with grcs in prison all over again


----------



## campanula (Jan 15, 2018)

Vague correlations here in 'addiction studies'...where the social or the disease/genetic models cycle in and out of fashion...nearly always because of the prevailing political ideology. Bit like the 'gay gene. Of course, as a druggie, I am more than happy to play whatever game gets me my script - I will argue dysfunctional childhood till the cows come home if this is the expectation...or I will happily go along with some personal psychological dysfunction if it is advantageous (but obviously, I am a lying junkie - it comes with the territory).
Seriously, I think mrs quoad is up to scratch on this sort of thing(I am probably just chatting shit off the top of my head). You cannot keep science as some pure objective clarity, untainted by filthy agendas...O no. As far as 'essentialism' goes, I would argue that politics(ideology) is the actual 'essence'
Soz to derail into personal stuff but, you know...


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 15, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Unfortunately, trans people are told nonsense like this by 'gender counsellors'.




wtaf are you on about??


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 15, 2018)

nah seriously, you go counselling cus yer heads fucked about this and instead of you talking you get talked at by the counsellor, in what fucking dimension does that happen

you know it's called talking therapy right and it's actually about the individual and whats happening to them, counselling isnt trans 101 where you get told how to think


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 15, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Like a white person saying they've never seen racism. Gobsmacking. If TERFism only existed online then we could all safely disregard them..



Britain is TERF central. It’s the only place (at least in the English speaking world) where TERFs have a mainstream media presence or have the numbers to put together campaigns that anyone who isn’t actively looking for them (or particularly unlucky) might encounter. Here in Ireland, every single feminist group, abortion rights campaign or left wing organization is at least formally trans inclusive . There are TERFs here, but if one of them were to turn up to a feminist campaign group and openly make TERF arguments there would be uproar and they would find themselves ostracized instantly. It would be as unacceptable as making racist or homophobic arguments. I’ve heard lots of transphobic arguments in person, but they’ve always been from Catholic Ultras or other reactionaries.

Even in Britain it’s important to distinguish between different types of transphobia. Conservative transphobia is by far the dominant strand. Social conservatives are a minority in a Britain and they’ve long been on the back foot but they are still a powerful social force with a strong influence in the press, in parliament etc. TERFs are not a powerful social force. They are a subset of the RadFem minority of the feminist movement. We are talking about small numbers of people adhering to a bigoted variant of a very marginal ideology. They control no significant institutions, have no strength in numbers and are loathed by the bulk of their political neighbors (ie the feminist, lgbt and socialist movements). It’s that very powerlessness that leads them into alliances with social conservatives - despite their constant disingenuous attempts to present themselves as speaking on behalf of vast numbers of women, they are all too aware that they have no influence of their own and have to rely on more powerful actors to achieve their goals.

It is in their role as gleeful assistants to the conservative right that they can manage to have some real world impact, providing both allegedly “progressive”arguments for the use of reactionaries in the media and a series of shock stories for them to peddle. But grotesque as that is, it still doesn’t make them independently influential. They are just useful idiots for the likes of David Davis and the Times. I realize that when you have to put up with horrible shitheads like the bigots on this thread that they can loom quite large, but ultimately once the social conservatives are beaten back, their junior allies won’t matter.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 15, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Where? In this paper? I don't see any reference to herself _at all_. I do see a pretty comprehensive dismantling of Blanchard's theories (and explanation of the frankly nasty assumptions that underpin them). She does a very good job of explaining the torturous mental gymnastics that Blanchard, Lawrence et al have to engage in in order to cling to their theories.
> 
> Really, regardless of anything else, it's time you dumped Blanchard.



No, you'll find it in 'Whipping Girl'. I quoted the passage somewhere above.

Seriously, I think you'll find it's not B or L who have to do mental gymnastics. You only have to look at 'lewd trans' accounts on Twitter to see this is a thing.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 15, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Britain is TERF central. It’s the only place (at least in the English speaking world) where TERFs have a mainstream media presence or have the numbers to put together campaigns that anyone who isn’t actively looking for them (or particularly unlucky) might encounter. Here in Ireland, every single feminist group, abortion rights campaign or left wing organization is at least formally trans inclusive . There are TERFs here, but if one of them were to turn up to a feminist campaign group and openly make TERF arguments there would be uproar and they would find themselves ostracized instantly. It would be as unacceptable as making racist or homophobic arguments. I’ve heard lots of transphobic arguments in person, but they’ve always been from Catholic Ultras or other reactionaries.
> 
> Even in Britain it’s important to distinguish between different types of transphobia. Conservative transphobia is by far the dominant strand. Social conservatives are a minority in a Britain and they’ve long been on the back foot but they are still a powerful social force with a strong influence in the press, in parliament etc. TERFs are not a powerful social force. They are a subset of the RadFem minority of the feminist movement. We are talking about small numbers of people adhering to a bigoted variant of a very marginal ideology. They control no significant institutions, have no strength in numbers and are loathed by the bulk of their political neighbors (ie the feminist, lgbt and socialist movements). It’s that very powerlessness that leads them into alliances with social conservatives - despite their constant disingenuous attempts to present themselves as speaking on behalf of vast numbers of women, they are all too aware that they have no influence of their own and have to rely on more powerful actors to achieve their goals.
> 
> It is in their role as gleeful assistants to the conservative right that they can manage to have some real world impact, providing both allegedly “progressive”arguments for the use of reactionaries in the media and a series of shock stories for them to peddle. But grotesque as that is, it still doesn’t make them independently influential. They are just useful idiots for the likes of David Davis and the Times. I realize that when you have to put up with horrible shitheads like the bigots on this thread that they can loom quite large, but ultimately once the social conservatives are beaten back, their junior allies won’t matter.



This is exactly how lefty dudes use 'trans women' as a human shield for their own mysogyny.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 15, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> nah seriously, you go counselling cus yer heads fucked about this and instead of you talking you get talked at by the counsellor, in what fucking dimension does that happen
> 
> you know it's called talking therapy right and it's actually about the individual and whats happening to them, counselling isnt trans 101 where you get told how to think



You're deranged. I wish you all the best for the future, but please get help.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 15, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Where? In this paper? I don't see any reference to herself _at all_. I do see a pretty comprehensive dismantling of Blanchard's theories (and explanation of the frankly nasty assumptions that underpin them). She does a very good job of explaining the torturous mental gymnastics that Blanchard, Lawrence et al have to engage in in order to cling to their theories.
> 
> Really, regardless of anything else, it's time you dumped Blanchard.



Here: 

Transgender is it just me that is totally perplexed?




Miranda Yardley said:


> Julia Serano in “Whipping Girl”, Serano’s “transfeminist manifesto”:
> 
> When I hit puberty, my newly found attraction to women spilled into my dreams of becoming a girl. For me, sexuality became a strange combination of jealousy, self-loathing, and lust. Because when you isolate an impressionable transgender teen and bombard her with billboard ads baring bikiniclad women and boys’ locker room trash talk about this girl’s tits and that girl’s ass, then she will learn to turn her gender identity into a fetish… my thirteen-year-old brain started concocting scenarios straight out of SM handbooks. Most of my fantasies began with my abduction: I’d turn to putty in the hands of some twisted man who would turn me into a woman as part of his evil plan. It’s called forced feminization, and it’s not really about sex. It is about turning the humiliation you feel into pleasure, transforming the loss of male privilege into the best fuck ever.​
> This is classic autogynephilia, written by Serano’s own hand.



I'm happy to elaborate and explain how this statement supports my argument.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 15, 2018)

On a "making friends" mission tonight, Miranda?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 15, 2018)

8ball said:


> On a "making friends" mission tonight, Miranda?



Always 

It's funny though how many people run away when you say "no, it's okay, I know I'm male, and I'm not 'brave' for doing this, I did it because I had to". In my experience, trans 'allies' can be incredibly abusive. Especially men like Nigel bloke who is clearly using my own community for his own reasons.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jan 15, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Always
> 
> It's funny though how many people run away when you say "no, it's okay, I know I'm male, and I'm not 'brave' for doing this, I did it because I had to". In my experience, trans 'allies' can be incredibly abusive. Especially men like Nigel bloke who is clearly using my own community for his own reasons.



If you know you are male, why do you have a woman's name and use a gender neutral pronoun? Genuine questions.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 15, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Always
> 
> It's funny though how many people run away when you say "no, it's okay, I know I'm male, and I'm not 'brave' for doing this, I did it because I had to". In my experience, trans 'allies' can be incredibly abusive. Especially men like Nigel bloke who is clearly using my own community for his own reasons.



I can't say what Nigel's agenda is aside from not being keen on terfs.  Or at least some terfs.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 15, 2018)

Thimble Queen said:


> If you know you are male, why do you have a woman's name and use a gender neutral pronoun? Genuine questions.



More than a fair enough question considering. If one thinks of themselves as male, gender neutral pronouns and invasive surgery seem odd 'regalia' to me.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 15, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> More than a fair enough question considering. If one thinks of themselves as male, gender neutral pronouns and invasive surgery seem odd 'trophies' to me.



I guess if we're talking about sec rather than gender identification it makes sense.  It also assumes that feelings were the same before and after the surgery, I guess.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 15, 2018)

8ball said:


> I guess if we're talking about sec rather than gender identification it makes sense.  It also assumes that feelings were the same before and after the surgery, I guess.



Opting for surgery changes that? Or not?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 15, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Opting for surgery changes that? Or not?



I mean your opinions may not be the same as they were before surgery.  Not that the change was necessarily caused by it, but people sometimes change their mind about things.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 15, 2018)

8ball said:


> I can't say what Nigel's agenda is aside from not being keen on terfs.  Or at least some terfs.



Toeing the party line.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 15, 2018)

This is a good read, I thought, and mentioned something I alluded to earlier. :

The India Effect: (what Celebrity Big Brother can teach us about gender politics.)



> It is a fact that no natal woman has ever felt the need to approach another, and shout at her that she is a real woman. And in return, no natal woman has ever felt the need to say to another, of course you are and I totally respect that. Such an exchange serves only to reveal that _neither_ party wholly believes what they are saying. And so here lies the crux: trans women _know _they are not women in any concrete, material sense, which is what has given rise to all the various mental gymnastics regarding sexed brains and souls trumping the bare facts of ones reproductive system. In an attempt to relieve distress and provide a theoretical framework for validation, the truth must necessarily be bent, squeezed, and hammered square into a round hole.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 15, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> No, you'll find it in 'Whipping Girl'. I quoted the passage somewhere above.
> 
> Seriously, I think you'll find it's not B or L who have to do mental gymnastics. You only have to look at 'lewd trans' accounts on Twitter to see this is a thing.



But no-one has ever denied that autogynephilia exists, Serano's argument is that female embodiment fantasies are a symptom rather than a cause of transsexuality.  That seems very persuasive to me, it seems quite likely that trans women who experience gender dysphoria and are attracted to other women might experience some confusion about their bodies and their sexuality at puberty - but most people seem to report it goes away as they get older or come out.  It also doesn't surprise me that when non-typical gender presentation and behaviours have until recently beeen highly taboo that some people might have developed a fetishistic relationship to their gender identity.  And it finally doesn't suprise me that trans women might have sexual fantasies about having sex as a woman, because that seems to be perfectly congruent with reported experience of gender dysphoria such as revulsion of, or discomfort with, primary and secondary sexual characteristics.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 15, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> This is a good read, I thought, and mentioned something I alluded to earlier. :
> 
> The India Effect: (what Celebrity Big Brother can teach us about gender politics.)





> For as Willoughby pointed an accusatory finger at Amanda Barrie and shouted that she is a real woman, so too do transactivists and their supporters point fingers at the masses, shouting that there can be no debate; that trans women are women, and if we do not align with this new idea we can consider ourselves terrible people, dicing on the wrong side of history. To which the general response can be summed up neatly as, ‘Yes darling! Of course you are and I totally respect that.’



... and if you don't you're a TERF and a bigot and how dare you, a woman, be so fucking insensitive and uncaring and selfish.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 15, 2018)

If anything I'd say autogynephilia is evidence of some kind of gender discord that we don't understand the mechanisms for yet, rather than the cause of it.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 15, 2018)

bimble said:


> I'm learning to drive (very belatedly) and looked up the statistics for male v female first time pass rates which were depressing as hell. I find that stuff interesting. Failed twice so far, femininely, despite finger-lengths.


Were you bought tools as a lass and indulged when trouble came to the door?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 15, 2018)

smokedout said:


> If anything I'd say autogynephilia is evidence of some kind of gender discord that we don't understand the mechanisms for yet, rather than the cause of it.



It would seem odd if people who were very gender discordant didn't have fantasies of a life where this wasn't the case.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 15, 2018)

Thimble Queen said:


> If you know you are male, why do you have a woman's name and use a gender neutral pronoun? Genuine questions.



I answered both questions up the board, I don't care about pronouns.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 15, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> This is a good read, I thought, and mentioned something I alluded to earlier. :
> 
> The India Effect: (what Celebrity Big Brother can teach us about gender politics.)



She's an amazing writer and nails it (and a bunch of other things in her other pieces)


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jan 15, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I answered both questions up the board, I don't care about pronouns.



So you don't prefer they, then? I'm confused. I saw you posted about pronouns before but I've only dipped in an out the thread. If you could point me to posts where this is covered that would be great.


----------



## Athos (Jan 15, 2018)

smokedout said:


> But no-one has ever denied that autogynephilia exists, Serano's argument is that female embodiment fantasies are a symptom rather than a cause of transsexuality.  That seems very persuasive to me, it seems quite likely that trans women who experience gender dysphoria and are attracted to other women might experience some confusion about their bodies and their sexuality at puberty - but most people seem to report it goes away as they get older or come out.  It also doesn't surprise me that when non-typical gender presentation and behaviours have until recently beeen highly taboo that some people might have developed a fetishistic relationship to their gender identity.  And it finally doesn't suprise me that trans women might have sexual fantasies about having sex as a woman, because that seems to be perfectly congruent with reported experience of gender dysphoria such as revulsion of, or discomfort with, primary and secondary sexual characteristics.



Why does it matter what percentage of non-androphilic trans women are autogynephilic, and why?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 15, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> This is a good read, I thought, and mentioned something I alluded to earlier. :
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 15, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Please stop poisoning the well with your dumb-ass ad hominems. Please engage with the argument I am making. Thank you.



There are not enough  to do some of your posts justice.

Your levels of rudeness and arrogance are only matched by the levels of your lies and hypocrisy.

You claimed
"....my replies have always been courteous even where I've had abuse hurled at me on here."
And yet you continuously insult people.

If you are going to act like a rude fuckwit at least accept that people have the right to call you out on it.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 15, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> MochaSoul said:
> 
> 
> > What's the difference between calling a transwoman a man and seeing them as one?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 15, 2018)

smokedout said:


> But no-one has ever denied that autogynephilia exists, Serano's argument is that female embodiment fantasies are a symptom rather than a cause of transsexuality.  That seems very persuasive to me, it seems quite likely that trans women who experience gender dysphoria and are attracted to other women might experience some confusion about their bodies and their sexuality at puberty - but most people seem to report it goes away as they get older or come out.  It also doesn't surprise me that when non-typical gender presentation and behaviours have until recently beeen highly taboo that some people might have developed a fetishistic relationship to their gender identity.  And it finally doesn't suprise me that trans women might have sexual fantasies about having sex as a woman, because that seems to be perfectly congruent with reported experience of gender dysphoria such as revulsion of, or discomfort with, primary and secondary sexual characteristics.



The point is that transsexuals fall into two groups separated by sexual orientation. Why is this a problem for those transsexuals who are heterosexual?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 15, 2018)

comrade spurski said:


> There are not enough  to do some of your posts justice.
> 
> Your levels of rudeness and arrogance are only matched by the levels of your lies and hypocrisy.
> 
> ...



Get a grip.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 15, 2018)

One is explicit, the other shared with the self.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 15, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Get a grip.


Of What?
Or do you mean stop pointing out you sometimes are a hypocrite?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 15, 2018)

One is explicit, the other shared exclusively with the self.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 15, 2018)

comrade spurski said:


> Of What?
> Or do you mean stop pointing out you sometimes are a hypocrite?



I am consistent. And never a hypocrite.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 15, 2018)

Thimble Queen said:


> So you don't prefer they, then? I'm confused. I saw you posted about pronouns before but I've only dipped in an out the thread. If you could point me to posts where this is covered that would be great.



Seriously, who gives a fuck about pronouns.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 15, 2018)

Athos said:


> Why does it matter what percentage of non-androphilic trans women are autogynephilic, and why?



Transgender ideologues hate homosexual transsexuals.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 15, 2018)

smokedout said:


> If anything I'd say autogynephilia is evidence of some kind of gender discord that we don't understand the mechanisms for yet, rather than the cause of it.



Please define 'gender'.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 15, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Seriously, who gives a fuck about pronouns.



You do ...cos you insist on using one's you think appropriate even when others have said they do not like that particular one being used to describe them.

The term "homosexual" is not an insult. I have mates who do not like being referred to as homosexual. They prefer the word gay.
Why would anyone ignore that and chose to call them homosexual, knowing it'll just upset or piss them off?
That is the equivalent of what you have done.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jan 15, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Seriously, who gives a fuck about pronouns.



There's no need to be rude. As I said they were genuine questions and the pronouns were only one part of it... Why do you have a lady's name if you know you are a man? And why go through the surgery? If the questions are too personal that's absolutely fine, no obligation to answer


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 15, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I answered both questions up the board, I don't care about pronouns.


If you don't care about pronouns, or being seen as female why did you have surgery? I know these are personal questions but your opinions on this thread confuse me given your own choices.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 15, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I am consistent. And never a hypocrite.


No you are not.
And yes you are
You claim to "always being courteous" When you clearly ain't.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 15, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> The point is that transsexuals fall into two groups separated by sexual orientation.



What an incredible discovery Blanchard made, that some people fancy women and some people fancy men.  He's wrong of course, bisexuality also clearly does exist and there's no room for that in autogynephilia.  Autogynephilia demands jumping through so many intellectual hoops when confronted with the real world whereas the idea that people who have some form of gender discordance might end up with a couple of kinks seems very simple and plausible.  And it happens to match what most trans people report, so in the absence of over-whelming evidence for Blanchard's theory, and given the large amount of evidence disputing it, then Serano's ideas seem much closer to what is likely to be the truth.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 15, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Transgender ideologues hate homosexual transsexuals.



I think it's just you they don't like.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 15, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> No, you'll find it in 'Whipping Girl'. I quoted the passage somewhere above.
> 
> Seriously, I think you'll find it's not B or L who have to do mental gymnastics. You only have to look at 'lewd trans' accounts on Twitter to see this is a thing.


But that has nothing to do with the paper, its arguments or the evidence it presents, none of which you have countered.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 15, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> If you don't care about pronouns, or being seen as female why did you have surgery? I know these are personal questions but you opinions on this thread confuse me given your own choices.



Already explained this please see above.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 15, 2018)

smokedout said:


> What an incredible discovery Blanchard made, that some people fancy women and some people fancy men.  He's wrong of course, bisexuality also clearly does exist and there's no room for that in autogynephilia.  Autogynephilia demands jumping through so many intellectual hoops when confronted with the real world whereas the idea that people who have some form of gender discordance might end up with a couple of kinks seems very simple and plausible.  And it happens to match what most trans people report, so in the absence of over-whelming evidence for Blanchard's theory, and given the large amount of evidence disputing it, then Serano's ideas seem much closer to what is likely to be the truth.



Nope, it was Hirschfeld in 1918. And please link to the evidence disputing it. Thanks!


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 15, 2018)

smokedout said:


> I think it's just you they don't like.



What an amazing trans ally you really are not.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 15, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Nope, it was Hirschfeld in 1918. And please link to the evidence disputing it. Thanks!



I have no evidence to disprove that some people fancy women and some people fancy men.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 15, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> What an amazing trans ally you really are not.



Come on, you were talking nonsense, you were banging on about Paris Lees yourself a few pages back, I've not seen any hate for her from trans activists.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 15, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But that has nothing to do with the paper, its arguments or the evidence it presents, none of which you have countered.



As I have already said, Serano's own objections appear to be political and Seraro provides no new research on this matter, or even in my view a logically thorough repudiation. But that's just me 

In the paper I linked to tonight, there are a bunch of things to disagree with, and again disagreement is good! But please read it and let me know! I have my copy here ready to go!


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 15, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Come on, you were talking nonsense, you were banging on about Paris Lees yourself a few pages back, I've not seen any hate for her from trans activists.



I'm trans, I have been out for three decades, why suddenly is my voice on this matter inferior to yours?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 15, 2018)

8ball said:


> I can't say what Nigel's agenda is aside from not being keen on terfs.  Or at least some terfs.



I’m a socialist, and therefore I’m not particularly keen on people who go out of their way to make life harder for oppressed minorities. I have particular contempt for people who do that while also simultaneously claiming to be left wing - as anti-immigrant socialists do or anti-semitic anti-imperialists do or as TERFs do. Beyond that, I’m generally interested in oddball and esoteric ideologies and sects and ideologies don’t come much weirder than “gender abolitionists” who spend their time agitating for more vigorous policing of the boundaries of gender.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 15, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I'm trans, I have been out for three decades, why suddenly is my voice on this matter inferior to yours?



Well then perhaps you can point us to the evidence of this hatred?


----------



## weepiper (Jan 15, 2018)

Can you imagine the reaction if women were interrogating any other trans woman the way you lot are interrogating Miranda Yardley? Catch yourselves on.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 15, 2018)

weepiper said:


> Can you imagine the reaction if women were interrogating any other trans woman the way you lot are interrogating Miranda Yardley? Catch yourselves on.




they do, all the time, they get called terfs and if miranda wasnt on the exclusionary side I highly doubt you'd care enough to post about it.

miranda presents themselves as a trans woman then shits on other trans people saying they aint real like shes the only fucking trans in the village and says they are male but then goes on the way they do, it's fucking ridiculous. like if it was that easy and trans people are lying and gender needs to be abolished then it's not beyond reason that they would stop the shit they do and just say yeah my hormones are just a fetish  and actually OWN it instead of trying to score some fucking points.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 15, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> they do, all the time, they get called terfs



Quite.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 15, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Quite.




oh you can fuck right off as well, scrote.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 15, 2018)

The Guardian sent someone over to Ireland to see what the consequences of gender recognition through self-declaration have been. It turns out that none of the terrifying consequences Brit TERFs have been claiming will follow have actually happened.

'A monumental change': how Ireland transformed transgender rights


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 15, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> oh you can fuck right off as well, scrote.



No, soz.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 15, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The Guardian sent someone over to Ireland to see what the consequences of gender recognition through self-declaration have been. It turns out that none of the terrifying consequences Brit TERFs have been claiming will follow have actually happened.
> 
> 'A monumental change': how Ireland transformed transgender rights




no shit


----------



## Ralph Llama (Jan 15, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> miranda presents themselves as a trans woman then shits on other trans people saying they aint real like shes the only fucking trans in the village and says they are male but then goes on the way they do, it's fucking ridiculous. like if it was that easy and trans people are lying and gender needs to be abolished then it's not beyond reason that they would stop the shit they do and just say yeah my hormones are just a fetish  and actually OWN it instead of trying to score some fucking points.



There are other post-transition peeps with the same opinion. It`s good Miranda can express their views because not many others do.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 15, 2018)

Ralph Llama said:


> There are other post-transition peeps with the same opinion. It`s good Miranda can express their views because not many others do.




yeah there are. thanks for clarifying. but miranda is an exceptional contradiction.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 15, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The Guardian sent someone over to Ireland to see what the consequences of gender recognition through self-declaration have been. It turns out that none of the terrifying consequences Brit TERFs have been claiming will follow have actually happened.
> 
> 'A monumental change': how Ireland transformed transgender rights



Ireland having such a recent history of gut wrenching mysogyny one wonders how that's been achieved and what lies beneath the seemingly paradisaical accounts. Given how largely unchallenged the narrative has been over here (I wonder if The Guardian has reported on the, almost 14K in 3 days AWS crowdfunding initiative yet btw - the only account I read earlier was that of Pink news which couldn't help itself but to misrepresent the initiative) I feel more than entitled to doubt that one.


----------



## Ralph Llama (Jan 15, 2018)

My m8 holds quite similar views. I was not always sure whether or not it was because she had been run down by society or not. Miranda makes me think not.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 15, 2018)

weepiper said:


> Can you imagine the reaction if women were interrogating any other trans woman the way you lot are interrogating Miranda Yardley? Catch yourselves on.



Some people are more worthy of respect and cordiality than others.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 15, 2018)

bullshit.


----------



## Ralph Llama (Jan 15, 2018)

Exuse me?


----------



## Sue (Jan 15, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The Guardian sent someone over to Ireland to see what the consequences of gender recognition through self-declaration have been. It turns out that none of the terrifying consequences Brit TERFs have been claiming will follow have actually happened.
> 
> 'A monumental change': how Ireland transformed transgender rights



And what a progressive country Ireland is.

Unless of course you're a women who wants to terminate a pregnancy or who needs a termination for medical reasons.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 16, 2018)

oh snap that didnt take long lol


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 16, 2018)

Sue said:


> And what a progressive country Ireland is.
> 
> Unless of course you're a women who wants to terminate a pregnancy or who needs a termination for medical reasons.



Ireland is a rapidly changing country, and has over the last 25 years got rid of every vestige of Catholic conservative laws on social issues with the solitary exception of the ban on abortion - which will likely be gone in the next six months. Bringing in gender recognition by self-declaration was a part of that process. It was opposed by the same religious conservatives who oppose abortion rights and supported by every feminist group and campaign in the country. And as the struggle for abortion rights has been one of the main political issues for some years, those feminist groups and campaigns are considerably larger and more vigorous than their equivalents in Britain.

But here’s the thing. Whether Ireland is particularly progressive or not is irrelevant. What’s of interest is that gender recognition by self-declaration has been the law one island over from you for some years now. The various scaremongering claims made by paranoid and bigoted TERFs have been put to the test. Self-declaration has not resulted in any of the terrible things your fringe movement claims it would result in. No huge spike in teenage girls being pressured into changing gender. No abusive men declaring themselves to be women so as to force their way into domestic violence refuges. No compulsory sex with trans women for lesbians. No domination of women’s spaces by opportunistic men with a fraudulently claimed gender recognition certificate. No sudden mass outbreak of perverts in the toilets or changing rooms. And not the slightest qualm about the consequences of those changes, no second thoughts or buyers remorse, on the part of the feminist movement here.

It’s been tried. The sky didn’t fall. Your paranoid fantasies turned out to be paranoid fantasies. If TERFs were capable of honesty or were actually interested in the truth they would assess their fears in light of that experience. But you aren’t capable of that. They prefer a wild paranoia untethered to factual outcomes. So not only will they continue to repeat the same scare mongering as if it hadn’t already been disproved, they actively resent anyone pointing out that it has been shown to be groundless.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 16, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I don't care about pronouns.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 16, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> As I have already said, Serano's own objections appear to be political


I'm not really interested in what Serano has written about herself elsewhere. It doesn't affect the arguments presented in that paper. Suffice to say that I disagree with this and see no evidence for it at all. 

I'll leave this issue here, I think. You've linked to Serano's paper. I and others have linked to other websites with discussions of Blanchard. The info is there for others to read if they wish to take it further. No need to take either your word or my word for it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 16, 2018)

Athos said:


> Why does it matter what percentage of non-androphilic trans women are autogynephilic, and why?


You should take that up with Miranda Yardley really, as their pet theory hinges on the answer to this question. You may not have been following this, but it is MY who brought up this theory. Others are responding to that.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 16, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Some people are more worthy of respect and cordiality than others.




I read through the thread a bit, I actually think you might need help. 

get well soon.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 16, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I'm not a black and white thinking individual.



LoLoLOLOL  IDS THIS A ACTUAL JOKE???


----------



## Athos (Jan 16, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You should take that up with Miranda Yardley really, as their pet theory hinges on the answer to this question. You may not have been following this, but it is MY who brought up this theory. Others are responding to that.



I did, and explained I think Blanchard is wrong. Just seems a bit of a pointless distraction.


----------



## Sue (Jan 16, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It’s been tried. The sky didn’t fall. Your paranoid fantasies turned out to be paranoid fantasies. If TERFs were capable of honesty or were actually interested in the truth they would assess their fears in light of that experience. But you aren’t capable of that. They prefer a wild paranoia untethered to factual outcomes. So not only will they continue to repeat the same scare mongering as if it hadn’t already been disproved, they actively resent anyone pointing out that it has been shown to be groundless.



Here's the thing though, I'm not a TERF and don't have 'paranoid fantasies' about this stuff. I absolutely believe that everyone should be treated with respect and dignity and that, of course, includes trans people.

I do think though that there are aspects around 'trans women are women' (for example) and what that means for non trans women that need to be thought about in a more nuanced way (on both sides of the debate) than is currently happening. Which is why I've been following this thread with interest. 

If you're actually paying attention to this thread, it seems I'm not alone in having such concerns while not being a TERF. You don't seem to appreciate that not everything is black and white and that sometimes there are shades of grey. And I think there's a lot of grey around this.


----------



## Jonti (Jan 16, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> That doesn't follow. And it's not *my* theory. Find me something peer-reviewed that shows it's nonsense, and we can have a constructive discussion. I'm always open to have my mind changed on this.





Miranda Yardley said:


> No, you'll find it in 'Whipping Girl'. I quoted the passage somewhere above.
> 
> Seriously, I think you'll find it's not B or L who have to do mental gymnastics. You only have to look at 'lewd trans' accounts on Twitter to see this is a thing.


But so what if it is a thing?  Surely almost everyone has some sort of erotic relationship with their own body, real and desired, especially in adolescence and young adulthood. It's the experienced need to transition that really matters.


----------



## Jonti (Jan 16, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Please define 'gender'.


Gender is the attributes and expectations placed on a person by the wider society by virtue of their sex.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 16, 2018)

weepiper said:


> Can you imagine the reaction if women were interrogating any other trans woman the way you lot are interrogating Miranda Yardley? Catch yourselves on.



Genuine do not understand your question.
Are you saying that it is only women questioning MY?
Or are you say MY shouldn't be questioned because MY is a trans woman?
Am also confused why questioning is called interrogation when MY also questions others in an equally confrontation manner.

Not sure confrontational manner properly fits but can't think of a better term atm


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 16, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> But here’s the thing. Whether Ireland is particularly progressive or not is irrelevant. .



It's not irrelevant to Irish women.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2018)

weepiper said:


> Can you imagine the reaction if women were interrogating any other trans woman the way you lot are interrogating Miranda Yardley? Catch yourselves on.


Tbh my has presented some arguments ostensibly backed by statistics but when examined the support they claimed was lacking. So imo it's no surprise there's a bit of interrogation going on, when someone's thrice played fast and loose with the facts you'd expect people to be a mite less receptive to their assertions.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 16, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Tbh my has presented some arguments ostensibly backed by statistics but when examined the support they claimed was lacking. So imo it's no surprise there's a bit of interrogation going on, when someone's thrice played fast and loose with the facts you'd expect people to be a mite less receptive to their assertions.


It wasn't that I meant, it's the constant 'but why do you call yourself Miranda but say you're male' and 'what pronouns do you use' and 'show me the posts where you explain why' talk. It's personal, I hesitate to use the word 'attacks' because that's falling into the ID politics rabbit hole but leave the personal shit out of it IMO. Play the ball.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 16, 2018)

weepiper said:


> It wasn't that I meant, it's the constant 'but why do you call yourself Miranda but say you're male' and 'what pronouns do you use' and 'show me the posts where you explain why' talk. It's personal, I hesitate to use the word 'attacks' because that's falling into the ID politics rabbit hole but leave the personal shit out of it IMO. Play the ball.



Right well given  I am someone who has asked MY quite personal things I will respond to this. You are way off calling it an attack and I resent you characterising it that way, even though you are saying you don't want to do that, you now have.

Throughout the thread MY has posted things that refer to people not listening to them as a trans person and only listening to others. Stuff like the sarcastic _'I listen to trans people but not this one', or the straight forward... 'I've been out for 3 decades, why wouldn't you listen to me?'_. This centres their opinions and experiences in the discussion. This invites people to interact with them and ask them for help in understanding x, y, z.

I am generally confused by some of the ways MY sees things given their own choices in terms of use of pronouns, surgery etc. If MY thinks I am being a dick by asking and doesn't want to they seem confident enough to say so.

By far the more 'robust' interactions on this thread have happened when discussing the various scientific papers and theories. A lot of that stuff is new to me, I am learning as I go along so stay out of the discussion and listen/read mostly.


----------



## bimble (Jan 16, 2018)

Sue said:


> Here's the thing though, I'm not a TERF and don't have 'paranoid fantasies' about this stuff. I absolutely believe that everyone should be treated with respect and dignity and that, of course, includes trans people.
> 
> I do think though that there are aspects around 'trans women are women' (for example) and what that means for non trans women that need to be thought about in a more nuanced way (on both sides of the debate) than is currently happening. Which is why I've been following this thread with interest.
> 
> If you're actually paying attention to this thread, it seems I'm not alone in having such concerns while not being a TERF. You don't seem to appreciate that not everything is black and white and that sometimes there are shades of grey. And I think there's a lot of grey around this.



You say you're not a TERF Sue but according to Nigel surely you are, if 'Trans women are women' isn't the end of the conversation for you, if you still have questions or concerns of any kind, then you must be either a terf or the more mainstream sort of bigot. There is no room for you or your shades of grey in Nigel's world.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 16, 2018)

Nigel champions ‘minorities’ which is why he places trans above women in his hierarchy of importance.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Nigel champions ‘minorities’ which is why he places trans above women in his hierarchy of importance.


hierarchy of importance? i wonder who's at the top


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 16, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> hierarchy of importance? i wonder who's at the top



Consult oppression wheel.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 16, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Come on, you were talking nonsense, you were banging on about Paris Lees yourself a few pages back, I've not seen any hate for her from trans activists.



Lees's sexism has been criticised by trans people and their allies. Most importantly this has been noticed and criticised by women. I'm not sure where you get the 'hate' from, I am not hating on anyone.



Nigel Irritable said:


> The Guardian sent someone over to Ireland to see what the consequences of gender recognition through self-declaration have been. It turns out that none of the terrifying consequences Brit TERFs have been claiming will follow have actually happened.
> 
> 'A monumental change': how Ireland transformed transgender rights



The way that self-ID is enacted and how this filters through to the Equalities Acts are fundamentally different, so it's not a corresponding comparison. 



Ralph Llama said:


> There are other post-transition peeps with the same opinion. It`s good Miranda can express their views because not many others do.



Thank you. I get contacted by people all the time, many whose views have changed recently. Invariably they are so terrified of being open about their views, they won't even follow me on social media. The trans cult can be a brutal enemy.



littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm not really interested in what Serano has written about herself elsewhere. It doesn't affect the arguments presented in that paper. Suffice to say that I disagree with this and see no evidence for it at all.
> 
> I'll leave this issue here, I think. You've linked to Serano's paper. I and others have linked to other websites with discussions of Blanchard. The info is there for others to read if they wish to take it further. No need to take either your word or my word for it.



Well, it does when they present arguments in their paper which appear to contradict their lived experience.



littlebabyjesus said:


> You should take that up with Miranda Yardley really, as their pet theory hinges on the answer to this question. You may not have been following this, but it is MY who brought up this theory. Others are responding to that.



It's not *my* theory and the proportions are not particularly relevant to this discussion. What *is* relevant is that there do indeed appear to be two different types of transsexual. It is interesting that the lives (and plight) of the homosexual transsexuals are ignored, talked over and even appropriated by the NHSTS in this debate. The HSTSs have no voice.

Rather like 'trans men', who as not being 'self-defined women' will be unable to take advantage of women's shortlists...



Jonti said:


> But so what if it is a thing?  Surely almost everyone has some sort of erotic relationship with their own body, real and desired, especially in adolescence and young adulthood. It's the experienced need to transition that really matters.



The key part it's with your own body, not a fantasy your body is that of a woman.



Jonti said:


> Gender is the attributes and expectations placed on a person by the wider society by virtue of their sex.



Quite, it's a collection of stereotypes and thus is limiting. Transgenderists also describe 'gender' as being one's own 'internal sense of being male or female'. Whether this can even make sense is very much open to debate, how can a male-bodied individual 'know how it feels to be a woman'? How do any of us know how it feels to be anything other than ourselves?



comrade spurski said:


> Genuine do not understand your question.
> Are you saying that it is only women questioning MY?
> Or are you say MY shouldn't be questioned because MY is a trans woman?
> Am also confused why questioning is called interrogation when MY also questions others in an equally confrontation manner.
> Not sure confrontational manner properly fits but can't think of a better term atm



I don't believe anyone should have a privileged voice just because of who or what they are. What I find amazing though it how people are so happy to believe any old nonsense they are told about trans issues, not think about this critically, and become defensive and even abusive towards the trans people they disagree with. There is a huge problem in trans culture in that diversity of belief on some key points is discouraged, to the point where transgressors are abused and banished from their own community.

For example, look at the debate over self-declaration. This is a clear case where many who are advocating for self-ID are doing so based upon misunderstandings over how the current GRA operates: they complain about 'going in front of a panel' or 'invasive and intrusive doctors' and that it is 'a long drawn out process'. All these are myths: the 'panel' is a process of paper-based adjudication, the medical reports are standard based on the normal GIC process and the process itself requires one to have lived in the required gender role for just two years. That's it. Prior to the GRC being issued, anyone can change their name, passport, bank and HMRC/benefits records.

Nobody is talking about how the new process adversely affects trans people by making their material protection under the Equality Act ('gender reassignment') nothing other ethereal thoughts and feelings ('gender identity') nor that a process based merely one someone saying 'I am X because I say am X' means that anyone can turn round and say 'well, I don't believe you'.



Rutita1 said:


> Right well given  I am someone who has asked MY quite personal things I will respond to this. You are way off calling it an attack and I resent you characterising it that way, even though you are saying you don't want to do that, you now have.
> 
> Throughout the thread MY has posted things that refer to people not listening to them as a trans person and only listening to others. Stuff like the sarcastic _'I listen to trans people but not this one', or the straight forward... 'I've been out for 3 decades, why wouldn't you listen to me?'_. This centres their opinions and experiences in the discussion. This invites people to interact with them and ask them for help in understanding x, y, z.
> 
> ...



A couple of posters have been outright abusive. This happens, I'm used to it. I realise some of the things I say are controversial, particularly pronouns, which I regard as a non-issue. They are something trans culture has built up to be absolutely central, no questions allowed, to the point where when people now talk about their 'transition' they often centre pronouns in the discussion. I've made my point many times here how I do not support the imposition of subjective views of the self on others, and how I feel males asking for female pronouns, and being counted as being female, disrespect women.

And this is what a lot of this is about. We have found ourselves in a position where the trans movement has positioned itself diametrically opposite to the women's movement: yes, I know a lot of 'third wave' feminists support the idea that 'trans women are women', but third wave feminism is an ideology that, amongst other things and as a for example, treats prostitution as a free choice of any woman to earn money in that way: it is fundamentally a neoliberal capitalist position that centres the needs of the individual, and ignores the structural problems that exist within society that allow inequality to thrive.

It is notable that the trans lobby is supportive of prostitution and pornography, invoking arguments of economic freedom for the former and freedom of speech for the latter, ironically given the attacks the same lobby makes upon the freedom of speech and expression of others.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 16, 2018)

Sue said:


> Here's the thing though, I'm not a TERF and don't have 'paranoid fantasies' about this stuff. I absolutely believe that everyone should be treated with respect and dignity and that, of course, includes trans people.
> 
> I do think though that there are aspects around 'trans women are women' (for example) and what that means for non trans women that need to be thought about in a more nuanced way (on both sides of the debate) than is currently happening. Which is why I've been following this thread with interest.
> 
> If you're actually paying attention to this thread, it seems I'm not alone in having such concerns while not being a TERF. You don't seem to appreciate that not everything is black and white and that sometimes there are shades of grey. And I think there's a lot of grey around this.



Yes, I agree. Unfortunately trans culture requires submission to 'trans women are women' or you're a 'TERF'. It's a fascist ideology and it's like a huge concrete block standing in the way of progress.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 16, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Quite, it's a collection of stereotypes and thus is limiting. Transgenderists also describe 'gender' as being one's own 'internal sense of being male or female'. Whether this can even make sense is very much open to debate, how can a male-bodied individual 'know how it feels to be a woman'? How do any of us know how it feels to be anything other than ourselves?



We are born and perhaps we become conscious that we feel unhappy in our designated bodies and pre-conceived sexual orientations.

Surely with that discomfort we may feel that we are something other than "ourselves"? We may seek to change what we've been given.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 16, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Yes, I agree. Unfortunately trans culture requires submission to 'trans women are women' or you're a 'TERF'. It's a fascist ideology and it's like a huge concrete block standing in the way of progress.



It’s authoritarian, not fascist.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 16, 2018)

krtek a houby said:


> We are born and perhaps we become conscious that we feel unhappy in our designated bodies and pre-conceived sexual orientations.
> 
> Surely with that discomfort we may feel that we are something other than "ourselves"? We may seek to change what we've been given.



A corollary of this is, for example, 'if a male is attracted to other males then they may wish to become women'. Just think what this means...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> It’s authoritarian, not fascist.


fascist in the sense that miranda doesn't like it


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 16, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> It’s authoritarian, not fascist.



Point taken, that said transgender culture and the resultant ideology appears to me to be a dominant vector in what I have termed 'the neofascism of the regressive left'.


----------



## bimble (Jan 16, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Point taken, that said transgender culture and the resultant ideology appears to me to be a dominant vector in what I have termed 'the neofascism of the regressive left'.



Have there been any further invitations to discuss these issues on tv since then? Or it now too far gone so nobody would dare try to host such a conversation.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 16, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> A corollary of this is, for example, 'if a male is attracted to other males then they may wish to become women'. Just think what this means...



Perhaps. Some may. Some may not. What are you inferring it means, out of curiosity?


----------



## Athos (Jan 16, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> The way that self-ID is enacted and how this filters through to the Equalities Acts are fundamentally different, so it's not a corresponding comparison.


Please would you expand on the differences between the current position in Ireland and the proposed changes to the GRA here?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 16, 2018)

bimble said:


> Have there been any further invitations to discuss these issues on tv since then? Or it now too far gone so nobody would dare try to host such a conversation.



The problem is presenting opposing sides: disagreement is reframed as hate, and transgender lobbyists refuse to defend their claims by refusing to enter into any debate they cannot control. In the meantime, 'trans women' in their mid-fifties who transitioned two years ago and are lucky enough to have children, are going into schools telling kids that 'being transgender is all about being yourself'.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 16, 2018)

krtek a houby said:


> Perhaps. Some may. Some may not. What are you inferring it means, out of curiosity?



Well, it's almost as if it's unacceptable for men to have sex with other men.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 16, 2018)

bimble said:


> Have there been any further invitations to discuss these issues on tv since then? Or it now too far gone so nobody would dare try to host such a conversation.



Today on _Sunday Lunch _it's Speak Your Brains time - subject: "The neofascism of the regressive left".  

Followed by Ainsley in the kitchen...


----------



## andysays (Jan 16, 2018)

bimble said:


> You say you're not a TERF Sue but according to Nigel surely you are, if 'Trans women are women' isn't the end of the conversation for you, if you still have questions or concerns of any kind, then you must be either a terf or the more mainstream sort of bigot. There is no room for you or your shades of grey in Nigel's world.



"I am a TERF and so is my wife" apparently


----------



## andysays (Jan 16, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Yes, I agree. Unfortunately trans culture requires submission to 'trans women are women' or you're a 'TERF'. It's a fascist ideology and it's like a huge concrete block standing in the way of progress.



It's nonsense, but I don't think it quite merits equating with fascism...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Point taken, that said transgender culture and the resultant ideology appears to me to be a dominant vector in what I have termed 'the neofascism of the regressive left'.


you didn't enjoy the 1970s i see: it's your go-to put-down.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 16, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Well, it's almost as if it's unacceptable for men to have sex with other men.


You do know the views on this subject of Blanchard and Lawrence, yes? Blanchard reckons homosexuality is basically a birth defect: 



> According to Ray Blanchard of the University of Toronto, when a woman is pregnant with a male fetus, her body is exposed to a male-specific antigen, some molecule that normally turns the fetus heterosexual. The woman’s immune system produces antibodies to fight this foreign antigen. With enough antibodies, the antigen will be neutralized and no longer capable of making the fetus straight. These antibodies linger in the mother’s body long after pregnancy, and so when a woman has a second son, or a third or fourth, an army of antibodies is lying in wait to zap the chemicals that would normally make him heterosexual.


Scientists May Have Uncovered a Biological Basis for Homosexuality. Is That Good News for Gays?

Note that this is pure speculation, the result of his own prejudices. A just-so story. It's bollocks, basically. Just like everything else this joker says.


----------



## elbows (Jan 16, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> you didn't enjoy the 1970s i see: it's your go-to put-down.



And crypto-fascist, dont forget that one


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 16, 2018)

ooooh miranda tell us some more about how the world works you oracle


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 16, 2018)

Athos said:


> Please would you expand on the differences between the current position in Ireland and the proposed changes to the GRA here?



It's how the changes affect the Equality Acts in each country. It's this legislation which causes significantly most of the 'real world' effect. This is something that's missed with the GRA debate, the GRA can say whatever it likes but it's how it impacts on the Equalities Act that matters, how they treat definitions of 'sex' and 'gender' (the UK act conflates these) and the exemptions that are available in those acts.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> It's how the changes affect the Equality Acts in each country. It's this legislation which causes significantly most of the 'real world' effect. This is something that's missed with the GRA debate, the GRA can say whatever it likes but it's how it impacts on the Equalities Act that matters, how they treat definitions of 'sex' and 'gender' (the UK act conflates these) and the exemptions that are available in those acts.


yeh. this would be the equality act which doesn't apply to 26 of the 32 counties in ireland.

there is no 'equality act' in irish law, miranda.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 16, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You do know the views on this subject of Blanchard and Lawrence, yes? Blanchard reckons homosexuality is basically a birth defect:
> 
> Scientists May Have Uncovered a Biological Basis for Homosexuality. Is That Good News for Gays?
> 
> Note that this is pure speculation, the result of his own prejudices. A just-so story. It's bollocks, basically. Just like everything else this joker says.



I think sexual orientation is complex and I don't think people are necessarily 'born gay' but may be born with a tendency. I don't necessarily agree with everything Blanchard says, and attacking him on some thing doesn't affect the point that's under debate, you're ad homming again. Also, Blanchard's work refines ideas researchers were exploring a century ago. It's not new.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 16, 2018)

everyone loves a fucing 'ad hominiem' cus it makes em sound really clever as fuck but actualky you look like a dick cus you repeat it so often


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 16, 2018)

surprised no ones bleating about straw men


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 16, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. this would be the equality act which doesn't apply to 26 of the 32 counties in ireland.
> 
> there is no 'equality act' in irish law, miranda.




like see shit like this is just cringe tbh


----------



## smokedout (Jan 16, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Lees's sexism has been criticised by trans people and their allies. Most importantly this has been noticed and criticised by women. I'm not sure where you get the 'hate' from, I am not hating on anyone.



You claim that trans activists hate trans women who are attracted to men.  Whilst Paris Lees may have been criticised I'm not seeing any hatred.  And whilst you say androphilic transsexuals have no voice it seems clear to me that Lees is the one of the most prominent trans women in the UK, having appeared on Question Time for example.  So I think what you mean is that you don't like the voice that androphilic transsexuals have because you don't agree with them. 



> It is notable that the trans lobby is supportive of prostitution and pornography, invoking arguments of economic freedom for the former and freedom of speech for the latter, ironically given the attacks the same lobby makes upon the freedom of speech and expression of others.



Or perhaps some trans activists recognise economic coercion, have an analysis of waged work as exploitative full stop and do not condemn sex workers for the choices they make within that, as well as recognise for some people they feel they have little choice.  Most radical trans activists I've read and spoken to concentrate on attacking the structural reasons why such work exists and why it is so exploitative.  This is in contrast to some radical feminists, usually the same ones who oppose trans people, who would rather attack working class women for making choices in a rigged and exploitative system than attack the system that forces the working class into these 'choices'.  Of course this system has served some people rather well and it's very easy for magazine editors, business owners and academics to make these kind of judgements about choices they will never have to face.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 16, 2018)

fucking preeeeeach  they never go after the system, thats why theres self serve checkouts


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I think sexual orientation is complex and I don't think people are necessarily 'born gay' but may be born with a tendency. I don't necessarily agree with everything Blanchard says, and attacking him on some thing doesn't affect the point that's under debate, you're ad homming again. Also, Blanchard's work refines ideas researchers were exploring a century ago. It's not new.


yeh. how about something simple, like uk law not applying in ireland. you do know it's a different country, right?


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 16, 2018)




----------



## Lurdan (Jan 16, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. this would be the equality act which doesn't apply to 26 of the 32 counties in ireland.
> 
> there is no 'equality act' in irish law, miranda.



Well apart from this one of course

Equality Act 2004

which is fairly obviously what was being referred to.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2018)

Lurdan said:


> Well apart from this one of course
> 
> Equality Act 2004
> 
> which is fairly obviously what was being referred to.




the face made when one believes the wrong website



e2a: i'm not sure you're right, lurdan. <checks>


----------



## Athos (Jan 16, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> It's how the changes affect the Equality Acts in each country. It's this legislation which causes significantly most of the 'real world' effect. This is something that's missed with the GRA debate, the GRA can say whatever it likes but it's how it impacts on the Equalities Act that matters, how they treat definitions of 'sex' and 'gender' (the UK act conflates these) and the exemptions that are available in those acts.



Thanks.   But pease would you explain the specifics of the differences?  Because this seems a bit vague. And it's an important point. Whilst you know I don't think women's concerns should be dismissed, if there's relevant evidence regarding the likelihood of those fears becoming (or not becoming) a reality, it deserves to be explored in much more detail.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 16, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> the face made when one believes the wrong website



fucking mug, I rely on you to at least be somewhat close to right because I'm too lazy


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> fucking mug, I rely on you to at least be somewhat close to right because I'm too lazy


yeh. i'm just reading the first bit of the act which undermines Lurdan's case afaics. it says the act may be called the equality act but then it proceeds to amend other acts and says this





> *1.*—(1) This Act may be cited as the Equality Act 2004.
> 
> (2) _Part 2 _and the Employment Equality Act 1998 may be cited as the Employment Equality Acts 1998 and 2004 and shall be construed together as one.
> 
> ...


which substantiates what i said before.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 16, 2018)

see I was gonna go through all the amendments but i couldnt be arsed


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> see I was gonna go through all the amendments but i couldnt be arsed


i don't blame you


----------



## Lurdan (Jan 16, 2018)

Indeed it's not very clearly presented - but afaics the Equality Act 2004 amends previous legislation to incorporate various EU directives. From that culturewise page you linked to



> The Equality Act 2004 implements the provisions of the amended Gender Equal Treatment Framework, Framework Employment Directive and Race Directive. These Directives take precedence over Irish law which should be read and interpreted having regard to the provisions of the Directives.






> Equality Act 2004 seeks to implement the EU Race Directive which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of racial or ethnic origin and takes precedence over Irish law. The Traveller community ground has to be read and interpreted in the light of this Directive.



and as you point out the Act states that it "may be cited as the Equality Act 2004".

So not only does it "self-define" as the Equalities [ETA: Equality duh] Act but it actually exists


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 16, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I think sexual orientation is complex and I don't think people are necessarily 'born gay' but may be born with a tendency. I don't necessarily agree with everything Blanchard says, and attacking him on some thing doesn't affect the point that's under debate, you're ad homming again. Also, Blanchard's work refines ideas researchers were exploring a century ago. It's not new.


Firstly, the fact that his bullshit is built on the bullshit of others is irrelevant. Second, I'm not ad-homming. I'm showing the kind of ideology you are advocating. Blanchard's bollocks about sexuality feeds directly into his bollocks about gender identity, precisely because he causally links the one to the other.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2018)

Lurdan said:


> Indeed it's not very clearly presented - but afaics the Equality Act 2004 amends previous legislation to incorporate various EU directives. From that culturewise page you linked to
> 
> 
> 
> ...


yes. but if you read it you'll see that the everything after part 1 is not the equality act 2004 but the acts i list above, and the equality act 2004 proper therefore only consists of part 1.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 16, 2018)

smokedout said:


> You claim that trans activists hate trans women who are attracted to men.  Whilst Paris Lees may have been criticised I'm not seeing any hatred.  And whilst you say androphilic transsexuals have no voice it seems clear to me that Lees is the one of the most prominent trans women in the UK, having appeared on Question Time for example.  So I think what you mean is that you don't like the voice that androphilic transsexuals have because you don't agree with them.



No, HSTS. Lees is not typical of the HSTS.



smokedout said:


> Or perhaps some trans activists recognise economic coercion, have an analysis of waged work as exploitative full stop and do not condemn sex workers for the choices they make within that, as well as recognise for some people they feel they have little choice.  Most radical trans activists I've read and spoken to concentrate on attacking the structural reasons why such work exists and why it is so exploitative.  This is in contrast to some radical feminists, usually the same ones who oppose trans people, who would rather attack working class women for making choices in a rigged and exploitative system than attack the system that forces the working class into these 'choices'.  Of course this system has served some people rather well and it's very easy for magazine editors, business owners and academics to make these kind of judgements about choices they will never have to face.



You're still spending more time attacking the arguer than argument. Transactivism appears to me to be neoliberal, it's individualist not collectivist: there's broad application of the classic liberal doctrine of doing what you want with your life and your body, as long as no harm comes to others: there is no consideration given to the harm principle, which is a whole new rabbit-hole.

Yes, people should be able to live their lives the way they choose. No, they should not be able to do this at the expense of others.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 16, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Firstly, the fact that his bullshit is built on the bullshit of others is irrelevant. Second, I'm not ad-homming. I'm showing the kind of ideology you are advocating. Blanchard's bollocks about sexuality feeds directly into his bollocks about gender identity, precisely because he causally links the one to the other.



Can we not agree then there are different types of transsexual, being the homosexual transsexual and non-homosexual transsexual, and each have differing trajectories towards transition?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 16, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Can we not agree then there are different types of transsexual, being the homosexual transsexual and non-homosexual transsexual, and each have differing trajectories towards transition?



Are you denying the existence of bisexual transsexuals?


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 16, 2018)

I am gonna smoke more weed


----------



## elbows (Jan 16, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Are you denying the existence of bisexual transsexuals?



Lets not leave any asexual transsexuals out of it either.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Can we not agree then there are different types of transsexual, being the homosexual transsexual and non-homosexual transsexual, and each have differing trajectories towards transition?


yes, we can not agree


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 16, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I'm not a black and white thinking individual.





Miranda Yardley said:


> Can we not agree then there are different types of transsexual, being the homosexual transsexual and non-homosexual transsexual



pretty black and white to me, textbook.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 16, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> No, HSTS. Lees is not typical of the HSTS.



Ok, and you are I suppose.  I stand by my point.



> You're still spending more time attacking the arguer than argument. Transactivism appears to me to be neoliberal, it's individualist not collectivist: there's broad application of the classic liberal doctrine of doing what you want with your life and your body, as long as no harm comes to others: there is no consideration given to the harm principle, which is a whole new rabbit-hole.



It's individualist to the extent that it impacts on individuals, but that does not mean that arguing for better medical treatment or increased rights for everybody who is gender variant is necessarily an individualist approach - because that would apply to everyone.  Arguing for easy access to obtain a GRA so the process does not exclude people, or better treatment and shorter waiting lists so people are not forced into the private sector or abandoned is not taking an individualist approach, it's about demanding collective solutions to problems faced by a certain marginalised group and which could affect any of us if not directly then via people we care about.


I have grave concerns about how identity politics is now playing out and dominating radical politics.  That is a problem both amongst some trans-activists and some radical feminists whose radicalism as far as I can see (in most cases) doesn't extend far beyond a gender free version of liberalism with all in inequalities and exploitation that involves.  I would suggest if you want a gender free neoliberalism than the beginnings of that would look a lot like what is taking place amongst the younger generations.


But to take the demands of the trans enquiry - better socialised healthcare, better treatment in prisons, less fees and state bureacracy to change gender, an end to discrimination in work, housing and services for people who are non-binary or gender non-conforming - these are very much demands which will help working class trans people.  And they are being opposed by a movement of often openly liberal middle class people, whose radicalism doesn't really extend beyond trans-exclusion and who are hijacking working class institutions, such as women's refuges, to attack working class trans people.  Luckily those institutions have not played ball and are in the main becoming trans inclusive without problems or incidents.

This is not to undermine the concerns many women have.  But those concerns and the discussion that needs to take place will not happen whilst some of the loudest voices on both sides engage in abuse.  And to claim trans people refuse to even have this conversation because they don't want to share platforms with people like Julie Long and Venice Allan who are openly abusive to trans women is entirely disingenuous.  The debate is ongoing on here for example, it has been difficult at times but remained reasonably civil because once those voices are removed from the equation then people feel safer opening up and discussing what can be intimate and very sensitive subjects.  So sort your own side out perhaps, get rid of the bullies and open transphobes, learn some manners and don't provocatively misgender people and then those on the other side might be more inclined to tackle some of the more extreme rhetoric and behaviour that has come from trans activists.  And if not at least you would have the high moral ground, which you really don't have at the moment.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 16, 2018)

Athos said:


> Thanks.   But pease would you explain the specifics of the differences?  Because this seems a bit vague. And it's an important point. Whilst you know I don't think women's concerns should be dismissed, if there's relevant evidence regarding the likelihood of those fears becoming (or not becoming) a reality, it deserves to be explored in much more detail.



We pretty much have a single act (the EA 2010) which its;ef conflates sex and gender, and Ireland's own equalities legislation is set out in a load of different places depending on what it's for. A key difference between there and here as things stand (so we aren't talking hypotheticals) is that for prisoners, in the UK a GRC can be applied for and issued during a period of imprisonment and the prisoner moved to the female estate, in Ireland this cannot happen. (Interestingly, the Irish law is based upon the Argentinian law and both countries are being triumphed for being progressive on trans rights, yet both are very limiting over women's reproductive rights, which is why feminists will question how progressive these countries really are.)


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 16, 2018)

prisoners 

got any every-day examples, miranda? you know, the sort of shit most people would encounter


----------



## trashpony (Jan 16, 2018)

smokedout said:


> This is in contrast to some radical feminists, usually the same ones who oppose trans people, who would rather attack working class women for making choices in a rigged and exploitative system than attack the system that forces the working class into these 'choices'.


I don't know a single feminist who attacks working class women for making economic choices in an exploitative patriarchy. I know plenty who attack the men who rape women through coercing them to have sex with them and the system that protects those men and encourages the trafficking of women to be bought and sold as commodities.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 16, 2018)

SWERFS trashy they do exist - sex worker exclusionary radical feminist


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 16, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Ok, and you are I suppose.  I stand by my point.



Are you able to have a conversation without personalising it?



smokedout said:


> It's individualist to the extent that it impacts on individuals, but that does not mean that arguing for better medical treatment or increased rights for everybody who is gender variant is necessarily an individualist approach - because that would apply to everyone.  Arguing for easy access to obtain a GRA so the process does not exclude people, or better treatment and shorter waiting lists so people are not forced into the private sector or abandoned is not taking an individualist approach, it's about demanding collective solutions to problems faced by a certain marginalised group and which could affect any of us if not directly then via people we care about.



Whatever 'better medical treatment' is, is moot. There is a dearth of evidence-based research. Even protocols on hormones are pretty much someone putting their finger in the air when assessing risk factors particularly over long-term use. As someone who has been on synthetic estrogen for a fair part of my life, this bothers me.



smokedout said:


> I have grave concerns about how identity politics is now playing out and dominating radical politics.  That is a problem both amongst some trans-activists and some radical feminists whose radicalism as far as I can see (in most cases) doesn't extend far beyond a gender free version of liberalism with all in inequalities and exploitation that involves.  I would suggest if you want a gender free neoliberalism than the beginnings of that would look a lot like what is taking place amongst the younger generations.



You don't understand what the 'radical' in 'radical feminism' means, and you don't seem to understand it is not a politically 'liberal' ideology, both of which makes me question any critique you may make on that ideology, as you appear to fundamentally misunderstand it.



smokedout said:


> But to take the demands of the trans enquiry - better socialised healthcare, better treatment in prisons, less fees and state bureacracy to change gender, an end to discrimination in work, housing and services for people who are non-binary or gender non-conforming - these are very much demands which will help working class trans people.  And they are being opposed by a movement of often openly liberal middle class people, whose radicalism doesn't really extend beyond trans-exclusion and who are hijacking working class institutions, such as women's refuges, to attack working class trans people.  Luckily those institutions have not played ball and are in the main becoming trans inclusive without problems or incidents.



Again you're pitching this as a dichotomy. You also seem to forget that the women's refuges and support charities were set up by working class women who set their remit.



smokedout said:


> This is not to undermine the concerns many women have.  But those concerns and the discussion that needs to take place will not happen whilst some of the loudest voices on both sides engage in abuse.  And to claim trans people refuse to even have this conversation because they don't want to share platforms with people like Julie Long and Venice Allan who are openly abusive to trans women is entirely disingenuous.



The trans lobby will not enter into any debate they cannot control. There is a long track record of this and the abuse and harassment of women, men and other trans people they disagree with. What you don't appear to understand is that the trans community is internally governed by fear. People are kept in check through threats of isolation, and rhetorical threats of physical and sexual violence are common.



smokedout said:


> The debate is ongoing on here for example, it has been difficult at times but remained reasonably civil because once those voices are removed from the equation then people feel safer opening up and discussing what can be intimate and very sensitive subjects.  So sort your own side out perhaps, get rid of the bullies and open transphobes, learn some manners and don't provocatively misgender people and then those on the other side might be more inclined to tackle some of the more extreme rhetoric and behaviour that has come from trans activists.  And if not at least you would have the high moral ground, which you really don't have at the moment.



I don't have a 'side', I speak for myself. I don't think there's anything I can do to make the trans community deal with its extreme rhetoric, because it's that deeply ingrained. 'Trans women' need to start listening to women, rather than just continuing to behave like entitled men.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> We pretty much have a single act (the EA 2010) which its;ef conflates sex and gender, and Ireland's own equalities legislation is set out in a load of different places depending on what it's for. A key difference between there and here as things stand (so we aren't talking hypotheticals) is that for prisoners, in the UK a GRC can be applied for and issued during a period of imprisonment and the prisoner moved to the female estate, in Ireland this cannot happen. (Interestingly, the Irish law is based upon the Argentinian law and both countries are being triumphed for being progressive on trans rights, yet both are very limiting over women's reproductive rights, which is why feminists will question how progressive these countries really are.)


Which brings me back to your sexually violent prisoners with grcs. Last time I checked you'd failed once, twice, thrice to produce the stats you told us were released last year by the government. You produced stuff but nothing that demonstrated your point. The prisoner you claimed had harassed fellow inmates turned out not to have done. And you've refused to address the issue ever since. Far from being ready to admit when you're wrong you shove your fingers in your ears and shout la la la.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 16, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I don't have a 'side', I speak for myself. I don't think there's anything I can do to make the trans community deal with its extreme rhetoric, because it's that deeply ingrained. 'Trans women' need to start listening to women, rather than just continuing to behave like entitled men.



oh dear

you speaking for yerself is WELL apparent, theres a reason i called you the only trans in the village, you entitled prick.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Are you able to have a conversation without personalising it?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And none more entitled than you


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 16, 2018)

smokedout said:


> So sort your own side out perhaps, get rid of the bullies and open transphobes, learn some manners and don't provocatively misgender people and then those on the other side might be more inclined to tackle some of the more extreme rhetoric and behaviour that has come from trans activists.  And if not at least you would have the high moral ground, which you really don't have at the moment.



This is quite staggering given the misogyny and homophobia that is so rife within transgender culture, something nobody seems prepared to confront inside that community. No wonder these people scare the life out of so many women.

"suck my lady dick" - Twitter Search
cis lesbian transphobe" - Twitter Search
"female penis" - Twitter Search


----------



## Athos (Jan 16, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> We pretty much have a single act (the EA 2010) which its;ef conflates sex and gender, and Ireland's own equalities legislation is set out in a load of different places depending on what it's for. A key difference between there and here as things stand (so we aren't talking hypotheticals) is that for prisoners, in the UK a GRC can be applied for and issued during a period of imprisonment and the prisoner moved to the female estate, in Ireland this cannot happen. (Interestingly, the Irish law is based upon the Argentinian law and both countries are being triumphed for being progressive on trans rights, yet both are very limiting over women's reproductive rights, which is why feminists will question how progressive these countries really are.)



Thanks.  The point about disparate  acts versus one consolidated piece of legislation is a trivial matter of form as opposed to content or effect.  With regard to any difference between to the substance of the two systems, is it limited to the fact that prisoners can't transition? Because, if so, what makes you think the consequences here of the proposed changes will be worse than those in Ireland? Or is it the case that there's been negative consequences in Ireland that I'm not aware of? Or it's it that you believe it's too early to say what the consequences in Ireland might be?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> This is quite staggering given the misogyny and homophobia that is so rife within transgender culture, something nobody seems prepared to confront inside that community. No wonder these people scare the life out of so many women.
> 
> "suck my lady dick" - Twitter Search
> cis lesbian transphobe" - Twitter Search
> "female penis" - Twitter Search


Internet talk is cheap. So "those people" - numbers please - "scare the life out of so many women". How many women? It's all guff, Miranda, your searches demonstrate nothing.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 16, 2018)

How about the attack that started this thread off? Is that all guff too? This "bash a TERF" stuff has been brewing for ages. It STARTED online. Is all online talk cheap? Do you seriously think online "banter" has no effect in the real world?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> How about the attack that started this thread off? Is that all guff too? This "bash a TERF" stuff has been brewing for ages. It STARTED online. Is all online talk cheap? Do you seriously think online "banter" has no effect in the real world?


I think Miranda's claims are unsubstantiated by the evidence she supplies. And as I've said, not for the first time.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 16, 2018)

Athos said:


> Thanks.  The point about disparate  acts versus one consolidated piece of legislation is a trivial matter of form as opposed to content or effect.  With regard to any difference between to the substance of the two systems, is it limited to the fact that prisoners can't transition? Because, if so, what makes you think the consequences here of the proposed changes will be worse than those in Ireland? Or is it the case that there's been negative consequences in Ireland that I'm not aware of? Or it's it that you believe it's too early to say what the consequences in Ireland might be?



The point about prisons is important as it appears to be an extant problem here and the government seems to have little appetite for dealing with a prison system that's pretty much on it's knees anyway. There's also a huge problem with how trans prisoners are accounted for within the system, a system which we know fails individuals with mental health problems (hence the ridiculously high prison suicide rate).

I think the consequences will likely be different, I hope you're familiar with my argument over why self-ID doesn't help transsexuals (which I keep saying again and again and is by far my biggest objection to the proposed law changes as they stand) and we have to remember Ireland has had the law for two years, with a population of around 1/14th that of the UK. I think also we have to allow for Ireland being culturally much more conservative than the UK anyway.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 16, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> How about the attack that started this thread off? Is that all guff too? This "bash a TERF" stuff has been brewing for ages. It STARTED online. Is all online talk cheap? Do you seriously think online "banter" has no effect in the real world?



I understand that one of the individuals in that video at the beginning of this thread has been charged with actual bodily harm. The other two have not been located.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 16, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> This is quite staggering given the misogyny and homophobia that is so rife within transgender culture, something nobody seems prepared to confront inside that community. No wonder these people scare the life out of so many women.
> 
> "suck my lady dick" - Twitter Search
> cis lesbian transphobe" - Twitter Search
> "female penis" - Twitter Search



Regarding the first and perhaps most abusive - suck my lady dick.  I had to go back to October last year to find a trans women saying that to anyone, and in fact they were directing the comment at twitter itself.  There's quite a few non trans women using it in a way which has nothing to do with transgenderism, lots of people accusing trans women of saying it to feminists, but in the last four months there doesn't seem to be any evidence of that actually happening on twitter at least.

This relentless dishonesty is one of the reasons your motives look suspect.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 16, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> How about the attack that started this thread off? Is that all guff too? This "bash a TERF" stuff has been brewing for ages. It STARTED online. Is all online talk cheap? Do you seriously think online "banter" has no effect in the real world?



I don't support that at all.  But by the same token, the constant attempts (and often outright lies) to smear trans women as male sexual predators at best or paedophiles and rapists at worst also has an effect in the real world - a world where transgender hate crime is a growing and significant problem.

Of course the people doing this wash their hands of any consequences by saying they aren't responsible for male violence - ignoring the fact that I think around 25% of hate crimes are carried out by women.  But despite this that does not abrogate them from responsibility.  Telling lies to dishonestly present a marginalised group as criminals or rapists, and knowing what stigma those things carry in society, is really just sub-contracting your violence to the mob.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 16, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I understand that one of the individuals in that video at the beginning of this thread has been charged with actual bodily harm. The other two have not been located.



Then you might want to familiarise yourself with the concept of sub judice and shut up about it.  Scary that you employ journalists.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 16, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Regarding the first and perhaps most abusive - suck my lady dick.  I had to go back to October last year to find a trans women saying that to anyone, and in fact they were directing the comment at twitter itself.  There's quite a few non trans women using it in a way which has nothing to do with transgenderism, lots of people accusing trans women of saying it to feminists, but in the last four months there doesn't seem to be any evidence of that actually happening on twitter at least.
> 
> This relentless dishonesty is one of the reasons your motives look suspect.



This is from December:


The point is, it's a result of the culture. Also:

www.TerfIsASlur.com


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 16, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Then you might want to familiarise yourself with the concept of sub judice and shut up about it.  Scary that you employ journalists.



Whether someone has been charged or not isn't sub judice. It's scary you're even allowed an internet connection.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 16, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> It's not irrelevant to Irish women.



It’s irrelevant to the question of whether or not self-declared gender recognition has led to the consequences bigots claim it would. Which is the point you are fully aware was being made when you chose to dishonestly quote that sentence out of context. Strangely enough you have nothing to say about the actual experience of self-declared gender recognition one island over. A cynic might begin to think that you are more interested in nursing your bigotry than in assessing the truth of your claims.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Whether someone has been charged or not isn't sub judice. It's scary you're even allowed an internet connection.


Yeh. Didn't realise you were so timid


----------



## smokedout (Jan 16, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Whether someone has been charged or not isn't sub judice. It's scary you're even allowed an internet connection.



You've made several comments about that incident which if someone has been charged could leave you liable for contempt of court, and could cause the same problems for this site.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 16, 2018)

smokedout said:


> You've made several comments about that incident which if someone has been charged could leave you liable for contempt of court, and could cause the same problems for this site.



I don't believe you're correct. I have not identified anyone. And the police issue a statement when someone is charged...


----------



## smokedout (Jan 16, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> This is from December:
> 
> 
> The point is, it's a result of the culture. Also:
> ...




So one tweet, in the world, in the last month.  The trans gestapo appears to be quite sluggish.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 16, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I don't believe you're correct. I have not identified anyone. And the police issue a statement when someone is charged...



You have commented on your opinion of their guilt, and referred to it as a violent attack by trans activists.  Presuming the person had been charged when you posted that then that could leave you liable.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I don't believe you're correct. I have not identified anyone. And the police issue a statement when someone is charged...


Identification utterly irrelevant, it's about guilt/innocence


----------



## Athos (Jan 16, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> The point about prisons is important as it appears to be an extant problem here and the government seems to have little appetite for dealing with a prison system that's pretty much on it's knees anyway. There's also a huge problem with how trans prisoners are accounted for within the system, a system which we know fails individuals with mental health problems (hence the ridiculously high prison suicide rate).
> 
> I think the consequences will likely be different, I hope you're familiar with my argument over why self-ID doesn't help transsexuals (which I keep saying again and again and is by far my biggest objection to the proposed law changes as they stand) and we have to remember Ireland has had the law for two years, with a population of around 1/14th that of the UK. I think also we have to allow for Ireland being culturally much more conservative than the UK anyway.



Yes, I understand your arguments about self-identification being anathema to the interrests of trans people.  Also, I appreciate that what happens in prisons is important (albeit unlikly to affect the vast majority of either women or trans people).  And ,I am familiar with the difficulties in meaningful international comparisons when other factors e.g. population size and social attitudes differ.  But you've not really answered my question about substantive differences between the law in Irealand and the GRA if it's reformed as proposed.  Are there any except the prohibition on transitioning whilst imprisoned?  If not, what do you understand the consequences for women to have been in reland, and what/how do you extrapolate this to the UK (beyond the prison issue)?


----------



## weepiper (Jan 16, 2018)

smokedout said:


> So one tweet, in the world, in the last month.  The trans gestapo appears to be quite sluggish.


January

December

December again


I cba looking at any more of it, but you're not seeing it because you don't want to, not because it's not there.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 16, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It’s irrelevant to the question of whether or not self-declared gender recognition has led to the consequences bigots claim it would. Which is the point you are fully aware was being made when you chose to dishonestly quote that sentence out of context. Strangely enough you have nothing to say about the actual experience of self-declared gender recognition one island over. A cynic might begin to think that you are more interested in nursing your bigotry than in assessing the truth of your claims.



And there it is again.  The casual chucking about of the Bigotry label, because I dare to suggest that women might not be getting a great deal.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 16, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> And there it is again.  The casual chucking about of the Bigotry label, because I dare to suggest that women might not be getting a great deal.



It’s not casual. You’ve earned it. 

As for whether women will get a bad deal, if you were actually interested in that question you would start by assessing actual consequences for women as they’ve occurred in countries in countries with self-declaration. Instead you prefer to repeat your paranoid fever dreams without making the slightest effort to measure your fears against actual experience.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 16, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It’s not casual. You’ve earned it.
> 
> As for whether women will get a bad deal, if you were actually interested in that question you would start by assessing actual consequences for women as they’ve occurred in countries in countries with self-declaration. Instead you prefer to repeat your paranoid fever dreams without making the slightest effort to measure your fears against actual experience.


----------



## bimble (Jan 16, 2018)

They're not casual at all, the shouts of TERF and bigot, they are instrumental and designed to make people shut up.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 16, 2018)

smokedout said:


> You have commented on your opinion of their guilt, and referred to it as a violent attack by trans activists.  Presuming the person had been charged when you posted that then that could leave you liable.



Really not sure I did do that.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 16, 2018)

weepiper said:


> I cba looking at any more of it, but you're not seeing it because you don't want to, not because it's not there.



Really is 'see no evil'...


----------



## Ralph Llama (Jan 16, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> It’s authoritarian, not fascist.



Not too far off IMO. If you supplant nationalism with ideological zeal your there!

I think I know some of these so-called `trans activists`. They are attention seeking, shit stirring little bastards TBH. They just want to make a career for themselves at our cost.

Interesting reflection on the book fair-





			
				Helen Steel said:
			
		

> Of course I believe that all trans-identifying people have the right to live their lives free from harassment and abuse, as does everyone. But I note the double standards that while women are repeatedly told to explicitly affirm that right, there is never a requirement on those advocating for trans issues to acknowledge the level of violence and harassment that women face or to state their opposition to sexist abuse, or to challenge the outrageous statements made by some trans advocates which repeatedly deny women’s experiences and silence women’s voices. This is a power imbalance based on the long-held expectation in society that women should be subservient.
> 
> It is notable that a statement issued a few days ago, calling for groups to boycott the Bookfair in future, makes no mention of sexism or of women’s rights or for the provision of women-only meeting spaces.
> 
> There is no acknowledgement at all that women are subject to oppression, sexual violence and harassment on the basis of our sex. It appears that those who have signed the statement are in denial about women’s experiences in much the same way that the rest of society is. Only the recent and snowballing reports of sexual harassment and assault in Hollywood, parliament and via #MeToo [on social media] have started to awaken people to reality. It is time those who signed up acknowledged that reality too.



Taking a stand against bullying and censorship | Peace News


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2018)

Ralph Llama said:


> Not too far off IMO. If you supplant nationalism with ideological zeal your there!
> 
> I think I know some of these so-called `trans activists`. They are attention seeking, shit stirring little bastards TBH. They just want to make a career for themselves at our cost.
> 
> ...


Yeh? A career? Tell me more


----------



## smokedout (Jan 16, 2018)

weepiper said:


> January
> 
> December
> 
> ...




To be fair I wasn't seeing it because Miranda said lady dick so those tweets didn't show up.  But only one of those tweets seems to be aimed at trans critical radical feminists (and not at an individual specifically), one is aimed at some teenage boy who initiated sexual comments and the other is complaining about computer game developers.  

It's hardly endemic and a search of girl dick reveals the phrase being used more as a way to sexually mock trans people than it is used to attack radical feminists.


----------



## Ralph Llama (Jan 16, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh? A career? Tell me more



Make waves at the cutting edge then write a book. Noticeable by their unsociable levels of competitiveness on every f**king issue. Go for it Pickmans !


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 16, 2018)

Watch out for those paranoid fever dreams.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2018)

Ralph Llama said:


> Make waves at the cutting edge then write a book. Noticeable by their unsociable levels of competitiveness on every f**king issue. Go for it Pickmans !


What did you write a book about, Ralph?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 16, 2018)

bimble said:


> They're not casual at all, the shouts of TERF and bigot, they are instrumental and designed to make people shut up.



TERF is an accurate description stemming from debates within Radical Feminism, ie a term invented by non transphobic radfems to distinguish themselves from anti trans radfems. You are right though that describing bigots as bigots isn’t done casually any more than it’s done casually to racists or homophobes. In all cases it’s a statement that the bigots are beyond the bounds of reasonable debate and that their views need not be accommodated in any way.


----------



## Ralph Llama (Jan 16, 2018)

@Pickmans
*reclines next to pool
Well, darling, I made waves back in 92 by suggesting the CJA was a great idea and selling RaveTM  to Sony/EMI. Got sponsorship and my own Daily Mail column...sssssssall gravy


----------



## bimble (Jan 16, 2018)

Red Cat said:


> Watch out for those paranoid fever dreams.


Hysteria by any other name. It's probably something to do with our ovaries going walkabout, making us confused.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2018)

Ralph Llama said:


> @Pickmans
> *reclines next to pool
> Well, darling, I made waves back in 92 by suggesting the CJA was a great idea and selling RaveTM  to Sony/EMI. Got sponsorship and my own Daily Mail column...sssssssall gravy


i see. you're yesterday's man


----------



## bimble (Jan 16, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> it’s a statement that the bigots are beyond the bounds of reasonable debate and that their views need not be accommodated in any way.


You're not refusing to have a conversation you're just unable to do so, all you can do is repeat the same idea in every single post, blindly. The conversation will happen, without you, because there are plenty of women who will not be silenced by your slurs.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 16, 2018)

bimble said:


> They're not casual at all, the shouts of TERF and bigot, they are instrumental and designed to make people shut up.



This conversation keeps returning to this, despite almost universal agreement that there has been abusive behaviour on both sides.  I do not believe though that there is an orchestrated campaign to silence women, I think there is a vicious fight between some trans activists and some radical feminists and I see no sign of those feminists being silenced.  People on here usually laugh at a group claiming to be silenced from the pages of the national press.  

And seeing the enormous amount of abuse heaped on trans people by both trans critical feminists, but also by the conservative right, alt right, actual fascists, evangelicals and all the other forces ranged against them it is perhaps understandable why such a spiky response has developed.  1,500 hate crimes recorded against transgender people last year, how many radical feminists attacked for their views?  Who is being silenced and attacked here, because if you look at the picture as a whole it looks like it's trans people, and those attacks are often violent.  It is in this context that this row is happening.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> TERF is an accurate description stemming from debates within Radical Feminism, ie a term invented by non transphobic radfems to distinguish themselves from anti trans radfems. You are right though that describing bigots as bigots isn’t done casually any more than it’s done casually to racists or homophobes. In all cases it’s a statement that the bigots are beyond the bounds of reasonable debate and that their views need not be accommodated in any way.


how comforting to the people who decide bigots are bigots


----------



## bimble (Jan 16, 2018)

smokedout said:


> This conversation keeps returning to this, despite almost universal agreement that there has been abusive behaviour on both sides.  I do not believe though that there is an orchestrated campaign to silence women, I think there is a vicious fight between some trans activists and some radical feminists and I see no sign of those feminists being silenced.  People on here usually laugh at a group claiming to be silenced from the pages of the national press.
> 
> And seeing the enormous amount of abuse heaped on trans people by both trans critical feminists, but also by the conservative right, alt right, actual fascists, evangelicals and all the other forces ranged against them it is perhaps understandable why such a spiky response has developed.  1,500 hate crimes recorded against transgender people last year, how many radical feminists attacked for their views?  Who is being silenced and attacked here, because if you look at the picture as a whole it looks like it's trans people, and those attacks are often violent.  It is in this context that this row is happening.



I understand the context. I just see it from a different position from yours. Your claims upthread that abuse online towards 'terfs' is rare are just mindboggling to me, because I see it all the time, we do not hang out in the same places clearly.

There's a meeting tomorrow in Manchester to discuss current issues incl self-identification and what that might mean for people born with vaginas.
This below is the info about the meeting.



They've now said it'll be in a bigger venue because of the amount of people wanting to attend (its free) but the location is being kept secret to avoid, you know, trouble.
Why can we not announce the location of this meeting freely?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2018)

smokedout said:


> This conversation keeps returning to this, despite almost universal agreement that there has been abusive behaviour on both sides.  I do not believe though that there is an orchestrated campaign to silence women, I think there is a vicious fight between some trans activists and some radical feminists and I see no sign of those feminists being silenced.  People on here usually laugh at a group claiming to be silenced from the pages of the national press.
> 
> And seeing the enormous amount of abuse heaped on trans people by both trans critical feminists, but also by the conservative right, alt right, actual fascists, evangelicals and all the other forces ranged against them it is perhaps understandable why such a spiky response has developed.  1,500 hate crimes recorded against transgender people last year, how many radical feminists attacked for their views?  Who is being silenced and attacked here, because if you look at the picture as a whole it looks like it's trans people, and those attacks are often violent.  It is in this context that this row is happening.


as i said on the bookfair thread, people have a right to hand out leaflets at the bookfair. they must though expect to be challenged by people who might disagree. but calling people ugly terf cunt doesn't really cut the mustard for someone trying to make a serious point. and stealing and burning a bookfair banner's the act of a spoilt brat. yeh, concerns about the government's proposals should be aired and discussed. but they're not going to get the te viewpoint listened to by the legislators if all they do is have endless 'net wars with trans people. what do terfs want to achieve, having a pop at trans people or preventing the passage of a measure they abhor?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 16, 2018)

bimble said:


> You're not refusing to have a conversation you're just unable to do so, all you can do is repeat the same idea in every single post, blindly. The conversation will happen, without you, because there are plenty of women who will not be silenced by your slurs.



You’ve already lost. Your views aren’t welcome anywhere the left or the feminist or lgbt movements meet. People with your views are in the process of being driven out of the Labour Party. You can’t meet in public without protests. You are pariahs. The only role you have left is acting as useful idiots for the Tory right. Even your own boyfriend has come to the conclusion that you are a bigot.

I don’t think that being hated and ignored will shut up mean spirited close minded bigots who delight in being cruel to an oppressed group, nor will it change their views. It hasn’t done that to homophobes after all. But what it will do - what it’s already doing - is reduce you to impotent howling on the margins. I realize that you resent being told this, but you are already, at some level, aware that this is happening. You should get used to it. Comforting yourself with the idea that others just can’t answer your very convincing arguments is a good start.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 16, 2018)

bimble said:


> I understand the context. I just see it from a different position from yours. Your claims upthread that abuse online towards 'terfs' is rare are just mindboggling to me, because I see it all the time, we do not hang out in the same places clearly.



I'm not denying or defending the abuse.  What I wanted to challenge was yet another misrepresentation that this was often sexual in nature - the suck my girl dick claim.  I do not think this is common, certainly not as common as trans people being accused of doing it.  And it's just one more drip drip attack that aims to portray trans women as sexually predatory men.



> There's a meeting tomorrow in Manchester of self-defining gender critical feminists, to discuss current issues incl self-identification and what that might mean for people born with vaginas. The location is being kept secret to avoid, you know, trouble. Why can they not announce their meeting freely?



Probably because either they don't want a protest or don't want the venue to pull out.  The organisation behind that meetings has previously hosted speakers who want to morally mandate transsexuality out of existence.  I can understand why trans activists feels its a legitimate group to protest.


----------



## bimble (Jan 16, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> You’ve already lost. Your views aren’t welcome anywhere the left or the feminist or lgbt movements meet. People with your views are in the process of being driven out of the Labour Party. You can’t meet in public without protests. You are pariahs. The only role you have left is acting as useful idiots for the Tory right. Even your own boyfriend has come to the conclusion that you are a bigot.
> 
> I don’t think that being hated and ignored will shut up hateful close minded bigots or change their views. It hasn’t done that to homophobes after all. But what it will do - what it’s already doing - is reduce you to impotent howling on the margins. I realize that you resent being told this, but you are already, at some level, aware that this is happening. You should get used to it. Comforting yourself with the idea that others just can’t answer your very convincing arguments is a good start.



Yes, Nigel.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 16, 2018)

Fucking hell...calling someone a nazi/ nazi youth now? I don't agree with all NIgel says but this is a bit fucking rich given you have tried the anti-semite argument on me recently for calling you a princess even though it had nothing to do with your Jewish heritage. This is the kind of nonsense that made me think of you that way actually. Really fucking spoilt.


----------



## bimble (Jan 16, 2018)

Leave the jews out of it please, it was just a pisstake on his 'tomorrow belongs to me' post.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 16, 2018)

smokedout said:


> This conversation keeps returning to this, despite almost universal agreement that there has been abusive behaviour on both sides.  I do not believe though that there is an orchestrated campaign to silence women, I think there is a vicious fight between some trans activists and some radical feminists and I see no sign of those feminists being silenced.  People on here usually laugh at a group claiming to be silenced from the pages of the national press.
> 
> And seeing the enormous amount of abuse heaped on trans people by both trans critical feminists, but also by the conservative right, alt right, actual fascists, evangelicals and all the other forces ranged against them it is perhaps understandable why such a spiky response has developed.  1,500 hate crimes recorded against transgender people last year, how many radical feminists attacked for their views?  Who is being silenced and attacked here, because if you look at the picture as a whole it looks like it's trans people, and those attacks are often violent.  It is in this context that this row is happening.


Hate crimes? You want to talk hate crimes? What do you think rapes are? What do you think domestic abuse is? Sexual harassment? Catcalling? 140-odd born women a year killed by men in the UK, for years? (Counting Dead Women)
It's not recorded as 'hate crime' because it's so fucking endemic. And before you go 'yeah but they weren't all radical feminists', those 1500 hate crimes against transgender people were because of who they are, not their views.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 16, 2018)

bimble said:


> Leave the jews out of it please, it was just a pisstake on his 'tomorrow belongs to me' post.


Right  Because alikening him to a nazi/hitler youth or the implications of it never crossed your mind. Hypocrite.


----------



## bimble (Jan 16, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Right  Because alikening him to a nazi/hitler youth or the implications of it never crossed your mind. Hypocrite.


Ok yeah. This bit did, a little:

*"People with your views are in the process of being driven out of the Labour Party. You can’t meet in public without protests. You are pariahs."*


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 16, 2018)

Almost fevered.


----------



## bimble (Jan 16, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Really fucking spoilt.


eh? Spoilt by what? Lets just ignore eachother its boring now.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 16, 2018)

weepiper said:


> Hate crimes? You want to talk hate crimes? What do you think rapes are? What do you think domestic abuse is? Sexual harassment? Catcalling? 140-odd born women a year killed by men in the UK, for years? (Counting Dead Women)
> It's not recorded as 'hate crime' because it's so fucking endemic. And before you go 'yeah but they weren't all radical feminists', those 1500 hate crimes against transgender people were because of who they are, not their views.



Transwomen are also victims of rape, sexual abuse, murder and domestic violence.  These would not be recorded as hate crimes which are crimes against a person in this case specifically because they are trans.  So a trans women getting beaten up by a bunch of blokes who've taken exception to her being transgender would be a hate crime, but a trans women being beaten up by her partner would not.


----------



## Ralph Llama (Jan 16, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> You’ve already lost. Your views aren’t welcome anywhere the left or the feminist or lgbt movements meet. People with your views are in the process of being driven out of the Labour Party.



Who is this prick?  Fu*king politicians  We know what your agenda is


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 16, 2018)

Hilarious that the most credible headline speaker the TERFs can get is Beatrix Campbell. Are the transphobes about to wheel out a new argument blaming the rise in trans activism on satanism?

This is what scraping the bottom of the barrel looks like.


----------



## bimble (Jan 16, 2018)

Ralph Llama said:


> Who is this prick?  Fu*king politicians


You missed out the bit about being a periah, which is obvs a very bad thing to be, if you're on the Left.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2018)

bimble said:


> Yes, Nigel.



Yeh right.


----------



## bimble (Jan 16, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh right.


You read Nigel's post about how great it is that women who want to discuss this are periahs and how great it is that we're being kicked out of the Labour party and can't meet in public without being attacked ? Fuck you if you think he's a good spokesperson for The Left.


----------



## Ralph Llama (Jan 16, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Hilarious that the most credible headline speaker the TERFs can get is Beatrix Campbell. Are the transphobes about to wheel out a new argument blaming the rise in trans activism on satanism?
> 
> This is what scraping the bottom of the barrel looks like.



Oh you are having fun arent you .

No. Scraping the bottom of the barrel is your party. I saw a swapie showing a 9/11 propaganda video in the corner of an event at the Mucky Duck in Brizzle once. That is scraping the barrel. You are a fucking prostitute.

*kicks your table over and pisses on your t-shirts


----------



## crossthebreeze (Jan 16, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Transwomen are also victims of rape, sexual abuse, murder and domestic violence.  These would not be recorded as hate crimes which are crimes against a person in this case specifically because they are trans.  So a trans women getting beaten up by a bunch of blokes who've taken exception to her being transgender would be a hate crime, but a trans women being beaten up by her partner would not.


Yes but crimes against women - for being women - aren't classed as hate crimes even where they are obviously motivated by misogyny


----------



## smokedout (Jan 16, 2018)

crossthebreeze said:


> Yes but crimes against women - for being women - aren't classed as hate crimes even where they are obviously motivated by misogyny



No, and I think they probably should be, but this applies to both non trans and trans women.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2018)

bimble said:


> You read Nigel's post about how great it is that we are periahs and can't meet in public? Fuck you if you think he's the Left.


Yeh well I don't think he's The Left but I don't think he's a fascist or anything akin to a fascist either. I wish you'd find the ability to form an argument against people without turning up the volume from 2 to 10. What would you do if he was nastier to you, once you've used your ultimate insult?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2018)

crossthebreeze said:


> Yes but crimes against women - for being women - aren't classed as hate crimes even where they are obviously motivated by misogyny


Yeh well the law is an arse


----------



## crossthebreeze (Jan 16, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh well the law is an arse


well aware of that!


----------



## bimble (Jan 16, 2018)

smokedout said:


> No, and I think they probably should be, but this applies to both non trans and trans women.


Is that the new word? Non trans. I am a non trans woman?
Reminds me of this which i noticed yesterday. Behold a good adherant to the new regime: This person is totally woke.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 16, 2018)

bimble said:


> Is that the new word? Non-trans. I am a non-trans woman?



Can I start using cis again then please?

Seems this post was prescient.



smokedout said:


> I completely accept that gender is imposed, and that usually trans people simply switch gender
> 
> And I'm only really interested in it as a taxonomical term.  I recognise it is often used in an ideological way, and often pejoratively, much like white, black, het and other taxonomical descriptors, but I'm not sure that means it shouldn't exist.  I've used cis and non-trans interchangeably on this thread, but 'cis' feels better as a word and_ I suspect that any term would end up being attacked_


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 16, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> You’ve already lost. Your views aren’t welcome anywhere the left or the feminist or lgbt movements meet. People with your views are in the process of being driven out of the Labour Party. You can’t meet in public without protests. You are pariahs. The only role you have left is acting as useful idiots for the Tory right. Even your own boyfriend has come to the conclusion that you are a bigot.
> 
> I don’t think that being hated and ignored will shut up mean spirited close minded bigots who delight in being cruel to an oppressed group, nor will it change their views. It hasn’t done that to homophobes after all. But what it will do - what it’s already doing - is reduce you to impotent howling on the margins. I realize that you resent being told this, but you are already, at some level, aware that this is happening. You should get used to it. Comforting yourself with the idea that others just can’t answer your very convincing arguments is a good start.



I didn't realise that you are the spokesperson for the left, the feminist movement and the LGBT movement.


----------



## bimble (Jan 16, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I didn't realise that you are the spokesperson for the left, the feminist movement and the LGBT movement.


Get with the program ElizabethofYork you're either with Nigel or you're a bigot periah in the dustbin of history. What'll it be?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 16, 2018)

I guess I must be a bigot pariah!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 16, 2018)

bimble said:


> You read Nigel's post about how great it is that women who want to discuss this are periahs and how great it is that we're being kicked out of the Labour party and can't meet in public without being attacked ? Fuck you if you think he's a good spokesperson for The Left.



Perhaps you could point to somewhere I said or implied that I think it’s “great” that you bigots “can’t meet in public without being attacked”? I realise that you lie as a matter of course, but it seems a bit stupid to lie about the contents of a post just a few above your own. You do realise that people can read it for themselves?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 16, 2018)

Ralph Llama said:


> Oh you are having fun arent you .
> 
> No. Scraping the bottom of the barrel is your party. I saw a swapie showing a 9/11 propaganda video in the corner of an event at the Mucky Duck in Brizzle once. That is scraping the barrel. You are a fucking prostitute.
> 
> *kicks your table over and pisses on your t-shirts



Have you recently suffered some kind of traumatic head injury?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 16, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> you bigots



Yawn


----------



## bimble (Jan 16, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Perhaps you could point to somewhere I said or implied that I think it’s “great” that you bigots “can’t meet in public without being attacked”? I realise that you lie as a matter of course, but it seems a bit stupid to lie about the contents of a post just a few above your own. You do realise that people can read it for themselves?


Oh Nigel. Yes. You only factually stated that in the current climate we are pariahs, are being thrown out of the Labour party and can't meet in public freely. You did not say explicitly that this is great but you are happy about it aren't you?
Can I ask you a question too?


----------



## Ralph Llama (Jan 16, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Have you recently suffered some kind of traumatic head injury?


No but i did read your post.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 16, 2018)

> *bigotry*
> 
> 
> *NOUN*
> ...



Sounds like Nigel to me.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 16, 2018)

bigots beyond the bounds at the bottom of the barrel scraped howling like bitches


----------



## smokedout (Jan 16, 2018)

On violent crimes by the way, I couldn't find anything other than Hate Crime stats from the UK but this survey from the states is shocking.  Almost half of trans women have been a victim of sexual abuse or assault.  These are at least comparable and in many cases worse than the rates of violence and crime faced by cis women.



> Nearly half (46%) of respondents were verbally harassed  in the past year because of being transgender.
> • Nearly one in ten (9%) respondents were physically attacked in the past year because of being transgender.
> • Nearly half (47%) of respondents were sexually assaulted  at some point in their lifetime and one in ten (10%) were sexually assaulted in the past year.
> Respondents who have done sex work (72%), those who have experienced homelessness (65%), and people with disabilities(61%) were more likely to have been sexually assaulted in their lifetime.
> ...


----------



## bimble (Jan 16, 2018)

smokedout do you see this as a zero sum game where there's a limited amount of horrible things in the world to happen to people (at the hands of people born with penises) and women and transgender people should fight it out over which slice of the pie is worth more? that way lies madness.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 16, 2018)

bimble said:


> smokedout do you see this as a zero sum game where there's a limited amount of horrible things in the world to happen to people (at the hands of people born with penises) and women and transgender people should fight it out over which slice of the pie is worth more? that way lies madness.



Fuck no, what I'm trying to get across is the over whelming violence and abuse heaped on trans women as a way of understanding why such an aggresive movement might have been born out of that.  And some trans critical feminists are not just fanning the flames but actively trying to prevent trans women from accessing support when they are victims of sexual violence.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 16, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Fuck no, what I'm trying to get across is the over whelming violence and abuse heaped on trans women as a way of understanding why such an aggresive movement might have been born out of that.  And some trans critical feminists are not just fanning the flames but actively trying to prevent trans women from accessing support when they are victims of sexual violence.


Radical feminism is aggressive for exactly the same reasons though. It's a reaction to the level of abuse and violence and discrimination we receive just by dint of being born female.


----------



## bimble (Jan 16, 2018)

weepiper said:


> Radical feminism is aggressive for exactly the same reasons though. It's a reaction to the level of abuse and violence and discrimination we receive just by dint of being born female.


Yes this. And now we are told that being 'cis' and having a female body is a privilidge.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 16, 2018)

bimble said:


> Yes this. And now we are told that being 'cis' and having a female body is a privilidge.



Well, it's pretty common so I guess it would have to be, taking the whole intersectional bingo-card multi-prism into account.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 16, 2018)

bimble said:


> Oh Nigel. Yes. You only factually stated that in the current climate we are pariahs, are being thrown out of the Labour party and can't meet in public freely. You did not say explicitly that this great but you are happy about it aren't you?



I said that you can’t meet in public without protests, which is true. You changed that to can’t meet in public without being attacked, which is both a paranoid fantasy and a deliberate lie about the comment you were discussing.

It is a good thing that TERFs are pariahs, that their views are anathema across progressive movements and that their attempts to influence the Labour Party in a transphobic direction have backfired. Just as it’s a good thing that racists and homophobes are met with hostility. Saying that is not the same thing as advocating that TERFs be met with violence or that they should be physically prevented from meeting. Marginalization of bigots is a good thing, no platforming of that kind is for fascists not simple bigots.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 16, 2018)

weepiper said:


> Radical feminism is aggressive for exactly the same reasons though. It's a reaction to the level of abuse and violence and discrimination we receive just by dint of being born female.



The problem being the determination of a subset of radfems to focus that aggression on a deeply marginalised oppressed group who aren’t responsible for the abuse, violence and discrimination that women face and who are on the receiving end of similar abuse, violence and discrimination. It’s so perverse a political orientation that it would be funny if it wasn’t so harmful.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 16, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The problem being the determination of a subset of radfems to focus that aggression on a deeply marginalised oppressed group who aren’t responsible for the abuse, violence and discrimination that women face and who are on the receiving end of similar abuse, violence and discrimination. It’s so perverse a political orientation that it would be funny if it wasn’t so harmful.



What's the lower margin of bigotry in this issue?
Would it qualify for a small group of women to not want a trans woman in a support group who had been abused by men?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 16, 2018)

weepiper said:


> Radical feminism is aggressive for exactly the same reasons though. It's a reaction to the level of abuse and violence and discrimination we receive just by dint of being born female.



I agree and I'm glad it is.  It's who the target is that I'd oppose (in some cases), alongside the compromises they make and alliances they form to mount their attack.


----------



## Ralph Llama (Jan 16, 2018)

If Nigel has a penis , can I move the debate on to capital punishment?


----------



## bimble (Jan 16, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It is a good thing that TERFs are pariahs, that their views are anathema across progressive movements and that their attempts to influence the Labour Party in a transphobic direction have backfired.



What is the nature of these 'progessive movements' of which you speak? 

Apart from parroting "Trans Women Are Women" what do you stand for here ?

How is what you are championing in this conversation socialist or materialist or left wing in any way instead of just about the individual's consumerist identitarian wishes ?

What do you think gender is Nigel?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 16, 2018)

bimble said:


> What is the nature of these 'progessive movements' of which you speak? From which we are excluded as bigots.
> Apart from parroting "Trans Women Are Women" what do you stand for here ?
> How is what you are championing in this conversation socialist or materialist or left wing in any way instead of just about the individual's consumerist identitarian wishes ? Also what do you think gender is Nigel?



You still seem to be under the impression that I’m interested in debating the merits of your bigotry with you. I’m not sure how much clearer I can make it that I have no such interest. Your persistence is almost making me start to feel a little sorry for you.


----------



## bimble (Jan 16, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> You still seem to be under the impression that I’m interested in debating the merits of your bigotry with you. I’m not sure how much clearer I can make it that I have no such interest. Your persistence is almost making me start to feel a little sorry for you.


Your pity is much appreciated. You don't feel charitable and condescending enough to answer any of my questions then. ok.


----------



## Ralph Llama (Jan 16, 2018)

My... what lights do you see at such pious hights Nigel?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 16, 2018)

bimble said:


> Your pity is much appreciated. You don't feel condescending enough to answer any of my questions then.



I’m not interested in arguing with convinced and obsessive bigots about the merits of their nasty prejudices. That goes for alt right man children demanding to know what I think about racial IQ just as it goes for TERFs asking TERF questions. If you really need someone to explain to you that you are a revolting transphobe, I suggest you ask your boyfriend again. He, unlike me, probably has some reason to care about your existence enough to humour you.


----------



## bimble (Jan 16, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I’m not interested in arguing with convinced and obsessive bigots about the merits of their nasty prejudices. If you really need someone to explain to you that you are a revolting transphobe, I suggest you ask your boyfriend again. He, unlike me, probably has some reason to care about your existence enough to humour you.


Jesus f christ leave my boyfriend out of it. 
What do you think gender means Nigel?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 16, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I’m not interested in arguing with convinced and obsessive bigots about the merits of their nasty prejudices. That goes for alt right man children demanding to know what I think about racial IQ just as it goes for TERFs asking TERF questions. If you really need someone to explain to you that you are a revolting transphobe, I suggest you ask your boyfriend again. He, unlike me, probably has some reason to care about your existence enough to humour you.



You aren't helping.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 16, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I’m not interested in arguing with convinced and obsessive bigots about the merits of their nasty prejudices. That goes for alt right man children demanding to know what I think about racial IQ just as it goes for TERFs asking TERF questions. If you really need someone to explain to you that you are a revolting transphobe, I suggest you ask your boyfriend again. He, unlike me, probably has some reason to care about your existence enough to humour you.


Any chance of you magnanimously shutting up then, so those of us that want to have a conversation with each other can?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 16, 2018)

bimble said:


> eh? Spoilt by what? Lets just ignore eachother its boring now.



The kind of spoilt that demands people not say x, y, z because you ' just happen to be' yet imagine it's all fine and dandy to call other's nazi/hitler youth. What happens now if Nigel tells you he is of German heritage? Erm yeah...you hate ID politics, until your own seeps out.

Boring,  it is yes.


----------



## Ralph Llama (Jan 16, 2018)

What about 8balls point Nigel?


----------



## bimble (Jan 16, 2018)

smokedout said:


> You aren't helping.


How is he not helping? He's totally doing it by the book. He's on the side of the future.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 16, 2018)

Nigel...please pause for breath and thought.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 16, 2018)

bimble said:


> How is he not helping? He's totally doing it by the book. He's on the side of the future.



Always in motion the future is.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 16, 2018)

weepiper said:


> Any chance of you magnanimously shutting up then, so those of us that want to have a conversation with each other can?



No. I’m going to continue using this thread to draw attention to the vicious prejudices of TERFery and to examine the role their activism plays in making the world a worse place for a deeply marginalised group. I’ve said over and over again that I’m not interested in having a congenial discussion with bigots about the merits of their bigotry. That hasn’t changed: TERFs are morally no different from obsessive racists or homophobes and I respond to them as such.

If you want a pleasant conversation with your fellow bigots uninterrupted by rude people reminding you that you are the useful idiots of the Murdoch press piss off to one of the TERF Facebook groups.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 16, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> No. I’m going to continue using this thread to draw attention to the vicious prejudices of TERFery and to examine the role their activism plays in making the world a worse place for a deeply marginalised group. I’ve said over and over again that I’m not interested in having a congenial discussion with bigots about the merits of their bigotry. That hasn’t changed: TERFs are morally no different from obsessive racists or homophobes and I respond to them as such.



Pretty sure I'm not a terf.  I'm not even a rf.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 16, 2018)

8ball said:


> Pretty sure I'm not a terf.  I'm not even a rf.



Pretty sure I didn’t call you one.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 16, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> No. I’m going to continue using this thread to draw attention to the vicious prejudices of TERFery and to examine the role their activism plays in making the world a worse place for a deeply marginalised group. I’ve said over and over again that I’m not interested in having a congenial discussion with bigots about the merits of their bigotry. That hasn’t changed: TERFs are morally no different from obsessive racists or homophobes and I respond to them as such.


Lovely. Of course you are.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 16, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Pretty sure I didn’t call you one.



No, but my question was one you glossed over, thinking maybe I was included.
If you don't want to discuss anything with anyone, I'm not sure why you're still here.


----------



## Ralph Llama (Jan 16, 2018)

So Nigel, have you ever tried to suck your own cock?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 16, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I’m not interested in arguing with convinced and obsessive bigots about the merits of their nasty prejudices. That goes for alt right man children demanding to know what I think about racial IQ just as it goes for TERFs asking TERF questions. If you really need someone to explain to you that you are a revolting transphobe, I suggest you ask your boyfriend again. He, unlike me, probably has some reason to care about your existence enough to humour you.



Has anyone ever put your teeth in? Or do you just play the cunt online?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 16, 2018)

Ralph Llama said:


> So Nigel, have you ever tried to suck your own cock?



Are you 12?


----------



## Sue (Jan 16, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Pretty sure I didn’t call you one.


You called me one. And I'm not even specially radical so reckon I'm just an F really.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 16, 2018)

Sue said:


> You called me one. And I'm not even specially radical so reckon I'm just an F really.



There are only so many letters, yet no one has been called a smurf yet.


----------



## Ralph Llama (Jan 16, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Are you 12?



Yes .


----------



## bimble (Jan 16, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> No. I’m going to continue using this thread to draw attention to the vicious prejudices of TERFery and to examine the role their activism plays in making the world a worse place for a deeply marginalised group. I’ve said over and over again that I’m not interested in having a congenial discussion with bigots about the merits of their bigotry. That hasn’t changed: TERFs are morally no different from obsessive racists or homophobes and I respond to them as such.



Superb. You carry right along doing that, drawing attention to "the vicious prejudices of TERFery". These being ... ? Maybe being the idea that 'trans women are women' is not going to be the end of the conversation after all.
You're a fucking joke Nigel, you can't engage with the most basic questions regarding gender so instead you defer to my boyfriend suggesting he should put me in my place.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 16, 2018)

8ball said:


> There are only so many letters, yet no one has been called a smurf yet.



SWERF is the other one. SWERF and TERF from your local Beefeater.


----------



## Ralph Llama (Jan 16, 2018)

BOSH!


----------



## Sue (Jan 16, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> SWERF is the other one. SWERF and TERF from your local Beefeater.


Will no-one think of the vegetarians?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 16, 2018)

Ralph Llama said:


> Yes .



Nice edit. I saw that you are innocently and in fact 28. Stop asking stupid pre-orgasmic, juvenile questions please.


----------



## elbows (Jan 16, 2018)

8ball said:


> There are only so many letters, yet no one has been called a smurf yet.



I'm not sure the sexually mute urban roof farters have much of a stance on the issues that arise in this thread, at least not enough to get them their own acronym of shame.


----------



## Ralph Llama (Jan 16, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Nice edit. I saw that you are innocently and in fact 28. Stop asking stupid pre-orgasmic, juvenile questions please.


I`m actually 40... the `i was 28 years old` was an old Start Lee joke 
Have you ever tried to suck Nigels cock? How long is Nigels cock?


----------



## Sue (Jan 16, 2018)

Ralph Llama said:


> Have you ever tries to suck Nigels cock? How long is Nigels cock?


Just what this thread needs.  Reported.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 16, 2018)

elbows said:


> I'm not sure the sexually mute urban roof farters have much of a stance on the issues that arise in this thread, at least not enough to get them their own acronym of shame.



Rascist!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 16, 2018)

Ralph Llama said:


> Have you ever tries to suck Nigels cock? How long is Nigels cock?



Like I said... One day being a grown up will feel more important and useful to you. Until then you'll ask questions that you feel are edgy but that simply define you as a rather unimportant, childish twit.


----------



## crossthebreeze (Jan 16, 2018)

Sue said:


> Just what this thread needs.  Reported.


I've reported it too


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 16, 2018)

Ralph Llama said:


> I`m actually 40... the `i was 28 years old` was an old Start Lee joke
> Have you ever tried to suck Nigels cock? How long is Nigels cock?



Another lovely edit.

/sigh


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 16, 2018)

this shits gonna get closed down soon anyways cus it's bang out of order.


----------



## Sue (Jan 16, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> this shits gonna get closed down soon anyways cus it's bang out of order.


We can move onto sorting out peace in the Middle East next.


----------



## bimble (Jan 16, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> The kind of spoilt that demands people not say x, y, z because you ' just happen to be' yet imagine it's all fine and dandy to call other's nazi/hitler youth. What happens now if Nigel tells you he is of German heritage? Erm yeah...you hate ID politics, until your own seeps out.
> 
> Boring,  it is yes.



Hi Rutita1 . I put you on ignore a while ago but kept peeking so sod it:

Do you have any views at all about the topic of this thread ?
All I've seen you do is poke at people in a boring personal way.

I am not remotely interested in your opinion of me.
Also I don't give a fuck either way if Nigel is of German heritage.
If he is that would have nothing at all to do with my opinion of his his emptyheaded authoritarian macho 'you are a periah' statements here.


----------



## elbows (Jan 16, 2018)

I dont mind admitting that a lot of the time that this thread has gotten nasty, its still been rather informative. A good number of the jibes and critiques from various different perspectives, with various different targets, have left me wishing that there was an 'ouch!' button to go with the like button. And admittedly sometimes I am left with a sense that I have learnt something, without being quite sure what it is I've learnt, or at least hesitant to start drawing conclusions. It's very tempting to draw all manner of conclusions which would only lead to further ouch button action.


----------



## Ralph Llama (Jan 16, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Another lovely edit.
> 
> /sigh


Your not very bright are you? What was I hiding with my edit you weirdo? 
I feel you're missing the obvious point I`m making about you just being here to `support` Nigel.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 16, 2018)

Sue said:


> We can move onto sorting out peace in the Middle East next.




ridiculous, I dunno why anyone wastes time talking about that dead shit


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 16, 2018)

Ralph Llama said:


> Your not very bright are you? What was I hiding with my edit you weirdo?
> I feel you're missing the obvious point I`m making about you just being here to `support` Nigel.



Dumb, cocksucking, weirdo ...anything else?

FFS...is that all you have, at 40?

Absolutely no surprise that my instinct was to 'feel' you as 12.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 16, 2018)

Sue said:


> We can move onto sorting out peace in the Middle East next.



Just give me a week to finish digging my bunker.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 16, 2018)

Ralph Llama said:


> I`m actually 40... the `i was 28 years old` was an old Start Lee joke
> Have you ever tried to suck Nigels cock? How long is Nigels cock?



Just when I thought that some posts on this thread could not get more obnoxious.
People reading this thread have been discussing sexual abuse, body issues etc and you post this shite?
Seriously...just stop

Also reported


----------



## Ralph Llama (Jan 16, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Dumb, cocksucking, weirdo ...anything else?
> 
> FFS...is that all you have, at 40?
> 
> Absolutely no surprise that my instinct was to 'feel' you as 12.



You are stupid though, and your just here to support Nigel.


----------



## bimble (Jan 16, 2018)

Back off attacking Ralph Llama. Most of the idiots on this thread eg Nigel actually think they are useful. ralph is the kind of idiot who knows his own worth.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 16, 2018)

Ralph Llama said:


> You are stupid though, and your just here to support Nigel.



I haven't picked up on that, but I've picked up on you suddenly getting abusive for no good reason.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 16, 2018)

Ralph Llama said:


> You are stupid though, and your just here to support Nigel.



Says the arsehole that turned up earlier this month...

I am neither stupid, nor here to support anyone.

You appear to be trying to insult me and magically carve out some space for yourself. 

FFS, a pathetic try hard; try harder for my amusement please. Go on...you cannnnnnnnnnnnnn do it....let us see who you really are.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 16, 2018)

Ralph Llama said:


> You are stupid though, and your just here to support Nigel.


That doesn't make it ok to ask if she's sucked his cock. Stop it.


----------



## Ralph Llama (Jan 16, 2018)

Sorry, just got annoyed at Nigel. I have reported his post for proper reasons now. Maybe I should have done this before but it seems like we're just burdening the admins TBH.


----------



## Ralph Llama (Jan 16, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Says the arsehole that turned up earlier this month...
> 
> I am neither stupid, nor here to support anyone.
> 
> ...



I only see you as a puppet TBH.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 16, 2018)

Ralph Llama said:


> Sorry, just got annoyed at Nigel. I have reported his post for proper reasons now. Maybe I should have done this before but it seems like we're just burdening the admins TBH.



Oh lovely. You got annoyed at Nigel, then abused me...and now you apologise to those others that have told you you are out of order and excuse yourself because you didn't want to burden the admins? Prick.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 16, 2018)

Ralph Llama said:


> I only see you as a puppet TBH.


Try putting your hand or power any where near the parts that control me and enjoy them being chewed off. That's the kind of puppet you imagine yeah?  kinky.


----------



## Ralph Llama (Jan 16, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Try putting your hand or power any where near the parts that control me and enjoy them being chewed off. That's the kind of puppet you imagine yeah?  kinky.


 Sorry ... you want me to leave Nigel alone ?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 16, 2018)

Ralph Llama said:


> Sorry ... you want me to leave Nigel alone ?



Aside from both not exactly getting on with bimble, I don't see them saying the same thing.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 16, 2018)

Ralph Llama said:


> Sorry ... you want me to leave Nigel alone ?




Said no-one, ever.

Not so fucking abusive and sure now eh...showed a few too many misogynist cards too soon and none of this pretense that I am supporting Nigel will make people forget.

/noted


----------



## Ralph Llama (Jan 16, 2018)

Ok. Joking aside. I`m Sorry if the penis/power reference disturbed you. It was pretty rude of me. You are not here just to support Nigel. I overreacted , misjudged and was stupid and wrong.
I dont need/want to make any waves here. I hate attention TBH.


----------



## Ralph Llama (Jan 16, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Said no-one, ever.
> 
> Not so fucking abusive and sure now eh...showed a few too many misogynist cards too soon and none of this pretense that I am supporting Nigel will make people forget.
> 
> /noted



Oh piss off !!!


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 16, 2018)

This is all a bit weird


----------



## bimble (Jan 16, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> This is all a bit weird


Define weird.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 17, 2018)

Ralph Llama said:


> Oh piss off !!!


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 17, 2018)

One brain, eight fingers. Doesn't always work out.


----------



## Ralph Llama (Jan 17, 2018)

I have been outed as misogynist by some weird woman. Nigel does have a cock right?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 17, 2018)

Ralph Llama said:


> I have been outed as misogynist by some weird woman.



Pretty much akin to the back handed insults they all say when outed tbf.

Keep digging.


----------



## campanula (Jan 17, 2018)

Time to back away from thread.(descent into nitwittishness).Pillow awaits.


----------



## Ralph Llama (Jan 17, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Pretty much akin to the back handed insults they all say when outed tbf.
> 
> Keep digging.



Right.
Fire ..... What are the acussations?

Edit:
Start another thread somwhere else cos weve eaten enough room out of this one.


----------



## Ralph Llama (Jan 17, 2018)

I said  "Sorry ... you want me to leave Nigel alone ?"


Rutita1 said:


> Said no-one, ever.






Rutita1 said:


> Try putting your hand or power any where near the parts that control me


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 17, 2018)

Fuck off Ralph


----------



## Ralph Llama (Jan 17, 2018)

Actually, no . You fuck off. She just called me a misogynist.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 17, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Well, it's almost as if it's unacceptable for men to have sex with other men.



Is it? Says who?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 17, 2018)

Ralph Llama said:


> Oh you are having fun arent you .
> 
> No. Scraping the bottom of the barrel is your party. I saw a swapie showing a 9/11 propaganda video in the corner of an event at the Mucky Duck in Brizzle once. That is scraping the barrel. You are a fucking prostitute.
> 
> *kicks your table over and pisses on your t-shirts


He's not a swappie (unless he's changed party very recently). And while he's been an utter arse on this thread he's right about Bea Campbell, nobody should have anything to do with that piece of shit.


----------



## Jonti (Jan 17, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Can I start using cis again then please?


I find natal is more readily understood. It's the term I use unless the context really demands cis.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 17, 2018)

DP


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 17, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Can I start using cis again then please?
> 
> Seems this post was prescient.



Not while "cis" assumes gender identity, thank you very much. I referred to these girls earlier in the thread for good reason. They are a good example of sex based discrimination. No one gave them the possibility, let alone the privilege, of forming or choosing a gender identity before hacking them off this earth because they had vaginas.

Gender as a mere identity serves only to disempower women politically. It's a great ploy actually. Take away the words that define our difficulties. Erode their meanings then proceed to compare our experiences against those of some other another group. A great way to silence women (again). It couldn't be done by other than men in skirts and it's not surprising that they get support from men in trousers.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 17, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> You still seem to be under the impression that I’m interested in debating the merits of your bigotry with you. I’m not sure how much clearer I can make it that I have no such interest. Your persistence is almost making me start to feel a little sorry for you.



Translation:  I cant answer your questions so I'll pretend to be too lofty and high-minded to discuss this any further.  And I'll chuck in the Bigotry reference again.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 17, 2018)

Ralph Llama said:


> Actually, no . You fuck off. She just called me a misogynist.


Suggesting a woman only supports a man's arguments because she's sucking his cock is pretty textbook misogynist, tbf.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2018)

Ralph Llama said:


> Actually, no . You fuck off. She just called me a misogynist.


Well spotted you misogynist shit


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Not while "cis" assumes gender identity, thank you very much. I referred to these girls earlier in the thread for good reason. They are a good example of sex based discrimination. No one gave them the possibility, let alone the privilege, of forming or choosing a gender identity before hacking them off this earth because they had vaginas.
> 
> Gender as a mere identity serves only to disempower women politically. It's a great ploy actually. Take away the words that define our difficulties. Erode their meanings then proceed to compare our experiences against those of some other another group. A great way to silence women (again). It couldn't be done by other than men in skirts and it's not surprising that they get support from men in trousers.


It would be so much simpler if things were as black and white as you suggest in your second paragraph, if all men stuck together and there was something like the protocols of the elders of the sons of Adam. But it's not, it's more complex than that with some women supporting trans people, some women insisting they're men in skirts and doubtless male opinion divided too. I fully appreciate your point about gender as mere identity, but it seems to me gender exists as e.p. thompson says class does at the start of making of the english working class, in people's everyday relationships (sadly on bus with no copy to hand but will find I hope when get to work - here it is, it's just the first couple of pages). I feel gender not simply a hierarchy imposed from outside but a series of negotiations in the course of which it changes.

The comparison of experiences is imo something very much not limited to men on this thread. It's my view that the experience of trans people differs from that of both men and women who are happier or more comfortable in their bodies and sex and so maybe forms a distinct body/corpus of lived experience, a third way if you will.


----------



## Ralph Llama (Jan 17, 2018)

weepiper said:


> Suggesting a woman only supports a man's arguments because she's sucking his cock is pretty textbook misogynist, tbf.



I suppose it does look like that . Actually I was directly insulting her about blindly supporting him using the cock-sucking as a metaphor . .. which ... I know ... is still pretty our of order. Sorry about that. I don't know you and I'm sorry for the insults.
Pickman's. .. it's called queen theory . It's nothing new.... third way lol.
Edit - sorry Nigel for calling you a swapy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2018)

Ralph Llama said:


> I suppose it does look like that . Actually I was directly insulting her about blindly supporting him using the cock-sucking as a metaphor . .. which ... I know ... is still pretty our of order. Sorry about that.
> Pickman's. .. it's called queen theory . It's nothing new.... third way lol.


Queen theory? Tell me more


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 17, 2018)

weepiper said:


> Suggesting a woman only supports a man's arguments because she's sucking his cock is pretty textbook misogynist, tbf.



Colloquially it can mean the same as arse kissing (a non literal expression for sycophancy). 

Even so it’s an inadvisable thing to say to a woman.


----------



## bimble (Jan 17, 2018)

I just keep coming back to look at this again, a powerpoint slide from a Mermaids teaching session the other day. Notice that all the gender identities have different body shapes, scaling from the busty hourglass barbie far left to the big manly shoulders of GI Joe. How is this progressive, instead of saying to kids look at this harmful nonsense that society is telling you, it just says pick one, choose which of these 2D characters you identify as.  And femininity is pale pastels, manliness comes in shades of army.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 17, 2018)

smokedout said:


> This is not to undermine the concerns many women have. But those concerns and the discussion that needs to take place will not happen whilst some of the loudest voices on both sides engage in abuse. And to claim trans people refuse to even have this conversation because they don't want to share platforms with people like Julie Long and Venice Allan who are openly abusive to trans women is entirely disingenuous. The debate is ongoing on here for example, it has been difficult at times but remained reasonably civil because once those voices are removed from the equation then people feel safer opening up and discussing what can be intimate and very sensitive subjects.



Meanwhile, Maria Miller's Trans Inquiry was completely devoid of women's groups voices because trans groups dictate that only trans voices are allowed to speak on trans issues. That is akin to government wholly delegitimising women's voices. I ask my first question in this, so called civil, thread. Who speaks for my friend who has a fear of men due to a previous history of abuse and feels uncomfortable with being touched intimately by them knowing the NHS won't be able to discriminate between female nurses and transgender women nurses once they've acquired a GRC? Who speaks for the female police/prison officers who might be required to strip search a male body daily on the say so said body's voice claiming to be a woman? Who speaks for young lesbians still learning to navigate sexual encounters who may be emotionally manipulated by men claiming to be women into sexual relationships? Who will speak for the lesbian woman, who gives consent to sexual intercourse only to find an artificial vagina and then be condemned by claims of transphobia if she's put off? Who will speak for me, who also had a temporary fear of men due to domestic violence and might have been made to feel uncomfortable in an already fragile state by finding a man in the Surrey Women's Aid refuge that housed me for 8 months? Who will speak for the woman who gives up going to a domestic violence support meeting having found a transgender woman there and feeling uncomfortable talking about her issues decides to forgo the group altogether without mentioning her reaosns for fear of being dismissed as a transphobe? Who speaks for trans men at the Green Party who have now replaced woman with non-man but have not similarly created a category of "non-woman"?

Another question I asked and went undiscussed was what happens to statistics? What will happen to, say, sexual crimes against women when the men perpetrating them class themselves as women a la Martin, nay, Jade Eatough? How is it fair on women, especially on his raped victim, that his crime is recorded as perpetrated by a woman and his suicide mourned solely on the basis of his transition with the undertones that go with it such as "No doubt she's been a victim of transphobia?" How will women be able to argue about crimes against woman when crimes against them get recorded as "woman on woman"?
Who speaks for women in these matters?

When I lived in Lisbon for a while, I used to babysit a friend's dog a lot and, that requiring walking it, one day this guy sat on the same park bench I was sitting and his conversation and keen questioning of where I lived " Around the corner" and and did I walk the dog here frequently "Sometimes" and at some point I started getting really suspicious and just stopped walking the dog in that particular park when I spotted the guy a few days later at the same seclude spot while cursing myself incessantly for feeling myself obliged to be nice and courteous when I didn't know the man from Adam. A few weeks later there was a rape at that park. It's true that I have no idea if the rape was perpetrated by that same guy (I didn't follow the story), but I keep imagining another young girl being told by some guy with a face splashed with make up that he is a woman and she letting her guard down. What happens to her if she talks to her friends about it and all she hears is a chorus of "You're being transphobic."? Does that not have the effect of silencing her?

Paris Lees loves being cat-called and wolf-whistled. So does Ann Widdecomb. If I critice Ann's opinion she'll take it in her stride and argue it out. Maybe she'll also call me a silly young woman in between arguments but she'll be happy with "We agree to differ." in the end. If I criticise Paris Lees I get called a transphobe and my tweets will go half around the world with TERF headlining them. How is that not the silencing of women's voice?
What is your definition of "to undermine"?



Pickman's model said:


> It would be so much simpler if things were as black and white as you suggest in your second paragraph, if all men stuck together and there was something like the protocols of the elders of the sons of Adam. But it's not, it's more complex than that with some women supporting trans people, some women insisting they're men in skirts and doubtless male opinion divided too. I fully appreciate your point about gender as mere identity, but it seems to me gender exists as e.p. thompson says class does at the start of making of the english working class, in people's everyday relationships (sadly on bus with no copy to hand but will find I hope when get to work - here it is, it's just the first couple of pages). I feel gender not simply a hierarchy imposed from outside but a series of negotiations in the course of which it changes.
> 
> The comparison of experiences is imo something very much not limited to men on this thread. It's my view that the experience of trans people differs from that of both men and women who are happier or more comfortable in their bodies and sex and so maybe forms a distinct body/corpus of lived experience, a third way if you will.



It's fairly obvious to me you don't give a hoot about my describing of being a woman as a painfully long and drawn out process of coming to terms with being treated differently for possessing a vagina. It's only by dismissing my own experience of "living woman" that you can refer to it as being "happier and more comfortable". The only difference between me and those people who suffer from sex disphoria (but insist on it being called gender disphoria in a move that undermines my claim to full humanhood), is that I don't think my problems would go away with hacking away my boobs and surgically attaching an artificial penis on. The series of negotiations arises precisely from it being a hierarchy.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 17, 2018)

bimble said:


> I just keep coming back to look at this again, a powerpoint slide from a Mermaids teaching session the other day. Notice that all the gender identities have different body shapes, scaling from the busty hourglass barbie far left to the big manly shoulders of GI Joe. How is this progressive, instead of saying to kids look at this harmful nonsense that society is telling you, it just says pick one, choose which of these 2D characters you identify as.



The Cult of Mermaids should not be allowed into schools. Aside from the rampant sexism, the whole concept of 'gender identity' as something separate and distinct from the body is unscientific, and this is pretty much suggesting to children their personalities do not match their bodies. It is instrumentalising child abuse.


----------



## editor (Jan 17, 2018)

Ralph Llama said:


> I`m actually 40... the `i was 28 years old` was an old Start Lee joke
> Have you ever tried to suck Nigels cock? How long is Nigels cock?


You're now banned from this thread.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 17, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Colloquially it can mean the same as arse kissing (a non literal expression for sycophancy).



Or submission. Because giving a man a blow job must always mean submission. Same thing happens with "token". They all amount to deliberate efforts to undermine someone's opinion.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> It's fairly obvious to me you don't give a hoot about my describing of being a woman as a painfully long and drawn out process of coming to terms with being treated differently for possessing a vagina. It's only by dismissing my own experience of "living woman" that you can refer to it as being "happier and more comfortable". The only difference between me and those people who suffer from sex disphoria (but insist on it being called gender disphoria in a move that undermines my claim to full humanhood), is that I don't think my problems would go away with hacking away my boobs and surgically attaching an artificial penis on. The series of negotiations arises precisely from it being a hierarchy.


yeh. it's fairly obvious to me that you've skipped through my post without paying much attention to it and taken from it things which i never intended to be there. for example, i didn't refer to anything being "happier and more comfortable" but "happier or more comfortable" - the or was carefully chosen as i recognise that what i'm trying to get at isn't easy to convey. many people are *unhappy* with aspects of their bodies but comfortable with being e.g. a man or woman as opposed to desiring to alter their gender and/or sex. your post i quoted


MochaSoul said:


> Gender as a mere identity serves only to disempower women politically. It's a great ploy actually. Take away the words that define our difficulties. Erode their meanings then proceed to compare our experiences against those of some other another group. A great way to silence women (again). It couldn't be done by other than men in skirts and it's not surprising that they get support from men in trousers.


doesn't seem to me to describe a long drawn out process of being differently for possessing a vagina: i would have responded rather differently if i'd thought such was there. and as for dismissing your experience of "living woman" it's not a phrase i recognise from my post nor from your post quoted. i'm baffled as to how i could have dismissed something which wasn't in either your post or my mind.

e2a: having reread your post and mine i don't believe it's fair to say i've dismissed your view.


----------



## crossthebreeze (Jan 17, 2018)

bimble said:


> I just keep coming back to look at this again, a powerpoint slide from a Mermaids teaching session the other day. Notice that all the gender identities have different body shapes, scaling from the busty hourglass barbie far left to the big manly shoulders of GI Joe. How is this progressive, instead of saying to kids look at this harmful nonsense that society is telling you, it just says pick one, choose which of these 2D characters you identify as.
> 
> View attachment 125518


Well not sure if my gender is red person with long baggy t shirt and cap or orange person with a big bum and flared arms, though i did wear a tight dress like the peach person a few times recently, but no pigtails as i don't think that looks good on a nearly-40 year old, and i have been trying to build upper body muscle, so i do kind of aspire to look like the grey person - never blurry yellow gender or the blue loo sign genders though!  (well it would be funny if someone wasn't a real educational aid that kids were actually being taught from aaagh)


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> The series of negotiations arises precisely from it being a hierarchy.


yeh. you may feel that, but my view is that gender is both an identity - what one makes of one's gender, how one expresses it, how one does gender - and a hierarchy, how gender is done to you. you don't have to have a hierarchy to have negotiations, people negotiate with those of equal power every day.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 17, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. it's fairly obvious to me that you've skipped through my post without paying much attention to it and taken from it things which i never intended to be there. for example, i didn't refer to anything being "happier and more comfortable" but "happier or more comfortable" - the or was carefully chosen as i recognise that what i'm trying to get at isn't easy to convey. many people are *unhappy* with aspects of their bodies but comfortable with being e.g. a man or woman as opposed to desiring to alter their gender and/or sex. your post i quoted
> doesn't seem to me to describe a long drawn out process of being differently for possessing a vagina: i would have responded rather differently if i'd thought such was there. and as for dismissing your experience of "living woman" it's not a phrase i recognise from my post nor from your post quoted. i'm baffled as to how i could have dismissed something which wasn't in either your post or my mind.



The "and" as opposed to "or" was a typo even if it doesn't take away from the gist of what I said.
But the rest... It's obvious to me that you don't see my posts in the context of the whole conversation. Just because I don't make "living woman" a mantra I feel a need to repeat at any and every opportunity it doesn't mean it's not implicit in my view.



Pickman's model said:


> yeh. you may feel that, but my view is that gender is both an identity - what one makes of one's gender, how one expresses it, how one does gender - and a hierarchy, how gender is done to you.



A hierarchy which is embedded in how we're socialised.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> The "and" as opposed to "or" was a typo even if it doesn't take away from the gist of what I said.
> But the rest... It's obvious to me that you don't see my posts in the context of the whole conversation. Just because I don't make "living woman" a mantra I feel a need to repeat at any and every opportunity it doesn't mean it's not implicit in my view.


yeh. having looked back and seen your post 5806, i think i see now what you're getting at and it was not my intention to dismiss or belittle your lived experience but to put forward my views.





> A hierarchy which is embedded in how we're socialised.


yeh. but one which is not utterly inflexible and which changes over time: perhaps not always or as quickly as we might hope, and one which can stiffen (as it were) as well as loosen.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 17, 2018)

you might not talk about women but you LOVE talking about genitals. it's sad. get help.

dont get me wrong I actually absolutely love that you are having a shit fit, or should that be vag shit, it's really entertaining, however I hope you get well.

as an aside is anyone else sick of ruitias pathetic little personal childish spats on like most threads, like she calls eberyone else a child but then bites so hard on every comment designed to wind her up. ALL THE TIME.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 17, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> as an aside is anyone else sick of ruitias pathetic little personal childish spats on like most threads, like she calls eberyone else a child but then bites so hard on every comment designed to wind her up. ALL THE TIME.



I thought you two were mates?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> I thought you two were mates?


yeh they are, they just hate each other is all


----------



## TopCat (Jan 17, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Fucking hell...calling someone a nazi/ nazi youth now? I don't agree with all NIgel says but this is a bit fucking rich given you have tried the anti-semite argument on me recently for calling you a princess even though it had nothing to do with your Jewish heritage. This is the kind of nonsense that made me think of you that way actually. Really fucking spoilt.


You were bang to rights.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 17, 2018)

bimble said:


> I just keep coming back to look at this again, a powerpoint slide from a Mermaids teaching session the other day. Notice that all the gender identities have different body shapes, scaling from the busty hourglass barbie far left to the big manly shoulders of GI Joe. How is this progressive, instead of saying to kids look at this harmful nonsense that society is telling you, it just says pick one, choose which of these 2D characters you identify as.  And femininity is pale pastels, manliness comes in shades of army.
> 
> View attachment 125518



It actually looks like they're fading into ghostly haze as you move further left.
Also made me think that while you could help things a little by bunging Tank Girl into the mix, feminine men seem to be only ever depicted as villains (aside from remote comedy sidekicks).

edit: on a quick search I think I was confused over what 'Mermaids' was about, thought it was maybe something equivalent to what we used to call PST, but seems a little more agenda-laden than that


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 17, 2018)

Or gay blokes obvs. No way you can be hetero and yet a bit effeminate. That shit still blows people's minds, for real.


----------



## editor (Jan 17, 2018)

Can people kindly wind down the personal abuse (in line with the board rules) else the mods will be dispensing warnings. Thank you.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 17, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> Or gay blokes obvs. No way you can be hetero and yet a bit effeminate. That shit still blows people's minds, for real.



With occasional rare exceptions, I guess (Bowie, Jagger, Prince perhaps - I can only think of the world of music tbf), but not so much as role models for younger children.
Which Tank Girl isn't either.  I'm all over the fucking place.


----------



## RainbowTown (Jan 17, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> Or gay blokes obvs. No way you can be hetero and yet a bit effeminate. That shit still blows people's minds, for real.





8ball said:


> With occasional rare exceptions, I guess (Bowie, Jagger, Prince perhaps - I can only think of the world of music tbf), but not so much as role models for younger children.
> Which Tank Girl isn't either.  I'm all over the fucking place.



Not all gay guys are effeminate. I wear checked shirts and walk like John Wayne. I even prefer war movies over chick flicks. And I can't stand Kylie


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 17, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> Or gay blokes obvs. No way you can be hetero and yet a bit effeminate. That shit still blows people's minds, for real.



Bare people thought my husband was gay at first, he's quite feminine and not macho at all. This must obviously mean GAY cos y'know, gay's aren't masculine.

My mum made a massive thing out of it when she first met him. Before we started going out we lived together in a rented house. We hadn't got together at that point.

So she says "That M.. is he a bit... (she didn't say the word gay, just mimed a limp wrist)" So I said no and asked her why she thought do and she says "because he's so well groomed and dressed, and his room is immaculate".

So he banged me to prove her wrong.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 17, 2018)

RainbowTown said:


> Not all gay guys are effeminate. I wear checked shirts and walk like John Wayne. I even prefer war movies over chick flicks. And I can't stand Kylie



IME this also blows people's minds. In The '90s a group of us used to frequent a gay bar in Portsmouth (Martha's) and we'd sit on the floor smoking roll ups instead of swanning about. The looks we got....


----------



## RainbowTown (Jan 17, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> So he banged me to prove her wrong.



Wow, true love huh?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 17, 2018)

RainbowTown said:


> Not all gay guys are effeminate. I wear checked shirts and walk like John Wayne. I even prefer war movies over chick flicks. And I can't stand Kylie



No one is saying all gay guys are effeminate, but effeminate (in some ways) straight guys seem to largely come from the world of music.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 17, 2018)

RainbowTown said:


> Wow, true love huh?



Ha ha. It's our in joke. And now the whooooole of urban knows.

We banged each other cuz we had the hotzzz... 13 years later and here we are.


----------



## RainbowTown (Jan 17, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> IME this also blows people's minds. In The '90s a group of us used to frequent a gay bar in Portsmouth (Martha's) and we'd sit on the floor smoking roll ups instead of swanning about. The looks we got....



They probably thought you were rough trade.................


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 17, 2018)

8ball said:


> No one is saying all gay guys are effeminate, but effeminate (in some ways) straight guys seem to largely come from the world of music.



Music Stars have long been able to get away with the kinds of behaviour that would get normal people done over or arrested.



RainbowTown said:


> They probably thought you were rough trade.................



I think we were too rough even for that


----------



## 8ball (Jan 17, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> Music Stars have long been able to get away with the kinds of behaviour that would get normal people done over or arrested.



True, but so have superheroes.


----------



## bimble (Jan 17, 2018)

The Mermaids spectrum thing the more you think about it the more insane it is. If you're a little girl who does not love barbie / prefers 'boy things' and you saw that powerpoint you'd basically be getting the message that you have the wrong body. And they are taxpayer funded and (according to the website) won 'Charity of the Year in the Children and Young Peoples Awards' in November last year.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2018)

8ball said:


> True, but so have superheroes.


see e.g. The Boys (comics) - Wikipedia


----------



## kabbes (Jan 17, 2018)

bimble said:


> The Mermaids spectrum thing the more you think about it the more insane it is. If you're a little girl who does not love barbie / prefers 'boy things' and you saw that powerpoint you'd basically be getting the message that you have the wrong body. And they are taxpayer funded and (according to the website) won 'Charity of the Year in the Children and Young Peoples Awards' in November last year.


Yes, it portrays a totally one-dimensional way to do gender, which means that people not at either end of the line are by definition somewhere in the middle instead.  If the identities at each end are axiomatically given the position of “Barbie” and “GI Joe” it means by definition you aren’t being fully male-gender or female-gender if you are not “Barbie” or “GI Joe”. 

It’s horribly retrograde to suggest that these are the “full, complete” versions of each gender.  I am about as appalled by it as I have been by anything I’ve seen in recent years.  At least the shit that appears in the Mail, for example, is just the rantings of lunatics rather than state-sponsored messaging to our children.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2018)

bimble said:


> The Mermaids spectrum thing the more you think about it the more insane it is. If you're a little girl who does not love barbie / prefers 'boy things' and you saw that powerpoint you'd basically be getting the message that you have the wrong body. And they are taxpayer funded and (according to the website) won 'Charity of the Year in the Children and Young Peoples Awards' in November last year.


yeh. afaik almost all charity funding comes from taxpayers, and all i could find from a quick search was a reported £35k from the department for education.

e2a: if used critically the spectrum chart could be a useful talking point or basis for discussion. if used critically...


----------



## 8ball (Jan 17, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> see e.g. The Boys (comics) - Wikipedia



Yeah, but I meant in the non-obscure stuff that kids see.  Not that I know what kids TV is like nowadays.
Turns out Tinky Winky's mission to smash gender socialisation didn't pan out entirely, though.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 17, 2018)

bimble said:


> The Mermaids spectrum thing the more you think about it the more insane it is. If you're a little girl who does not love barbie / prefers 'boy things' and you saw that powerpoint you'd basically be getting the message that you have the wrong body. And they are taxpayer funded and (according to the website) won 'Charity of the Year in the Children and Young Peoples Awards' in November last year.



I'm not sure to what degree the spectrum even works for them.  There is the conflation of body and gender, which fits the ideology, but people tend not to have 'spectrum bodies', so it doesn't seem likely a full transition (or no transition) would fit most of the time.


----------



## campanula (Jan 17, 2018)

I truly do not know how I would approach this as a parent (I do know a couple of parents who are, though). My instinct would be to offer unconditional emotional support as children grope towards feeling secure both within themselves and also within the wider communuty, while withholding permission to  start with hormone treatment...and I suspect I would be removing my child from class if such regressive shite as promoted by Mermaids was on offer).  Our children are more vulnerable than ever to  bullying, ostracisation, depression, unhappiness...and seek a range of solutions...from drug use through to eating disorders and self-harm. I am deeply uncomfortable with the emphasis on personal dysfunction, whilst erasing systemic oppression...although for parents with children undergoing  turbulent transitions from childhood to adult independence, it is scant comfort to hold out for  social reform (well, revolution, really) whilst they are trapped in a personal nightmare.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 17, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Yes, it portrays a totally one-dimensional way to do gender, which means that people not at either end of the line are by definition somewhere in the middle instead.  If the identities at each end are axiomatically given the position of “Barbie” and “GI Joe” it means by definition you aren’t being fully male-gender or female-gender if you are not “Barbie” or “GI Joe”.
> 
> It’s horribly retrograde to suggest that these are the “full, complete” versions of each gender.  I am about as appalled by it as I have been by anything I’ve seen in recent years.  At least the shit that appears in the Mail, for example, is just the rantings of lunatics rather than state-sponsored messaging to our children.



I wasn't very good at "being a boy", and I'm not sure how I would have reacted to this as a child.


----------



## bimble (Jan 17, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Yes, it portrays a totally one-dimensional way to do gender, which means that people not at either end of the line are by definition somewhere in the middle instead.  If the identities at each end are axiomatically given the position of “Barbie” and “GI Joe” it means by definition you aren’t being fully male-gender or female-gender if you are not “Barbie” or “GI Joe”.
> 
> It’s horribly retrograde to suggest that these are the “full, complete” versions of each gender.  I am about as appalled by it as I have been by anything I’ve seen in recent years.  At least the shit that appears in the Mail, for example, is just the rantings of lunatics rather than state-sponsored messaging to our children.



Also at least 'the shit that appears in the Mail' is not seen as the forefront of left wing thinking.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 17, 2018)

bimble said:


> Also at least 'the shit that appears in the Mail' is not seen as the forefront of left wing thinking.



But apparently it is the forefront of feminist thinking. If we're to believe the self-identified* radical feminists that is.

*irony


----------



## kabbes (Jan 17, 2018)

Why not put e.g. Hannah Fry at none end and Simon Amstel at the other? (Just to pick two names that spring to mind because I was listening to them both on separate podcasts yesterday).  Nicola Adams and Tom Daley.  Are they not properly woman and man?  Or, if it has to be kids characters, why not some equivalently scientific female and sensitive male figures?  Clothing or fighting ffs.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2018)

kabbes said:


> t least the shit that appears in the Mail, for example, is just the rantings of lunatics rather than state-sponsored messaging to our children.


yeh cos obvs the mail never ever regurgitates state press releases or uses other lazy journalism.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 17, 2018)

8ball said:


> I wasn't very good at "being a boy", and I'm not sure how I would have reacted to this as a child.


Yeah, me too.  And, I wonder, probably most kids actually.  It’s horendous.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 17, 2018)

There is a fair bit of this about, including an organisation called Gender Spectrum, who define a new term to me: gender expansive, for 'individuals that broaden their own culture's commonly held definitions of gender'. There is an unspoken assumption here of an uncontested set of 'definitions' (better to say 'rules' or 'expectations', I would have thought), rather than seeing gender itself as a dynamic, constantly contested and changing entity, which it surely is.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 17, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> But apparently it is the forefront of feminist thinking. If we're to believe the self-identified* radical feminists that is.
> 
> *irony



Seriously???


----------



## 8ball (Jan 17, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Yeah, me too.  And, I wonder, probably most kids actually.  It’s horendous.



It didn't seem like that at the time to me (they all seemed much better at it).  
But yeah, my issues were of a totally different kind to what might have been 'diagnosed' and while standard gender socialisation is damaging, I don't think this is helpful.

I expect in most open classroom sessions that most kids would enforce gender among themselves and end up towards the poles.  I think that would have happened among the boys in my cohort, anyway.  Not sure what the girls would have done.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 17, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Seriously???



I don't know if the TERFs are copying the Daily Mail's homework or vice versa but either way there's not a rizla's breadth between them.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 17, 2018)

Surely, the message to teach kids is that you can be a man or a woman any way you see fit?  Not that if you aren’t GI Joe then you aren’t really fully a man.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 17, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Yeah, me too.  And, I wonder, probably most kids actually.  It’s horendous.


I would have thought so. I remember the kids at school who seemed to be best adjusted to this kind of thing. Thinking back to them now, they're the people I would least like to see again, tbh, and even with them, I was probably wrong about thinking they were all aok.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 17, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> I don't know if the TERFs are copying the Daily Mail's homework or vice versa but either way there's not a rizla's breadth between them.


Do you think the Daily Mail is more attuned to the Mermaid view of gender spectrum or the TERF view of gender as being a socially imposed system of oppression?


----------



## RainbowTown (Jan 17, 2018)

bimble said:


> The Mermaids spectrum thing the more you think about it the more insane it is. If you're a little girl who does not love barbie / prefers 'boy things' and you saw that powerpoint you'd basically be getting the message that you have the wrong body. And they are taxpayer funded and (according to the website) won 'Charity of the Year in the Children and Young Peoples Awards' in November last year.



I think it's a bit more nuanced than that tbh. Children's minds (say from 3 upwards) are like sponges, they're constantly soaking up new information and experiences and, as such, their learning and social processes are constantly in states of flux. Thus, playing with 'either' boys or girls toys has more to do with a simple curiosity than a definitive pointer as to their determined gender or sexuality. It may have some small bearing, perhaps, but not as pronounced as some may believe. For instance, when my older brother was a small child, he liked to play with my (older) sister's dolls far more than his Lego Construction Set. He grew up to be straight, married with children. Me, I loved playing with toy cars and toy swords and the like and I turned out gay. OK, that's a personal/random example, I know, but I think it illustrates that gender or sexual identity is an evolving process and though formative influences in childhood (ie before the ages of 5) has some bearing, it's not until slightly later (maybe after 7 or 8) does it become more evident and identifiable. At that stage I think most parents would or should let their kids play (and express themselves) with whatever toys or games they like. Likewise, I would hope nurseries, Primary Schools etc would do the same. If not, well shame on them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> I don't know if the TERFs are copying the Daily Mail's homework or vice versa but either way there's not a rizla's breadth between them.


i wouldn't seek to associate terfs with the mail.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 17, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Do you think the Daily Mail is more attuned to the Mermaid view of gender spectrum or the TERF view of gender as being a socially imposed system of oppression?



Socially imposed system of oppression, only they leave out the bit where they pretend to think it's a bad thing.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 17, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Do you think the Daily Mail is more attuned to the Mermaid view of gender spectrum or the TERF view of gender as being a socially imposed system of oppression?


That's one of the contradictions here, no? The Mermaid view of the world fits very well in some respects with that of conservative critics of trans rights.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 17, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Socially imposed system of oppression, only they leave out the bit where they pretend to think it's a bad thing.


Oh come on.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2018)

RainbowTown said:


> I think it's a bit more nuanced than that tbh. Children's minds (say from 3 upwards) are like sponges, they're constantly soaking up new information and experiences and, as such, their learning and social processes are constantly in states of flux. Thus, playing with 'either' boys or girls toys has more to do with a simple curiosity than a definitive pointer as to their determined gender or sexuality. It may have some small bearing, perhaps, but not as pronounced as some may believe. For instance, when my older brother was a small child, he liked to play with my (older) sister's dolls far more than his Lego Construction Set. He grew up to be straight, married with children. Me, I loved playing with toy cars and toy swords and the like and I turned out gay. OK, that's a personal/random example, I know, but I think it illustrates that gender or sexual identity is an evolving process and though formative influences in childhood (ie before the ages of 5) has some bearing, it's not until slightly later (maybe after 7 or 8) does it become more evident and identifiable. At that stage I think most parents would or should let their kids play (and express themselves) with whatever toys or games they like. Likewise, I'd would hope nurseries etc would do the same. If not, well shame on them.


yeh i'd broadly agree with you but i feel the figures on the spectrum are, er, somewhat problematic, associating certain body shapes with masculine and feminine.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 17, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's one of the contradictions here, no? The Mermaid view of the world fits very well in some respects with that of conservative critics of trans rights.


Absolutely.  That’s why attitudes like Nigel’s are so massively unhelpful, where any criticism of the approach taken by trans activists has to be shouted down as bigotry as a matter of principle.  Needing to have the right to exist and thrive in a society not currently built for you is important, but it doesn’t give you carte blanche to peddle any old reactionary shite in the name of that need.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 17, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh i'd broadly agree with you but i feel the figures on the spectrum are, er, somewhat problematic, associating certain body shapes with masculine and feminine.



I think if you put those symbols on toilet doors, 8 out of 12 would be assumed to be the gents loo.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2018)

8ball said:


> I think if you put those symbols on toilet doors, 8 out of 12 would be assumed to be the gents loo.



and i don't know what's wrong with number 7's arms


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 17, 2018)

The idea that gender is a spectrum is a new gender prison | Aeon Essays


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> The idea that gender is a spectrum is a new gender prison | Aeon Essays


what do you think of it?


----------



## campanula (Jan 17, 2018)

It's all fucking doomed and going to shit isn't it....which is why we see enraged working class men infuriated at being lectured on the (personal) male privilege...and worse, getting shitty hashtags ('NotAllMen') quoted back at them. Leaves them nowhere to go except facing the scorn of the middle classes. Obviously, when we seek to define personal identity down to every last detail (Like the different sorts of trans people?)...then it is so very easy to quote some liberal claptrap as we slip between a collective identification (class)...for it all to fall apart when people refuse to accept some overweening principle (privilege) which they know does not apply to themselves. Yes, even less contested issues regarding race and racism....where do those of us without black skin but with epicanthic folds sit? It is a recipe for eternal argument, debate, name-calling and hate...and as such, beloved of power mongers who fear the wrath of the undifferentiated mob above all else.

Thank fuckity fuck the season is turning and it will be nicer to be outside, fiddling with seedlings, rather than sitting bored and hateful over a keyboard.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2018)

campanula said:


> It's all fucking doomed and going to shit isn't it....which is why we see enraged working class men infuriated at being lectured on the (personal) male privilege...and worse, getting shitty hashtags ('NotAllMen') quoted back at them. Leaves them nowhere to go except facing the scorn of the middle classes. Obviously, when we seek to define personal identity down to every last detail (Like the different sorts of trans people?)...then it is so very easy to quote some liberal claptrap as we slip between a collective identification (class)...for it all to fall apart when people refuse to accept some overweening principle (privilege) which they know does not apply to themselves. Yes, even less contested issues regarding race and racism....where do those of us without black skin but with epicanthic folds sit? It is a recipe for eternal argument, debate, name-calling and hate...and as such, beloved of power mongers who fear the wrath of the undifferentiated mob above all else.


yeh divide and rule


----------



## 8ball (Jan 17, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 125526
> and i don't know what's wrong with number 7's arms



I think someone just realised a lot of them looked the same so made a random change.
Leading to misdiagnoses of gender confusion in kids with wonky arms, no doubt.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 17, 2018)

8ball said:


> I think someone just realised a lot of them looked the same so made a random change.
> Leading to misdiagnoses of gender confusion in kids with wonky arms, no doubt.



That figure is clearly body popping.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 17, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> That figure is clearly body popping.


What’s your opinion of that Mermaids messaging, out of interest?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 17, 2018)

bimble said:


> I just keep coming back to look at this again, a powerpoint slide from a Mermaids teaching session the other day. Notice that all the gender identities have different body shapes, scaling from the busty hourglass barbie far left to the big manly shoulders of GI Joe. How is this progressive, instead of saying to kids look at this harmful nonsense that society is telling you, it just says pick one, choose which of these 2D characters you identify as.  And femininity is pale pastels, manliness comes in shades of army.
> 
> View attachment 125518



Is there any wider context for this other than just a photo?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 17, 2018)

campanula said:


> It's all fucking doomed and going to shit isn't it....which is why we see enraged working class men infuriated at being lectured on the (personal) male privilege...and worse, getting shitty hashtags ('NotAllMen') quoted back at them. Leaves them nowhere to go except facing the scorn of the middle classes. Obviously, when we seek to define personal identity down to every last detail (Like the different sorts of trans people?)...then it is so very easy to quote some liberal claptrap as we slip between a collective identification (class)...for it all to fall apart when people refuse to accept some overweening principle (privilege) which they know does not apply to themselves. Yes, even less contested issues regarding race and racism....where do those of us without black skin but with epicanthic folds sit? It is a recipe for eternal argument, debate, name-calling and hate...and as such, beloved of power mongers who fear the wrath of the undifferentiated mob above all else.



If class struggle that disregards other forms of systemic oppression was going to work it would have worked by now. 

And 'systemic' means it's not about you as an individual. Intersectional politics do not require anyone to take personal responsibility for their privileges as men, white people or whatever else; only that they acknowledge that those privileges exist and listen to other people when they describe their own subjective experiences. I will admit this is not a concept that is always expressed as well as it could be.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 17, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Is there any wider context for this other than just a photo?


Can you give an example of a wider context that would make it acceptable?


----------



## Wilf (Jan 17, 2018)

redsquirrel said:


> He's not a swappie (unless he's changed party very recently). And while he's been an utter arse on this thread he's right about Bea Campbell, nobody should have anything to do with that piece of shit.


Yep, certainly with regard to Bea Campbell OBE. In fact I wanted to make the same point, but the thread had got even more, ahem, 'energetic' so I couldn't find a spot to even say that.

Oh and fuck off Ralph.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 17, 2018)

kabbes said:


> What’s your opinion of that Mermaids messaging, out of interest?



I'll be honest, I have bookmarked it to find out more when I have more time. Sneaky posting from work just now.







I don't think I can form an informed opinion based on that graphic alone tbh. I want to know what is being said to accompany and explain it...I want to hear the discussion that is being had ITMS?  I also want to know where the hell men with long hair are  and why they are not being depicted which I suppose is an example of it trying to reflect gender diversity/a spectrum and failing because it's a very crude graphic which can't do the subject justice on it's own.

Anyone have a link to the full presentation?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 17, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Is there any wider context for this other than just a photo?



Ok found it, it wasn't a teaching session given to children but old bill and without knowing how that diagram was being discussed it's difficult to comment on it.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 17, 2018)

Bookmark:
For Professionals

Link to resources page...might find the context/presentation materials here?


----------



## RainbowTown (Jan 17, 2018)

campanula said:


> It's all fucking doomed and going to shit isn't it....which is why we see enraged working class men infuriated at being lectured on the (personal) male privilege...and worse, getting shitty hashtags ('NotAllMen') quoted back at them. Leaves them nowhere to go except facing the scorn of the middle classes. Obviously, when we seek to define personal identity down to every last detail (Like the different sorts of trans people?)...then it is so very easy to quote some liberal claptrap as we slip between a collective identification (class)...for it all to fall apart when people refuse to accept some overweening principle (privilege) which they know does not apply to themselves. Yes, even less contested issues regarding race and racism....where do those of us without black skin but with epicanthic folds sit? It is a recipe for eternal argument, debate, name-calling and hate...and as such, beloved of power mongers who fear the wrath of the undifferentiated mob above all else.
> 
> Thank fuckity fuck the season is turning and it will be nicer to be outside, fiddling with seedlings, rather than sitting bored and hateful over a keyboard.




There is a very real concern here. And we're seeing it across the board in all areas of society now. Increasingly. A deepening and frightening polarization not only politically, socially and economically but now also in gender issues (and also amongst each gender themselves). Yes, it always been thus, of course. But the difference now is that it's becoming far,far more angry and intolerant. Driven by resentment and an increasing sense of marginalization. And sadly, I think it's only going to get even worse.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 17, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> I'll be honest, I have bookmarked it to find out more when I have more time. Sneaky posting from work just now.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It says where on _a _spectrum might you be, not where on _the _spectrum. So they're not necessarily saying that this 'spectrum' of confusing and strange toilet-door people is the one and only means of comprehending gender identity.


----------



## bimble (Jan 17, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Is there any wider context for this other than just a photo?


Yep that photo was taken at a training session given to police in Leeds. I hope it is not shown to children but that kind of begs the question why barbie & GI Joe. I can't imagine any context in which this graphic is a good idea.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 17, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> It says where on _a _spectrum might you be, not where on _the _spectrum. So they're not necessarily saying that this 'spectrum' of confusing and strange toilet-door people is the one and only means of comprehending gender identity.


It also states at the top that 'gender identity is also on a spectrum'. Not sure what the 'also' refers to.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 17, 2018)

campanula said:


> It's all fucking doomed and going to shit isn't it....which is why we see enraged working class men infuriated at being lectured on the (personal) male privilege...and worse, getting shitty hashtags ('NotAllMen') quoted back at them. Leaves them nowhere to go except facing the scorn of the middle classes. Obviously, when we seek to define personal identity down to every last detail (Like the different sorts of trans people?)...then it is so very easy to quote some liberal claptrap as we slip between a collective identification (class)...for it all to fall apart when people refuse to accept some overweening principle (privilege) which they know does not apply to themselves. Yes, even less contested issues regarding race and racism....where do those of us without black skin but with epicanthic folds sit? It is a recipe for eternal argument, debate, name-calling and hate...and as such, beloved of power mongers who fear the wrath of the undifferentiated mob above all else.
> 
> Thank fuckity fuck the season is turning and it will be nicer to be outside, fiddling with seedlings, rather than sitting bored and hateful over a keyboard.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 17, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> It says where on _a _spectrum might you be, not where on _the _spectrum. So they're not necessarily saying that this 'spectrum' of confusing and strange toilet-door people is the one and only means of comprehending gender identity.



I know it's asking the question Frank. It leaves me with loads of questions though.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 17, 2018)

Lol. It really frustrates me that people don't know what solidarity means. 

"Solidarity is sticking together... UNTIL WE DISAGREE THEN NO Solidarity FOR YOU "  

Jokers.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 17, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


>




Seems to be a hidden group as doesn't come up in a search. Private invite only?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It also states at the top that 'gender identity is also on a spectrum'. Not sure what the 'also' refers to.




we're told this is from a powerpoint presentation. so it's not too great an intellectual leap to work out the also refers back to what was on the previous slide.

raise your game, lbj, you've submitted some good posts on this thread, but also some clangers.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 17, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Seems to be a hidden group as doesn't come up in a search. Private invite only?



Yes, it's a secret group. I can understand that, seeing as they accuse TERFs of doxxing them.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 17, 2018)

bimble said:


> Yep that photo was taken at a training session given to police in Leeds. I hope it is not shown to children but that kind of begs the question why barbie & GI Joe. I can't imagine any context in which this graphic is a good idea.



Possibly in trying to explain gender stereotypes to coppers?  Which I suspect might require a certain amount of over-simplification.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 17, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> I know it's asking the question Frank. It leaves me with loads of questions though.



It doesn't really matter what they teach coppers in these training thingies anyway, in the same way that explaining to your dog exactly why you're so disappointed with his behaviour is a waste of effort.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2018)

bimble said:


> Yep that photo was taken at a training session given to police in Leeds. I hope it is not shown to children but that kind of begs the question why barbie & GI Joe. I can't imagine any context in which this graphic is a good idea.


poverty of imagination


----------



## bimble (Jan 17, 2018)

google suggests that the image was not created recently, has been around for a while. Maybe not made by Mermaids.
Here it is in its full glory. 

It shows up in various places such as
Self Reflection: Analyzing Our Own Gender Identities - Gender Spectrum


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 17, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> we're told this is from a powerpoint presentation. so it's not too great an intellectual leap to work out the also refers back to what was on the previous slide.
> 
> raise your game, lbj, you've submitted some good posts on this thread, but also some clangers.


As is your wont, you've jumped on the least important bit of the post. The point is that they're not asking whether or not gender lies on a spectrum. They are stating that it does.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 17, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It also states at the top that 'gender identity is also on a spectrum'. Not sure what the 'also' refers to.


There was probably an earlier slide that reminded the viewer that “sexuality is on a spectrum”.  It would then make sense to say “this thing is also on a spectrum”.  Wrong, but sensical.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 17, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Lol. It really frustrates me that people don't know what solidarity means.
> 
> "Solidarity is sticking together... UNTIL WE DISAGREE THEN NO Solidarity FOR YOU "
> 
> Jokers.



You don't actually have to disagree. Kiri Tunks simply appealed to dialogue and she became the target of a petition to oust her from NUT where she's been doing a great job by all accounts.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 17, 2018)

kabbes said:


> There was probably an earlier slide that reminded the viewer that “sexuality is on a spectrum”.  It would then make sense to say “this thing is also on a spectrum”.  Wrong, but sensical.



Again, you're not going to get the world's most progressive or insightful thinkers teaching half-day 'insert thing here awareness' courses to police officers in Leeds.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> As is your wont, you've jumped on the least important bit of the post. The point is that they're not asking whether or not gender lies on a spectrum. They are stating that it does.


yeh you say that now, just after wondering what the also referred to. perhaps if you'd kept up with what else i'd said on this thread you wouldn't jump on that with such enthusiasm like you'd made an amazing point: and maybe you haven't read the article MochaSoul linked to which explores the issue of gender as a spectrum


MochaSoul said:


> The idea that gender is a spectrum is a new gender prison | Aeon Essays


----------



## kabbes (Jan 17, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> Again, you're not going to get the world's most progressive or insightful thinkers teaching half-day 'insert thing here awareness' courses to police officers in Leeds.


I don’t find that reassuring.


----------



## bimble (Jan 17, 2018)

This is amazing: Someone's attempt at an online Gender Identity test. Just look at the state of it.
S.A.G.E. Test


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2018)

bimble said:


> This is amazing: Someone's attempt at an online Gender Identity test. Just look at the state of it.
> S.A.G.E. Test


yeh just look at the state of a website last updated in 2002


----------



## campanula (Jan 17, 2018)

RainbowTown said:


> Driven by resentment and an increasing sense of marginalization. And sadly, I think it's only going to get even worse.



Yes, I think a growing sense of impotence, anomie and a horrible awareness that some people will always glide over the surface of life, untouched by consequence (such as the last few carillion CEOs)...while the rest of us have become little more than units of production (hence the almost frantic searching for meaning and identity)

Of course, this is only the crudest armchair psychology from an uneducated horticulturist...but while I don't often have much to say for myself (in my community) I certainly listen to what is being spoken of around me.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 17, 2018)

kabbes said:


> I don’t find that reassuring.



The truth seldom is reassuring.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 17, 2018)

bimble said:


> This is amazing: Someone's attempt at an online Gender Identity test. Just look at the state of it.
> S.A.G.E. Test



That's not even the fun kind of shit. Also it requires measuring bits of myself and that's effort with little prospet of an amusing payoff.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 17, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> The truth seldom is reassuring.


Are you happy that this way of thinking is official policy, to be taught to state civil servants?  You don’t care?  Or you think it’s poor?  What do you think about the message itself, regardless of how it is currently being used?  You agree with it?  Don’t agree?  Partially agree?  I mean, I’ve said why I think the message itself is dangerous.  You seem very reluctant to commit to a position on it.


----------



## bimble (Jan 17, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> That's not even the fun kind of shit. Also it requires measuring bits of myself and that's effort with little prospet of an amusing payoff.


I gave up after aswering a couple of them but it still worked: I got 'Female To Male Cross Dresser'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2018)

bimble said:


> I gave up after aswering a couple of them but it still worked: I got 'Female To Male Cross Dresser'.
> View attachment 125532


anallophilic? new one on me


----------



## bimble (Jan 17, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> anallophilic? new one on me


me too. It seems to mean 'not attracted to other people'


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 17, 2018)

kabbes said:


> I don’t find that reassuring.



Nor should you. This stuff and also some by GIRES is being peddled not just at police forces but LEAs, the NHS, NGOs, etc


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 17, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


>




It seems that left wing and feminist women mostly prefer to share their spaces with trans women rather than TERFs. That must be quite demoralizing for those who keep representing themselves as speaking on behalf of women and their concerns.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 17, 2018)

bimble said:


> I gave up after aswering a couple of them but it still worked: I got 'Female To Male Cross Dresser'.
> View attachment 125532


I also gave up after about 20 questions and I got male to female cross dresser.  I don’t think I ever wear anything but jeans and polo shirt casually or a suit and tie at work.


----------



## campanula (Jan 17, 2018)

Shut up Nigel - your contributions to this thread are *nugatory and puerile. get a T-shirt printed, you muppet.


* see new words you have learned thread - been desperate to use mine. Wonder if Nigel is hirsute or glabrous.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 17, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It seems that left wing and feminist women mostly prefer to share their spaces with trans women rather than TERFs. That must be quite demoralizing for those who keep representing themselves as speaking on behalf of women and their concerns.



Post a photo of you sucking a girl dick and I'll pay attention to you on this matter.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 17, 2018)

bimble said:


> This is amazing: Someone's attempt at an online Gender Identity test. Just look at the state of it.
> S.A.G.E. Test



I'm now trying to game the test to see what answers I need to give to get 'teenage mutant ninja turtle' as my gender identity.

So far the closest I've been able to get is 'biker mouse from mars'


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 17, 2018)

bimble said:


> This is amazing: Someone's attempt at an online Gender Identity test. Just look at the state of it.
> S.A.G.E. Test


I abandoned that when the first spacial reasoning test came up.  Male brain female brain ffs.


----------



## bimble (Jan 17, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I abandoned that when the first spacial reasoning test came up.  Male brain female brain ffs.


Exactly.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 17, 2018)

Also measuring body parts?  It's all very retro. Phrenology anyone?


----------



## bimble (Jan 17, 2018)

Sadly it seems the test we’re laughing at is being discussed seriously in some places online even recently.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 17, 2018)

Apparently I am androgynous and socialise androgynously.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 17, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Also measuring body parts?  It's all very retro. Phrenology anyone?



That's what I thought. My colleagues didn't seem to notice when I used the ruler to measure between my hairline and brow though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2018)

i didn't have to measure to know it was more than 7cm


----------



## Athos (Jan 17, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 125526
> and i don't know what's wrong with number 7's arms



It's s pictorial representation of '40% limp-wristed'; it's on the spectrum between 'throws like a girl', and 'moisturises after a shave'. All very progressive.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 17, 2018)

If you get bored after 7 questions does that make you ADD?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 17, 2018)

bimble said:


> Sadly it seems the test we’re laughing at is being discussed seriously in some places online even recently.


Where, for instance? I am hesitant to infer too much from nonsense found on the internet.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2018)

8ball said:


> If you get bored after 7 questions does that make you ADD?


makes you PATIENT


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 17, 2018)

redsquirrel said:


> He's not a swappie (unless he's changed party very recently). And while he's been an utter arse on this thread he's right about Bea Campbell, nobody should have anything to do with that piece of shit.



He doesn't sound like a swappie to me. I don't think that's their position or their style of speaking.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 17, 2018)

Young people are constantly measured and tested against 'norms'; there's a very strong culture of diagnosis and 'gender spectrum' is part of that, fits right in.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 17, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> makes you PATIENT


tldr


----------



## bimble (Jan 17, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Where, for instance? I am hesitant to infer too much from nonsense found on the internet.


Just chatrooms where people are talking about their gender identities, if you google ‘sage gender test’ you’ll see a few.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 17, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> It would be so much simpler if things were as black and white as you suggest in your second paragraph, if all men stuck together and there was something like the protocols of the elders of the sons of Adam. But it's not, it's more complex than that with some women supporting trans people, some women insisting they're men in skirts and doubtless male opinion divided too. I fully appreciate your point about gender as mere identity, but it seems to me gender exists as e.p. thompson says class does at the start of making of the english working class, in people's everyday relationships (sadly on bus with no copy to hand but will find I hope when get to work - here it is, it's just the first couple of pages). I feel gender not simply a hierarchy imposed from outside but a series of negotiations in the course of which it changes.
> 
> The comparison of experiences is imo something very much not limited to men on this thread. It's my view that the experience of trans people differs from that of both men and women who are happier or more comfortable in their bodies and sex and so maybe forms a distinct body/corpus of lived experience, a third way if you will.



Those first couple of pages are great. Print them out and put them on the fridge.

(I've read them before, but not got further than the intro because of time and stuff)


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 17, 2018)

bimble said:


> google suggests that the image was not created recently, has been around for a while. Maybe not made by Mermaids.
> Here it is in its full glory.
> View attachment 125531
> It shows up in various places such as
> Self Reflection: Analyzing Our Own Gender Identities - Gender Spectrum



That’s hideous.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 17, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Yes, it portrays a totally one-dimensional way to do gender, which means that people not at either end of the line are by definition somewhere in the middle instead.  If the identities at each end are axiomatically given the position of “Barbie” and “GI Joe” it means by definition you aren’t being fully male-gender or female-gender if you are not “Barbie” or “GI Joe”.
> 
> It’s horribly retrograde to suggest that these are the “full, complete” versions of each gender.  I am about as appalled by it as I have been by anything I’ve seen in recent years.  At least the shit that appears in the Mail, for example, is just the rantings of lunatics rather than state-sponsored messaging to our children.



They are equating personality to sex, thus saying if your personality is X then you are Y. What this has to do with 'people being themselves' or how this passes for 'progressive' is beyond me.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 17, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> They are equating personality to sex, thus saying if your personality is X then you are Y. What this has to do with 'people being themselves' or how this passes for 'progressive' is beyond me.



It gets funny though when they call us gender essentialists such as in the Labour AWS crowd-fund comments.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 17, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> It gets funny though when they call us gender essentialists such as in the Labour AWS crowd-fund comments.



I find that most people who use the term 'essentialism' don't know what they are talking about.

With the AWS, we can now see an intractable situation is being created where women are expected to comply or suffer the consequences. It's appalling.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I find that most people who use the term 'essentialism' don't know what they are talking about.
> 
> With the AWS, we can now see an intractable situation is being created where women are expected to comply or suffer the consequences. It's appalling.


What do you propose the role of people who've been described as 'men in skirts' like yourself should be to resolve this? Should trans people start to see their identity/gender as separate from women in the case of trans women and men in the case of trans men?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 17, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> With the AWS, we can now see an intractable situation is being created where women are expected to comply or suffer the consequences. It's appalling.



It’s absolutely true that expressions of transphobia are increasingly carrying a social cost, a process that has also occurred with homophobia etc. I can’t agree that this process is “appalling”, but it’s certainly not pleasant for people running into opprobrium from their friends and political associates.

The aspect that’s repeatedly glossed over or actively misrepresented on this thread though is who exactly is implementing this new social norm. It’s not trans people, although obviously the bulk of them are in favor of transphobia becoming unacceptable, simply because there aren’t enough trans people to have that kind of effect. Nor is it (cis) men, who as a group are the most likely to be transphobic. The main role is being played by women who are not themselves trans but who are revolted by what they see as transphobic bigotry. It only takes a minute browsing the social media reaction to the “no trans women on all women shortlists” fundraiser for the demographics to become very clear. There are men who are vehemently opposed to the fundraiser, but the bulk of the appalled hostility is from women.

That shouldn’t really be a surprise: women, particularly younger women, are on average both more socially liberal and more left wing than men or older people as a whole. Every survey shows this to be the case on trans rights too. Yet those women are constantly disappeared from the conversation here, or, on the odd occasion where they are mentioned, patronized as “brainwashed” or socialized to put others first. It’s a strange approach for people who consider themselves feminist to take but one that’s necessary for their self image.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 17, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It’s absolutely true that expressions of transphobia are increasingly carrying a social cost, a process that has also occurred with homophobia etc. I can’t agree that this process is “appalling”, but it’s certainly not pleasant for people running into opprobrium from their friends and political associates.
> 
> The aspect that’s repeatedly glossed over or actively misrepresented on this thread though is who exactly is implementing this new social norm. It’s not trans people, although obviously the bulk of them are in favor of transphobia becoming unacceptable, simply because there aren’t enough trans people to have that kind of effect. Nor is it (cis) men, who as a group are the most likely to be transphobic. The main role is being played by women who are not themselves trans but who are revolted by what they see as transphobic bigotry. It only takes a minute browsing the social media reaction to the “no trans women on all women shortlists” fundraiser for the demographics to become very clear. There are men who are vehemently opposed to the fundraiser, but the bulk of the appalled hostility is from women.
> 
> That shouldn’t really be a surprise: women, particularly younger women, are on average both more socially liberal and more left wing than men or older people as a whole. Every survey shows this to be the case on trans rights too. Yet those women are constantly disappeared from the conversation here, or, on the odd occasion where they are mentioned, patronized as “brainwashed” or socialized to put others first. It’s a strange approach for people who consider themselves feminist to take but one that’s necessary for their self image.



The two aren’t comparable given homosexual rights didn’t impact on heterosexual rights. You have tunnel vision on this and are just ticking off right-on boxes without thinking everything through.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 17, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> The two aren’t comparable given homosexual rights didn’t impact on heterosexual rights. You have tunnel vision on this and are just ticking off right-on boxes without thinking everything through.



Trans rights don’t impact on anyone else’s rights, outside of the paranoid fantasies of bigots. There’s been self ID here for two and a half years now. The impact on anyone bar less than 300 trans people has been zero.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 17, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Meanwhile, Maria Miller's Trans Inquiry was completely devoid of women's groups voices because trans groups dictate that only trans voices are allowed to speak on trans issues. That is akin to government wholly delegitimising women's voices.



Did trans groups dictate who gave evidence?  That would usually be the job of the cross party Women and Equalities Committee, made up largely of cis women.  And it was their report not Miller's the enquiry was part of a longer term strategy that began back when she was still in charge of murdering disabled people at the DWP.  It has been presented as Miller's report by some trans critical feminists to make it sound more tory.

The Inquiry was not devoid of women's groups voices.  It was an open inquiry and several providers of women's services submitted evidence some of which was included in the final report.  They were not asked to give evidence in person.  I think this is a shame but as much of the evidence given by service providers was fairly positive about trans inclusion then it might not have led to the results some want.  It's also true that what look like several front groups from the trans critical faction were not asked to give evidence in person, but then neither were the Evangelical Alliance who also submitted evidence.  It was a transgender inquiry, not a trans critical radical feminist inquiry.  There isn't much time allotted for in person evidence and much of this was taking up with people from healthcare, prison services, police, education etc



> I ask my first question in this, so called civil, thread. Who speaks for my friend who has a fear of men due to a previous history of abuse and feels uncomfortable with being touched intimately by them knowing the NHS won't be able to discriminate between female nurses and transgender women nurses once they've acquired a GRC? Who speaks for the female police/prison officers who might be required to strip search a male body daily on the say so said body's voice claiming to be a woman? Who speaks for young lesbians still learning to navigate sexual encounters who may be emotionally manipulated by men claiming to be women into sexual relationships? Who will speak for the lesbian woman, who gives consent to sexual intercourse only to find an artificial vagina and then be condemned by claims of transphobia if she's put off? Who will speak for me, who also had a temporary fear of men due to domestic violence and might have been made to feel uncomfortable in an already fragile state by finding a man in the Surrey Women's Aid refuge that housed me for 8 months? Who will speak for the woman who gives up going to a domestic violence support meeting having found a transgender woman there and feeling uncomfortable talking about her issues decides to forgo the group altogether without mentioning her reaosns for fear of being dismissed as a transphobe? Who speaks for trans men at the Green Party who have now replaced woman with non-man but have not similarly created a category of "non-woman"?
> 
> Another question I asked and went undiscussed was what happens to statistics? What will happen to, say, sexual crimes against women when the men perpetrating them class themselves as women a la Martin, nay, Jade Eatough? How is it fair on women, especially on his raped victim, that his crime is recorded as perpetrated by a woman and his suicide mourned solely on the basis of his transition with the undertones that go with it such as "No doubt she's been a victim of transphobia?" How will women be able to argue about crimes against woman when crimes against them get recorded as "woman on woman"?
> Who speaks for women in these matters?
> ...



I don't want to undermine your experiences but where are people going with this stuff?  Should crimes by trans people be especially recorded in a way that happens to no other equivalent group?  Should trans women be denied help if they are victims of gender related violence?  Should trans people be compelled to announce their status to anyone they are intimate with?  How would they work, should they get a tattoo or something?  Should the Gender Reognition Act be undone, or changing gender be criminalised?  Should trans women be prevented from using public toilets?  Or are there ways to work through these things without basically creating a sub caste as has happened to the Hijra people?  Because it seems to me that is the end point of a lot of the demands of trans critical feminists which may sound fine in theory but when applied to the world as it is could prove horrifying for an already highly marginalised group.  Or perhaps that's the intention, I really hope not.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 17, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Trans rights don’t impact on anyone else’s rights, outside of the paranoid fantasies of bigots. There’s been self ID here for two and a half years now. The impact on anyone bar less than 300 trans people has been zero.



This is a bizarre proposition. Nothing ever happens negatively until it does. The titanic didn’t sink until it did. Are you saying there’s no possibility of it impacting negatively on women based on the fact it hasn’t in Ireland?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 17, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> This is a bizarre proposition. Nothing ever happens negatively until it does. The titanic didn’t sink until it did. Are you saying there’s no possibility of it impacting negatively on women based on the fact it hasn’t in Ireland?



There’s always a possibility of anything, up to and including a meteor strike killing us all tomorrow. But when people are making bigoted claims about the consequences of a change in the law and the next country over has had that changed law for years without a single one of those claims coming true, the rest of us are entitled to draw conclusions about the reliability of the paranoid bigots and their fears.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 17, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> There’s always a possibility of anything, up to and including a meteor strike killing us all tomorrow. But when people are making bigoted claims about the consequences of a change in the law and the next country over has had that changed law for years without a single one of those claims coming true, the rest of us are entitled to draw conclusions about the reliability of the paranoid bigots and their fears.



Naturally it won’t be you who is affected so who designated  you the tub thumping spokesperson?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 17, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> The two aren’t comparable given homosexual rights didn’t impact on heterosexual rights. You have tunnel vision on this and are just ticking off right-on boxes without thinking everything through.



When I lived in a hostel about 25 years ago now one fellow resident was very upset about having a lesbian key worker assigned to her, on the basis it made her feel unsafe.   It's not directly comparable but there are some parallels - Gay and lesbian people were often attacked for representing some kind of existential sexual threat, to other women in the case of lesbians and to young boys in the case of gay men.  

(As it happened they were a really good worker and the situation resolved itself because of that which led to the service user becoming a bit of a lesbian and gay equality advocate.  Sometimes these things just need to be worked through)


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 17, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Notably it won’t be you who is affected what makes you the tub thumping spokesperson?



It isn’t anyone who has been effected. Feel free to contact any of the many feminist groups and women’s rights campaigns in Ireland and ask them if you don’t believe me or the media reports dealing with the issue. Brit TERFs don’t do this because they know they’ll be told that self ID has created no problems and the entire women’s movement supports it. They prefer their bigoted fantasies. And you prefer to take their bigoted fantasies seriously.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 17, 2018)

smokedout said:


> When I lived in a hostel about 25 years ago now one fellow resident was very upset about having a lesbian key worker assigned to her, on the basis it made her feel unsafe.   It's not directly comparable but there are some parallels - Gay and lesbian people were often attacked for representing some kind of existential sexual threat, to other women in the case of lesbians and to young boys in the case of gay men.
> 
> (As it happened they were a really good worker and the situation resolved itself because of that which led to the service user becoming a bit of a lesbian and gay equality advocate.  Sometimes these things just need to be worked through)



It isn’t a pretend threat here though given we’re witnessing physical attacks against women for expressing a dissenting view (hence the thread).


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 17, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It isn’t anyone who has been effected. Feel free to contact any of the many feminist groups and women’s rights campaigns in Ireland and ask them if you don’t believe me or the media reports dealing with the issue. Brit TERFs don’t do this because they know they’ll be told that self ID has created no problems and the entire women’s movement supports it. They prefer their bigoted fantasies. And you prefer to take their bigoted fantasies seriously.



There’s no bigoted fantasies. A woman got attacked in Hyde Park for not toeing the line and some serious bullying happened at the London Anarchist Bookfair over some leaflets.
That’s why so many people are now looking at this.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 17, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> This is a bizarre proposition. Nothing ever happens negatively until it does. The titanic didn’t sink until it did. Are you saying there’s no possibility of it impacting negatively on women based on the fact it hasn’t in Ireland?


The combined experiences of Argentina, Ireland, Denmark and Malta do constitute very relevant evidence, though. You may have found something I haven't. I have looked for negative news about self-declaration in the countries that have it, and haven't found any. My guess is that if any does come to light, it will be publicised very loudly in certain quarters.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 17, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The combined experiences of Argentina, Ireland, Denmark and Malta do constitute very relevant evidence, though. You may have found something I haven't. I have looked for negative news about self-declaration in the countries that have it, and haven't found any. My guess is that if any does come to light, it will be publicised very loudly in certain quarters.



What about Hyde Park and the Bookfair? Women being attacked for dissenting.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 17, 2018)

What’s going on in the Labour Party at the moment?
Women being expelled for dissenting.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 17, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> There’s always a possibility of anything, up to and including a meteor strike killing us all tomorrow. But when people are making bigoted claims about the consequences of a change in the law and the next country over has had that changed law for years without a single one of those claims coming true, the rest of us are entitled to draw conclusions about the reliability of the paranoid bigots and their fears.



I think that's correct, assuming the veracity of the claim.  Although calling all of these fears 'bigoted' isn't how I'd put it.  I mentioned earlier a hypothetical case (which you didn't respond to) which I don't think could reasonably be called bigotry.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 17, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> What’s going on in the Labour Party at the moment?
> Women being expelled for dissenting.



Has anyone been expelled?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 17, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Has anyone been expelled?



They’re getting expelled over spurious accusations of anti-semitism so that’s surely the logical next step is it not? Or do you think they’ll want to be tainted by ‘transphobes’?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 17, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> They’re getting expelled over spurious accusations of anti-semitism so that’s surely the logical next step is it not? Or do you think they’ll want to be tainted by ‘transphobes’?



I don't know, I just think if people are making claims about this issue it helps if they are actually true.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 17, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> What about Hyde Park and the Bookfair? Women being attacked for dissenting.



Neither the scuffle in Hyde Park nor a few Labour Party TERFs managing to piss off other Labour members by raising funds to sue Labour to promote bigotry were caused by self ID laws quite obviously.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 17, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Neither the scuffle in Hyde Park nor a few Labour Party TERFs managing to piss off other Labour members by raising funds to sue Labour to promote bigotry were caused by self ID laws quite obviously.



There’s absolutely nothing for women to worry about regarding men like you being empowered to call them bigots.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 17, 2018)

smokedout said:


> I don't know, I just think if people are making claims about this issue it helps if they are actually true.



I know Corbynism and the pretend left enough to know I’m on the right ball park.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 17, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> There’s absolutely nothing for women to worry about regarding men like you being empowered to call them bigots.



As has been pointed out many times here, most transphobes are men. Most people supportive of trans rights are women. And we are all already “empowered” to call bigots bigots and will remain so regardless of whether self ID laws are introduced in Britain.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 17, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> As has been pointed out many times here, most transphobes are men. Most people supportive of trans rights are women. And we are all already “empowered” to call bigots bigots and will remain so regardless of whether self ID laws are introduced in Britain.



What about your abortion laws oh progressive trans place?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 17, 2018)

Your views are formed by misogyny. Progressive my arse.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 17, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> As has been pointed out many times here, most transphobes are men.


That's funny Nigel, because I don't see you constantly posting about what vicious awful bigots _they are_, or denouncing _their_ violence towards trans people, or demanding that _they _be silent, or gleefully listing how they will be removed from public life or denied the chance to gather and discuss what men are.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 17, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> What about your abortion laws oh progressive trans place?


Are Ireland's abortion laws relevant? Argentina also has appalling abortion laws. Malta even worse. Denmark not so bad. But what is the link here in terms of how we evaluate the effect of gender self-id?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 17, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Are Ireland's abortion laws relevant? Argentina also has appalling abortion laws. Malta even worse. Denmark not so bad. But what is the link here in terms of how we evaluate the effect of gender self-id?



The context is men becoming women being placed above born females.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 17, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> The context is men becoming women being placed above born females.


Is it? What about women becoming men? Where do they fit in? How about Denmark? Where does that fit in?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 17, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Is it? What about women becoming men? Where do they fit in? How about Denmark? Where does that fit in?



I’m genuinely surprised how you can’t get the point here.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 17, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Are Ireland's abortion laws relevant?


Jesus. Really?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 17, 2018)

I’m black. But being formerly white I’m more oppressed than actual black people as I have an added oppression. Black people who complain are just being bigots towards white to black trans people.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 17, 2018)

weepiper said:


> Jesus. Really?


Yes, really. Do Ireland's abortion laws disqualify it from relevance when you're looking at the effects of its gender self-id law? If they diminish its relevance, how? Is there a reason adverse effects could come to light here that would not come to light in Ireland? What about in Denmark?


----------



## weepiper (Jan 17, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, really. Do Ireland's abortion laws disqualify it from relevance when you're looking at the effects of its gender self-id law? If they diminish its relevance, how? Is there a reason adverse effects could come to light here that would not come to light in Ireland? What about in Denmark?


I won't take lessons on progressiveness from any country that will let a woman (or a trans man unfortunate enough to find themselves pregnant) die rather than give her an abortion.
Death of Savita Halappanavar - Wikipedia

Or die on a flight back from having an abortion in the UK
Dublin maternity hospital chief says Irish abortion patient died while flying home after termination


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 17, 2018)

weepiper said:


> I won't take lessons on progressiveness from any country that will let a woman (or a trans man unfortunate enough to find themselves pregnant) die rather than give her an abortion.
> Death of Savita Halappanavar - Wikipedia


I'm not asking you to. My point is purely that it is a place that has this law, so it seems pretty sensible to look at what's happened there, and anywhere else with the law, and see what effect it has had. Doesn't mean anybody needs to go shouting about how progressive Ireland is all of a sudden, and if your point is that abortion rights are far more important than gender recognition rights, then I fully agree with you.


----------



## xenon (Jan 17, 2018)

Under this self declaration thing, what would stop me declaring myself to be a woman and therefore claiming discrimination if I am barred from entering women only spaces. 

 Yes, I know I have picked an unlikely and extreme  unintended consequence.  But what is the philosophical answer to that, where does the progressive political approach  assuage   people, womens concerns on that score. On the other hand what does self declaration solve?


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 17, 2018)

dont get it twisted about abortions


----------



## weepiper (Jan 17, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm not asking you to. My point is purely that it is a place that has this law, so it seems pretty sensible to look at what's happened there, and anywhere else with the law, and see what effect it has had. Doesn't mean anybody needs to go shouting about how progressive Ireland is all of a sudden, and if your point is that abortion rights are far more important than gender recognition rights, then I fully agree with you.


My point is that you can have all the gender recognition rights you like but if you don't have legal sex-based protections then women still die. Sorry to be blunt.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 17, 2018)

xenon said:


> Under this self declaration thing, what would stop me declaring myself to be a woman and therefore claiming discrimination if I am barred from entering women only spaces.
> 
> Yes, I know I have picked unlikely and extreme upsho or unintended consequence.  But what is the philosophical answer to that, where does the progressive political approach is swage  people, women’s concerns on that score. On the other hand what does self declaration solve.




because people dont just do this shit it's not typical of an aggressor otherwise they would already fucking do it


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 17, 2018)

seriously if you'd go for a piss at a festival or a squat party without crying or hyperventilating then I dunno what the problem is with sharing spaces with trans people.

unless these places are notorious rapist gatherings and we dont hear about it, who knows


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 17, 2018)

weepiper said:


> That's funny Nigel, because I don't see you constantly posting about what vicious awful bigots _they are_, or denouncing _their_ violence towards trans people, or demanding that _they _be silent, or gleefully listing how they will be removed from public life or denied the chance to gather and discuss what men are.



What a bizarre statement.

I’ve pointed out here over and over again that (a) men are more likely to be transphobes than women, that (b) most transphobes, whether men or women, are social conservatives not TERFs and that (c) the discussion here, with the tone largely set by supporters of a small transphobic fringe of the feminist movement is entirely unrepresentative of the wider conflict in society. I’ve even pointed out to other supporters of trans rights that focusing too much on your brand of bigot risks losing sight of the bigger picture in which TERFs have little influence independent of the assistance they provide to the actually powerful transphobes on the right. Strangely enough, the bigots here don’t like that line of argument because it is incompatible with their bizarre self image as spokespeople for the concerns of women.

When someone appears here persistently arguing mainstream transphobic positions rather than your esoteric ones, I’ll be twice as rude to them. It is an unfortunate reality at the moment though that conservative transphobes are, because of their numbers and the milieu they exist in, far less subject to the kind of social pressure from progressives that TERFs are currently finding unpleasant. They don’t suffer from the removal of the approval of their left wing or feminist or lgbt friends and associates because they don’t have many or any to start with. It’s a much slower process to grind down bigotry on the right. Long after TERFs are gone as any kind of political force that here will still be aggressive right wing transphobes and then as now they will be far more dangerous both physically and politically. But their bigotry will be ground down too, just as right wing homophobia while still very real has slowly become less politically significant and less widespread.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 17, 2018)

someones been burnt init

'mneerrrrrr you called me a social conservatist' dont sound as good as 'mnerrrrr you called me a TERF ' does it 

but far more palatable I expect


----------



## xenon (Jan 17, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> because people dont just do this shit it's not typical of an aggressor otherwise they would already fucking do it




 I suppose you’re right. It’s not like creepy weirdos don’t already try barging into womens spaces.  I don’t know,  have been reading, , listening.   I think I probably agree with Athos .


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 17, 2018)

xenon said:


> I suppose you’re alright. It’s not like creepy weirdos don’t already try barging into womens spaces.  I don’t know,  have been reading, , listening.   I think I probably agree with Athos .




no one needs to pretend to be a woman to try and get to women because they already dont bother, the toilets thing makes no sense if you look at it from criminology


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 17, 2018)

weepiper said:


> I won't take lessons on progressiveness from any country that will let a woman (or a trans man unfortunate enough to find themselves pregnant) die rather than give her an abortion.



It takes remarkable shamelessness to use Ireland’s abortion laws to excuse transphobia when you are well aware that the entirety of Ireland’s abortion rights movement is trans inclusive. And when British TERFs have only interacted with Ireland’s abortion rights movement not to assist it but to hassle it for being trans inclusive. Which says everything that needs to be said about their “feminist” priorities.

But more importantly it takes willful obtuseness to pretend that you are being asked to regard Ireland as a more progressive society when you are actually being asked why the consequences you are claiming will follow from self ID laws haven’t occurred in Ireland which has had those laws for years. Whether Ireland is paradise on Earth or a backwards religious dump or any point in between, if self ID was going to lead the consequences you claim it should have had those consequences here. Yet it hasn’t. You aren’t interested in examining what’s actually happened because you know it does t fit with your cherished paranoia.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 17, 2018)

but aburrrrtion


----------



## weepiper (Jan 17, 2018)

Oh fuck off Nigel. You know nothing about British feminists.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 17, 2018)

LOL they took our jerrrrbs!!

tbh tho people on here saying they feminist but dunno what swerfs are that wass funny I'd start with those people tbh

and I think you'll find it's actually 'Brexit Feminists' now.


----------



## Sue (Jan 18, 2018)

From 'paranoid fever dreams', to 'wilful obtuseness' and 'cherished paranoia'. Looking forward to tomorrow's phrase of the day. 

Nigel Irritable, I'm now convinced you're an agent provocateur working for the TERFs. It's the only conceivable explanation.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 18, 2018)

weepiper said:


> I won't take lessons on progressiveness from any country that will let a woman (or a trans man unfortunate enough to find themselves pregnant) die rather than give her an abortion.
> Death of Savita Halappanavar - Wikipedia
> 
> Or die on a flight back from having an abortion in the UK
> Dublin maternity hospital chief says Irish abortion patient died while flying home after termination



Irish feminism has made significant changes to the country. It's only a matter of time before the draconian laws on abortion are changed.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 18, 2018)

xenon said:


> I suppose you’re right. It’s not like creepy weirdos don’t already try barging into womens spaces.  I don’t know,  have been reading, , listening.   I think I probably agree with Athos .



The lack of self-id law didn’t stop Toby Young dressing as a woman in order to pull a lesbian. Our ire should be with toxic men who are cunts—who have always been cunts and will continue to be cunts—and not with trans women who just want to lead their freaking lives.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 18, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Are Ireland's abortion laws relevant? Argentina also has appalling abortion laws. Malta even worse. Denmark not so bad. But what is the link here in terms of how we evaluate the effect of gender self-id?



These are countries that currently dismiss womens' rights and concerns.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 18, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> The two aren’t comparable given homosexual rights didn’t impact on heterosexual rights. You have tunnel vision on this and are just ticking off right-on boxes without thinking everything through.



...and homosexuals did not asked to be called heterosexuals.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 18, 2018)

I've learned so much about being trans from this thread


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 18, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> I've learned so much about being trans from this thread


Grand


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 18, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> These are countries that currently dismiss womens' rights and concerns.



I feel the need to clarify that in Denmark, the upper limit on abortions is 12 weeks, and the patient has to be over 18 to consent, or have parental consent if a minor. In the UK the limit is 24 weeks.

(Consider also that lobbyists in the UK are seeking to allow children who have attained 'Gillick competence', be over sixteen, to be able to change their gender...).

Abortion in Denmark - Wikipedia
Abortion


----------



## Mation (Jan 18, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I’m black. But being formerly white I’m more oppressed than actual black people as I have an added oppression. Black people who complain are just being bigots towards white to black trans people.


Don't use black people to make your nonsensical point, please. It's not comparable.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 18, 2018)

Mation said:


> Don't use black people to make your nonsensical point, please. It's not comparable.



I know it isn’t but the wheel of oppression certainly thinks so.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> These are countries that currently dismiss womens' rights and concerns.


While we might both criticise Denmark's current 12-week limit for on-demand abortion (I would criticise _any_ legal limit), in practice it is a country that provides safe, free abortions below that limit. I don't think it's fair to characterise Denmark as a particularly bad offender wrt women's rights.

But in any case, I don't see the causal link. I don't see it as either/or. To give a different example, Ireland's position on abortion didn't stop it from equalising the age of consent eight years before the UK did so. Its equal age of consent was more progressive than the UK's position during those eight years.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 18, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ireland's position on abortion didn't stop it from equalising the age of consent eight years before the UK did so. Its equal age of consent was more progressive than the UK's position during those eight years.



Consent for what?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Consent for what?


SEx.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 18, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Consent for what?


----------



## kabbes (Jan 18, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But in any case, I don't see the causal link.


The causal link proposed is that a country that doesn't care about women's rights will feel equally at ease banning abortion as it will allowing men self-declaring as women to undermine attempts to create equality via protected status legislation.

(I'm not saying I endorse this perspective, but the proposed causal link seems logical enough in principle).


----------



## Athos (Jan 18, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> While we might both criticise Denmark's current 12-week limit for on-demand abortion (I would criticise _any_ legal limit), in practice it is a country that provides safe, free abortions below that limit. I don't think it's fair to characterise Denmark as a bad offender wrt women's rights.
> 
> But in any case, I don't see the causal link. I don't see it as either/or. To give a different example, Ireland's position on abortion didn't stop it from equalising the age of consent eight years before the UK did so. Its equal age of consent was more progressive than the UK's position during those eight years.



You seem to be conflating women's rights with gay rights. Ireland equalising the age of consent for gay and straight people tells us nothing about the state's attitude to women. It's appalling position on abortion tells us lots.  The fact that countries with relatively poor records on women's rights are amongst those keen to allow self-ID ought to make us reflect for a moment or two. Personally, I don't think that correlation is a significant as any data regarding the effects of the law change, though. And, in  that regard, there doesn't appear to be much evidence of the change having a detrimental effect on women (though I accept that might be an issue with sample size and/or that it is too early to see the full effect).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2018)

kabbes said:


> The causal link proposed is that a country that doesn't care about women's rights will feel equally at ease banning abortion as it will allowing men self-declaring as women to undermine attempts to create equality via protected status legislation.
> 
> (I'm not saying I endorse this perspective, but the proposed causal link seems logical enough in principle).


We also need to be careful about talking about 'a country' and what it cares about like that. In the case of Argentina, for instance, the country is extremely divided over the issue of abortion. Plenty in government would actually like to change the law there, but the Church is still a powerful lobby. Certain bad things are easier to change than others, so are likely to be changed first.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2018)

Athos said:


> You seem to be conflating women's rights with gay rights. Ireland equalising the age of consent for gay and straight people tells us nothing about the state's attitude to women. It's appalling position on abortion tells us lots.  The fact that countries with relatively poor records on women's rights are amongst those keen to allow self-ID ought to make us reflect for a moment or two. Personally, I don't think that correlation is a significant as any data regarding the effects of the law change, though. And, in  that regard, there doesn't appear to be much evidence of the change having a detrimental effect on women (though I accept that might be an issue with sample size and/or that it is too early to see the full effect).


I would actually question the conflating of women's rights with trans rights, tbh. Clearly this is a disputed area, but that's precisely why I think it's sensible to look at what is happening in countries where self-id is in place. And to make the sample size as large as possible, you look at all four of the countries that have made the change.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 18, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I would actually question the conflating of women's rights with trans rights, tbh. .


It's the opposite to conflation -- it's the suggestion that there is a conflict between women's rights and trans rights.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2018)

kabbes said:


> It's the opposite to conflation -- it's the suggestion that there is a conflict between women's rights and trans rights.


Ok. That then. I certainly dispute the idea that countries that have made this change to self-id have done so because they are places that disregard the voices of women. I see no evidence for that whatsoever.


----------



## Athos (Jan 18, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I would actually question the conflating of women's rights with trans rights, tbh. Clearly this is a disputed area, but that's precisely why I think it's sensible to look at what is happening in countries where self-id is in place.



I wasn't conflating trans rights with women's rights. I was making the opposite point i.e. about those states which are keen to promote (this aspect of) trans rights also being those who aren't keen to promote women's rights.

But we agree that it makes sense to look at the evidence of the effects of such changes. Though I would say that's not easy to do in a meaningful way, since we can't control for so many other differing factors. And, because of issues with sample size and it being too early to assess the full impact. Would you agree?


----------



## Mation (Jan 18, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I know it isn’t but the wheel of oppression certainly thinks so.


No, it doesn't. Correct me if I'm wrong (about you) but you seem to think recognising similar levels of privilege or oppression goes hand in hand with thinking that the drivers of identity are also similar.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 18, 2018)

Athos said:


> . ..Ireland equalising the age of consent for gay and straight people tells us nothing about the state's attitude to women. It's appalling position on abortion tells us lots. .



What does it tell you? It tells me it's come a long way since the stereotypical church stranglehold of yesterday and yes, it still has a way to go but (like the US) there are very different demographics there. Still, the ultra conservative religious are in the minority and there's no reconciling them with the new Ireland but even with the money pouring in for pro-life groups (from the US) the country is on the up (regarding women's rights etc).


----------



## kabbes (Jan 18, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ok. That then. I certainly dispute the idea that countries that have made this change to self-id have done so because they are places that disregard the voices of women. I see no evidence for that whatsoever.


Fair enough, but you can presumably similarly see that making a change to self-id is also not a tick in the "progressive on women's rights" box either.


----------



## Athos (Jan 18, 2018)

krtek a houby said:


> What does it tell you? It tells me it's come a long way since the stereotypical church stranglehold of yesterday and yes, it still has a way to go but (like the US) there are very different demographics there. Still, the ultra conservative religious are in the minority and there's no reconciling them with the new Ireland but even with the money pouring in for pro-life groups (from the US) the country is on the up (regarding women's rights etc).



It tells me that the state is less progressive when it comes to women's rights than the UK.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 18, 2018)

Athos said:


> It tells me that the state is less progressive when it comes to women's rights than the UK.



If you define women's rights solely by pro-choice, yes, this is currently true.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 18, 2018)

krtek a houby said:


> If you define women's rights solely by pro-choice, yes, this is currently true.


It is not necessary for a metric to be one-dimensional to create an ordering on a single dimension.


----------



## Athos (Jan 18, 2018)

krtek a houby said:


> If you define women's rights solely by pro-choice, yes, this is currently true.



Not solely,  no. But I'm not aware of any other measures by which Ireland is so far ahead of the UK on women's rights as to offset its appalling position on such an important issue, such that it could meaningfully be said to be more progressive regarding women's rights as a whole. Are you?


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 18, 2018)

kabbes said:


> It is not necessary for a metric to be one-dimensional to create an ordering on a single dimension.



Nope, sorry. Perplexed again.


----------



## Mation (Jan 18, 2018)

kabbes said:


> It is not necessary for a metric to be one-dimensional to create an ordering on a single dimension.


In that case  you either need to refer to women's rights in x dimension or show that including all other dimensions the UK is more progressive overall, no?


----------



## kabbes (Jan 18, 2018)

Mation said:


> In that case  you either need to refer to women's rights in x dimension or show that including all other dimensions the UK is more progressive overall, no?


Indeed.  And I agree with Athos that I am struggling to see other dimensions within the category of women's rights in which Ireland is clearly more progressive.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 18, 2018)

krtek a houby said:


> Nope, sorry. Perplexed again.


I can't say that (3,2) is bigger than (2,3) under a typical ordering system but I can say that (3,2) is bigger than (2,2).


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 18, 2018)

Athos said:


> Not solely,  no. But I'm not aware of any other measures by which Ireland is so far ahead of the UK on women's rights as to offset its appalling position on such an important issue, such that it could meaningfully be said to be more progressive regarding women's rights as a whole. Are you?



Gay women are allowed to marry each other, this was universally supported by the referendum the other year. Before the UK did, iirc?

Ireland, you must remember, was under British dominion and then RCC influence for many years. This may have slowed down progress that your country was lucky to have in a quicker fashion...


----------



## Mation (Jan 18, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Indeed.  And I agree with Athos that I am struggling to see other dimensions within the category of women's rights in which Ireland is clearly more progressive.


In which case you could just have agreed with krtek a houby.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 18, 2018)

Mation said:


> In which case you could just have agreed with krtek a houby.


I don't agree with him.  It is not necessary to "define women's rights solely by pro-choice" in order for Athos' statement to be true.  Indeed, this was the point of my response, that I disagree.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 18, 2018)

kabbes said:


> I can't say that (3,2) is bigger than (2,3) under a typical ordering system but I can say that (3,2) is bigger than (2,2).



I'm not sure that's going to help.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 18, 2018)

8ball said:


> I'm not sure that's going to help.


Nothing ever does.


----------



## Athos (Jan 18, 2018)

krtek a houby said:


> Gay women are allowed to marry each other, this was universally supported by the referendum the other year. Before the UK did, iirc?
> 
> Ireland, you must remember, was under British dominion and then RCC influence for many years. This may have slowed down progress that your country was lucky to have in a quicker fashion...



Gay rights aren't specifically women's rights. 

On women's rights, the state of Ireland has a very shabby record. I accept that may be in part due to the factors you mention.

But, the fact remains that Ireland's record on women's rights doesn't undermine the idea that it's states with a poor record in this regard that favour self-id for trans people.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 18, 2018)

Has anyone actually argued that Ireland is more progressive generally in terms of women's rights or was Ireland used as an example within a list of others that could be reporting all levels of halaballoo and crimes committed by predatory, self-iding, trans people and but actually isn't?


----------



## Mation (Jan 18, 2018)

kabbes said:


> I don't agree with him.  It is not necessary to "define women's rights solely by pro-choice" in order for Athos' statement to be true.  Indeed, this was the point of my response, that I disagree.


Fair enough.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 18, 2018)

Mation said:


> No, it doesn't. Correct me if I'm wrong (about you) but you seem to think recognising similar levels of privilege or oppression goes hand in hand with thinking that the drivers of identity are also similar.



I don’t understand what you’re asking.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 18, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> SEx.



Ah gotcha. I don't know where my brain is today.

I think the age of consent in Ireland is 17 across the board, isn't it? I know they have wanted to change this.

Unfortunately, problems over birth control and abortion remain in Ireland, so the law on consent only really benefits men.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2018)

Athos said:


> Ireland's record on women's rights doesn't undermine the idea that it's states with a poor record in this regard that favour self-id for trans people.


Denmark does, though. 

It's also a question of direction of travel, imo. States like Ireland, Argentina and Malta have all been moving pretty quickly away from a legal framework that was basically dictated by the Catholic Church wrt things like gay rights, divorce and reproductive rights. They don't start from nowhere - they start from the position history has left them in. Abortion appears to be the issue that is hardest to budge here, meeting with the most fierce resistance. In the case of Ireland, changing abortion rights would require a change in the constitution, and so a public referendum. That's a big hurdle, but there is to be a referendum this year, I believe, so the direction of travel is still good. Other things like changing gender recognition laws are far easier to do, so I'm not sure we should read too much into the fact that they happen first.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 18, 2018)

kabbes said:


> I can't say that (3,2) is bigger than (2,3) under a typical ordering system but I can say that (3,2) is bigger than (2,2).



Ordered pairs <3


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 18, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Ah gotcha. I don't know where my brain is today.
> 
> I think the age of consent in Ireland is 17 across the board, isn't it? I know they have wanted to change this.
> 
> Unfortunately, problems over birth control and abortion remain in Ireland, so the law on consent only really benefits men.



I'm not aware of problems with birth control in Ireland these days. I did grow up when homosexuality was not just illegal but you were schooled that it was "a sin" and you were "going to hell" etc. And of course, there were pharmacies were condoms were sold from under the counter, putting them on display was a no-no. 

But that's back in the early 90s.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 18, 2018)

kabbes said:


> The causal link proposed is that a country that doesn't care about women's rights will feel equally at ease banning abortion as it will allowing men self-declaring as women to undermine attempts to create equality via protected status legislation.
> 
> (I'm not saying I endorse this perspective, but the proposed causal link seems logical enough in principle).



It's a daft suggestion, not least because Norway have also just adopted self-declaration, Scotland is probably next and England along with several European countries are looking into it. Meanwhile countries with advanced trans rights include Canada, the US and most of Europe.  If anything there is a clear correlation between women's rights and trans rights and a clear correlation between oppression of women and trans oppression.  Just look at the Middle East where only one country, Iran, doesn't match this correlation, and yet this is often used to prove the opposite of what it actually clearly shows.

There's a mildly interesting piece from buzzfeed here which shows if anything public tolerance of trans rights correlates with what percentage of the population actually knows a trans person.


----------



## Athos (Jan 18, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Denmark does, though.
> 
> It's also a question of direction of travel, imo. States like Ireland, Argentina and Malta have all been moving pretty quickly away from a legal framework that was basically dictated by the Catholic Church wrt things like gay rights, divorce and reproductive rights. They don't start from nowhere - they start from the position history has left them in. Abortion appears to be the issue that is hardest to budge here, meeting with the most fierce resistance. In the case of Ireland, changing abortion rights would require a change in the constitution, and so a public referendum. That's a big hurdle, but there is to be a referendum this year, I believe, so the direction of travel is still good. Other things like changing gender recognition laws are far easier to do, so I'm not sure we should read too much into the fact that they happen first.



I broadly agree with this. As I said earlier, I put less store by that correlation than I do by the data coming from those countries (which I was probing Miranda Yardley for, but in respect of which they didn't offer any evidence of harm to women). Albeit I recognise that such data has some significant limitations that make meaningful comparisons very difficult. I certainly don't share Nigel Irritable's apparent view that the absence of negative reports from the small sample of Ireland so soon after the law change means that any fears about the longer term consequences in the UK (a much larger and socially distinct country) must necessarily be motivated by bigotry.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 18, 2018)

kabbes said:


> The causal link proposed is that a country that doesn't care about women's rights will feel equally at ease banning abortion as it will allowing men self-declaring as women to undermine attempts to create equality via protected status legislation.
> 
> (I'm not saying I endorse this perspective, but the proposed causal link seems logical enough in principle).


The crucial point here is that in a country that supposedly doesn't favour women's rights, and allows trans ID, if men were to use this as a Trojan horse to womanhood then, we should be able to see it happening. But it hasn't happened. And why just look at Ireland? Seems that Ireland is just convenient for the TERF argument. Look elsewhere where trans people have self id.


Anyway, this thread says it all really.
Really good reasons why self id panic is fabrication and scare mongering.


>




Please find something real to worry about rather than people like me. I'm no threat. I just want a decent life and equal rights.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 18, 2018)

if they were gonna do that they'd already be fucking doing it. you think these people are governed by shit like that? ohhh i cant dress up as a woman to rape yet cus trans people dont have self ID yet o noes


people on this thread are fucking basic, watch some criminology programmes.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 18, 2018)

Click to read the thread


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 18, 2018)

and I think it's appalling that 'women' on here think trans women are clearly rapists in a dress


----------



## kabbes (Jan 18, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> The crucial point here is that in a country that supposedly doesn't favour women's rights, and allows trans ID, if men were to use this as a Trojan horse to womanhood then, we should be able to see it happening. But it hasn't happened. And why just look at Ireland? Seems that Ireland is just convenient for the TERF argument. Look elsewhere where trans people have self id.
> 
> 
> Anyway, this thread says it all really.
> ...


Yes, I tend to agree that this kind of self id panic is fear rather than reality.  Although it's not actually me that has to worry, so it's not really my place to say.

The fear that self id can conflict with equality initiatives, though, in the way that is currently threatening to happen in the Labour party, is based on something we are already seeing happening.  As are the examples where events that are supposed to be about women's issues are being turned instead into chances for transactivists to make points about inclusivity.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 18, 2018)

and I pity a lot of you, it's so easy to read terf propaganda and think it's what women really actually believe, I was in denial, I never felt like one, I went along with it, but it was only when I met personally one of the people here I could just instantly see they'd be against me if i dared to speak of my shiz, and it was at that point I realised it was a load of shit, these shits aint what women think it's what a pack of victim complex cunts think.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 18, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Yes, I tend to agree that this kind of self id panic is fear rather than reality.  Although it's not actually me that has to worry, so it's not really my place to say.
> 
> The fear that self id can conflict with equality initiatives, though, in the way that is currently threatening to happen in the Labour party, is based on something we are already seeing happening.  As are the examples where events that are supposed to be about women's issues are being turned instead into chances for transactivists to make points about inclusivity.


It's a shame that the majority of women aren't being listened to on this issue, just a minority who I believe are driven by hate rather than fear, or else they would engage with us instead of permanently attacking us and filling the media with lies about us.

As a woman I have as much to fear from men pretending to be women as any woman. So do the majority of cis women who support trans women.

I believe we can only move forward if we cut out those lying and creating the scare stories in the Tory press. We need balance. We need people to engage their skepticism. We need people to realise that the majority of trans women aren't lying, don't have an agenda, want to keep female spaces safe as much as cis women do and we're not, never have been, men.


----------



## Mation (Jan 18, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I don’t understand what you’re asking.


What do you think the 'wheel of oppression' says about being black or being trans that you think (but don't yourself agree) is comparable?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 18, 2018)

Mation said:


> What do you think the 'wheel of oppression' says about being black or being trans that you think (but don't yourself agree) is comparable?



They have a spoke each (as does class ) - if they’re not comparable why are they presented as such?


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 18, 2018)

is this like wheel of fortune? is there prizes? what channels it on?


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 18, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> what channels it on?



Tigger Happy Tv.


----------



## elbows (Jan 18, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> and I pity a lot of you, it's so easy to read terf propaganda and think it's what women really actually believe, I was in denial, I never felt like one, I went along with it, but it was only when I met personally one of the people here I could just instantly see they'd be against me, and it was at that point I realised it was a load of shit, these shits aint what women think it's what a pack of cunts think.



Well I spent a lot of time spouting my own opinions, listening and asking questions, because I dont believe its a good idea to have blind spots, and I didnt want to be blind to ideas about one groups rights potentially damaging those of another.

I learnt some things that were useful. But some of the language used by a few utterly betrayed some of the less noble agendas at work, and certainly hasnt left me less suspicious of or open to being twisted by TERFs. Since I'm not about to lump a large cross-section of views into some weird generic 'what women think' bracket, the women who are blatantly using some of these issues to legitimise their contempt for transwomen are not going to taint my broader understanding of what a lot of other women think. Even when a broader range of views are rather under-represented on this thread for fairly large chunks of time.


----------



## Mation (Jan 18, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> They have a spoke each (as does class ) - if they’re not comparable why are they presented as such?


Comparable in terms of privilege/oppression or lack thereof doesn't automatically mean comparable in terms of (all of) the causes of that. There is nothing intrinsic to being black that makes you know you're black (or I assume white).


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 18, 2018)

elbows said:


> Well I spent a lot of time spouting my own opinions, listening and asking questions, because I dont believe its a good idea to have blind spots, and I didnt want to be blind to ideas about one groups rights potentially damaging those of another.
> 
> I learnt some things that were useful. But some of the language used by a few utterly betrayed some of the less noble agendas at work, and certainly hasnt left me less suspicious of or open to being twisted by TERFs. Since I'm not about to lump a large cross-section of views into some weird generic 'what women think' bracket, the women who are blatantly using some of these issues to legitimise their contempt for transwomen are not going to taint my broader understanding of what a lot of other women think. Even when a broader range of views are rather under-represented on this thread for fairly large chunks of time.




cool story


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 18, 2018)

Mation said:


> Comparable in terms of privilege/oppression or lack thereof doesn't automatically mean comparable in terms of (all of) the causes of that. There is nothing intrinsic to being black that makes you know you're black (or I assume white).



Presumably the same for sex then?


----------



## Mation (Jan 18, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Presumably the same for sex then?


You can answer that for yourself. Do you feel male? (I'm assuming from your name that you identify as male, though I know that isn't always the case, username-wise).


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 18, 2018)

Mation said:


> You can answer that for yourself. Do you feel male? (I'm assuming from your name that you identify as male, though I know that isn't always the case, username-wise).


i've met mm and i don't know how they identify


----------



## elbows (Jan 18, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> cool story



And there was me thinking you'd be impressed, honest.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 18, 2018)

Mation said:


> You can answer that for yourself. Do you feel male? (I'm assuming from your name that you identify as male, though I know that isn't always the case, username-wise).



Hmmm. 



Miranda Yardley said:


> Please describe how it feels to be female.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 18, 2018)

elbows said:


> And there was me thinking you'd be impressed, honest.




I was I am just majorly ill and trying to take me mind off it  i liked yer post to make up the discrepancy


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 18, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> I was I am just majorly ill and trying to take me mind off it


i hope you're feeling better soon  you're unusually good-natured today and it's concerning me.


----------



## Mation (Jan 18, 2018)

krtek a houby said:


> Hmmm.


Being able to articulate it and just knowing you are are different though. I know I'm a woman, but would have a hard time describing it. I only know I'm black politically; there's no sense of feeling it (or of denying it or of feeling like any other 'race'). 

To be clear, I wasn't asking MM to explain themselves to me, just suggesting that they are able to answer the question for themselves.


----------



## elbows (Jan 18, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> i hope you're feeling better soon  you're unusually good-natured today and it's concerning me.



Yeah, get well soon. And dont worry Pickmans, being good-natured is probably only very slightly contagious


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 18, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> I believe we can only move forward if we cut out those lying and creating the scare stories in the Tory press. We need balance. We need people to engage their skepticism.



Hardly going to happen while meetings such as the ones organised by A Woman's Place are being wholly misrepresented in Pink News as transphobic.  This is nothing but pure and simple misogyny. If the ideology is sound and the risks for women are none what is there to be afraid of. Why are women having to meet in secret?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 18, 2018)

Mation said:


> You can answer that for yourself. Do you feel male? (I'm assuming from your name that you identify as male, though I know that isn't always the case, username-wise).



How do I know what it’s like to be anyone other than me?


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 18, 2018)

Sharp.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> How do I know what it’s like to be anyone other than me?


Directly, you can't. Indirectly, you just ask them. So Mation has stated that she has a sense that she is a woman but doesn't have the same kind of sense of being black. Substitute man and white in there and I can tell you that the same thing applies to me. There's two other people about whom you can know something.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 18, 2018)

krtek a houby said:


> I'm not aware of problems with birth control in Ireland these days. I did grow up when homosexuality was not just illegal but you were schooled that it was "a sin" and you were "going to hell" etc. And of course, there were pharmacies were condoms were sold from under the counter, putting them on display was a no-no.
> 
> But that's back in the early 90s.



I *believe* that there has been a pretty wide-reaching reform of the law and that contraceptives are available, but subject to age restrictions, I believe this is 17 in line with the age of consent. I believe there is likely still some cultural resistance to birth control, but as we all know cultures can change.


----------



## Mation (Jan 18, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> How do I know what it’s like to be anyone other than me?


Good question. I'm not asking you to tell me how you feel about yourself but I am volunteering that I do feel like a woman (as an internal feeling of whatever source and also as political idea) but I don't feel black internally, I just know I am politically. I was suggesting that you could answer the question for yourself of whether what I said about race applies to sex - but this did assume that you feel some gender identity, which of course you might not. My bad. For me it's clear there is a difference because I feel one. And I believe what other people tell me (generally!) about how they feel.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 18, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I *believe* that there has been a pretty wide-reaching reform of the law and that contraceptives are available, but subject to age restrictions, I believe this is 17 in line with the age of consent. I believe there is likely still some cultural resistance to birth control, but as we all know cultures can change.



Yes, of course. Even in Ireland 

The cultural resistance to birth control there is tiny. Gone are these days:


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 18, 2018)

Mation said:


> Good question. I'm not asking you to tell me how you feel about yourself but I am volunteering that I do feel like a woman (as an internal feeling or whatever source and also as political idea) but I don't feel black internally, I just know I am politically. I was suggesting that you could answer the question for yourself of whether what I said about race applies to sex - but this did assume that you feel some gender identity, which of course you might not. My bad. For me it's clear there is a difference because I feel one. And I believe what other people tell me (generally!) about how they feel.



But my gender identity is taught, surely? I don’t have any particular feelings that I identify as being male and it’s difficult to avoid stereotypes when thinking about how to articulate any of it.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 18, 2018)

No risks for women


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 18, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


>



Oh it's the auld only white people can be racist argument (due to power...) in new clothes, a load of auld shite. Fucking unbelievable.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 18, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> No risks for women




That's an extreme and messed up example.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 18, 2018)

It's clearly a batshit argument. How representative is it though?


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 18, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Oh it's the auld only white people can be racist argument (due to power...) in new clothes, a load of auld shite. Fucking unbelievable.



Black men can never be rapists if they confine themselves to white victims.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 18, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Black men can never be rapists if they confine themselves to white victims.




Where have you ever heard this?


----------



## Mation (Jan 18, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> But my gender identity is taught, surely? I don’t have any particular feelings that I identify as being male and it’s difficult to avoid stereotypes when thinking about how to articulate any of it.


However my gender identity was acquired (through whatever combination of factors), I have one that makes me think _and_ feel I am a woman. My gender expression varies. My racial identity only ever makes me _think_ I am black. I've never heard of anyone who feels intrinsically black, but I have heard of people who aren't me who do feel strongly gendered, both cis and trans, however that feeling was acquired. I am not qualified to tell them they are wrong (in addition to believing them that they are right about themselves).


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 18, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Black men can never be rapists if they confine themselves to white victims.


If I force myself on someone, be I white or brown or blue, I am exerting actual power over them and neither my societal power quotient nor theirs comes into it. Only an utter shitferbrains wankstain would argue otherwise


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 18, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Where have you ever heard this?



That was irony.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 18, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Black men can never be rapists if they confine themselves to white victims.



Ok, am officially perplexed to the max tonight. 

TTFN & WTAF....


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> That was irony.


Dangerous game on the internet, as I know to my cost.


----------



## Mation (Jan 18, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Oh it's the auld only white people can be racist argument (due to power...) in new clothes, a load of auld shite. Fucking unbelievable.


It's not the same argument. The definition of rape is not predicated on power*, even though power relations are usually involved. Racism is defined as requiring prejudice plus power. I doubt many people would argue that only white people can be prejudiced.

* e2a: collective, rather than 'simply' one individual exerting power over another.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 18, 2018)

Mation said:


> It's not the same argument. The definition of rape is not predicated on power, even though power relations are usually involved. Racism is defined as requiring prejudice plus power. I doubt many people would argue that only white people can be prejudiced.


Surely racism is being prejudice, discrimination or antagonism against people of a different race on the basis of a belief in one's race's superiority


----------



## Mation (Jan 18, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Surely racism is being prejudice, discrimination or antagonism against people of a different race on the basis of a belief in one's race's superiority


From the position of being a member of the race that holds systemic power over the discriminated against race. Without that, it's 'just' prejudice. Not trivial or unimportant or even necessarily less harmful for individuals, but not racism, if we're going to use words to mean something specific.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 18, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Hardly going to happen while meetings such as the ones organised by A Woman's Place are being wholly misrepresented in Pink News as transphobic.  This is nothing but pure and simple misogyny. If the ideology is sound and the risks for women are none what is there to be afraid of. Why are women having to meet in secret?



Because the organisation behind that meeting has previously hosted speakers who want to morally mandate transexuality out of existence and ban trans healthcare.  As such they might be described as a transphobic organisation, or you at least happy to promote transphobia.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2018)

Mation said:


> IRacism is defined as requiring prejudice plus power.


Defined by whom?  I think at the very least that this would be disputed as a definition - I reckon a lot of people would define racism simply as prejudice based on race. Otherwise you can quickly get to what Pickman's said - for instance, Nation of Islam is not racist despite believing that white people are devils because of the power relations involved.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I *believe* that there has been a pretty wide-reaching reform of the law and that contraceptives are available, but subject to age restrictions, I believe this is 17 in line with the age of consent. I believe there is likely still some cultural resistance to birth control, but as we all know cultures can change.



There is no age limit on contraception and there is no cultural resistance to it. The same movement that eventually produced same sex marriage and self ID laws got rid of all Catholic inspired social laws except the abortion ban, which will likely go this year.

The persistence of certain people in this thread in pretending to confuse the question of whether Ireland is particularly progressive with the question of why none of the dreadful consequences TERFs claim will come from self ID have happened in Ireland would be entertainingly stupid if it wasn’t so obviously dishonest.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 18, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Hardly going to happen while meetings such as the ones organised by A Woman's Place are being wholly misrepresented in Pink News as transphobic.  This is nothing but pure and simple misogyny. If the ideology is sound and the risks for women are none what is there to be afraid of. Why are women having to meet in secret?



Not very secret either given Pink News knew and published the venue in advance.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 18, 2018)

krtek a houby said:


> Yes, of course. Even in Ireland
> 
> The cultural resistance to birth control there is tiny. Gone are these days:



Great photo!


----------



## Mation (Jan 18, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Defined by whom?  I think at the very least that this would be disputed as a definition - I reckon a lot of people would define racism simply as prejudice based on race. Otherwise you can quickly get to what Pickman's said - for instance, Nation of Islam is not racist despite believing that white people are devils because of the power relations involved.


This isn't a thread about race so I don't want to go off on a derail about it; we've only got here because of a comparison between race and gender made upthread. But yes, you could get there and have a long drawn out conversation about what to call mindsets we can probably agree we disapprove of.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2018)

Mation said:


> From the position of being a member of the race that holds systemic power over the discriminated against race. Without that, it's 'just' prejudice. Not trivial or unimportant or even necessarily less harmful for individuals, but not racism, if we're going to use words to mean something specific.


It's racial prejudice if the prejudice is based on race, though. What else could it be?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2018)

Mation said:


> This isn't a thread about race so I don't want to go off on a derail about it; we've only got here because of a comparison between race and gender made upthread. But yes, you could get there and have a long drawn out conversation about what to call mindsets we can probably agree we disapprove of.


Fair enough. I'll leave it now.


----------



## Mation (Jan 18, 2018)

Edited out in order to do what I said despite the urge, and not further derail!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2018)

The logic behind the TERF desire to throw trans women off all women shortlists is truly otherworldly stuff. They seem to think that men, who have an advantage in seeking election simply from being men, will reject that advantage and instead publicly and falsely declare themselves to be women, in order to get on an AWS. And then will face first internal candidate selection and then the electorate as a pretend woman. The TERFs don’t put forward any reason why ambitious men would reduce their chances of success by doing any of this.

Still though, they have at least won over Jolyon Maugham QC, who is now one of their biggest donors. So someone finds this crazed nonsense convincing.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 18, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Because the organisation behind that meeting has previously hosted speakers who want to morally mandate transexuality out of existence and ban trans healthcare.


So you say. What I've been reading is worries about pushing transitioning onto parents and things like that.




smokedout said:


> Not very secret either given Pink News knew and published the venue in advance.



Not before trans activists intimidated another venue. By the time Pink News found out about the Quaker hall one it was too late to disrupt it.
Here's what a friend of mine had to say about it on Faceache after someone else accused my friend of promoting transphobic drivel:
 "There's been loads of 'calling out' on this issue (see above) but precious little debate. This meeting was a valuable contribution to that debate, informed, open, rational, not a hint of transphobia. It was great to see women activist friends of mine I'd not seen for a while with different views on this issue saying how much they valued being able to discuss it without the toxicity. Congratulations to the organisers, this across the country please."


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 18, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Perhaps the funniest part
> There is no age limit on contraception and there is no cultural resistance to it. The same movement that eventually produced same sex marriage and self ID laws got rid of all Catholic inspired social laws except the abortion ban, which will likely go this year.
> 
> The persistence of certain people in this thread in pretending to confuse the question of whether Ireland is particularly progressive with the question of why none of the dreadful consequences TERFs claim will come from self ID have happened in Ireland would be entertainingly stupid if it wasn’t so obviously dishonest.



Hence the use of 'I believe'. And who are you calling a 'TERF'?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 18, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> It's clearly a batshit argument. How representative is it though?



It's also an anonymised tweet from an unidentifiable social network, posted by an anonymous tweeter.  If it is genuine whoever said it is a dick, but that's just one dick out of 7 billion people, not really representative of anything.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 18, 2018)

smokedout said:


> ...morally mandate transexuality out of existence



Most people who use this phrase have not the first idea what it means or the context it arose. Raymond's book is really good.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 18, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> So you say. What I've been reading is worries about pushing transitioning onto parents and things like that.



Shiela Jeffries spoke at one of the earlier meetings, her views are quite clear.  If an organisation that claimed to simply be critical of Israeli human rights abuses had a history of booking holocaust deniers would you trust their motives?


----------



## Wilf (Jan 18, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Oh it's the auld only white people can be racist argument (due to power...) in new clothes, a load of auld shite. Fucking unbelievable.


The Bahar Mustapha defence, iirc.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 18, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Most people who use this phrase have not the first idea what it means or the context it arose. Raymond's book is really good.



Raymond wants to use social and medical stuctures to morally mandate transsexuality out of existence in the here and now, not post gender.  She wants to discourage transition using social and medical structures.  Jeffries, who dedicated her anti-trans book to Raymond, goes further and has called trans health care a human rights abuse which should be banned.  Raymond was also the first I think to posit that trans women 'rape' (her words) women's bodies by "by reducing the real female form to an artifact, appropriating this body for themselves .... Transsexuals merely cut off the most obvious means of invading women, so that they seem non-invasive."

But you know all this of course.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Great photo!








A photo from the abortion pill train in 2014, inspired by the 70s contraceptive train. Women illegally importing abortion pills, openly, daring the cops to interfere.

All of the groups involved are trans inclusive and all supported the self ID law.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 18, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> But my gender identity is taught, surely? I don’t have any particular feelings that I identify as being male and it’s difficult to avoid stereotypes when thinking about how to articulate any of it.



It is difficult.

But there's been a few attempts on this thread to think about how gender is formed and how a sense of one's gender may come about. Pickman's link to ep Thompson talking about class opens it up a bit I think, takes us beyond a 'there is an essential thing called gender identity vs there is no such thing' argument.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 18, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Shiela Jeffries spoke at one of the earlier meetings, her views are quite clear.  If an organisation that claimed to simply be critical of Israeli human rights abuses had a history of booking holocaust deniers would you trust their motives?




Didn't you hear of the meeting that successfully went ahead despite all attempts to prevent it? What use do you think hyperbole is at the stage where people stop being fearful of accusations of transphobia and go and look for themselves?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> A photo from the abortion pill train in 2014, inspired by the 70s contraceptive train. Women illegally importing abortion pills, openly, daring the cops to interfere.
> 
> All of the groups involved are trans inclusive and all supported the self ID law.


The other way of looking at this, of course, and one that many would agree with - that the new gender id law marks the latest in a number of successes in Ireland over the last couple of decades as it wrenches itself from the grip of the Catholic Church, the next success hopefully being the legalisation of abortion. The opposite, really, of being the result of a culture that ignores women's rights: part of the same movement that will also achieve greater women's rights.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The other way of looking at this, of course, and one that many would agree with - that the new gender id law marks the latest in a number of successes in Ireland over the last couple of decades as it wrenches itself from the grip of the Catholic Church, the next success hopefully being the legalisation of abortion. The opposite, really, of being the result of a culture that ignores women's rights: part of the same movement that will also achieve greater women's rights.



Exactly. The feminist, lgbt and left wing movements that have spent the last 30 plus years successfully fighting to get rid of repressive Catholic laws universally regard trans rights as part of that struggle and the introduction of self ID laws as one of their successes. 

TERFery is a British disease, a product of the decomposition of 80s radfem scenes and the tireless work done by the New Statesman to make transphobia respectable outside of its social conservative heartlands. There’s no other country where allegedly “progressive” transphobia has any kind of significant presence.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 18, 2018)

No definition of transphobia though. It's a catchall tactic


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> View attachment 125646
> 
> 
> View attachment 125647
> ...



Generous of you to advertise this group.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 18, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Didn't you hear of the meeting that successfully went ahead despite all attempts to prevent it? What use do you think hyperbole is at the stage where people stop being fearful of accusations of transphobia and go and look for themselves?



I would hope that people might employ the same scepticism that they might if a meeting was organised aimed at preventing proposed new rights for any other minority.  Such as is there a broader agenda, are concerns about this issue being used to generate wider concerns or hatred towards a group of people?

I would support for example a feminist group that challenged religious based oppression of women.  If however they booked Tommy Robinson to speak I might think that in reality their aims went beyond those publicly promoted and be sceptical.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 18, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> What use do you think hyperbole is at the stage where people stop being fearful of accusations of transphobia and go and look for themselves?



This is all starting to sound a bit blue pill/red pill by the way, not you specifically, just these sudden claims of ordinary women seeing the light and scales falling from people's eyes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 18, 2018)

smokedout said:


> It's also an anonymised tweet from an unidentifiable social network, posted by an anonymous tweeter.  If it is genuine whoever said it is a dick, but that's just one dick out of 7 billion people, not really representative of anything.


Might be a bot


----------



## weepiper (Jan 18, 2018)

smokedout said:


> It's also an anonymised tweet from an unidentifiable social network, posted by an anonymous tweeter.  If it is genuine whoever said it is a dick, but that's just one dick out of 7 billion people, not really representative of anything.


Just one bad apple, eh?


----------



## Sue (Jan 18, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The other way of looking at this, of course, and one that many would agree with - that the new gender id law marks the latest in a number of successes in Ireland over the last couple of decades as it wrenches itself from the grip of the Catholic Church, the next success hopefully being the legalisation of abortion. The opposite, really, of being the result of a culture that ignores women's rights: part of the same movement that will also achieve greater women's rights.



Or you could look at it as something that affects a tiny number of people being prioritised over something that affects many, many people.

And not having access to abortion or being denied one when it's required for medical reasons is a very significant risk to mental and physical wellbeing. I imagine much more of a risk than not being able to self ID.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2018)

Sue said:


> Or you could look at it as something that affects a tiny number of people being prioritised over something that affects many, many people.
> 
> And not having access to abortion or being denied one when it's required for medical reasons is a very significant risk to mental and physical wellbeing. I imagine much more of a risk than not being able to self ID.


How was it prioritised? 

You do know that changing abortion laws requires a referendum, yes, and that there have been groups working towards getting one for years (and working towards a situation where the referendum will actually be won)? 

Again, I don't understand the idea here that this is either/or.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 18, 2018)

smokedout said:


> I would hope that people might employ the same scepticism that they might if a meeting was organised aimed at preventing proposed new rights for any other minority.  Such as is there a broader agenda, are concerns about this issue being used to generate wider concerns or hatred towards a group of people?
> 
> I would support for example a feminist group that challenged religious based oppression of women.  If however they booked Tommy Robinson to speak I might think that in reality their aims went beyond those publicly promoted and be sceptical.



Except the demonisation of anyone with an inkling of doubt lends me the right to doubt all claims. As I said the other day when Jeffries name came up, questioning/analysing medical practice within the socio/politico/economic conditions is something that should be actively pursued.

Rebecca Reilly Cooper is another one that's been tarred as a transphobic TERF and yet I have to see any writings or lectures (she has a few on youtube) where she speaks of trans people as people to be exterminated.

Am I allowed to be skeptical? (rhetorical question)


----------



## Sue (Jan 18, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How was it prioritised?
> 
> You do know that changing abortion laws requires a referendum, yes, and that there have been groups working towards getting one for years (and working towards a situation where the referendum will actually be won)?
> 
> Again, I don't understand the idea here that this is either/or.


How long have abortion rights been an issue? How long has self ID been an issue? Which one has happened and which one hasn't happened?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2018)

Sue said:


> How long have abortion rights been an issue? How long has self ID been an issue? Which one has happened and which one hasn't happened?


Who are we talking about here? Lawmakers or campaigners?


----------



## Sue (Jan 18, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Who are we talking about here? Lawmakers or campaigners?


Lawmakers.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How was it prioritised?
> 
> You do know that changing abortion laws requires a referendum, yes, and that there have been groups working towards getting one for years (and working towards a situation where the referendum will actually be won)?
> 
> Again, I don't understand the idea here that this is either/or.



Those women who openly defy the law to import abortion pills aren’t prioritizing abortion rights because they also support trans rights. I’ve fucking heard it all now.

Meanwhile the Brit TERFs who hassle Irish abortion rights campaigns for being trans inclusive, they have their priorities just right.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2018)

Sue said:


> Lawmakers.


Ok, well I was responding to the pic of abortion rights campaigners and I used the words 'part of the same movement', so really I was talking about the campaigners who force lawmakers to make changes rather than the lawmakers themselves.

In many Catholic countries around the world, the struggle against Catholic opposition to abortion rights is long and hard and ongoing. Other things opposed by the Church, such as gay rights or trans rights, may be won first. But that still doesn't make it either/or.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 18, 2018)

About ASN - Abortion Support Network

This Is How Protesters Showed Support For Women Who Travel From Ireland To Britain For Abortions

Some British feminists, being completely consumed with hassling Irish feminists for being trans inclusive, yesterday.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2018)

Sue said:


> Or you could look at it as something that affects a tiny number of people being prioritised over something that affects many, many people.
> 
> And not having access to abortion or being denied one when it's required for medical reasons is a very significant risk to mental and physical wellbeing. I imagine much more of a risk than not being able to self ID.



I hate to interrupt this outburst of entertaining ignorance, but it might be best to find out some basics about the legal system and political context you are talking about before pontificating about what is and isn’t being prioritized. 

The abortion rights movement is the biggest and strongest ongoing social movement in the country (it was the second biggest during the height of the anti-water charges / anti austerity movement). It’s been the main focus of every feminist organization in the country for years on end. It can put tens of thousands of people on the street on a regular basis. Commitment to it is a litmus test for any politician who wants to be considered at all progressive or left wing. All of those women’s rights campaigns support trans rights, just as they supported same sex marriage, and not one of them sees any contradiction in doing so or any diversion from their main priority. They don’t see trans rights movements as a competitor but as allies they are in solidarity with - and they expect and get mutual solidarity from lgbt movements all of which support abortion rights.

Progress on abortion rights has been slower than on any other social issue (including every other women’s rights issue) for two main reasons: (1) the Constitutional bar inserted by the Catholic right at the last moment of their political dominance in the early 80s and (2) the strategic decision of conservatives to focus almost all of their energies on abortion as their long term retreat became clear. The Catholic right essentially won on every social issue up until the mid 80s and has been continuously losing since. By the time same sex marriage and self ID came in they were, at least in their own publications, quite open about making a strategic withdrawal on just about every remaining social issue in order to hoard their financial political and financial resources for a last stand on abortion. They are even bringing the Pope over this year. This is Armageddon as far as the rump Catholic right is concerned.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 18, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Except the demonisation of anyone with an inkling of doubt lends me the right to doubt all claims. As I said the other day when Jeffries name came up, questioning/analysing medical practice within the socio/politico/economic conditions is something that should be actively pursued.



You are perfectly entitled to question that as is anyone.  But you can't be surprised that trans people might object to an organisation that promotes indivduals who want to take away trans rights and make trans healthcare illegal,  healthcare that in many cases people say has saved their life and which has a large body ofevidence supporting it's effectiveness.



> Rebecca Reilly Cooper is another one that's been tarred as a transphobic TERF and yet I have to see any writings or lectures (she has a few on youtube) where she speaks of trans people as people to be exterminated.
> 
> Am I allowed to be skeptical? (rhetorical question)



I'm not aware that Tommy Robinson has ever called for all Muslims to be exterminated.  Is that the bar now, as long as you aren't calling for trans genocide then anything else goes.

I asked you before, where are you going with this?  What would you like to see?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 18, 2018)

weepiper said:


> Just one bad apple, eh?



Do Isis represent Muslim thought?  They've done a lot more than a solitary anonymous tweet.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2018)

weepiper said:


> About ASN - Abortion Support Network
> 
> This Is How Protesters Showed Support For Women Who Travel From Ireland To Britain For Abortions
> 
> Some British feminists, being completely consumed with hassling Irish feminists for being trans inclusive, yesterday.



Lots of British feminists act in solidarity with Irish feminists. Brit TERFs prefer to hassle Irish abortion rights campaigns for being trans inclusive. You are well aware that even in Britain, TERFs are a small minority of feminists. TERFs are a fringe movement of bigoted zealots, they don’t represent all women, British women or British feminists as a whole.

The largest Irish abortion rights campaign habitually responds to British TERFs who hassle them on social media by asking them when they last donated to the Abortion Support Network. They never get a response. When did you last donate to it by the way?


----------



## Sue (Jan 18, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I hate to interrupt this outburst of entertaining ignorance, but it might be best to find out some basics about the legal system and political context you are talking about before pontificating about what is and isn’t being prioritized.
> 
> The abortion rights movement is the biggest and strongest ongoing social movement in the country (it was the second biggest during the height of the anti-water charges / anti austerity movement). It’s been the main focus of every feminist organization in the country for years on end. It can put tens of thousands of people on the street on a regular basis. Commitment to it is a litmus test for any politician who wants to be considered at all progressive or left wing. All of those women’s rights campaigns support trans rights, just as they supported same sex marriage, and not one of them sees any contradiction in doing so or any diversion from their main priority. They don’t see trans rights movements as a competitor but as allies they are in solidarity with - and they expect and get mutual solidarity from lgbt movements all of which support abortion rights.
> 
> Progress on abortion rights has been slower than on any other social issue (including every other women’s rights issue) for two main reasons: (1) the Constitutional bar inserted by the Catholic right at the last moment of their political dominance in the early 80s and (2) the strategic decision of conservatives to focus almost all of their energies on abortion as their long term retreat became clear. The Catholic right essentially won on every social issue up until the mid 80s and has been continuously losing since. By the time same sex marriage and self ID came in they were, at least in their own publications, quite open about making a strategic withdrawal on just about every remaining social issue in order to hoard their financial political and financial resources for a last stand on abortion. They are even bringing the Pope over this year. This is Armageddon as far as the rump Catholic right is concerned.



'Enntertaining ignorance'? I was hoping for 'hysterical fever dreams' or some such. (((Nigel Irritable)))


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 18, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> A photo from the abortion pill train in 2014, inspired by the 70s contraceptive train. Women illegally importing abortion pills, openly, daring the cops to interfere.
> 
> All of the groups involved are trans inclusive and all supported the self ID law.



You always make everything about trannies, ffs. You must be a hoot IRL.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2018)

A thread from the person running the Abortion Rights Campaign twitter account about one of the times Brit TERFs noticed an ARC tweet about being trans inclusive. Result: three days of constant trolling of an abortion rights campaign by people in the next country over who think of themselves as pro women’s rights.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 18, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Didn't you hear of the meeting that successfully went ahead despite all attempts to prevent it? What use do you think hyperbole is at the stage where people stop being fearful of accusations of transphobia and go and look for themselves?



Sheila spoke at the end of that meeting, and she was delightful when I met her.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> You always make everything about trannies, ffs. You must be a hoot IRL.



Yeah, how weird to talk about trans issues on a thread about trans issues.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 18, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Rebecca Reilly Cooper is another one that's been tarred as a transphobic TERF and yet I have to see any writings or lectures (she has a few on youtube) where she speaks of trans people as people to be exterminated.



I love RRC. I'm honoured that I can call her a friend in real life.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 18, 2018)

Sue said:


> Or you could look at it as something that affects a tiny number of people being prioritised over something that affects many, many people.
> 
> And not having access to abortion or being denied one when it's required for medical reasons is a very significant risk to mental and physical wellbeing. I imagine much more of a risk than not being able to self ID.



Well considering some commit suicide over it, others just end up with debilitating mental illness, I don't think that's true.

But why don't you think trans women support cis women and trans men in their fight for bodily autonomy? Historically trans women have probably been more solidly in favour of right to abortion than cis women.

I don't know what you are afraid of and I don't know why you set abortion rights and trans rights up as being a contradiction. Or even a competition.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 18, 2018)

In terms of what the govt allow / forbid.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 18, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> No definition of transphobia though. It's a catchall tactic



Ideological totalism is alive and well.


----------



## Sue (Jan 18, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Well considering some commit suicide over it, others just end up with debilitating mental illness, I don't think that's true.
> 
> But why don't you think trans women support cis women and trans men in their fight for bodily autonomy? Historically trans women have probably been more solidly in favour of right to abortion than cis women.
> 
> I don't know what you are afraid of and I don't know why you set abortion rights and trans rights up as being a contradiction. Or even a competition.



And I'd imagine some women commit suicide over bring denied abortion rights or end up physically/mentally impaired as a result. And that's not counting those who die directly as a result of being refused a termination. I imagine accurate figures for this likely don't exist.

I also think this assertion is curious -- interested to know your thoughts on why you think this:

'Historically trans women have probably been more solidly in favour of right to abortion than cis women.'

I'm not setting up abortion and trans rights against each other (and I'm certainly not afraid of either!). The whole topic of Ireland came up because Nigel Irritable kept holding it up as a model of progressiveness. 

It was then pointed out that it certainly isn't progressive as far as abortion rights are concerned. Which i reckon is pretty uncontentious, no?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2018)

Sue said:


> I'm not setting up abortion and trans rights against each other (and I'm certainly not afraid of either!). The whole topic of Ireland came up because Nigel Irritable kept holding it up as a model of progressiveness.?



One of the peculiarities of transphobes in this thread is that they are so used to lying that they keep forgetting that when they lie about other people’s posts in this thread other people can easily see that they are lying.

Ireland is of significance to this discussion not because anyone is claiming it is a uniquely progressive country. It isn’t, although it does have a much bigger feminist movement than Britain because struggles over women’s rights have been so prominent. It is of significance to this discussion because it has self ID laws of the sort that British TERFs are loudly scaremongering about, it has had them for years, and not one of the terrible consequences TERFs have been predicting has come to pass. Instead of attempting to deal with this unfortunate fact, the transphobes here simply ignore it and repeat over and over again that Ireland has repressive abortion laws. They are dishonest down to their marrow.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 18, 2018)

So trans rights are prioritised over women’s rights; which was what was being pointed out.


----------



## Sue (Jan 18, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> One of the peculiarities of transphobes in this thread is that they are so used to lying that they keep forgetting that when they lie about other people’s posts in this thread other people can easily see that they are lying.
> 
> Ireland is of significance to this discussion not because anyone is claiming it is a uniquely progressive country. It isn’t, although it does have a much bigger feminist movement than Britain because struggles over women’s rights have been so prominent. It is of significance to this discussion because it has self ID laws of the sort that British TERFs are loudly scaremongering about, it has had them for years, and not one of the terrible consequences TERFs have been predicting has come to pass. Instead of attempting to deal with this unfortunate fact, the transphobes here simply ignore it and repeat over and over again that Ireland has repressive abortion laws. They are dishonest down to their marrow.


Nigel, are you really calling me a transphobe? I'd be very interested to hear your reasons why.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 18, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Sheila spoke at the end of that meeting, and she was delightful when I met her.



Is she a Cannibal Corpse fan as well?


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 18, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Is she a Cannibal Corpse fan as well?



Are they still going?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 18, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Are they still going?



I don't know, Miranda's the expert in rapey extreme metal.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2018)

US far right advocating the same policies on bathrooms and prisons as Brit TERFs. This is what they are lining up with.

Christian Group That Pushed “Bathroom Bills” Is Taking Anti-Transgender Fight to Prisons


----------



## smokedout (Jan 18, 2018)

Ther's a telling story here about the consequences of the bathroom laws which shows what happens when some of these ideas becomes practiced to the real world.  What trans exclusion would be likely to mean is a de facto femininity test to access women's services, or toilets or changing rooms.  Of course this won't affect trans women who pass but it might well affect masculine appearing women, or women who have had masectomies such as the person in that piece. 

The conservative right will love this of course, and this is really the danger in the allegiance which has been formed in the UK amongst the the right and some radical feminists.  Trans critical feminists are the junior partners in this arrangement and if the current campaigning is successful in changing social attitudes towards trans people it will not be feminists who direct how that plays out, but people like David Davies and the Daily Mail.   And that will be a disaster for anyone who is critical of gender because whatever they do it will not be radical and it will not be feminist.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 18, 2018)

Perhaps he was reading some of the shite posted on here this afternoon.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Perhaps he was reading some of the shite posted on here this afternoon.




Poor Jolyon, clearly the victim of trans activist’s misogyny.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 18, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Perhaps he was reading some of the shite posted on here this afternoon.




Most likely this bit he objected to:



> Any left-over funds will go to fight against self-id, against the medicalisation of children and to keep women's spaces female-only, specifically: women's hospital wards, gyny screening, prisons, domestic violence shelters, changing rooms, saunas, spas, sleeper train carriages, scholarships, quotas and national and international women's sports.



Nice little earner's it's been as well seen as it looks like Labour are backing down.  I hope more people didn't miss the fact that this money could end up being used to campaign to prevent trans women accessing support for gender based violence or campaigning against support and treatment for trans children.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 18, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Most likely this bit he objected to:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice little earner's it's been as well seen as it looks like Labour are backing down.  I hope more people didn't miss the fact that this money could end up being used to campaign to prevent trans women accessing support for gender based violence or campaigning against support and treatment for trans children.



It's being refunded, but don't let that stop you getting a good righteous indignation up.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Most likely this bit he objected to:



More likely he read the comments from the shitheads contributing to the fundraiser and it began to sink in who he was associating himself with. They weren’t bothering to soft soap their bigotry or their fanatical hatred as some of the transphobes here half heartedly do.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 18, 2018)

Do you fight this hard for postcode bigotry, Nigel?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 18, 2018)

He won’t; because it isn’t fashionable to actually do class politics.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Do you fight this hard for postcode bigotry, Nigel?



Not everywhere is Britain, Magnus. We don’t use post codes.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 18, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Not everywhere is Britain, Magnus. We don’t use post codes.



The context was explained in my following post.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 18, 2018)

Of course he doesn’t. Because he’s a liberal not a socialist.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> The context was explained in my following post.



The context is what? That nobody who opposes transphobia can be involved in class politics?

Probably 90% plus of the political stuff I’ve been involved in has been straightforward class politics stuff, around council housing, the bin charges, minimum wage, water tax etc. The bulk of the remnant has been supporting abortion rights. I’m always amused though when some clown decides that real socialists have to be socially backwards bigots.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 19, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The context is what? That nobody who opposes transphobia can be involved in class politics?
> 
> Probably 90% plus of the political stuff I’ve been involved in has been straightforward class politics stuff, around council housing, the bin charges, minimum wage, water tax etc. The bulk of the remnant has been supporting abortion rights. I’m always amused though when some clown decides that real socialists have to be socially backwards bigots.



It’s the way you patronise people that spells it all out for me. Keep away from class self organisation. You’re a managerial wanker.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 19, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> It’s the way you patronise people that spells it all out for me. Keep away from class self organisation. You’re a managerial wanker.



I treat bigoted scum as bigoted scum. If they don’t like me, that’s a good thing.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 19, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I treat bigoted scum as bigoted scum. If they don’t like me, that’s a good thing.



Which is why you’re a fully paid up member of irrelevancy.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 19, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Which is why you’re a fully paid up member of irrelevancy.



Why don’t you tell us all about how pandering to bigots has made you relevant?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 19, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Why don’t you tell us all about how pandering to bigots has made you relevant?



I’m pandering to nobody. I’m interested in hearing what everyone has to say.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 19, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I’m pandering to nobody. I’m interested in hearing what everyone has to say.


Lie


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 19, 2018)

Oh come on, the Radge Fem women's bogs stuff is middle class AF.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 19, 2018)

||:d;dp;D


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 19, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> i hope you're feeling better soon  you're unusually good-natured today and it's concerning me.




I know, i might get a rep out of it init


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 19, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> You always make everything about trannies, ffs. You must be a hoot IRL.



I'm really confused. Is the word "trannies" suddenly acceptable now


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 19, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Lie



Have I spoken to you or others the way Nigel has been speaking to women on this thread? Do point out where if I have.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 19, 2018)

smokedout said:


> You are perfectly entitled to question that as is anyone.  But you can't be surprised that trans people might object to an organisation that promotes indivduals who want to take away trans rights and make trans healthcare illegal,  healthcare that in many cases people say has saved their life and which has a large body ofevidence supporting it's effectiveness.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh FFS
Exterminating trans people is the gist of what you and the trans lobby accuses people of doing every time they question some of the medical practices involved especially those involving children (oh, yes, that also means denying them healthcare). You start with the hyperbole and when we point to it you ask about low bars. It doesn't work on me. Look ye here:




Complete with an, oh so very nice elision there allowing for all sorts of reactionary arguments against a woman's right to choose! Brilliant. We shouldn't worry our by now less pretty heads than those of trans women. It's a one off.
Denying their existence is what they call it when people use the wrong pronouns or refuse to accept the notion that subjective feelings have a prior claim to biology. As if that made it true.

In the meantime this:


... goes on. It's another one off, I hear you say, while transforming the fact of Jeffries having made a comment from the floor to a meeting (one of those that had to be kept secret until it started for fear of retaliations against those attending) which gave an opportunity for the audience to speak, into Jeffries having been invited as a speaker. Even the Quakers, the Quakers FFS, have come under fire now for allowing a meeting discussing all of this and more... and you don't want us to be suspicious. It's our defenses being potentially broken down. Not yours.

I'm getting the dialogue and rational discussion that I wanted in the first place and which has been stalinistically denied.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 19, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Have I spoken to you or others the way Nigel has been speaking to women on this thread? Do point out where if I have.


"We're Nazis and therefore our views should not be heard." That's all they mean by pandering. It's meant as to signal a no go area. It does work but only temporarily. It has consequences, some of which serious, such as making words such as "racist" sounding more mere insults rather than statements of a fact of discrimination or prejudice. And it invites backlashes.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 19, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Oh come on, the Radge Fem women's bogs stuff is middle class AF.



Said by someone who never had to run from a creep into a public toilet therefore not having the slightest idea of the horror inherent in contemplating the possibility of said creep being able to follow them in. Obviously, it could only happen to middle class women and those creeps were trans women.


----------



## Sue (Jan 19, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> One of the peculiarities of transphobes in this thread is that they are so used to lying that they keep forgetting that when they lie about other people’s posts in this thread other people can easily see that they are lying.
> 
> Ireland is of significance to this discussion not because anyone is claiming it is a uniquely progressive country. It isn’t, although it does have a much bigger feminist movement than Britain because struggles over women’s rights have been so prominent. It is of significance to this discussion because it has self ID laws of the sort that British TERFs are loudly scaremongering about, it has had them for years, and not one of the terrible consequences TERFs have been predicting has come to pass. Instead of attempting to deal with this unfortunate fact, the transphobes here simply ignore it and repeat over and over again that Ireland has repressive abortion laws. They are dishonest down to their marrow.





Sue said:


> Nigel, are you really calling me a transphobe? I'd be very interested to hear your reasons why.



Nigel Irritable, no response to this? If you're going to call me a transphobe (and a liar) the least you can do is back it up.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 19, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I treat bigoted scum as bigoted scum. If they don’t like me, that’s a good thing.



I suppose it depends on whether you're more concerned about yourself or actually changing people's pov. Seeing how many times you can say bigot in a post doesn't do anything for the latter.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 19, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Said by someone who never had to run from a creep into a public toilet therefore not having the slightest idea of the horror inherent in contemplating the possibility of said creep being able to follow them in. Obviously, it could only happen to middle class women and those creeps were trans women.


Oh, are we actually going there? Ok. I  am a female abuse victim as it happens, I have been touched up on a train once on my own too. My first thought wasn't "where is a public toilet" but if it were, I could use the boys cubicles, disabled toilet as well as the ladies for this purpose, any that has a lock on the door. I would love to know how self ID laws would drastically alter my options here?!? There is no law stopping a man cross dressing and using the ladies bogs now, or just walking into them period. 



But yeah, I can see us working class people rallying around the issue of TRANS WOMEN USING LASSIES BOGS!!! Must try that one at the school gates to test the waters, one of the parents is trans, I can see everyone getting behind me on that one, poll tax style unifying power! 


On another note, could people also not use those of us who are attracted to women as justification for this mad shit either, thaaaaanks. The concerns I had reading that were mainly that it reminded me of how we feel when homophobic women think we are just going to harrass them because we are gay/bi.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 19, 2018)

But it goes to show that people on this thread don t really think someone is going to go through the process of ID'ing as a woman FOR LIFE just to get in the ladies toilets, it's a point being used to scare us. Pretending these are the concerns of actual abuse victims, or lesbians. Mocha's post there made no sense. There's a reason for that, as it is clearly primarily motivated by prejudice. I don't like to throw the word bigot around but it's becoming very difficult not to.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 19, 2018)

Sue said:


> Nigel Irritable, no response to this? If you're going to call me a transphobe (and a liar) the least you can do is back it up.



Sue , as far as I can see, any woman on this thread who dares to ask a question is immediately branded a bigoted TERF by Nigel Irritable .


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 19, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Oh, are we actually going there? Ok. I  am a female abuse victim as it happens, I have been touched up on a train once on my own too. My first thought wasn't "where is a public toilet" but if it were, I could use the boys cubicles, disabled toilet as well as the ladies for this purpose, any that has a lock on the door. I would love to know how self ID laws would drastically alter my options here?!? There is no law stopping a man cross dressing and using the ladies bogs now, or just walking into them period.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh well done.So you think that women like you who happened to be lucky to be able to run into a public toilet should simply somehow unremember those occasions and not be worried or able to ask questions because you weren't so lucky. <<< That was my point as has been my point throughout. I had already expressed a view on public toilets probably in this very thread about how simply redesigning them could make them fit for both men and women using them safely because I have seen it done. What I'm objecting to is the idea that people and especially women should be deemed transphobic just because a few articles in the press make them ask questions and challenge the trans orthodoxy.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 19, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Said by someone who never had to run from a creep into a public toilet therefore not having the slightest idea of the horror inherent in contemplating the possibility of said creep being able to follow them in. Obviously, it could only happen to middle class women and those creeps were trans women.


 Has this happened to you?


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 19, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> But it goes to show that people on this thread don t really think someone is going to go through the process of ID'ing as a woman FOR LIFE just to get in the ladies toilets, it's a point being used to scare us. Pretending these are the concerns of actual abuse victims, or lesbians. Mocha's post there made no sense. There's a reason for that, as it is clearly primarily motivated by prejudice. I don't like to throw the word bigot around but it's becoming very difficult not to.



Oh fuck off. My very allusion to certain creeps not being trans women should have given you an inkling to what I'm getting at.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 19, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Said by someone who never had to run from a creep into a public toilet therefore not having the slightest idea of the horror inherent in contemplating the possibility of said creep being able to follow them in. Obviously, it could only happen to middle class women and those creeps were trans women.


there is nothing to stop someone going into public toilets intended for the opposite sex beyond societal disapproval and one's own ability to repel them, in the almost total absence of toilet attendants.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 19, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Oh well done.So you think that women like you who happened to be lucky to be able to run into a public toilet should simply somehow unremember those occasions and not be worried or able to ask questions because you weren't so lucky. <<< That was my point as has been my point throughout. I had already expressed a view on public toilets probably in this very thread about how simply redesigning them could make them fit for both men and women using them safely because I have seen it done. What I'm objecting to is the idea that people and especially women should be deemed transphobic just because a few articles in the press make them ask questions and challenge the trans orthodoxy.


I didn't run into a public toilet. "Well done" ...eh, thanks? 


MochaSoul said:


> Oh fuck off. My very allusion to certain creeps not being trans women should have given you an inkling to what I'm getting at.


No I really don't know what you are getting at. Is redesigning public toilets a trans issue?


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 19, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Has this happened to you?



Yes, it has, in a club I decided to go to thinking my own group of friends were there and I came out of it with a group women having confided in them about the creep. And we all went and talked to security.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 19, 2018)

You responded to my post about radical feminists opposing self ID laws not generally being a top working class issue, if your post wasn't related to that, I cannot help being confused.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 19, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Is redesigning public toilets a trans issue?


there are so many things wrong with toilet design in general it is much more than just a trans issue.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 19, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Yes, it has, in a club I decided to go to thinking my own group of friends were there and I came out of it with a group women having confided in them about the creep. And we all went and talked to security.


Well done.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 19, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> I didn't run into a public toilet. "Well done" ...eh, thanks?
> 
> No I really don't know what you are getting at. Is redesigning public toilets a trans issue?



Stop with being disingenuous. Well done for thinking other women should shut up and take whatever's given just because you weren't able to escape.
Yes, in my view a simple redesign of public toilets, could make it easier for that particular problem to go away without having to police everyone's sex on entry.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 19, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Well done.



Yes, well done me and the girls and the security guard and whoever barred the bastard afterwards.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 19, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Stop with being disingenuous. Well done for thinking other women should shut up and take whatever's given just because you weren't able to escape.
> Yes, in my view a simple redesign of public toilets, could make it easier for that particular problem to go away without having to police everyone's sex on entry.


I have not suggested women shut up about anything, and since you aren't opposing self ID laws I don't have a problem with what you are suggesting. Why would I? I don't think toilet design fans are bigots, and have said nothing to suggest otherwise.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 19, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Yes, well done me and the girls and the security guard and whoever barred the bastard afterwards.


You started it


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 19, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> What I'm objecting to is the idea that people and especially women should be deemed transphobic just because a few articles in the press make them ask questions and challenge the trans orthodoxy.


What is it about "the trans orthodoxy" you wish to challenge? Are they opposed to better toilet design?


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 19, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> I have not suggested women shut up about anything



No you do it obliquely, "Radge Fems worries about toilets are middle class tosh". Look at what you said and face the dismissal inherent in it.




HoratioCuthbert said:


> and since you aren't opposing self ID laws



I wouldn't be so sure. But it doesn't matter, it's clear you haven't read anything else I have said and because I'm not in love with repeating myself I'll leave you to it.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 19, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> No you do it obliquely, "Radge Fems worries about toilets are middle class tosh". Look at what you said and face the dismissal inherent in it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Right so we aren't just talking better toilet design, I had read what else you were saying but you then told me you simply wanted better toilets, I can't keep up with your constant goal post moving. Yes let's leave it at that.


Dismissal faced and after a re-assessment, still stands. It is Radge Fems worries about Transwomen in their toilets, to be specfic, that I am dismissing.


----------



## Sue (Jan 19, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Sue , as far as I can see, any woman on this thread who dares to ask a question is immediately branded a bigoted TERF by Nigel Irritable .


It does kind of feel that way which is why I'd like to give Nigel Irritable the chance to give us a better idea of how he arrives at his conclusions.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 19, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Sue , as far as I can see, any woman on this thread who dares to ask a question is immediately branded a bigoted TERF by Nigel Irritable .



It's not just Nigel and posts don't have to include the words TERF or bigot.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 19, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> It's not just Nigel and posts don't have to include the word TERF.


It's just a couple of the others were actually trans themselves, so didn't seem to warrant a response.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 19, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Yes, well done me and the girls and the security guard and whoever barred the bastard afterwards.



Just to be clear, was the _creep _actually trans? This is not clear from what you've said.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 19, 2018)

Seems weird to me that for some reason this always gets dragged back to toilets. 

Toilets really are irrelevant at the moment because in the 250 pages we still haven't agreed on with definitions for:

a) trans
b) woman
c) man
d) gender 

So it seems like everyone's gonna talk past each other. 

There's no point about talking about "trans incusivity" until you can say what exactly it is one is supposed to be including.

You can talk about women only spaces but unless you are using the same definition of woman as the other party the conversation is pointless. 

The history of the first loo in the UK is interesting btw. It was fought for so that women (the female kind) could take part in public life, so they could go to work without being harassed for not staying at home, bringing up the kids or confirming to your sex role.

It was eventually burnt down by a group of angry men.

I'd like to think that we've moved past those days, but I'm not so sure. The stereotypes still persist and the feminist movement on the grabs scheme of things is still quite young.

Anyway, point is if yer not willing to define your terms then how can anyone understand what you're trying to say.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 19, 2018)

And just to add, as far accusations of bigotry go, most women who are against self-id actually WERE fully on bored with it to start with because it seemed like the kind thing to do. Most of us are live and let live types.  Myself included. All those who changed yer mind on issues say "I".

If you are informed by bigotry then hearing the other side, or thinking about your position critically and what the conclusion and facets of that position are, deciding the outcome is nonsensical or undesirable AND THEN changing your mind, is the very opposite of bigotry. Others can have different conclusions and that's fine, but it certainly is not BIGOTRY to disagree, as some would have us think.

For all these accusations of TERF and bigot being peppered about, there ain't much evidence for it.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 19, 2018)

krtek a houby said:


> I'm really confused. Is the word "trannies" suddenly acceptable now


No


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 19, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Sue , as far as I can see, any woman on this thread who dares to ask a question is immediately branded a bigoted TERF by Nigel Irritable .


I haven't been


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 19, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> I haven't been



Did you ask questions?  I only remember you stating that the thread should be binned.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 19, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Did you ask questions?  I only remember you stating that the thread should be binned.


the thread should be binned. It's an awful thread full of awful crap. But i have asked questions (that weren't answered) and i am a woman.

Anyway - whatever i say won't make a jot of difference. The last people the cis want to listen to about trans are trans people. 

You go ahead and work yourself up into a frenzy of fear and contempt for trans people and i'll just carry on my life, and engage with those who support me.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 19, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Did you ask questions?  I only remember you stating that the thread should be binned.



And made her own unfounded allegations of transphobia (amongst other lies).


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 19, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> the thread should be binned. It's an awful thread full of awful crap. But i have asked questions (that weren't answered) and i am a woman.
> 
> Anyway - whatever i say won't make a jot of difference. The last people the cis want to listen to about trans are trans people.
> 
> You go ahead and work yourself up into a frenzy of fear and contempt for trans people and i'll just carry on my life, and engage with those who support me.



Wait, what?

Where have I worked myself up into a frenzy of fear and contempt?

Are you drunk?


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 19, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> the thread should be binned. It's an awful thread full of awful crap. But i have asked questions (that weren't answered) and i am a woman.
> 
> Anyway - whatever i say won't make a jot of difference. The last people the cis want to listen to about trans are trans people.
> 
> You go ahead and work yourself up into a frenzy of fear and contempt for trans people and i'll just carry on my life, and engage with those who support me.



‘The cis’


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 19, 2018)

In the meantime, here's some stuff on what affects the lives of the evil trans orthodoxy agenda mafia: LGBT in Britain - Trans Report


----------



## Sue (Jan 19, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> the thread should be binned. It's an awful thread full of awful crap. But i have asked questions (that weren't answered) and i am a woman.
> 
> Anyway - whatever i say won't make a jot of difference. The last people the cis want to listen to about trans are trans people.
> 
> You go ahead and work yourself up into a frenzy of fear and contempt for trans people and i'll just carry on my life, and engage with those who support me.



I did listen to you/ask your thoughts yesterday but you didn't reply. Which is absolutely your right, but a bit much that you then say people don't want to listen to you.


----------



## Sue (Jan 19, 2018)

Sue said:


> And I'd imagine some women commit suicide over bring denied abortion rights or end up physically/mentally impaired as a result. And that's not counting those who die directly as a result of being refused a termination. I imagine accurate figures for this likely don't exist.
> 
> I also think this assertion is curious -- interested to know your thoughts on why you think this:
> 
> ...



Sea Star


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 19, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> In the meantime, here's some stuff on what affects the lives of the evil trans orthodoxy agenda mafia: LGBT in Britain - Trans Report



That makes really bleak reading.


----------



## Jonti (Jan 19, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> ‘The cis’


... has got quite a different ring to it than "natal women", I'm sure you'll agree.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 19, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> For all these accusations of TERF and bigot being peppered about, there ain't much evidence for it.


to be fair if you are seeking to exclude trans women from women's spaces on any grounds, and are a radical feminist, then you have done enough to earn the title Trans Exclusive Radical Feminist. No? 


Vintage Paw said:


> In the meantime, here's some stuff on what affects the lives of the evil trans orthodoxy agenda mafia: LGBT in Britain - Trans Report


The physical attacks very grim indeed, and no doubt a danger trans women face when entering male-only spaces. 


MadeInBedlam said:


> ‘The cis’


It's just an easy way to say "not trans".


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 19, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> It's just an easy way to say "not trans".



Like ‘the gays/Asians/Mentals etc’ I guess.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 19, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> That makes really bleak reading.



This is the real story:



> 51 per cent of respondents are disabled.



(Page 12, RHS).

Also, 414/871 described themselves as being 'non-binary' or 'trans non-binary'.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 19, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Like ‘the gays/Asians/Mentals etc’ I guess.


No. Cis has been used as a slur plenty of times I agree, but I haven't seen Sea Star display that tendency, she has her back up definitely, as anyone would reading this thread where posts have been increasingly careless in almost-but-not-quite failing to differentiate  between Transwomen and creepy men. Again I am going to label people, but could they not at least make some effort to not wander into the territory where their posts sound pretty prejudiced?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 19, 2018)

No I don't accept that. People get called TERF who are not radical feminists. I hadn't even heard of radical feminism until I started asking about gender identity in anything other than a shallow way. 

Men get called TERFS (but not as frequently), which is bizarre. 

I don't think anyone here being called a TERF even thought they were radicals.

So I don't accept your statement at all.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 19, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> This is the real story:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, 414/871 described themselves as being 'non-binary' or 'trans non-binary'.



The bastards!


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 19, 2018)

I'm cool with Trans Exclusionary Regular Feminist.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 19, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> So I don't accept your statement at all.


They do exist though, forget the radical I would have thought the TE part is what people are mostly objecting to, though it appears to be what they are arguing in favour of. Being a radical feminist is alright, far better than a moderate one. We need fighters not liberals !


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 19, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> I'm cool with Trans Exclusionary Regular Feminist.


I feel bullied into dropping the radge, it's as if they seek to exclude working class Scots too FFS :-D


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 19, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> I feel bullied into dropping the radge, it's as if they seek to exclude working class Scots too FFS :-D


don't drop the radge


----------



## smokedout (Jan 19, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> ... goes on. It's another one off, I hear you say, while transforming the fact of Jeffries having made a comment from the floor to a meeting (one of those that had to be kept secret until it started for fear of retaliations against those attending) which gave an opportunity for the audience to speak, into Jeffries having been invited as a speaker. ]



This is not what I said, I said she had been an invited speaker at a previous meeting held by this organisation, I had no idea she was in Manchester as well, only goes to show how close she is to this group.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 19, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> This is the real story:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If 51% of respondants were disabled, which is a curious statistic and one that very much depends on what measure of disability you use, then even so, why is that the 'real' story.  Is widespread violence, discrimination and abuse a bit boring or something?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 19, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> This is the real story:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


These are the results of a questionnaire, so it would need to be investigated further what that 51% represents. 

I'm with smokedout, though. How you can read that and pick this out as the real story beggars belief. The _real story_ about transgender people that this report highlights is that they are far more likely to be marginalised, vulnerable and discriminated against than the general population. That can get lost in the noise on this thread sometimes.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 19, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> The bastards!



Going back 25 years ago, non-binary didn't really seem to exist on any level at all.


smokedout said:


> If 51% of respondants were disabled, which is a curious statistic and one that very much depends on what measure of disability you use, then even so, why is that the 'real' story.  Is widespread violence, discrimination and abuse a bit boring or something?



It's the real story because it's way out of step with the rest of the population. I think it would be a valid question to ask why so many people identifying as trans consider themselves disabled, to what degree, and by what measurement. Again, when it comes down to identifying needs, we can only do this on the basis of facts.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 19, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Going back 25 years ago, non-binary didn't really seem to exist on any level at all.


Oh did it not now? Or is this the foucauldian it didn't exist because the terminology wasn't there?

Being as we can all recall mirandayardleystatsgate perhaps in the spirit of camden's housing repairs - right first time - you could supply a reputable source to substantiate your claim.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 19, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Oh did it not now? Or is this the foucauldian it didn't exist because the terminology wasn't there?



Maybe that's exactly what was meant.  Ie. it wasn't a "thing".  Not that there weren't people who were whatever non-binary is (still a little foggy on that front - definitions seem to vary).


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 19, 2018)

8ball said:


> Maybe that's exactly what was meant.  Ie. it wasn't a "thing".  Not that there weren't people who were whatever non-binary is (still a little foggy on that front - definitions seem to vary).


Let's give the liar Yardley a minute or two to try to cobble together something convincing


----------



## smokedout (Jan 19, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Going back 25 years ago, non-binary didn't really seem to exist on any level at all.
> 
> 
> It's the real story because it's way out of step with the rest of the population. I think it would be a valid question to ask why so many people identifying as trans consider themselves disabled, to what degree, and by what measurement. Again, when it comes down to identifying needs, we can only do this on the basis of facts.



I think it would be a valid question, particularly if the measure includes things like substance misuse and mental health and would further confirm the marginalisation of trans people.  But it's not the only statistic that is way out of step with the general population and to highlight it as the 'real story' suggests an attempt to undermine what the rest of the report says.

Which is not uncommon amongst some trans critical feminists.  Every time a report is released showing the horrifying violence and discrimination trans people face, and the toll it takes on their health, it is immediately leapt on, torn apart and the slightest details used to undermine any conclusions.  If this happened to a report examining violence faced by women then such hyper-scrutiny would be attacked, rightly, as misogynist.  If it happened to report looking at racial discrimination then those doing it would be accused of racism.  But to even suggest the people doing this to research looking into trans people might be transphobic is silencing all women who just want to have a conversation.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 19, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> It's the real story because it's way out of step with the rest of the population. I think it would be a valid question to ask why so many people identifying as trans consider themselves disabled, to what degree, and by what measurement. Again, when it comes down to identifying needs, we can only do this on the basis of facts.


Lots of the stats on that report are way out of step with the general population. I agree that it is valid to drill down into what that figure means, and it would also be valid to compare the stats one half to the other, disabled/not disabled, to see if the problems people are facing might also correlate with other factors in addition to being transgender.

It still isn't _the real story here_, though. There are lots of different ways in which those findings could be interrogated further to produce a more detailed picture.


----------



## bimble (Jan 19, 2018)

What does non binary mean ffs. Who is 'binary'? 
(apart from Barbie, obvs).


----------



## andysays (Jan 19, 2018)

Sue said:


> Nigel, are you really calling me a transphobe? I'd be very interested to hear your reasons why.



Nigel Irritable is apparently calling *everyone* on this thread and elsewhere who disagrees with him not only a transphobe but a TERF as well, regardless of whether they are actually trans-exclusionary in any meaningful sense, or whether they are explicitly feminist or even whether they are actually that radical, although given that he's a longterm member of the Socialist Party, aka Committee for a Workers' International, it's perhaps understandable that he's rather inclined to such extreme dismissal of anyone who dares the slightest disagreement with his dogma, regardless of the accuracy of his characterisation.

He seemingly has a bit of an obsession


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 19, 2018)

smokedout said:


> I think it would be a valid question, particularly if the measure includes things like substance and mental health and would further confirm the marginalisation of trans people.  But it's not the only statistic that is way out of step with the general population and to highlight it as the 'real story' suggests an attempt to undermine what the rest of the report says.
> 
> Which is not uncommon amongst some trans critical feminists.  Every time a report is released showing the horrifying violence and duscrimination trans people face, and the toll it takes on their health, it is immediately leapt on, torn apart and the slightest details used to undermine any conclusions.  If this happened to report examining violence faced by women then such hyper-scrutiny would be attacked, rightly, as misogynist.  If it happened to report looking at racial discrimination then those doing it would be accused of racism.  But to even suggest the people doing this to research looking into trans people might be transphobic is silencing all women who just want to have a conversation.



You seem intent on reframing everything I say as being an attack on trans people. I find this utterly bizarre.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 19, 2018)

bimble said:


> What does non binary mean ffs. Who is 'binary'?
> (apart from Barbie, obvs).



We are all non-binary, as none of us are one-dimensional characters.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 19, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> We are all non-binary, as none of us are one-dimensional characters.


I thought we were all either male or female, as a question of biological fact. That seems pretty binary to me.

ETA:

I don't consider myself to be non-binary fwiw. I don't think there is any meaningful sense in which I am anything other than a man. Doesn't mean I'm somehow 'a man's man', bursting withe stereotypical manliness. Amazingly enough it is possible to reject socially constructed gender stereotypes without considering yourself to be somehow 'gender variant'. That's where it is a great pity that this chasm has been created - many gender-critical people who reject trans identity might find that their worst fears about maintaining stereotypes are not borne out among those who don't share their rejection. It is possible to be both highly critical of how gender works and trans-inclusive. Many people are.


----------



## bimble (Jan 19, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> We are all non-binary, as none of us are one-dimensional characters.


Well you'd hope so.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 19, 2018)

On the subject of transgender people working in health care- we quite often have to deal with people who may not be comfortable with either male or female carers, or a particular carer, I have also heard of a veteran with dementia who had been a POW freaking out if he heard a particular accent. I think health professionals are very used to adapting to this of situation quickly and it would likely be better to leave us to handle situations like that as they come rather than trying to direct us with some arbitrary legislation, as there's all sorts of scenarios that patients can be uncomfortable with so we kind of need the flexibility to get it right for each person. As for risk of abuse, we can't possibly rank somebody as being more likely to commit abuse on the basis of their gender orientation. I hope no one is arguing otherwise.




Miranda Yardley said:


> Going back 25 years ago, non-binary didn't really seem to exist on any level at all.
> 
> 
> It's the real story because it's way out of step with the rest of the population. I think it would be a valid question to ask why so many people identifying as trans consider themselves disabled, to what degree, and by what measurement. Again, when it comes down to identifying needs, we can only do this on the basis of facts.


There appears to be be higher rates of autism amongst the trans population so that could account for some of it, and "severe gender dysphoria" can also meet the requirements to be regarded as a disability according to disability.co.uk. It's a PDF thingy and I'm struggling to share it on this wonky tablet.


8ball said:


> Maybe that's exactly what was meant.  Ie. it wasn't a "thing".  Not that there weren't people who were whatever non-binary is (still a little foggy on that front - definitions seem to vary).


I don't think so, it was described as being "the real story" almost as if to say we should be dismissing the other grim statistics on that basis.




bimble said:


> What does non binary mean ffs. Who is 'binary'?
> (apart from Barbie, obvs).


Well I personally have never suspected I was anything other than female, despite never conforming to gender stereotypes in the slightest. I can't speak for non binary folks but having caught flack from gay and straight people for being bi, I can only imagine what it's like for them trying to explain it to people. I have had lots of people(more so gay than straight to be honest) tell me sexuality isn't on a spectrum, I must choose. It's one of those things, if it doesn't apply to you you don't know what it is like.
But I have just given up been out of the closet in that regard, you get tired of explaning yourself.


ETA: I totally agree with Mation when she said gender was something she felt, race not so much.

ETA2: What I mean to say is don't remotely see myself as being a bit male, a bit female. I am a woman. Seems binary AF to me.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 19, 2018)

smokedout said:


> I think it would be a valid question, particularly if the measure includes things like substance and mental health and would further confirm the marginalisation of trans people.  But it's not the only statistic that is way out of step with the general population and to highlight it as the 'real story' suggests an attempt to undermine what the rest of the report says.
> 
> Which is not uncommon amongst some trans critical feminists.  Every time a report is released showing the horrifying violence and duscrimination trans people face, and the toll it takes on their health, it is immediately leapt on, torn apart and the slightest details used to undermine any conclusions.  If this happened to report examining violence faced by women then such hyper-scrutiny would be attacked, rightly, as misogynist.  If it happened to report looking at racial discrimination then those doing it would be accused of racism.  But to even suggest the people doing this to research looking into trans people might be transphobic is silencing all women who just want to have a conversation.



This is a good example of what I'm talking about.  Two studies, admittedly one with a very small sample, which both show around half of trans children have attempted suicide.  What purpose does undemining this claim serve?  Why nitpick about self selection in the second study as if that renders the results completely invalid.  Why not mention that studies in Australia and the US have found similar results?  Even if these reports are a couple of percentage points out so fucking what, isn't the real story that there is a very serious problem concerning trans children's mental health?

Or perhaps the purpose in undermining these reports is that the evidence such as it is shows that kids who have treatment or who have parents who support their acquired gender do much better.  This is children's lives people are gambling with, and ideology is trumping evidence.

(edited because I forgot to link to what I was talking about)


----------



## 8ball (Jan 19, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> We are all non-binary, as none of us are one-dimensional characters.



That kind of renders the term obsolete, then.


----------



## bimble (Jan 19, 2018)

8ball said:


> That kind of renders the term obsolete, then.


Unless you are someone who seriousuly thinks that binary humans exist, people who adhere perfectly to some static stereotype of femininity / manliness, and that you are a rare flower who is not one of them, then yep.


----------



## andysays (Jan 19, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> the thread should be binned. It's an awful thread full of awful crap. But i have asked questions (that weren't answered) and i am a woman.
> 
> Anyway - whatever i say won't make a jot of difference. The last people the cis want to listen to about trans are trans people.
> 
> You go ahead and work yourself up into a frenzy of fear and contempt for trans people and i'll just carry on my life, and engage with those who support me.



Do you have any idea what a whiney self-centred cunt you come across as in pretty much every fucking post you make, on this and every other subject?

(that's a rhetorical question, BTW; the answer is clearly "no")


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 19, 2018)

andysays said:


> Do you have any idea what a whiney self-centred cunt you come across as in pretty much every fucking post you make, on this and every other subject?
> 
> (that's a rhetorical question, BTW; the answer is clearly "no")



Fucking hell. Is that really necessary?


----------



## RainbowTown (Jan 19, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> can't speak for non binary folks but having caught flack from gay and straight people for being bi, I can only imagine what it's like for them trying to explain it to people. I have had lots of people(more so gay than straight to be honest) tell me sexuality isn't on a spectrum, I must choose. It's one of those things, if it doesn't apply to you you don't know what it is like.
> But I have just given up been out of the closet in that regard, you get tired of explaning yourself.



I think that's a fair point. Some of my gay friends have a real bee in their bonnet about people who class themselves as bisexual (not me, I hasten to add). It's like you have to 'own' your homosexuality and not 'betray' it.  All totally ridiculous in my view. People's sexuality can be fluid and there's nothing wrong with that.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 19, 2018)

Ireland, that pinnacle of transrights, doesn't allow transwomen into women's prisons. So I guess they don't believe that transwomen are actually women after all. 

I have never had any flack at all for being bisexual. Then again, I don't bang on about it all the time. In fact, this is probably the first time I've mentioned it in 10 years on this board. Unless I'm in a long term relationship with someone, it's irrelevant


----------



## JimW (Jan 19, 2018)

I'm a extremely one-dimensional person and I don't appreciate being erased in this way.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 19, 2018)

JimW said:


> I'm a extremely one-dimensional person and I don't appreciate being erased in this way.



He is, I’ve seen him.

He’s just a line.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 19, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Ireland, that pinnacle of transrights, doesn't allow transwomen into women's prisons. So I guess they don't believe that transwomen are actually women after all.
> 
> I have never had any flack at all for being bisexual. Then again, I don't bang on about it all the time. In fact, this is probably the first time I've mentioned it in 10 years on this board. Unless I'm in a long term relationship with someone, it's irrelevant


I don't bang on it about at all as I said, this mainly happened to me during the period I was in a opposite sex relationship following a same sex one, about 15 years ago. It was worse than coming out the first time. I brought it up for context, but I think it's ok for people to bring it up as often as they like. Have I said something that offends you?


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 19, 2018)

I'M BISEXUAL URBAN 


WASTING YOUR BANDWIDTH WITH PATHETIC  STORIES  ABOUT MY SEXUALITY


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 19, 2018)

It's gonna blow some people's minds when they find out that trans people can be gender critical.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 19, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> I'M BISEXUAL URBAN
> 
> 
> WASTING YOUR BANDWIDTH WITH PATHETIC  STORIES  ABOUT MY SEXUALITY



Captain Jack Harkness needs to lay off the caps lock a bit.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 19, 2018)

8ball said:


> Captain Jack Harkness needs to lay off the caps lock a bit.


THE GAY AGENDA ON DR WHO


----------



## trashpony (Jan 19, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> I don't bang on it about at all as I said, this mainly happened to me during the period I was in a opposite sex relationship following a same sex one, about 15 years ago. It was worse than coming out the first time. I brought it up for context, but I think it's ok for people to bring it up as often as they like. Have I said something that offends you?


I don't know you, I know nothing about you. You haven't offended me at all - you just triggered a thought. What an odd thing to write.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 19, 2018)

JimW said:


> I'm a extremely one-dimensional person and I don't appreciate being erased in this way.


You might appreciate meditation 1 in knowledge lecture 1 of the g.'.d.'.


First Knowledge Lecture - Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 19, 2018)

It's a bit of an odd thing to say, "I don't bang on about being bi and I don't get flak." I mean, good for you?

Biphobia, especially from gay people, is well documented. It's a freaking scourge of the LGBT community (such as there is one). It's pretty great if you've never experienced that, but to imply if someone just kept their sexuality to themselves they wouldn't bring on the biphobia themselves is shitty.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 19, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Fucking hell. Is that really necessary?



Most of us might get a bit self pitying or angry if a dozen strangers spent 200 plus pages debating our rights, if we are who we say we are, how we are treated. The transphobes here are revolting, empathy-free, shitheads who delight in cruelty to a deeply oppressed and marginalised minority. Which is why there should be no friendly debates with them, just encouragement to speed up their journeys out of the broad left.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 19, 2018)

smokedout said:


> If 51% of respondants were disabled, which is a curious statistic and one that very much depends on what measure of disability you use, then even so, why is that the 'real' story.  Is widespread violence, discrimination and abuse a bit boring or something?




i was gonna question this but i am out of fucks


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 19, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> i was gonna question this but i am out of fucks


This, I am done. Pinot grigio, cheers!


Nigel Irritable said:


> Most of us might get a bit self pitying or angry if a dozen strangers spent 200 plus pages debating our rights, if we are who we say we are, how we are treated. The transphobes here are revolting, empathy-free, shitheads who delight in cruelty to a deeply oppressed and marginalised minority. Which is why there should be no friendly debates with them, just encouragement to speed up their journeys out of the broad left.


I would't agree with that entirely although I am less concerned with "The left" these days and more into thinking about community based stuff, though I am new to this kind of thinking. Transphobia within working class communities for example is always there but can be overcome to some degree- the Trans fella for example where I live is very well integrated in a community that the left here tend to write off, lefties vs idiots sort of mentality.   It's the TERF "academics" with platforms that worry me the most, I find your more everyday transphobia is far easier to tackle sometimes with just simple exposure to actual transgender folks- I do not wish to make light of the violence they encounter though, more hoping to build on what I have seen working in the past. The more resistance we have to transphobia the better it will be for everyone so best to try and engage people as far as possible.  At this point wine is kicking in so I am going to cease to make sense soon, if not already FIN! 


ETA I mentioned working class communities because it's what I know, can't speak with authority on anything else really !


----------



## elbows (Jan 19, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> It's a bit of an odd thing to say, "I don't bang on about being bi and I don't get flak." I mean, good for you?
> 
> Biphobia, especially from gay people, is well documented. It's a freaking scourge of the LGBT community (such as there is one). It's pretty great if you've never experienced that, but to imply if someone just kept their sexuality to themselves they wouldn't bring on the biphobia themselves is shitty.



And occasionally on brief on display to the wider public via the media when the likes of Christopher Biggins make fools of themselves by spouting biphobic shite.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jan 19, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> the thread should be binned. It's an awful thread full of awful crap. But i have asked questions (that weren't answered) and i am a woman.
> 
> Anyway - whatever i say won't make a jot of difference. The last people the cis want to listen to about trans are trans people.
> 
> You go ahead and work yourself up into a frenzy of fear and contempt for trans people and i'll just carry on my life, and engage with those who support me.


I do want to listen to trans people. 

I keep reading this car crash of a thread in the vague hope I might learn something. There lots of things I've never really thought about or understood and I would like to know more, but I really don't think I'm going to learn much here.

From the chunks of this thread I've read, trans people's voices are being drowned out by a load of people with very little experience or knowledge and various amounts of fear and loathing.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 19, 2018)

It hasn't *all* been car crash tbf.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 19, 2018)

8ball said:


> It hasn't *all* been car crash tbf.


Yeh but the bits that have been have been the best bits

#urbanatitsfinest


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 19, 2018)

8ball said:


> It hasn't *all* been car crash tbf.



I don't think it's all been a car crash either. There seems to be a strong push to describe it as such though - if you rubbish it, of course you won't learn anything.


----------



## crossthebreeze (Jan 19, 2018)

bimble said:


> What does non binary mean ffs. Who is 'binary'?
> (apart from Barbie, obvs).


It varies.
Some people id as non binary because they have body-based gender dysphoria such that they want treatment, but don't want to id as, the gender they would be medically be transitioning towards.
Some (but by no means all) intersex people id as non binary
Some people who id as non-binary wouldn't feel accepted/as if they pass as either a man or a woman, because they have a very androgenous appearance, or can pass as a man and woman in different circumstances (but not everyone who experiences this ids as non-binary).
And probably lots of non-binary people are just trying to navigate their place in the world the best they can.
And others would describe themselves as having a specific kind of gender identity.

Some non-binary people have always existed (even if they didn't use those specific words), and the concept that that is a way that you can id has only really happened in the last 25 years - beginning with radical queers in the 90s.  I do think that part of the reason why some people id as non binary is because of a different way of looking at the world that's developed since then, and I've certainly come across people who pretty much say they must be non binary purely because they don't perfectly fit a gender stereotype, or who seem to have confused the concept of gender identity for personality, or politics or being a bit punk for identity (btw i'm partly talking about my younger self here). I also think there are some issues where non-binary people's needs and women's needs clash (especially where people try to be accommodating so they look inclusive but do it on the cheap and without much thought).

Whatever my concerns though, its clear that if half of the people in that survey are non-binary (and not all of the non-binary people id as trans), that non binary people experience a lot of shit - whether its specifically because of their non-binary identity or trans status, or because of their appearance or way of being (which would be the same regardless of identity), or whether the shit happened earlier in their life and contributed to them iding as non-binary. So its not something that can just be dismissed.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 19, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> It's a bit of an odd thing to say, "I don't bang on about being bi and I don't get flak." I mean, good for you?
> 
> Biphobia, especially from gay people, is well documented. It's a freaking scourge of the LGBT community (such as there is one). It's pretty great if you've never experienced that, but to imply if someone just kept their sexuality to themselves they wouldn't bring on the biphobia themselves is shitty.



Years ago I got a finger wagging on here from someone (bi I think, ironically enough) for referring to a ‘gay community’. And yet here it’s being referred to, and I didn’t invent it myself.
And that’s one of the major hurdles for lowly ciswhitehetmales such as myself. We say one thing out of politeness only to be told it’s impolite and then it switches again some time later.
Something similar is happening in trans ideology here - in that we we’re supposed to agree wholeheartedly or be forever branded yet the view can change in a matter of weeks.
What are we supposed to be agreeing with?


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jan 19, 2018)

Red Cat said:


> I don't think it's all been a car crash either. There seems to be a strong push to describe it as such though - if you rubbish it, of course you won't learn anything.


what I have mostly learned on this thread is that there are some new ways of insulting people.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 19, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Years ago I got a finger wagging on here from someone (bi I think, ironically enough) for referring to a ‘gay community’. And yet here it’s being referred to, and I didn’t invent it myself.
> And that’s one of the major hurdles for lowly ciswhitehetmales such as myself. We say one thing out of politeness only to be told it’s impolite and then it switches again some time later.
> Something similar is happening in trans ideology here - in that we we’re supposed to agree wholeheartedly or be forever branded yet the view can change in a matter of weeks.
> What are we supposed to be agreeing with?


What are we supposed to be agreeing with? Don't even go there, mm, you don't want to open that can of worms


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 19, 2018)

friendofdorothy said:


> I do want to listen to trans people.
> 
> I keep reading this car crash of a thread in the vague hope I might learn something. There lots of things I've never really thought about or understood and I would like to know more, but I really don't think I'm going to learn much here.
> 
> From the chunks of this thread I've read, trans people's voices are being drowned out by a load of people with very little experience or knowledge and various amounts of fear and loathing.



All of the women expressing their views have a lifetime of experience as women. I assume you don’t mean them?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 19, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> What are we supposed to be agreeing with? Don't even go there, mm, you don't want to open that can of worms



I’m just pointing out that even if you do go along with something you end up being wrong at a later point in time.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jan 19, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> All of the women expressing their views have a lifetime of experience as women. I assume you don’t mean them?


I have a lifetimes experience as a women too - and an adult lifetime as a feminist - but it doesn't mean I know much about trans issues. What little I know I learned from transwomen and transmen I have met and listened to. 

Mr McGinty please don't assume anything.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 19, 2018)

friendofdorothy said:


> I have a lifetimes experience as a women too - and an adult lifetime as a feminist - but it doesn't mean I know much about trans issues. What little I know I learned from transwomen and transmen I have met and listened to.
> 
> Mr McGinty please don't assume anything.



There was no assumption. The women expressing their views aren’t pretending to be experts on trans issues, they’re discussing how the GRA might impact on themselves. 
They should be listened to, no?


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 19, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> There was no assumption. The women expressing their views aren’t pretending to be experts on trans issues, they’re discussing how the GRA might impact on themselves.
> They should be listened to, no?



Fairly sure we all listened to each other and explained at length why we didn't agree.  Is that ok? 
For someone critical of idpol you aren't half going for the whole shut up and listen thing like buggery. Shut up and listen to Magnus's preferred women! Lol.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 19, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Fairly sure we all listened to each other and explained at length why we didn't agree.  Is that ok?
> For someone critical of idpol you aren't half going for the whole shut up and listen thing like buggery. Shut up and listen to Magnus's preferred women! Lol.



Well that was a bit of a misreading there. I was objecting to the suggestion that only trans have ‘experience’ of being trans so should be prioritised; despite the GRA affecting others. 
I have no preference between trans and ‘cis’ tbh, but I’m fuming that the book fair has now ended over this shit. Those twitter cunts aren’t even communists.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 19, 2018)

another vote for car crash


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 19, 2018)

Red Cat said:


> I don't think it's all been a car crash either. There seems to be a strong push to describe it as such though - if you rubbish it, of course you won't learn anything.




basically i dunno if you are aware of this but you come across as a right twat on here, so of course you think loads of crap about trans people is brilliant
and you got the audacity to sit there and say we wont learn anything if we rubbish it? o rly tell us more about that, you dont seem to want to learn fuck all or have yer opinion changed

waste.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 20, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> basically i dunno if you are aware of this but you come across as a right twat on here, so of course you think loads of crap about trans people is brilliant
> and you got the audacity to sit there and say we wont learn anything if we rubbish it? o rly tell us more about that, you dont seem to want to learn fuck all or have yer opinion changed
> 
> waste.



What opinion? I'm not sure what I think, I don't have a fixed opinion. I thought that vid you posted ages ago was really interesting. I think there's been a lot of thought provoking posts aswell as lots of shit, and if it just gets called a car crash then some good stuff gets missed too. I do have questions, particularly around the increase in referrals to camhs clinics, and I'm trying to think about that, maybe in a too abstract way that comes over less thoughtfully than i had intended, that's possible. So yeh, maybe I do come over as a twat.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 20, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> You seem intent on reframing everything I say as being an attack on trans people. I find this utterly bizarre.



I wonder what gave me that impression/


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 20, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> It's a bit of an odd thing to say, "I don't bang on about being bi and I don't get flak." I mean, good for you?
> 
> Biphobia, especially from gay people, is well documented. It's a freaking scourge of the LGBT community (such as there is one). It's pretty great if you've never experienced that, but to imply if someone just kept their sexuality to themselves they wouldn't bring on the biphobia themselves is shitty.



Oh definitely. I've "banged on" about it here before. It shouldn't surprise people that such phobias exist within LGBT circles. Nor, I guess, should we be surprised that the word "trannies" is being used here. Saddened, more like.


----------



## Mation (Jan 20, 2018)

andysays said:


> Do you have any idea what a whiney self-centred cunt you come across as in pretty much every fucking post you make, on this and every other subject?
> 
> (that's a rhetorical question, BTW; the answer is clearly "no")


Fuck the fuck off, with that. That is such a nasty post. What happened to you to make you so devoid of empathy? (Rhetorical question; I don't want to know.)


----------



## Mation (Jan 20, 2018)

221 pages in. Have we done hurting people yet in the name of allowing the curious to debate the legitimacy of other people's lives?


----------



## Athos (Jan 20, 2018)

Mation said:


> 221 pages in. Have we done hurting people yet in the name of allowing the curious to debate the legitimacy of other people's lives?



What do you mean be "[debating] the legitimacy of other people's lives"?

Because, we hear words like 'legitimacy' (and e.g. 'validity') often in these discussions. But it's not clear what they mean. It sometimes comes across as a manipulative way to control (prevent) discussion by mischaracterising others' positions.  It's quite possible to discuss what gender is and what it means to be a woman or a man without saying others lives are not legitimate or valid (whatever that means). Choosing not to subscribe to somebody else's attempt to redefine a word does not delegitimatise them as a person.  And disagreeing with someone is not akin to trying to 'exterminate' them, as some of the more hyperbolic trans rhetoric suggests.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 20, 2018)

Mation said:


> 221 pages in. Have we done hurting people yet in the name of allowing the curious to debate the legitimacy of other people's lives?


If you examine the broader context, you could see this thread as the inevitable response to people discovering that they aren’t even allowed to voice their genuine concerns — whether they be practical or socio-psychological — without getting the kind of response we see from either Nigel Irritable (“you’re all bigots”) or Sea Star (“you all hate me and want to exterminate me”). Silencing people works for a while and allows your cause to build up a head of steam but eventually all those repressed issues burst out as a backlash.

I genuinely have no idea where I stand on the whole phenomenon of transgenderism.  I’m torn between respecting the fact that people are forged in their environment and need to be allowed to live in the way they have been made (however that has been done) and an intuitive concern about the inherently reactionary way that acceptability for transgender people is being approached.  I think it’s complicated, basically.

But one thing I am sure of is that for a while, I have been increasingly concerned at seeing structures designed to overcome female inequality becoming dominated instead by trans activism.  At first, I told myself to look the other way, because this was important to have out too and it would work its way through.  But now, we have trans activists in the Labour Party taking on Women’s Officer roles and using that to try to prevent women from using the equality structures that exist to help them just because those women refuse to define themselves according to the philosophy of the trans activist.  That kind of aggressive push to dominate women’s political space cannot happen without the kind of inevitable fight back this thread has primarily been focussed on.

I don’t see the likes of FabricLiveBaby!, bimble, MochaSoul or ElizabethofYork as trying to prevent trans women from living their lives as women.  I see them reacting to having their own protections as a marginalised group — namely women in a patriarchal society — be undermined.  That’s what this thread is all about.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 20, 2018)

I'm not just curious, I work in a clinic where young trans people are being referred in increasing numbers and this is quite new. The level of distress amongst all young people who get referred to CAMHS is very high because there's fuck all funding and the thresholds are therefore very high. I do have an interest in classification systems which can come over as quite academic, I suppose, although I think of it as political, as it effects all the young people I see, all young people in education, my own children and their friends, and myself, everyone. 

I think there is a tension between discussing the issues as wider social issues and the risk that it further marginalises an already marginalised group and that people feel talked about rather than talked to. I'm not into saying stuff to avoid conflict but I don't want to cause distress either so I'm happy to leave the conversation.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 20, 2018)

Red Cat said:


> I'm not into saying stuff to avoid conflict but I don't want to cause distress either so I'm happy to leave the conversation.


Please don’t.  I think you have valuable insight and I think it’s a conversation that needs to happen.


----------



## bimble (Jan 20, 2018)

Feels to me like its not possible to have a conversation abut this at present. You can't have a conversation when its seen as bigotry or even violence to seek clarity on something as basic as what does Gender Identity mean.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 20, 2018)

kabbes said:


> I don’t see the likes of FabricLiveBaby!, bimble, MochaSoul or ElizabethofYork as trying to prevent trans women from living their lives as women. I see them reacting to having their own protections as a marginalised group — namely women in a patriarchal society — be undermined. That’s what this thread is all about.



As I said before, most women on the left who come to see self identification as problematic (for lack of a better word), were at one point fully supportive.

What happens usually is that you ask a question that you really don't get (in my case, it was the idea of gender identity as innate, because I really do not have one, and even if I did, how would I know that's what it is), the reaction to me simply stating "I don't get it, can someone explain it to me" and not finding the explanation convincing was:

This is transmisogynist (a new word I'd never heard)
Don't be a TERF (a very bad thing) 
Go educate yourself

Simply for admitting what a lot of people don't admit which is : I'm sorry, I don't get it.

So I did. I went and educated myself. Weighed up the arguments and found out that those awful TERFs I didn't like had actually a lot of interesting stuff and quite well reasoned things to say.

For me what is interesting is that there seems to be a one way flow. People start neutral, and someone asks them if they're in favour of trans rights and they say "of course"!  So they're on the side of GRA and transactivism (because, why not, what's the problem), then they hear something they don't get, or something doesn't sit right but are too afraid to ask because they're very aware of the way "cis scum" and "awful TERFs" are talked about, and how people are ostracised for having wrong think so they stay quiet, but it still doesn't sit right so eventually they ask questions, then they get told to fuck off and read about it, get blocked by people they thought were cool, and then end up changing their position because there are too many inconsistencies which no one seems to be able to answer.

It's very rare (infact I haven't seen it) going the other way, wherever people are anti GRA and come out being pro.

Now either all the people in the one way flow are bigots undercover, or there's a problem with the way the debate is held from the outset.

You can see it in this thread. No one wants to be labelled a bigot and incendiary language has been rife of this thread from the very start.

It's quite clever and in my opinion does its job very well of scaring people in to silence. And that's why you get these explosive discussions.

You can only keep the pressure from blowing the lid off for so long.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 20, 2018)

Wise words kabbes .  I was pretty peturbed at being labelled as a bigot and a TERF.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 20, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Wise words kabbes .  I was pretty peturbed at being labelled as a bigot and a TERF.



It happens to everyone eventually. It's like death or taxes. Even Jack Monroe got called one because she called herself trans AND a woman (labelling herself non-binary gender-queer trans woman and forgetting the commas) . Which is erasing  transwomen by claiming a label which supposedly isn't for Jack, ironically.


----------



## JimW (Jan 20, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> As I said before, most women on the left who come to see self identification as problematic (for lack of a better word), were at one point fully supportive.
> 
> What happens usually is that you ask a question that you really don't get (in my case, it was the idea of gender identity as innate, because I really do not have one, and even if I did, how would I know that's what it is), the reaction to me simply stating "I don't get it, can someone explain it to me" and not finding the explanation convincing was:
> 
> ...


Very much how it's been for me. Good luck and appropriate rights for all but then hearing some of the gender theory that's patently bollocks and on the face of it pretty damaging gives you pause.


----------



## Sue (Jan 20, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Wise words kabbes .  I was pretty peturbed at being labelled as a bigot and a TERF.



Yep. I was called a transphobe and a liar and the person doing so (Nigel Irritable) still hasn't told me why.

If I called someone a racist or a homophobe or whatever else and couldn't or wouldn't back it up, they'd have every right to be extremely fucked off about it. 

But different rules seem to be at work here. Seems you can smear people and then just refuse to explain/engage any further. I think that's extremely damaging.

As MochaSoul said above, I absolutely started from a completely inclusive view on this. Then asking a few questions/trying to understand the issues further in good faith apparently makes me a transphobe. I find that utterly depressing tbh.


----------



## crossthebreeze (Jan 20, 2018)

kabbes said:


> If you examine the broader context, you could see this thread as the inevitable response to people discovering that they aren’t even allowed to voice their genuine concerns — whether they be practical or socio-psychological — without getting the kind of response we see from either Nigel Irritable (“you’re all bigots”) or Sea Star (“you all hate me and want to exterminate me”). Silencing people works for a while and allows your cause to build up a head of steam but eventually all those repressed issues burst out as a backlash.


I agree with you for most of what you've written here, but i think that Sea Star has made some valuable contributions to the conversation in between flounces - not at all the same as Nigel Irritable who has pretty much admitted that his "bigots" diatribe is because he wants to silence people who disagree (especially it seems certain women) out of the conversation.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2018)

Sue said:


> Yep. I was called a transphobe and a liar and the person doing so (Nigel Irritable) still hasn't told me why.
> 
> If I called someone a racist or a homophobe or whatever else and couldn't or wouldn't back it up, they'd have every right to be extremely fucked off about it.
> 
> ...


I think a great difficulty about this is that sometimes the categories people want to fit in don't fit them without great difficulty. People have pointed out men transitioning to women have missed some defining experiences natal women have had. Without denigrating trans people's experiences perhaps new categories need to be created to accommodate people who don't seem to fit comfortably, from their pov, in their birth gender, nor, from many other people's pov, in their trans one. Maybe I'm wrong, quite possibly in fact, but I don't feel saying people are x or y when they may be z is doing anyone any favours.


----------



## Mation (Jan 20, 2018)

kabbes said:


> If you examine the broader context, you could see this thread as the inevitable response to people discovering that they aren’t even allowed to voice their genuine concerns — whether they be practical or socio-psychological — without getting the kind of response we see from either Nigel Irritable (“you’re all bigots”) or Sea Star (“you all hate me and want to exterminate me”). Silencing people works for a while and allows your cause to build up a head of steam but eventually all those repressed issues burst out as a backlash.
> 
> I genuinely have no idea where I stand on the whole phenomenon of transgenderism.  I’m torn between respecting the fact that people are forged in their environment and need to be allowed to live in the way they have been made (however that has been done) and an intuitive concern about the inherently reactionary way that acceptability for transgender people is being approached.  I think it’s complicated, basically.
> 
> ...


You're explaining this thread to me why, exactly? I'm capable of reading, ta, and I've already seen the broader context. And I've seen conversations about this in which questions are asked that are not predicated on an underlying belief that trans women are not women; they look very different. This thread, however, is part of what drives people to feel suicidal.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 20, 2018)

Mation said:


> You're explaining this thread to me why, exactly? I'm capable of reading, ta, and I've already seen the broader context. And I've seen conversations about this in which questions are asked that are not predicated on an underlying belief that trans women are not women; they look very different. This thread, however, is part of what drives people to feel suicidal.


So your view is that the contributions that have sustained this thread are motivated by what, exactly?  The post I quoted stated that the motivation was "curiosity" about the "legitimacy of other people's lives".  That's what you still think, upon response and reflection?


----------



## Mation (Jan 20, 2018)

kabbes said:


> So your view is that the contributions that have sustained this thread are motivated by what, exactly?  The post I quoted stated that the motivation was "curiosity" about the "legitimacy of other people's lives".  That's what you still think, upon reflection and response?


They (the contributions) aren't homogeneous, but as I said in my previous post many are coming from an underlying disbelief that trans people, trans women in particular, aren't right about themselves.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 20, 2018)

Mation said:


> They (the contributions) aren't homogeneous, but as I said in my previous post many are coming from an underlying disbelief that trans people, trans women in particular, are right about themselves.


OK.  Well, I disagree with you on that, which was why I made this point in the post you have objected to.  And you objected to the mere existence of my post, note, not responded to its susbstance ("You're explaining this thread to me why, exactly?  I'm capable of reading, ta...").


----------



## Mation (Jan 20, 2018)

kabbes said:


> OK.  Well, I disagree with you on that, which was why I made this point in the post you have objected to.  And you objected to the mere existence of my post, note, not responded to its susbstance ("You're explaining this thread to me why, exactly?  I'm capable of reading, ta...").


Your post didn't say anything new to respond to, it just summarised this thread from your point of view. It was already possible to glean that from the thread. Hence me asking why you were bothering. I understand the thread. I think it should stop anyway.


----------



## Sunset Tree (Jan 20, 2018)

Trans issues haven't been much on my radar until I started reading this thread and got interested.  But I've always had this vague idea that TERFS are horrible people, based on hearing it used a slur and not really paying attention.  

Nobody using TERF seems able to engage on even basic points.  It's just catchphrases basically: 'trans _x_ are _x_', 'denying their existence', etc.  You're not allowed to ask, well, what do you mean by gender identity?  Is it innate?  How is a man/woman defined?  Just the basic questions are abuse.

Now when I see TERF, I feel more judgement towards the person using the term, as it gets used as a way to avoid engaging on questions they don't know how to answer.  It's OK not to know all the answers on a complex issue, but doing that is pretty uncool.


----------



## Athos (Jan 20, 2018)

Mation said:


> They (the contributions) aren't homogeneous, but as I said in my previous post many are coming from an underlying disbelief that trans people, trans women in particular, aren't right about themselves.



That's one way to put it. Another would be that people are telling *women* that *they're* wrong about *themselves* (when they assert that what makes them women isn't some 'essence of woman', independent of society or biology).

Can't we take some heat out of the discussion with some more thought about framing?

Surely it's possible to have a sensible debate?  Maybe not with some of the extremists on either side, but between, say, those who condemn violence against trans people, believe they should have adequate facilities, and are courteous in their use of pronouns, but who, ultimately don't think those born and socialised male are women, and those who favour trans inclusion but recognise the value of sex-based measures to help women resist patriarchy?  In a positive way that recognises differences but tries to build solidarity around similarities.


----------



## bimble (Jan 20, 2018)

The thing is that the idea of Gender Identity only works if its universal, is something that everybody has, not just trans people but everyone. And not just universal but also the _only _real criteria for membership of the class 'women' or 'men', so if you think you're a woman it must be because you possess the Gender Identity 'woman' and for no other reason.


----------



## Sunset Tree (Jan 20, 2018)

Urban has multi-page discussions about all kinds of topics.  It's weird how a few people have said this one should be deleted.  Is the argument that these discussions are distressing to trans people so just shouldn't happen ever?  If discussions about the nature of gender are too harmful to take place then we're in a strange place.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 20, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> I think a great difficulty about this is that sometimes the categories people want to fit in don't fit them without great difficulty. People have pointed out men transitioning to women have missed some defining experiences natal women have had. Without denigrating trans people's experiences perhaps new categories need to be created to accommodate people who don't seem to fit comfortably, from their pov, in their birth gender, nor, from many other people's pov, in their trans one. Maybe I'm wrong, quite possibly in fact, but I don't feel saying people are x or y when they may be z is doing anyone any favours.



Careful Pickman's, the TERFfinder General will be after you with that sort of chat.


----------



## Sunset Tree (Jan 20, 2018)

bimble said:


> The thing is that the idea of Gender Identity only works if its universal, is something that everybody has, not just trans people but everyone. And not just universal but also the _only _real criteria for membership of the class 'women' or 'men', so if you think you're a woman it must be because you possess the Gender Identity 'woman' and for no other reason.



To be honest, this is what I just don't get.  When I first posted in this thread I asked and got told by Nigel Irritable it's a TERF question so he won't answer it.  Still none the wiser.  Surely the concept of an innate gender is at odds with the idea that gender identities are constructed through socialisation, which I always thought was a good feminist position (and what I've always believed).


----------



## Yossarian (Jan 20, 2018)

Sunset Tree said:


> Urban has multi-page discussions about all kinds of topics.  It's weird how a few people have said this one should be deleted.  Is the argument that these discussions are distressing to trans people so just shouldn't happen ever?  If discussions about the nature of gender are too harmful to take place then we're in a strange place.



I don't know about deleted, but I think the discussion would be much better if it was split into several different threads - there are so many different issues involved, it would be better for everybody - especially new arrivals on the boards - if the varying threads of conversation happened in separate places.

There are a lot of people here with wise things to say, but I don't think there will be many newcomers willing to join in at page 222 of a conversation.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2018)

bimble said:


> The thing is that the idea of Gender Identity only works if its universal, is something that everybody has, not just trans people but everyone. And not just universal but also the _only _real criteria for membership of the class 'women' or 'men', so if you think you're a woman it must be because you possess the Gender Identity 'woman' and for no other reason.


Yeh. But if you're a woman but don't feel like a woman, then not-woman is atm man. But what if it isn't?


----------



## Sunset Tree (Jan 20, 2018)

Yossarian said:


> I don't know about deleted, but I think the discussion would be much better if it was split into several different threads - there are so many different issues involved, it would be better for everybody - especially new arrivals on the boards - if the varying threads of conversation happened in separate places.
> 
> There are a lot of people here with wise things to say, but I don't think there will be many newcomers willing to join in at page 222 of a conversation.



That's true of a lot of long-running threads on urban.  I don't disagree with that really.  Never been a fan of catch-all topic threads that run for years, they become like micro-communities and a lot of people just won't look into them.  Whereas starting a new thread about a specific aspect of a topic will get a broader range of posters replying.  I hate logging into urban and seeing the same threads every day.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 20, 2018)

I think a whole swathe of people that have been used to being "right on" for like, ever, are discovering they aren't quite as right on as they thought they were, and it stings like fuck. I guess lefty homophobes in the 60s and 70s had something similar to work through.

I was sexually assaulted as a kid by an old gay man, but I expect if I refused a gay doctor on that basis I reckon I'd be in with a chance of being called homophobic. I'd have to accept that, or I might be inclined to pull gymnastic contortions of logic to explain it was my PTSD and not really bigotry.

Whatever. This discussion is going around in circles and I'm dizzy.


----------



## JimW (Jan 20, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> I think a whole swathe of people that have been used to being "right on" for like, ever, are discovering they aren't quite as right on as they thought they were, and it stings like fuck.


Haha, that's almost the polar opposite of my position. The twitterati who seem the worst are just the sort of people I'd be delighted to find myself on the opposite side of a question to, but given a concern for the rights and well-being of trans people I'm willing to give them a listen.


----------



## Santino (Jan 20, 2018)

Sunset Tree said:


> That's true of a lot of long-running threads on urban.  I don't disagree with that really.  Never been a fan of catch-all topic threads that run for years, they become like micro-communities and a lot of people just won't look into them.  Whereas starting a new thread about a specific aspect of a topic will get a broader range of posters replying.  I hate logging into urban and seeing the same threads every day.


"Member Since: Nov 11, 2017"


----------



## 8ball (Jan 20, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. But if you're a woman but don't feel like a woman, then not-woman is atm man. But what if it isn't?



Good point.  Other points occur to me with that formulation, though.

What if how much you feel like a woman changes over time?  What if some of us who don’t think we feel like a woman/man were to notice if we lost that sense (sometimes things like this can be like a fish’s attitude to water)?

Maybe ‘non-woman’ in the case of your particular point was a misleading place to start.


----------



## Sunset Tree (Jan 20, 2018)

Santino said:


> "Member Since: Nov 11, 2017"



I've been on here for years I made a new account for reasons of personal security/anonymity as my old account was too linked to my real life identity.  I didn't feel safe posting on it so I stopped for years before coming back on this one.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2018)

8ball said:


> Good point.  Other points occur to me with that formulation, though.
> 
> What if how much you feel like a woman changes over time?  What if some of us who don’t think we feel like a woman/man were to notice if we lost that sense (sometimes things like this can be like a fish’s attitude to water)?
> 
> Maybe ‘non-woman’ in the case of your particular point was a misleading place to start.


Subtle point - interesting


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2018)

Sunset Tree said:


> That's true of a lot of long-running threads on urban.  I don't disagree with that really.  Never been a fan of catch-all topic threads that run for years, they become like micro-communities and a lot of people just won't look into them.  Whereas starting a new thread about a specific aspect of a topic will get a broader range of posters replying.  I hate logging into urban and seeing the same threads every day.


You have the option of starting threads yourself, you know


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 20, 2018)

JimW said:


> Haha, that's almost the polar opposite of my position.The twitterati who seem the worst are just the sort of people I'd be delighted to find myself on the opposite side of a question to, but given a concern for the rights and well-being of trans people I'm willing to give them a listen.



Fair enough, at the end of the day we either believe people who speak for themselves, or we don't.


----------



## Sunset Tree (Jan 20, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> You have the option of starting threads yourself, you know



Yeah, tbh I'm as guilty of it as anyone, it's easier just to drop your post into the existing thread.


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 20, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> For me what is interesting is that there seems to be a one way flow. People start neutral, and someone asks them if they're in favour of trans rights and they say "of course"!  So they're on the side of GRA and transactivism (because, why not, what's the problem), then they hear something they don't get, or something doesn't sit right but are too afraid to ask because they're very aware of the way "cis scum" and "awful TERFs" are talked about, and how people are ostracised for having wrong think so they stay quiet, but it still doesn't sit right so eventually they ask questions, then they get told to fuck off and read about it, get blocked by people they thought were cool, and then end up changing their position because there are too many inconsistencies which no one seems to be able to answer.



Yes.  For me it was a couple of u75 female posters flagging concerns.  People who I have a lot of respect for and I know to be fundamentally good people. I do believe these things can be worked through but shouting and accusations are not helping. Whilst this thread is clearly not the front line its not far from it but what I see are decent people trying to work through something which is relatively new and really quite complicated.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 20, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> Fair enough, at the end of the day we either believe people who speak for themselves, or we don't.



There is a bit of a difference between listening to people’s pain and completely buying into their ideas about the causes and etiology of that pain, though.

That’s why doctors prefer to hear about your symptoms rather than what you resultantly looked up on the internet.

I don’t think we understand this stuff (any of us) very well yet, because of the way the distress some people experience is so profoundly filtered by assumptions about gender, some of which we might not be fully aware of, whether trans or not.


----------



## bimble (Jan 20, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> Fair enough, at the end of the day we either believe people who speak for themselves, or we don't.


Is it the case that whatever I might tell you about myself (if I truly felt it to be true) you’d automatically believe me and agree sincerely-  not just out of politeness -  that it’s a fact?


----------



## Sunset Tree (Jan 20, 2018)

Difference between making sure marginalised groups have a voice and making sure they're the dominant voice.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 20, 2018)

friendofdorothy said:


> I do want to listen to trans people.
> 
> I keep reading this car crash of a thread in the vague hope I might learn something. There lots of things I've never really thought about or understood and I would like to know more, but I really don't think I'm going to learn much here.
> 
> From the chunks of this thread I've read, trans people's voices are being drowned out by a load of people with very little experience or knowledge and various amounts of fear and loathing.


You learnt what CIS is alledged to mean.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 20, 2018)

8ball said:


> There is a bit of a difference between listening to people’s pain and completely buying into their ideas about the causes and etiology of that pain, though.
> 
> That’s why doctors prefer to hear about your symptoms rather than what you resultantly looked up on the internet..



I had to look up aetiology, and after doing so I'm not sure I agree. If I hurt my back by falling, or if I have a stomach ache after eating raw acorns, the doctor will want to know how I think my pain started.



bimble said:


> Is it the case that whatever I might tell you about myself (if I truly felt it to be true) you’d automatically believe me and agree sincerely-  not just out of politeness -  that it’s a fact?



Pretty much, yeah. What's the alternative? Calling you a liar / deluded? Some people might want to do that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 20, 2018)

bimble said:


> The thing is that the idea of Gender Identity only works if its universal, is something that everybody has, not just trans people but everyone. And not just universal but also the _only _real criteria for membership of the class 'women' or 'men', so if you think you're a woman it must be because you possess the Gender Identity 'woman' and for no other reason.


This is perhaps a key question. I don't agree that the idea only works if it is universal. Why can there not be a plurality of positions that find a way of coexisting? This is why I said before that it is a huge shame that such a chasm has opened up between a group who are critical of the workings of gender stereotypes and many others who are also critical of the workings of gender stereotypes solely because they disagree over the validity of the concept of transgender. There ought to be a great deal of common ground, and if, ultimately, there will always be an area of disagreement, surely they should be searching for a way to accommodate that disagreement whereby both sides understand what it is they disagree about and agree to be respectful about it. To give an analogy, I'm atheist. If I'm totally honest, I find religious belief silly. But that doesn't stop me from making common cause with religious people over all kinds of things. It would be rotten politics to do anything else - it would be the politics of someone like Sam Harris.

I think it's very unfortunate that extreme positions, which actually very few people hold, have come to dominate the discussion. The one extreme, represented by the likes of Jeffries or Long, offers no solution to trans people beyond getting themselves to a shrink so that they can overcome their delusion. Worse than that, they appear at root not to care about trans people, specifically trans women, and they most certainly take glee in pointing at the worst offenders among trans activists and presenting them as typical when they are most certainly no such thing. Ironically, those who claim that trans women are a grotesque caricature of women themselves present grotesque caricatures of trans bogeymen in order to attack them. As politics, such a position and such tactics fucking stink, and their logical conclusion is a coalition with cunts like Davies against people they ought to be making common cause with over every single issue except this one very narrow point.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 20, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> So I did. I went and educated myself. Weighed up the arguments and found out that those awful TERFs I didn't like had actually a lot of interesting stuff and quite well reasoned things to say.
> 
> For me what is interesting is that there seems to be a one way flow. People start neutral, and someone asks them if they're in favour of trans rights and they say "of course"!  So they're on the side of GRA and transactivism (because, why not, what's the problem), then they hear something they don't get, or something doesn't sit right but are too afraid to ask because they're very aware of the way "cis scum" and "awful TERFs" are talked about, and how people are ostracised for having wrong think so they stay quiet, but it still doesn't sit right so eventually they ask questions, then they get told to fuck off and read about it, get blocked by people they thought were cool, and then end up changing their position because there are too many inconsistencies which no one seems to be able to answer.
> 
> ...



Perhaps one of the problems is that anyone starting to read some gender critical blogs and websites will immediately come away with a huge amount of disinformation.  They will be told it's been proved most transsexuals have a sexual fetish called autogynephilia.  They will be told it's been proved that trans women commit violent offences at the same rate as men, they will be told a man who makes rapes jokes has called himself a woman and demanded a senior role in the Labour Party, that a trans indenitified male demanded Top Shop let men in their changing rooms and Top Shop complied because they were scared, that Jessica Winfield had to be moved from a women's prison because she was sexually harassing fellow inmates and that an NHS worker tried to force a woman to have a smear test against her wishes.

They will probably be shown lots of tweets from anonymous teenagers without any mention of the abuse and in the past violence that has come from the trans critical side, they will have the proposed new law completely misrepresented as meaning any man could just fill out a form and demand access to a womens refuge.  And that one man in Canada pretended to be trans and sexually assaulted someone without any mention that this is the only time it has happened in the world, and that trans women have been accessing womens support services for years now without incident.  They might even be shown websites like transcrime that list criminal offences committed by trans people as if this is representative, and be told huge numbers of children are being given drugs to stop puberty when in reality the number is tiny.  They will be told studies showing rates of being victims of  crime or suicide attempts by trans people have been debunked, and that a study has proved half of trans prisoners are sexual offenders.  And on and on and on.  None of these things are true on close inspection, and they represent the milder side of trans critical feminism, they might be told a lot worse.

And they will probably come out of it hating trans people, and repeating these myths, all of which have been repeated on this thread.  And when trans people get upset and angry about what they recognise as a highly orchestrated propaganda campaign then their emotional and understandable reaction to that will be used against them to prove that trans people really are  aggresive and nasty and refuse to have a debate.  And then they will take the red pill and believe the oppressed is the oppressor and Sheila Jeffries and Venice Allan will congratulate themselves on a job well done.  Same tactics that have been used against marginalised groups throughout history, and this time being used by people on the left.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 20, 2018)

So basically smokedout, you're saying once women are told to fuck off and "go do research" your opinion is that these women go directly to "hate sites"? How many women have you actually bothered asking how they came to that conclusion? 

I think you are really selling women short here. 

I can tell you the first thing I did was go to trans people, then liberal feminists, then academics. 

This talk in particular I found very good, fair, described what I was seeing accurately and the thought's. From a university employed philosopher.  It didn't come to any conclusions specifically other than point out some logical inconsistencies. 



(she will probably will just be accused of TERFERY, too) 

So for you to talk of women coming to the conclusion they do because they can't research properly, and OBVIOUSLY can't understand the difference between information and disinformation is uncharitable at best and sexist at worst. 

We aren't fucking idiots. And it doesn't go the way you describe at all.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 20, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> So for you to talk of women coming to the conclusion they do because they can't research properly, and OBVIOUSLY can't understand the difference between information and disinformation is uncharitable at best and sexist at worst..


Smokedout didn't specify 'women'. He said 'anyone'.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 20, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Smokedout didn't specify 'women'. He said 'anyone'.



I wrote specifically about women accused of terfery. Smokedout responded to me with "anyone" but seeing as that "anyone" are people accused of terfery and women. It's a bit moot. "not all women some men too" doesn't exactly chime well.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 20, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> So basically smokedout, you're saying once women are told to fuck off and "go do research" your opinion is that these women go directly to "hate sites"? How many women have you actually bothered asking how they came to that conclusion?
> 
> I think you are really selling women short here.
> 
> I can tell you the first thing I did was go to trans people, then liberal feminists, then academics.



Indeed, a lot of them are academics, perfectly innocent very pleasant middle class women like Sheila Jeffries with letters after their name.  It is a slick movement, well resourced and well established compared to the twitter mob of kids opposing them.



> This talk in particular I found very good, fair, described what I was seeing accurately and the thought's. From a university employed philosopher.  It didn't come to any conclusions specifically other than point out some logical inconsistencies.
> 
> 
> 
> (she will probably will just be accused of TERFERY, too)




I can't watch that now but will later.


> So for you to talk of women coming to the conclusion they do because they can't research properly, and OBVIOUSLY can't understand the difference between information and disinformation is uncharitable at best and sexist at worst.
> 
> We aren't fucking idiots. And it doesn't go the way you describe at all.



Well a lot of women, on this thread and elsewhere have been to those sites and not come to these conclusions.  And all those things I mentioned have appeared on websites that might not appear to be hate sites, many of the people behind those lies have spoken on the Women's Place tour.

If people can understand the difference between information and disinformation then why have all the things I mentioned been presented as unequivocal truths at times on this thread?


----------



## bimble (Jan 20, 2018)

smokedout said:


> *If people can understand the difference between information and disinformation *then why have all the things I mentioned been presented as unequivocal truths at times on this thread?


It would be great if you didn't lump everyone who perhaps differs from your point of view together like this, it is part of the problem. You think you're the only one who can tell information from conjecture?
I'm interested to hear what you think of the lecture FabricLiveBaby! posted a link to.


----------



## Mation (Jan 20, 2018)

bimble said:


> It would be great if you didn't lump everyone who perhaps differs from your point of view together like this, it is part of the problem. You think you're the only one who can tell information from conjecture?
> I'm interested to hear what you think of the lecture FabricLiveBaby! posted a link to.


Anyone who repeats the things smokedout mentions in post # 6672 as truth and in support of their concerns is repeating disinformation. Anyone whose concerns are based on that disinformation really can't understand the difference between information and disinformation.


----------



## bimble (Jan 20, 2018)

Yep I agree, its just I've not done any of those things mentioned in that post, and I had a look and saw that there basically are no robust statistics out there to support or disprove the crime claims etc, so I resent their lumping people together and saying anyone gender critical will 'end up hating trans people and repeating lies'.


----------



## Mation (Jan 20, 2018)

bimble said:


> I had a look and saw that there basically are no robust statistics out there to support or disprove the crime claims etc


Just to make sure I'm not misinterpreting you, are you saying that you can see that there is no robust evidence to support the crime claims but that you don't take that lack of evidence to mean that the claims are untrue?


----------



## bimble (Jan 20, 2018)

Mation said:


> Just to make sure I'm not misinterpreting you, are you saying that you can see that there is no robust evidence to support the crime claims but that you don't take that lack of evidence to mean that the claims are untrue?


The claims can't be verified as there are no proper stats out there to support or disprove them. So yes they are unfounded and I would never repeat 'trans women are as violent as men' because nobody knows. It seems unlikely to me.


----------



## Mation (Jan 20, 2018)

bimble said:


> The claims can't be verified as there are no proper stats out there to support or disprove them. So they are unfounded.


Right. But you're aware that many people are repeating them as though they are true and have good evidence to support them, yes? Because I'm pretty sure that's who smokedout was talking about, there. If that's not you and what you're doing, why would you think that particular criticism was levelled at you?


----------



## bimble (Jan 20, 2018)

Mation said:


> Right. But you're aware that many people are repeating them as though they are true and have good evidence to support them, yes? Because I'm pretty sure that's who smokedout was talking about, there. If that's not you and what you're doing, why would you think that particular criticism was levelled at you?


The post predicted that anyone reading gender critical material online would probably ‘end up hating trans people and repeating myths’. I disagree with that.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 20, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I thought we were all either male or female, as a question of biological fact. That seems pretty binary to me.



Male/female is biological sex. 'Non-binary' is a cultural description/identity.


----------



## Mation (Jan 20, 2018)

bimble said:


> The post predicted that anyone reading gender critical material online would probably ‘end up hating trans people and repeating myths’. I disagree with that.


I obviously can't speak for smokedout but it seems pretty disingenuous to me to imply that they were talking about sites that do not present the scary disinformation they took the time to list and they certainly didn't say that everyone would draw the same conclusions.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 20, 2018)

Mation said:


> Right. But you're aware that many people are repeating them as though they are true and have good evidence to support them, yes? Because I'm pretty sure that's who smokedout was talking about, there. If that's not you and what you're doing, why would you think that particular criticism was levelled at you?



Also, it's bullshit to be asking anyone on this thread to comment on an hour long lecture only 18 minutes after it was posted and offer no thoughts oneself. It smacks of 'if x posted it it must be good/true' which to me shows that those shouting the loudest about id politics and virtue signalling actively engage with just that themselves.


----------



## bimble (Jan 20, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Also, it's bullshit to be asking anyone on this thread to comment on an hour long lecture only 18 minutes after it was posted and offer no thoughts oneself. It smacks of 'if x posted it it must be good/true' which to me shows that those shouting the loudest about id politics and virtue signalling actively engage with just that themselves.


I didn’t mean now ffs, smokedout said they’d listen to it when they have time.
I don’t know what the rest of your post means. I mentioned the lecture because I liked it, listened to it very recently, not because someone ‘on my side’ posted it.


----------



## Sunset Tree (Jan 20, 2018)

Mation said:


> Right. But you're aware that many people are repeating them as though they are true and have good evidence to support them, yes? Because I'm pretty sure that's who smokedout was talking about, there. If that's not you and what you're doing, why would you think that particular criticism was levelled at you?



I see this quite a lot online:  

Someone throws out a general claim (e.g. 'people who read gender critical material will be misinformed and hate trans people').

Someone refutes this general claim (e.g. 'I have read gender critical material but don't blindly believe misinformation or hate trans people').

Then the reply questioning why they had to defend it if it doesn't apply to them.

This is the debate style of identity politics.  I've seen it in several variations.  'White people are racist' > 'I'm white and I'm not racist' > 'Then it's not directed at you why reply??'  

People are allowed to reply to and refute general points without it being about them specifically.  Reason being to demonstrate evidence against the general claim.


----------



## Sunset Tree (Jan 20, 2018)

Mation said:


> they certainly didn't say that everyone would draw the same conclusions.





smokedout said:


> Perhaps one of the problems is that *anyone* starting to read some gender critical blogs and websites will immediately come away with a huge amount of disinformation



[My bold] Kind of seemed like he was saying that.


----------



## Athos (Jan 20, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Also, it's bullshit to be asking anyone on this thread to comment on an hour long lecture only 18 minutes after it was posted and offer no thoughts oneself. It smacks of 'if x posted it it must be good/true' which to me shows that those shouting the loudest about id politics and virtue signalling actively engage with just that themselves.



Says you who has previously admitted to posting links you haven't looked at!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 20, 2018)

Sunset Tree said:


> [My bold] Kind of seemed like he was saying that.



Kind of...but I read that to mean that there is a lot of misinformation on those sites and if that information is taken as fact and do not read critically,  anyone, you, I etc will come away misinformed.


----------



## Sunset Tree (Jan 20, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Kind of...but I read that to mean that there is a lot of misinformation on those sites and if that information is taken as fact and do not read critically,  anyone, you, I etc will come away misinformed.



I'd put more faith in people in being able to seek out quality information and make sense of things.  Rather than viewing people as blindly led by propaganda.  Especially a lot of the posters on this thread who seem pretty thoughtful, intelligent, well-informed, politically engaged etc.  They aren't daft and it's not fair to characterise them as being led astray by propaganda.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 20, 2018)

Athos said:


> Says you who has previously admitted to posting links you haven't looked at!


Fuck off Athos. Here you are again having a stupid weekend pop at me given you know I want absolutely nothing to do with you. Needless to say you will declare yourself the victim now because booooooooooooooooohooooooooooooo you really do believe you are a decent person, yet you can not and will not let any opportunity to attack me go by. You are a joke.

I have posted links I haven't read or had time to watch before yes. I have also been clear that I sometimes bookmark or share stuff to come back to. I have never denied that nor expected others to give me their summaries of those links when I was not willing or able to do so myself.

Back to Coventry. Prick.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 20, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


>




I was at that talk. RRC makes some great points.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 20, 2018)

Sunset Tree said:


> I'd put more faith in people in being able to seek out quality information and make sense of things.  Rather than viewing people as blindly led by propaganda.  Especially a lot of the posters on this thread who seem pretty thoughtful, intelligent, well-informed, politically engaged etc.  They aren't daft and it's not fair to characterise them as being led astray by propaganda.



Right, and to be clear that's not what I am doing. I just wanted to give another reading to what smokedout posted. We can all be led astray by propaganda though, or ideas and opinions of people we 'trust'.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 20, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I was at that talk. RRC makes some great points.




I am currently listening to it. I will need to listen a couple of times tbh because it covers so much and I am not giving it my full attention.

Maybe you can summarise what points you think are great?


----------



## Mation (Jan 20, 2018)

Sunset Tree said:


> I see this quite a lot online:
> 
> Someone throws out a general claim (e.g. 'people who read gender critical material will be misinformed and hate trans people').
> 
> ...


Bad example. 1) The person involved here _did _think the criticism applied to them. I accepted what they said about it not applying to them. This is a sideshow to the fact that the criticism is valid and applies to many (other) people. 2) White people are racist


----------



## Athos (Jan 20, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Fuck off Athos. Here you are again having a stupid weekend pop at me given you know I want absolutely nothing to do with you. Needless to say you will declare yourself the victim now because booooooooooooooooohooooooooooooo you really do believe you are a decent person, yet you can not and will not let any opportunity to attack me go by. You are a joke.
> 
> I have posted links I haven't read or had time to watch before yes. I have also been clear that I sometimes bookmark or share stuff to come back to. I have never denied that nor expected others to give me their summaries of those links when I was not willing or able to do so myself.
> 
> Back to Coventry. Prick.



Lol. Upset by another example of your hypocrisy being exposed?

I don't think you understand what 'sent to Coventry' means; you are clearly reading and replying to my posts. Feel free to ignore.


----------



## Mation (Jan 20, 2018)

Sunset Tree said:


> [My bold] Kind of seemed like he was saying that.


That's because you're not making a distinction between coming away with disinformation and drawing conclusions about the disinformation.


----------



## bimble (Jan 20, 2018)

Mation said:


> That's because you're not making a distinction between coming away with disinformation and drawing conclusions about the disinformation.


Nah, smokedout said anyone reading gender critical material ‘will probably end up hating trans people and repeating myths’, it was fairly unequivocal, I think this matters because in what other conversation would it be reasonable to say whatever you do don’t listen to the ‘other side’ or you’ll end up being a hate-filled liar? I read all kinds of stuff, to get a better idea of what’s going on, not just people who I already agree with.


----------



## Sunset Tree (Jan 20, 2018)

Mation said:


> That's because you're not making a distinction between coming away with disinformation and drawing conclusions about the disinformation.



He didn't make that distinction


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 20, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Maybe you can summarise what points you think are great?



Yes, it's quite long. Key points are:

 - definitions of 'gender identity' used in law and human rights conventions are circular and/or conflate sex and gender;
 - 'gender identity' as a concept is akin to Wittgenstein's 'beetle in a box': it's subjective nature means two individuals describing this as a concept have no way of verifying these are the same thing;
 - changes are being made to law based upon incoherent or circular definitions with material aspects like biological sex being secondary, this creates bad law (imprecise law is bad law, see how much case law is made up of deciding what is 'reasonable' in so many other statutes!).

I've also add that protecting 'gender identity', which is just thoughts and feelings foundational upon stereotypes, seems an unusual way to protect what is being described as 'a vulnerable minority'.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 20, 2018)

bimble said:


> Nah, smokedout said anyone reading gender critical material ‘will probably end up hating trans people and repeating myths’, it was fairly unequivocal, I think this matters because in what other conversation would it be reasonable to say whatever you do don’t listen to the ‘other side’ or you’ll end up being a hate-filled liar? I read all kinds of stuff, to get a better idea of what’s going on, not just people who I already agree with.



Disagreement is being reframed as hate.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 20, 2018)

Listened to the whole thing, some howlers in there such as transgender people are not vulnerable since they are being attacked/killed for their outward appearance rather than their gender identity. Rebecca also feels all attempts made by health professionals to treat and support transgender people are basically bollocks and we should be encouraging them to identify with the gender they were assigned at birth instead. Ok. Strong evidence base that works? Hmm. 

Plenty of transgender people disagree with gender identity theory, not arguing with that part so much(though other parts of the talk reveal her intent to be not quite so innocent really ) so attempts to enshrine protections for this group in law are difficult. I understand that. But this comment "you have the right to have your belief that you have a gendered soul protected, but no right to have that soul protected " beggars belief given the trauma, discrimination and abuse and violence transgender people face. It isn't their soul we are protecting, is their bodies and their health. 

Her general tone was sneering throughout- referring to agender folks as "special people" . The thing is, the likelihood that the NHS are going to completely overhaul their entire approach to this and magically encourage transgender people just to chill in their own bodies is just not going to happen. So what we are left with are difficulties in wording this in law, and making sure women remain protected too. Difficulties than I am sure can be overcome. They need to be.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 20, 2018)

Sunset Tree said:


> I'd put more faith in people in being able to seek out quality information and make sense of things.  Rather than viewing people as blindly led by propaganda.  Especially a lot of the posters on this thread who seem pretty thoughtful, intelligent, well-informed, politically engaged etc.  They aren't daft and it's not fair to characterise them as being led astray by propaganda.



The claim about trans women retaining male levels of criminality was made by Fatuous Sunbeam, who disappeared a few days before you turned up.

The claim about Jessica Winfield sexually harassing prisoners was made by, surprise, surprise,
Miranda Yardley 

The Topshop claim and Lily's rape jokes claims were both made by regular posters on this thread, I'm not going through everything but looking through the thread theres lots also there that I didnt mention.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 20, 2018)

I spoke to a feminist lawyer friend about this and her take was that the reason Ireland has been a success and UK will not be  is because British law is particularly complicated so it won't be the same here- we have specific definitions for man  woman etc....  I can't get specifics on why it is bound to go so wrong in this country, will be looking over the next few weeks to see a less biased lawyers opinion on this as I find it very interesting. Any thoughts on that from anyone here would be helpful too.


Or a pointer to a post in this fuck off big thread that actually explains that in detail. And preferably not the toilet chat.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 20, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> some howlers in there such as transgender people are not vulnerable since they are being attacked/killed for their outward appearance rather than their gender identity.



No, you're wrong: nobody is attacked for their 'gender identity' because whatever is is, it's something in their head: the reason trans males such as myself are attacked is because homophobic males view feminine males as inferior. It's rooted in homophobia, which itself is rooted in misogyny.



HoratioCuthbert said:


> Rebecca also feels all attempts made by health professionals to treat and support transgender people are basically bollocks and we should be encouraging them to identify with the gender they were assigned at birth instead. Ok. Strong evidence base that works? Hmm.



Not really. The point is you don't have to change your body to match your personality/



HoratioCuthbert said:


> Plenty of transgender people disagree with gender identity theory, not arguing with that part so much(though other parts of the talk reveal her intent to be not quite so innocent really )



The dominant vector in transgender culture, what make's today's culture so different from the past, is that it posits everyone's 'gender identity' (that feeling by which one knows one is a man or a woman) is innate. There is a philosophical problem here in that none of us know how it feels to be anyone or anything other than ourselves: we are not a species of mind-readers.



HoratioCuthbert said:


> so attempts to enshrine protections for this group in law are difficult. I understand that. But this comment "you have the right to have your belief that you have a gendered soul protected, but no right to have that soul protected " beggars belief given the trauma, discrimination and abuse and violence transgender people face. It isn't their soul we are protecting, is their bodies and their health.



The 'transgendered soul' is a belief, an ideology: all faiths, ideologies or beliefs are open to question, however should people be persecuted for their faiths? No. Note the Equality Act protects faith already.



HoratioCuthbert said:


> Her general tone was sneering throughout- referring to agender folks as "special people" .



It's a cultural identity, the effect though of gender as a cultural hierarchy means it's a two way process, and we are treated by others according to the rules of gender. We cannot escape this, as we cannot police the thoughts of others, so whether an 'agender identity' means something outside of the mind of the believer is very much moot.



HoratioCuthbert said:


> The thing is, the likelihood that the NHS are going to completely overhaul their entire approach to this and magically encourage transgender people just to chill in their own bodies is just not going to happen.



The problem is that this won't happen because any approach other than 'gender affirmation' is being blocked. Affirmation has its own problems, it presupposes the etiology of trans is monolithic when it is not the case: the reasons a child may display a 'transgender identity' and the reasons a mature adult would do so, are fundamentally different. Treating these populations the same ignores this difference.



HoratioCuthbert said:


> So what we are left with are difficulties in wording this in law, and making sure women remain protected too. Difficulties than I am sure can be overcome. They need to be.



Yes, it needs an attempt made to make good law, the problem is law tends to be politically motivated and riddled with 'unintended consequences'. Solid legal definitions of 'male', 'female', 'sex', 'gender', 'woman' and 'man' would be a great start,


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 20, 2018)

smokedout said:


> The claim about trans women retaining male levels of criminality was made by Fatuous Sunbeam, who disappeared a few days before you turned up.



Yet it's exactly what the study says.



smokedout said:


> The claim about Jessica Winfield sexually harassing prisoners was made by, surprise, surprise,
> Miranda Yardley



It was widely reported, and the reports conflict. The real issue surely is why a male who raped two women is being housed with women. Not that you would care particularly for these women.


----------



## Sunset Tree (Jan 20, 2018)

smokedout said:


> The claim about trans women retaining male levels of criminality was made by Fatuous Sunbeam, who disappeared a few days before you turned up.
> 
> The claim about Jessica Winfield sexually harassing prisoners was made by, surprise, surprise,
> Miranda Yardley
> ...



Ok I'll accept that some people have repeated these claims and these claims are untrue.  

Most of the posters who are challenging trans activist ideology aren't doing so on the basis of claims like this.  They are talking about things like whether gender is innate or constructed, the importance of biological sex in the historical oppression of women, and so on.  They're getting dismissed as bigots too.


----------



## bimble (Jan 20, 2018)

This is happening now, which might possibly lead to some more legal clarity and official definitions of the words we are using?
Transgender woman sues over ordeal in male prison
Tara Hudson is sueing the MOJ for damages for sending her to a mens prison (where she spent a week before being transferred to a womens prison after a massive support campaign). She doesn't have a gender recognition certificate. Her lawyer says the case rests on the government 'denying her gender identity'. She is also demanding that the court make a determination that she's been discriminated against.  'Government lawyers insist that Hudson is legally a man'.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 20, 2018)

bimble said:


> This is happening now, which might possibly lead to some more legal clarity and official definitions of the words we are using?
> Transgender woman sues over ordeal in male prison
> Tara Hudson is sueing the MOJ for damages for sending her to a mens prison (where she spent a week before being transferred to a womens prison after a massive support campaign). She doesn't have a gender recognition certificate. Her lawyer says the case rests on the government 'denying her gender identity'. She is also demanding that the court make a determination that she's been discriminated against.  'Government lawyers insist that Hudson is legally a man'.



I always looks at cases like this and think to myself 'why aren't these people trying to improve conditions and reduce bullying in prisons overall'?


----------



## bimble (Jan 20, 2018)

This case is important though, right? Unless they just reject it it’s raising the whole issue of self identification (w/o certificates).


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> No, you're wrong: nobody is attacked for their 'gender identity' because whatever is is, it's something in their head: the reason trans males such as myself are attacked is because homophobic males view feminine males as inferior. It's rooted in homophobia, which itself is rooted in misogyny.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You're a trans male, so natal woman? There was me thinking you were a trans woman therefore natal man.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2018)

bimble said:


> This is happening now, which might possibly lead to some more legal clarity and official definitions of the words we are using?
> Transgender woman sues over ordeal in male prison
> Tara Hudson is sueing the MOJ for damages for sending her to a mens prison (where she spent a week before being transferred to a womens prison after a massive support campaign). She doesn't have a gender recognition certificate. Her lawyer says the case rests on the government 'denying her gender identity'. She is also demanding that the court make a determination that she's been discriminated against.  'Government lawyers insist that Hudson is legally a man'.


Yeh always good to let the state define stuff


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 20, 2018)

bimble said:


> This case is important though, right? Unless they just reject it it’s raising the whole issue of self identification (w/o certificates).



Yes it does. The question is generally 'is that person, in the eyes of the law, entitled to be housed with women'. It's based on a risk assessment, to having not changed legal sex doesn't necessarily mean they'll be in a male prison, and having changed legal sex doesn't mean they would automatically be sent to a women's facility. I figure that in Hudson's case it would be down to whether Hudson, as someone who apparently has a number of convictions for physical violence and assault, poses a danger to women.

The risk assessment is supposed to be for the safety and well-being of the prisoner, and those who will be sharing space with that prisoner. I think it is good that there is an individual risk assessment done, rather than a 'one size fits all' homogeneous policy (which would not take into account the various different types of identities and behaviours covered by the term 'transgender'). I think such system would generally have a better outcome for the prisoner.

http://www.ppo.gov.uk/app/uploads/2...in_Transgender-prisoners_Final_WEB_Jan-17.pdf

I'd like to restate my belief that males who have convictions for sexual offences should not be allowed to change their legal sex.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Yes it does. The question is generally 'is that person, in the eyes of the law, entitled to be housed with women'. It's based on a risk assessment, to having not changed legal sex doesn't necessarily mean they'll be in a male prison, and having changed legal sex doesn't mean they would automatically be sent to a women's facility. I figure that in Hudson's case it would be down to whether Hudson, as someone who apparently has a number of convictions for physical violence and assault, poses a danger to women.
> 
> The risk assessment is supposed to be for the safety and well-being of the prisoner, and those who will be sharing space with that prisoner. I think it is good that there is an individual risk assessment done, rather than a 'one size fits all' homogeneous policy (which would not take into account the various different types of identities and behaviours covered by the term 'transgender'). I think such system would generally have a better outcome for the prisoner.
> 
> ...


whatever happened to your sexually violent transgender people, Miranda?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 20, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I always looks at cases like this and think to myself 'why aren't these people trying to improve conditions and reduce bullying in prisons overall'?


At the same time you regurgitate lies, which the rest of us have to look up and debunk. I really hope people stop listening to you here. You tell lie after lie after lie.


----------



## NoXion (Jan 20, 2018)

Alright, so I've had a few skinfuls so please excuse me if this query is poorly formulated or otherwise off in some manner, but...

*Why the fucking fuck does it matter what the fucking "theory" is behind why some people are trans?*

There's no evidence whatsoever that "being trans" is the result of any kind of indisputably external influence, such as a parasitical infection, that could easily be dismissed as merely a symptom of some underlying pathology (if there was, you can bet that the bigots* would be trumpeting it to here and back). There is clearly some kind of disconnect between the expectations of society and the self-perception of the trans individual in question, and I see no good reason why one should generally come down on the side of society in this matter.

(*by which I mean not people who have concerns, but honest-to-goodness transphobes, who in my experience are overwhelmingly right-wing.)

I mean, we do all agree, at least in this thread, that males and females are just as valid as each other, and that there is nothing inherently wrong with people acting in ways that are atypical for their perceived gender? So what exactly is being argued about?

Yeah, I get that some people from the trans activist camp, as well as their opponents have said and done shitty things. But in both cases they're a vocal minority, more interested in virtue signalling within their respective cliques than in actually addressing the problem they're ostensibly concerned with, so both factions of that fractious minority are mostly irrelevant as far as I can see.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 20, 2018)

NoXion said:


> Alright, so I've had a few skinfuls so please excuse me if this query is poorly formulated or otherwise off in some manner, but...
> 
> *Why the fucking fuck does it matter what the fucking "theory" is behind why some people are trans?*
> 
> ...


The bit you put in bold is really what I have wanted to say all day. We'll never agree on the definition, that needs to be accepted. Or the treatment required, you may disagree with transitioning(I don't)as a method but it would have to take some brutal bastard to deny a person something they clearly so desperately want. Aaaaah!


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 20, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> At the same time you regurgitate lies, which the rest of us have to look up and debunk. I really hope people stop listening to you here. You tell lie after lie after lie.



No mate. You're delusional.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> No mate. You're delusional.


Lbj may be a liberal but he's got you bang to rights


----------



## NoXion (Jan 20, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> The bit you put in bold is really what I have wanted to say all day. We'll never agree on the definition, that needs to be accepted. Or the treatment required, you may disagree with transitioning(I don't)as a method but it would have to take some brutal bastard to deny a person something they clearly so desperately want. Aaaaah!



For the record, I don't "agree" or "disagree" with transitioning in general, because I think that whether or not that is the right decision, depends entirely on the individual circumstances in question.

For those people worried that individuals transitioning may simply be reproducing society's gender expectations in the process, I ask them; how can trans individuals do any better? Individuals cannot control society's perceptions of gender. Until the day when society as a whole radically remodels its perception of the gender question, trans people are pretty much stuck. Society as a whole, not just trans individuals or feminists, has to move on in order for progress to be made. Until that time comes, it seems unfair to place the burden on trans people or enlightened feminists alone.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 20, 2018)

NoXion said:


> For the record, I don't "disagree" or "disagree" with transitioning in general, because I think that whether or not that is the right decision, depends entirely on the individual circumstances in question.
> 
> .


Of course, I agree. I meant a general you not YOU.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 20, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Perhaps one of the problems is that anyone starting to read some gender critical blogs and websites will immediately come away with a huge amount of disinformation.  They will be told it's been proved most transsexuals have a sexual fetish called autogynephilia.  They will be told it's been proved that trans women commit violent offences at the same rate as men, they will be told a man who makes rapes jokes has called himself a woman and demanded a senior role in the Labour Party, that a trans indenitified male demanded Top Shop let men in their changing rooms and Top Shop complied because they were scared, that Jessica Winfield had to be moved from a women's prison because she was sexually harassing fellow inmates and that an NHS worker tried to force a woman to have a smear test against her wishes.
> 
> They will probably be shown lots of tweets from anonymous teenagers without any mention of the abuse and in the past violence that has come from the trans critical side, they will have the proposed new law completely misrepresented as meaning any man could just fill out a form and demand access to a womens refuge.  And that one man in Canada pretended to be trans and sexually assaulted someone without any mention that this is the only time it has happened in the world, and that trans women have been accessing womens support services for years now without incident.  They might even be shown websites like transcrime that list criminal offences committed by trans people as if this is representative, and be told huge numbers of children are being given drugs to stop puberty when in reality the number is tiny.  They will be told studies showing rates of being victims of  crime or suicide attempts by trans people have been debunked, and that a study has proved half of trans prisoners are sexual offenders.  And on and on and on.  None of these things are true on close inspection, and they represent the milder side of trans critical feminism, they might be told a lot worse.
> 
> And they will probably come out of it hating trans people, and repeating these myths, all of which have been repeated on this thread.  And when trans people get upset and angry about what they recognise as a highly orchestrated propaganda campaign then their emotional and understandable reaction to that will be used against them to prove that trans people really are  aggresive and nasty and refuse to have a debate.  And then they will take the red pill and believe the oppressed is the oppressor and Sheila Jeffries and Venice Allan will congratulate themselves on a job well done.  Same tactics that have been used against marginalised groups throughout history, and this time being used by people on the left.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 20, 2018)

Say it again!


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 20, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> The bit you put in bold is really what I have wanted to say all day. We'll never agree on the definition, that needs to be accepted. Or the treatment required, you may disagree with transitioning(I don't)as a method but it would have to take some brutal bastard to deny a person something they clearly so desperately want. Aaaaah!




it doesnt matter and tbh I dont care about whys


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Say it again!


What is it good for?


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 20, 2018)

like seriously one of two things will happen in the future, science will either prove being trans is a natural condition of humanity or it'll prove it's not and whatever it ends up being then both sides need to think really hard as to how they will go about managing that situation, there might not ever be any answers, how about that one, if it stays like this you'll stagnate and if you dont adapt to your environment you will die.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 20, 2018)

NoXion said:


> For those people worried that individuals transitioning may simply be reproducing society's gender expectations in the process, I ask them; how can trans individuals do any better? Individuals cannot control society's perceptions of gender.



But nobody has been making arguments against transitioning.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 20, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> But nobody has been making arguments against transitioning.


Miranda did and so did yon lassie in the hour long video, or at the very least said people didn't need to be doing it, my argument was essentially good luck with pushing that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 20, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> No





Miranda Yardley said:


> No mate. You're delusional.


Nope. As one of those who has been fact checking your lies not delusional.  Time you fucked  off.


----------



## JimW (Jan 20, 2018)

NoXion said:


> Alright, so I've had a few skinfuls so please excuse me if this query is poorly formulated or otherwise off in some manner, but...
> 
> *Why the fucking fuck does it matter what the fucking "theory" is behind why some people are trans?*
> 
> ...


I'd not care either except as far as I can see there's also larger claims being made about gender and what it is and that affects everyone, and if I've understood it right, probably quite negatively, women in particular.
It's also been said that there are gender-critical trans people, which is good news, but as it stands it seems like the main thrust is based on the dodgy stuff like those trainers and their Powerpoint. If that's the message being given to cops and to kids in schools, i.e. is set to become some sort of orthodoxy, then it matters a lot.


----------



## NoXion (Jan 20, 2018)

JimW said:


> I'd not care either except as far as I can see there's also larger claims being made about gender and what it is and that affects everyone, and if I've understood it right, probably quite negatively, women in particular.
> It's also been said that there are gender-critical trans people, which is good news, but as it stands it seems like the main thrust is based on the dodgy stuff like those trainers and their Powerpoint. If that's the message being given to cops and to kids in schools, i.e. is set to become some sort of orthodoxy, then it matters a lot.



Seems to me to be more of a problem with the ruling classes selecting those narratives which they think will be most useful to them, rather than anything to do with actual grassroots trans/feminist activists. You don't think it's accidental which narratives get presented to the enforcers of the ruling class, surely?


----------



## JimW (Jan 20, 2018)

NoXion said:


> Seems to me to be more of a problem with the ruling classes selecting those narratives which they think will be most useful to them, rather than anything to do with actual grassroots trans/feminist activists. You don't think it's accidental which narratives get presented to the enforcers of the ruling class, surely?


No, of course not, but that's why it does seem legitimate to start worrying when we get into legislation and the chosen "community leaders", schools outreach and so on. Because it's ripe for just that sort of cherry-picking for what suits a very non-progressive establishment and might set things back in unintended ways.


----------



## NoXion (Jan 20, 2018)

JimW said:


> No, of course not, but that's why it does seem legitimate to start worrying when we get into legislation and the chosen "community leaders", schools outreach and so on. Because it's ripe for just that sort of cherry-picking for what suits a very non-progressive establishment and might set things back in unintended ways.



If I were to hazard a guess, it would be that the representatives chosen by state and capital to "represent" the trans/feminist elements of common society actually have little meaningful representation to said elements.

Divide and rule.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 20, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> No mate. You're delusional.


I was pleased when you first turned up. I thought that you would provide an alternative perspective that we could test out.

But you've done nothing of the kind. Of smokedout's list of disinformation, a huge chunk has come from you. You are a dishonest billy bullshitter. You spread disinformation across this thread that requires others to do work to discredit. You contribute nothing except lies. 

Fuck off.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 21, 2018)

> It's also been said that there are gender-critical trans people, which is good news, but as it stands it seems like the main thrust is based on the dodgy stuff like those trainers and their Powerpoint. .


It will seem like that when it's what gender critical feminists are challenging with no mention of alternatives aye. The Barbie power point is obvs ridiculous and not something I have seen often. The truscum debate was largely between identity theorists and medicalists in other words people who were arguing that a diagnosis of gender dysphoria must be present to be trans and that it is dangerous to lump in non conforming/cross dressing etc folks in as this eventually means the definition of transgender become meaningless, along with the definition for cis with the risk of people being denied access to healthcare since some are saying you don't need to transition in order to be trans. That obviously opens up a whole other can of worms and there are extremes within those two viewpoints but it's a good place to start to get an idea of the the range of thoughts on this subject.


ETA: Good summary here. I particularly like the closing statement.  Is Dysphoria Necessary for Being Trans? The “Truscum” Debate


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 21, 2018)

I am on night shift if that sounded like gobbledegook


----------



## weepiper (Jan 21, 2018)

Munroe Bergdorf, a trans woman, drumming up support for the Women's March London.
We have to not mention vaginas or uteruses at a _women's protest march _so as not to exclude people who were born with a male body who want to come too but inexplicably cannot cope with female biology being all in their faces now.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 21, 2018)

Intersectionalist in eye melting tweet shocker!


----------



## bimble (Jan 21, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> like seriously one of two things will happen in the future, science will either prove being trans is a natural condition of humanity or it'll prove it's not and whatever it ends up being then both sides need to think really hard as to how they will go about managing that situation, there might not ever be any answers, how about that one, if it stays like this you'll stagnate and if you dont adapt to your environment you will die.


What about all these genders though, will science be investigating them ? 
Genderfluid Support


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 21, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Disagreement is being reframed as hate.



Referring to people as "trannies" is hateful. Would you agree or disagree?


----------



## TopCat (Jan 21, 2018)

krtek a houby said:


> Referring to people as "trannies" is hateful. Would you agree or disagree?


What about people who insist on using the term for themselves?


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 21, 2018)

bimble said:


> What about all these genders though, will science be investigating them ?
> Genderfluid Support



Science or not, here's one from that blog that may suit a lot of us: _*Anongender*: a gender that is unknown to both yourself and others_


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 21, 2018)

TopCat said:


> What about people who insist on using the term for themselves?



MY was aiming it at others who may not be comfortable with it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 21, 2018)

bimble said:


> What about all these genders though, will science be investigating them ?
> Genderfluid Support


Misses out ahabogender, an introspective gender whose relentless and obsessive pursuit of gender 'truth' leads themselves and their associates to disaster


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 21, 2018)

krtek a houby said:


> MY was aiming it at others who may not be comfortable with it.





You fell into a trap.


----------



## bimble (Jan 21, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Misses out ahabogender, an introspective gender whose relentless and obsessive pursuit of gender 'truth' leads themselves and their associates to disaster



That definitely fits me better than the Gender Identity 'woman', as defined helpfully below:


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 21, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nope. As one of those who has been fact checking 'your lies not delusional.  Time you fucked  off.


I don't think I've ever seen you post in this way/fuck someone off with this kind of tone.

As someone who is new to a lot of the theory
and discussion I'd be grateful if you could say what your fact checking has revealed in terms of 'lies'.


----------



## JimW (Jan 21, 2018)

bimble said:


> That definitely fits me better than the Gender Identity 'woman', as defined helpfully below:
> 
> View attachment 125811


Please tell me that's not your twitter handle being replied to. Self identitying as a liberal really is going too far.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 21, 2018)

bimble said:


> That definitely fits me better than the Gender Identity 'woman', as defined helpfully below:
> 
> View attachment 125811


You found a good example there of the reactionary approach I was objecting to in this paragraph:


kabbes said:


> I’m torn between respecting the fact that people are forged in their environment and need to be allowed to live in the way they have been made (however that has been done) and an intuitive concern about the inherently reactionary way that acceptability for transgender people is being approached.  I think it’s complicated, basically.


This is why the debate needs to happen in wider forums than just amongst transgender people.  Not because of “curiosity” or a desire to delegitimise anybody’s feelings.  But because it is rewriting the entire social narrative, not just the niche it occupies.


----------



## bimble (Jan 21, 2018)

JimW said:


> Please tell me that's not your twitter handle being replied to. Self identitying as a liberal really is going too far.


 No it’s not me (My twitter name is even worse but I don’t tweet just read).


----------



## TopCat (Jan 21, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nope. As one of those who has been fact checking your lies not delusional.  Time you fucked  off.


Thread police now?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 21, 2018)

TopCat said:


> Thread police now?


He may be a liberal but even broken clocks right twice a day: and he's right about Yardley


----------



## Cloo (Jan 21, 2018)

weepiper said:


> View attachment 125787
> Munroe Bergdorf, a trans woman, drumming up support for the Women's March London.
> We have to not mention vaginas or uteruses at a _women's protest march _so as not to exclude people who were born with a male body who want to come too but inexplicably cannot cope with female biology being all in their faces now.


Yeah, I agree Munroe Bergdorf went too far there. First, a lot of what the march is about *is* reproductive rights, pussies being grabbed etc. Second, reproductive rights is not and cannot be an intersectional issue with trans issues. I'm willing to be corrected on the latter, but I can't see how it can *directly* affect trans women, although it might affect partners and people close to them.

I disagree with people claiming this shows Bergdorf is a mispgynist man and this is male privilege - I think it's just poorly thought-through, but she should have known better really because she's given TERFs a stick to beat trans women with.


----------



## Sunset Tree (Jan 21, 2018)

She couldn't have known better as stuff like this is at the core of her politics.

Undecided if it's misogyny/male privilege but it's a ridiculous worldview.


----------



## bimble (Jan 21, 2018)

Cloo said:


> Yeah, I agree Munroe Bergdorf went too far there. First, a lot of what the march is about *is* reproductive rights, pussies being grabbed etc. Second, reproductive rights is not and cannot be an intersectional issue with trans issues. I'm willing to be corrected on the latter, but I can't see how it can *directly* affect trans women, although it might affect partners and people close to them.



It’s an ‘intersectional issue’ because worrying about pregnancy and reproductive rights is part of ‘cis privilege’. Not all women have that luxury etc.


----------



## Cloo (Jan 21, 2018)

And indeed not all cis women have that privilege, although let's face it that's kind of splitting hairs.

But I still don't think it justifies suggesting (unless I'm reading her wrong) that cis women shouldn't mention these issues or their genitalia at a protest lest it feel exclusionary to trans women. A placard saying 'Only real women have a vagina' would be exclusionary and anti-trans but 'Keep your laws out of my uterus' is about a specific and very real threat to the bodily autonomy of the vast majority of women in many parts of the world and no one should feel they have to add '... (BTW, I recognise not all women have uterii') in order not to exclude trans women or women who've had hysterectomies.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 21, 2018)

Tail wagging the dog.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 21, 2018)

Cloo said:


> And indeed not all cis women have that privilege, although let's face it that's kind of splitting hairs.
> 
> But I still don't think it justifies suggesting (unless I'm reading her wrong) that cis women shouldn't mention these issues or their genitalia at a protest lest it feel exclusionary to trans women. A placard saying 'Only real women have a vagina' would be exclusionary and anti-trans but 'Keep your laws out of my uterus' is about a specific and very real threat to the bodily autonomy of the vast majority of women in many parts of the world and no one should feel they have to add '... (BTW, I recognise not all women have uterii') in order not to exclude trans women or women who've had hysterectomies.



I'm not sure she did say that those things can't be mentioned...her request was that reproductive systems are not 'centred'.... I haven't read her Twitter feed, did she go on to say what she thinks should be centred at 'the heart of the demonstration?'


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 21, 2018)

bimble said:


> What about all these genders though, will science be investigating them ?
> Genderfluid Support




you're seriously linking a tumblr site for this argument?? 

yer just taking the piss and trying to find the wackiest shit to complain about, bintle, fix up


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 21, 2018)

bimble said:


> It’s an ‘intersectional issue’ because worrying about pregnancy and reproductive rights is part of ‘cis privilege’. Not all women have that luxury etc.


Whoa there. I think you'll find you don't need to be able to produce a child to be able to worry about issues of pregnancy or reproductive rights.


----------



## bimble (Jan 21, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> you're seriously linking a tumblr site for this argument??
> 
> yer just taking the piss and trying to find the wackiest shit to complain about, bintle, fix up


I am taking the piss its true. But do only 2 proper genders exist according to you then?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 21, 2018)

bimble said:


> I am taking the piss its true. But do only 2 proper genders exist according to you then?


What's a proper gender?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 21, 2018)

bimble said:


> I am taking the piss its true. But do only 2 proper genders exist according to you then?



Or 3 with ‘neuter’?

I find it interesting that some languages have a lot more than 3 genders.

Also, (by the by), some life forms have a lot more than 2 sexes.


----------



## Cloo (Jan 21, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> I'm not sure she did say that those things can't be mentioned...her request was that reproductive systems are not 'centred'.... I haven't read her Twitter feed, did she go on to say what she thinks should be centred at 'the heart of the demonstration?'


Yes, I think that's the words she used and she put it in the context of including all women... so she saw it as an inclusionary move, but I think she missed the point that reproductive issues *are* at the centre of these marches. The threat to bodily autonomy is far more the point of these protests than trans rights. I think that people should protest about trans rights at these marches by all means, but this should not have to be at the expense of women protesting about their reproductive rights. Otherwise you are saying that the issues of a tiny minority of women, albeit an extra-oppressed group, outweighs the issues of the vast majority.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 21, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> What's a proper gender?



Surprised to see no “propagender” - where you mention your self-identified gender as often as possible for political reasons.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 21, 2018)

It’s a propagenda coup


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 21, 2018)

8ball said:


> Surprised to see no “propagender” - where you mention your self-identified gender as often as possible for political reasons.


Beware of the Italian masons in propagenda due


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 21, 2018)

bimble said:


> I am taking the piss its true. But do only 2 proper genders exist according to you then?




2 sexes do. gender is as varied as consciousness.

I dont even understand how this is a fucking argument tbh


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 21, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Perhaps one of the problems is that anyone starting to read some gender critical blogs and websites will immediately come away with a huge amount of disinformation.  They will be told it's been proved most transsexuals have a sexual fetish called autogynephilia.  They will be told it's been proved that trans women commit violent offences at the same rate as men, they will be told a man who makes rapes jokes has called himself a woman and demanded a senior role in the Labour Party, that a trans indenitified male demanded Top Shop let men in their changing rooms and Top Shop complied because they were scared, that Jessica Winfield had to be moved from a women's prison because she was sexually harassing fellow inmates and that an NHS worker tried to force a woman to have a smear test against her wishes.
> 
> They will probably be shown lots of tweets from anonymous teenagers without any mention of the abuse and in the past violence that has come from the trans critical side, they will have the proposed new law completely misrepresented as meaning any man could just fill out a form and demand access to a womens refuge.  And that one man in Canada pretended to be trans and sexually assaulted someone without any mention that this is the only time it has happened in the world, and that trans women have been accessing womens support services for years now without incident.  They might even be shown websites like transcrime that list criminal offences committed by trans people as if this is representative, and be told huge numbers of children are being given drugs to stop puberty when in reality the number is tiny.  They will be told studies showing rates of being victims of  crime or suicide attempts by trans people have been debunked, and that a study has proved half of trans prisoners are sexual offenders.  And on and on and on.  None of these things are true on close inspection, and they represent the milder side of trans critical feminism, they might be told a lot worse.
> 
> And they will probably come out of it hating trans people, and repeating these myths, all of which have been repeated on this thread.  And when trans people get upset and angry about what they recognise as a highly orchestrated propaganda campaign then their emotional and understandable reaction to that will be used against them to prove that trans people really are  aggresive and nasty and refuse to have a debate.  And then they will take the red pill and believe the oppressed is the oppressor and Sheila Jeffries and Venice Allan will congratulate themselves on a job well done.  Same tactics that have been used against marginalised groups throughout history, and this time being used by people on the left.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 21, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> All those who changed yer mind on issues say "I".



I.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 21, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> ‘The cis’


The Sith


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 21, 2018)

did you see your GP??


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 21, 2018)

Why is Penagleng being trolled with mad Tumblr shit. We'll need to drag out some of the feminist stuff that gives me the dry heaves all like EXPLAIN THIS, WOMEN


----------



## Wilf (Jan 21, 2018)

weepiper said:


> View attachment 125787
> Munroe Bergdorf, a trans woman, drumming up support for the Women's March London.
> We have to not mention vaginas or uteruses at a _women's protest march _so as not to exclude people who were born with a male body who want to come too but inexplicably cannot cope with female biology being all in their faces now.


It's all a bit shit when an 'intersectional mindset' is proposed as something you have to have rather than something you should be embarrassed to find lurking in some hidden corner of your politics.


----------



## bimble (Jan 21, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> gender is as varied as consciousness





pengaleng said:


> like seriously one of two things will happen in the future, science will either prove being trans is a natural condition of humanity or it'll prove it's not..



It’s going to be tough for science to get involved at all if there’s this infinite variety of genders.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 21, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> You seem intent on reframing everything I say as being an attack on trans people. I find this utterly bizarre.





> The acronym originally stood for “trans-exclusionary radical feminist”, although those protesting last week dramatically offered “exterminationist” as a variation for the “E” in the leaflets they distributed outside the hotel.


Women must not be silenced in the debate on gender identity | The National




FabricLiveBaby! said:


> No one wants to be labelled a bigot



I see no difference between being labelled a bigot or cis. Both are lies.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 21, 2018)

Let's not forget the reproductive rights issue (re bodily autonomy, health care, abortion, etc) still affects some trans men.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 21, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> Let's not forget the reproductive rights issue (re bodily autonomy, health care, abortion, etc) still affects some trans men.


And some intersexuals who have been curiously overlooked in the biology side of things. 


On that subject, distress regarding being assigned the wrong sex at birth(in this case, quite literally) isn't just a trans issue. Intersex people often strongly identify with one gender or sometimes neither and many undergo transitions later in life. 


The Intersex Roadshow: Intersex Fertility


----------



## Sunset Tree (Jan 21, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> Let's not forget the reproductive rights issue (re bodily autonomy, health care, abortion, etc) still affects some trans men.



Doesn't seem massively relevant to the points feminists are making about trans women.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 21, 2018)

Sunset Tree said:


> Doesn't seem massively relevant to the points feminists are making about trans women.



It was said above that reproductive rights don't intersect with trans issues. That isn't true.


----------



## Sunset Tree (Jan 21, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> It was said above that reproductive rights don't intersect with trans issues. That isn't true.



Perhaps more accurate to say reproductive rights don't intersect with trans women's issues


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 21, 2018)

Wilf said:


> It's all a bit shit when an 'intersectional mindset' is proposed as something you have to have rather than something you should be embarrassed to find lurking in some hidden corner of your politics.



Wilf An awareness of how sometimes aspects of identity and experience/issues may intersect in terms of institutional, personal and societal (political) engagement isn't inherently a bad thing is it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 21, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Women must not be silenced in the debate on gender identity | The National
> 
> 
> 
> ...








Three terfs recently


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 21, 2018)

bimble said:


> It’s going to be tough for science to get involved at all if there’s this infinite variety of genders.


Not really. Once there's evidence of a sufficiency of genders I suppose scientists would just say there's fuck loads of genders and leave it at that.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 21, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Three terfs recently


That's the first belly laugh I have had all day


----------



## trashpony (Jan 21, 2018)

Child rape
Forced marriage
Breast cutting
Corrective rape
Forced abortion
Cliterodectomy
Rape
Menstruation
Polycystic ovary syndrome
Pregnancy
Ectopic pregnancy
Pre-eclampsia
Hyperemis gravidum
Gestational diabetes
Menopause
Osteoporosis

Hahahahaha. So many japes in women's biology.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 21, 2018)

The profoundly hostile TERF response to the rise in people declaring themselves to be non binary, agender or one of dozens of new genders is probably the clearest demonstration of how little interest they have in their alleged goal of “gender abolition”. Their politics are about preserving the status quo, and in particular freezing certain subcultures and “women’s spaces” in aspic. There’s absolutely no rational argument that can be made that such people are reinforcing gender stereotypes or gender roles, not even the kind of entirely disingenuous argument that TERFs who favour medical gatekeeping (and therefore the pressure towards stereotyped presentation that entails) make about trans women and trans men. There’s a movement of young people engaging in a DIY revolt against gender as a system and the people who most loudly claim to be gender abolitionists absolutely hate it, because it’s disruptive of the peace they themselves have made with gender. They are the equivalent of the Maoist sects which declared the students a terrible danger to working class politics during May 68.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 21, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> I had to look up aetiology, and after doing so I'm not sure I agree. If I hurt my back by falling, or if I have a stomach ache after eating raw acorns, the doctor will want to know how I think my pain started.



Relevant story and symptoms, yes.  Your treatment recommendations based on a Google search less so.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 21, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Child rape
> Forced marriage
> Breast cutting
> Corrective rape
> ...



Yes, that’s right, people amused by your bizarre politics are really laughing at child rape, you crank.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 21, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Yes, that’s right, people amused by your bizarre politics are really laughing at child rape, you crank.


Why *is* is that heterosexual men are so invested in this argument? It's mystifying. Would you fuck a transwoman Nigel? I bet you wouldn't.


----------



## bimble (Jan 21, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> They are the equivalent of the Maoist sects which declared the students a terrible danger to working class politics during May 68.





Nigel Irritable said:


> The TERFs are the feminist equivalent of the kind of Maoist sect who responded to the first stirrings of May 68 by denouncing the students as a danger to the worker's movement.



You do keep saying this.
You think that individual young people choosing to identify their inner Gender Identity as some named kind of subsect of an infinite variety of newly-coined Gender Identities is the same thing as "a DIY revolt against gender as a system". Its not. It leaves the system perfectly in tact, or rather entrenches it, the definition of Gender Identity 'woman' becomes someone who wears lipstick and heels ffs.

And all those un-fun things trashpony just listed, you can't "identify" out of them.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 21, 2018)

8ball said:


> Relevant story and symptoms, yes.  Your treatment recommendations based on a Google search less so.


However today we recognise that patients often have a more thorough knowledge of their own condition than those of us who are not specialists, including GP's and try to move away from a more paternalistic approach. All dependent on the situation, there's a lot within the NHS that could sometimes do with a bit more levelling- e.g. Listening to people who spend more time with a patient but are lower in the hierarchy nurses carers etc but that's a whole nuther thread.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 21, 2018)

8ball said:


> Relevant story and symptoms, yes.  Your treatment recommendations based on a Google search less so.



Who is to judge? _Relevant story and symptoms_ is really all that matters, unless the person diagnosing has contradictory information they know to be true.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 21, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Child rape
> Forced marriage
> Breast cutting
> Corrective rape
> ...


Killjoy!


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 21, 2018)

this shit just got juicy as fuck

am awaiting nigels response


----------



## 8ball (Jan 21, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> Who is to judge? _Relevant story and symptoms_ is really all that matters, unless the person diagnosing has contradictory information they know to be true.



Fair point.  In the middle of some stuff right now and will come back to this in a bit and try to do your point a bit more justice...

Edit:  and Horatio’s too


----------



## Sue (Jan 21, 2018)

Ah Nigel Irritable, so you know how you called me a transphobe and a liar and have since ignored my requests that you back this up? Since you're here, now would be seem an ideal time.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 21, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Child rape
> Forced marriage
> Breast cutting
> Corrective rape
> ...


Hormonal birth control and the side effects thereof
Endometriosis
C-sections
Vaginal mesh implants going wrong
Perineal tears causing double incontinence
Lol.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 21, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Why *is* is that heterosexual men are so invested in this argument? It's mystifying. Would you fuck a transwoman Nigel? I bet you wouldn't.



Because this is the litmus test.  You might support trans rights but would you actually have sex with one of the freaks?  Of course not, who would?

Hard to imagine a more dehumanising post.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 21, 2018)

that was low init


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 21, 2018)

weepiper said:


> Hormonal birth control and the side effects thereof
> Endometriosis
> C-sections
> Vaginal mesh implants going wrong
> ...


Did you stumble upon the Great Urban Sexist Jokes 2010 thread as I did by mistake at 3am this morning? 


pengaleng said:


> that was low init


It errr, taking a rather nasty turn indeed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 21, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> that was low init


Below the belt you might say


----------



## 8ball (Jan 21, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Why *is* is that heterosexual men are so invested in this argument? It's mystifying. Would you fuck a transwoman Nigel? I bet you wouldn't.



Isn’t this worryingly reminiscent of those cases where natal lesbians are criticised for not wanting sex with trans women?

Also, het men have been criticised for “dumping” the issue of trans women onto (natal woman) feminists, so you could forgive het men for not knowing whether to butt out or not.

Edit: no agreement with Nige’s policy of calling lots of people bigots should be inferred


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 21, 2018)

I am not usually into this but how do you tag a mod, that latest from Trashpony was way too far.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 21, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Child rape
> Forced marriage
> Breast cutting
> Corrective rape
> ...



Who is laughing about this trashpony? Where is it happening?


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 21, 2018)

Ah forget it I don't want to police neither.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 21, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> I am not usually into this but how do you tag a mod, that latest from Trashpony was way too far.


A country mile too far


----------



## trashpony (Jan 21, 2018)

weepiper said:


> Hormonal birth control and the side effects thereof
> Endometriosis
> C-sections
> Vaginal mesh implants going wrong
> ...


Ooh yes, forgot about those.

Another one - the abdominal mesh my friend has to contain all her organs after 3 massive babies destroyed her stomach muscles 



smokedout said:


> Because this is the litmus test.  You might support trans rights but would you actually have sex with one of the freaks?  Of course not, who would?
> 
> Hard to imagine a more dehumanising post.


Let's not deflect here. As a heterosexual man, would you have sex with a transwoman? Given they're identical to woman in every single way? That's your argument, isn't is? That we're all the same.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 21, 2018)

it's not only the gays who get all the decent men now


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 21, 2018)

give it a rest on listing biological shit as well yer giving me hives


----------



## smokedout (Jan 21, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Let's not deflect here. As a heterosexual man, would you have sex with a transwoman? Given they're identical to woman in every single way? That's your argument, isn't is? That we're all the same.



Sorry I'm not joining in sexualised bullying like this.  I suppose trans woman are just supposed to accept this kind of abuse, anything else and they'll probably be accused of demanding sex.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 21, 2018)

8ball said:


> Isn’t this worryingly reminiscent of those cases where natal lesbians are criticised for not wanting sex with trans women?
> 
> Also, het men have been criticised for “dumping” the issue of trans women onto (natal woman) feminists, so you could forgive het men for not knowing whether to butt out or not.
> 
> Edit: no agreement with Nige’s policy of calling lots of people bigots should be inferred


I've read posts on twitter from lesbians feeling awful for not wanting to have sex with transwomen. That is fucked up. They're being made to feel awful and transphobic for having sexual preferences. Cotton ceiling. 

No one should feel they should have sex with anyone.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 21, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> give it a rest on listing biological shit as well yer giving me hives


Rancid cocks! Sorry.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 21, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Let's not deflect here. As a heterosexual man, would you have sex with a transwoman? Given they're identical to woman in every single way? That's your argument, isn't is? That we're all the same.


I can't see this ending well


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 21, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Why *is* is that heterosexual men are so invested in this argument? It's mystifying. *Would you fuck a transwoman Nigel? I bet you wouldn't.*



That is fucking low. I am not at all with Nigel on his insistence that any questions asked are terfy or bigoted btw.

Furthermore there is at least one transwoman and one transman on this thread that are disagreeing with this approach/you/these fears and insistence that the extreme of these arguments are the norm... There are also cis/natal women who are not in agreement with that.

Why would you post such a question? All he has to post is 'yes I would'... and you look silly, cos you can't prove otherwise.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 21, 2018)

bimble said:


> You do keep saying this.
> You think that individual young people choosing to identify their individual inner selves as some named kind of subsect of an infinite variety of newly-coined Gender Identities is the same thing as "a DIY revolt against gender as a system". Its not. It leaves the system perfectly in tact, or entrenches it, the definition of Gender Identity 'woman' becomes someone who wears lipstick and heels ffs.



It has a drastically corrosive effect on the naturalisation of gender norms and assumptions, and it is the deeply entrenched naturalisation of gender, the idea that it just is, in a way that’s beyond question, that gives gender much of its ideological power. That’s why the larger and less confused group of transphobes - social conservatives - is so completely horrified by it. It’s the largest outbreak of gender non conformism in nearly half a century at least and you fucking idiots - unlike your conservative allies - can’t even see it because it isn’t following the schema 80s radfems imagined it would. Instead you end up at shouting at a subset of young people who are increasingly radical about gender, lgbt issues, race etc to get back in their boxes.

https://www.dailydot.com/irl/gender-non-conforming-study/

27% of California teenagers are regarded as gender nonconforming. That’s a social movement that’s doing more to undermine conventional ideas about gender than a thousand more years of irrelevant post 80s radfem subcultures will ever manage. And it stems in its entirety from trans politics. When reality doesn’t match your ideological framework, it’s time to alter the assumptions in your framework, not to curse reality for failing to measure up.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 21, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Sorry I'm not joining in sexualised bullying like this.  I suppose trans woman are just supposed to accept this kind of abuse, anything else and they'll probably be accused of demanding sex.


Guess that's a no then. So, transwomen are women until it comes to men wanting to have sex when actually they aren't women. 

Glad we've cleared that up


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 21, 2018)

god this is tragic as fuck


----------



## bimble (Jan 21, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It has a drastically corrosive effect on the naturalisation of gender norms and assumptions, and it is the deeply entrenched naturalisation of gender, *the idea that it just is, in a way that’s beyond question, that gives gender much of its ideological power*.


But that is what's coming back you wally, the idea that Gender Is Innate. And unquestionable, and inside of us.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 21, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Guess that's a no then. So, transwomen are women until it comes to men wanting to have sex when actually they aren't women.
> 
> Glad we've cleared that up


Yeh. Have you been taking arguing lessons from bimble? As if smokedout's post is proof of no man wanting to fuck a trans woman... Didn't realise your dishonesty before, trashpony, very disappointed


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 21, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> god this is tragic as fuck


#threadoftheyear


----------



## smokedout (Jan 21, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Guess that's a no then. So, transwomen are women until it comes to men wanting to have sex when actually they aren't women.
> 
> Glad we've cleared that up



You'd really do well to stop making assumptions.  Interrogating someone about their sex life to try and prove how disgusting trans women are is about as vile as it can get.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 21, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> That is fucking low. There is at least one transwomen and one transman on this thread that are disagreeing with this approach/you/these fears and insistence that the extreme of these arguments are the norm... There are also cis/catal women who are not in agreement with that. Why would you post such a question? All he has to post is 'yes I would'... and you look silly, cos you can't prove otherwise.


He won't because he wouldn't. And I'm posting it because this is so much gaslighting. 

Transwomen aren't women; transmen aren't men. If they were, we wouldn't have 7000 posts on this thread. There wouldn't be any discussion. If I get banned for stating a biological fact then I'll send you all foil hats.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 21, 2018)

also - I really dont understand people who say I'd never sleep with xyz because it's just showing prejudice because you dont know future you and to state it so clearly makes me think wtf is wrong

like I aint into women at all but to say I'd never ever sleep with one is pushing it a bit


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 21, 2018)

trashpony said:


> He won't because he wouldn't. And I'm posting it because this is so much gaslighting.
> 
> Transwomen aren't women; transmen aren't men. If they were, we wouldn't have 7000 posts on this thread. There wouldn't be any discussion. If I get banned for stating a biological fact then I'll send you all foil hats.


I don't think you know what gaslighting means.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 21, 2018)

Sue said:


> Ah Nigel Irritable, so you know how you called me a transphobe and a liar and have since ignored my requests that you back this up? Since you're here, now would be seem an ideal time.



In the post where I said you were lying, I outlined exactly what you were lying about. Read it again. You were lying. 

As for whether you are transphobic, it’s easy enough to test that: do you believe that trans people should be able to live as their preferred gender, socially and legally? If you do, and you oppose medical gatekeeping and regard those who deliberately misgender and seek to exclude trans people as bigots, then I’m certainly willing to accept that you arent yourself transphobic. Perhaps you could clarify.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 21, 2018)

trashpony said:


> He won't because he wouldn't. And I'm posting it because this is so much gaslighting.
> 
> Transwomen aren't women; transmen aren't men. If they were, we wouldn't have 7000 posts on this thread. There wouldn't be any discussion. If I get banned for stating a biological fact then I'll send you all foil hats.


Come now, why would editor ban you for that when there're other better reasons for such an action?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 21, 2018)

trashpony said:


> He won't because he wouldn't. And I'm posting it because this is so much gaslighting.
> 
> Transwomen aren't women; transmen aren't men. If they were, we wouldn't have 7000 posts on this thread. There wouldn't be any discussion. If I get banned for stating a biological fact then I'll send you all foil hats.


How do you define gaslighting?


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 21, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> also - I really dont understand people who say I'd never sleep with xyz because it's just showing prejudice because you dont know future you and to state it so clearly makes me think wtf is wrong
> 
> like I aint into women at all but to say I'd never ever sleep with one is pushing it a bit


Exactly. I haven't met a transgender person I was attracted to yet, as I haven't met many. It's a bridge you can only cross when you come to it.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 21, 2018)

omfg my roast is ready soon and this just got the sickest it's ever been


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 21, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Exactly. I haven't met a transgender person I was attracted to yet, as I haven't met many. It's a bridge you can only cross when you come to it.



well thats it, I talked a lot about this shit in therapy

oh and i have  and i probably would sleep with em and i see em as however they present themselves


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 21, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Guess that's a no then. So, transwomen are women until it comes to men wanting to have sex when actually they aren't women.
> 
> Glad we've cleared that up



How you have imagined smokedout 's post to mean anything of the sort is beyond me. Make you opinion known by all means but this nonsense reading of his post is bizarre.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 21, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> omfg my roast is ready soon and this just got the sickest it's ever been


We'll pause the thread till you're done


----------



## bimble (Jan 21, 2018)

I used to know this creepy guy who paid to sleep with 'pre -op trans women'.Didn't mean he though they were women.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 21, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> How you have imagined smokedout 's post to mean anything of the sort is beyond me. Make you opinion known by all means but this nonsense reading of his post is bizarre.


Yeh, it's step away from the keyboard time at trashy towers


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 21, 2018)

> I used to know this creepy guy who paid to sleep with 'pre -op trans women'.Didn't mean he though they were women.



It's the crude gender spectrum graphic presented as important FACT again. Fucking hell.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 21, 2018)

bimble said:


> I used to know this creepy guy who paid to sleep with 'pre -op trans women'.Didn't mean he though they were women.


Excellent contribution, is this a cunt-out?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 21, 2018)

bimble said:


> I used to know this creepy guy who paid to sleep with 'pre -op trans women'.Didn't mean he though they were women.


Grand


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 21, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Excellent contribution, is this a cunt-out?



It's a tall tale is what it is.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 21, 2018)

bimble said:


> But that is what's coming back you wally, the idea that Gender Is Innate. And unquestionable, and inside of us.



In fact there’s a huge range of ideological positions “coming back” from that movement, questions and answers which range across the spectrum of possible positions, and that very range has the effect of denaturalising everything and putting everything up for question. But you bigoted clowns aren’t capable of stepping back and looking at the wider effects of, for instance, over a quarter of California teens becoming “gender non conforming” and what that does to normative assumptions about gender of a sort that rely on being unquestioned. Instead you just want to reduce a complex social movement to some hapless trans woman who likes to wear high heels and lipstick. The social conservatives the TERFs functionally serve are not as blinkered and they are correctly treating the whole phenomenon as a fundamental threat.

In so far as TERFery has any impact on this movement it’s a negative one, by the way. By constantly attacking trans women and weaponising gender abolitionism against them, you succeed only in making the most radical end of gender nonconforming young people a little more cautious about developing and working out their analysis of gender because they don’t under any circumstances want to give succor to bigots. And all of them absolutely despise people who pick on trans women.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 21, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> How do you define gaslighting?


Telling people things that they know aren't true and keeping telling them that until they think their perception is wrong. 
So: telling a woman that a man in a dress is actually a woman and that she's mad and crazy and bigoted and wrong for believing that += gaslighting. 

But you don't believe this either. You've said (at least) a couple of times on this thread that transpeople have different experiences from men and women and that our experiences are not the same. Weirdly, no one has yelled TERF at you. I wonder why that is. I wonder why Nigel has not told you that you're a bigot. Or that kabbes, who's expressed some very gender critical views, hasn't had much criticism. Nigel hasn't called him a terf and a bigot at all although he's said some things that, if I wrote them, would get a page of boring crap from Nige.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 21, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Transwomen aren't women; transmen aren't men. If they were, we wouldn't have 7000 posts on this thread. There wouldn't be any discussion.




there is discussion because there is prejudice.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 21, 2018)

Nigel Irritable  - how does gender non-conforming work in those societies where women are cut and sold and raped?


----------



## trashpony (Jan 21, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> there is discussion because there is prejudice.


You can identify as a fucking unicorn for all I care. You're not one


----------



## elbows (Jan 21, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> there is discussion because there is prejudice.



And the prejudice became a good deal more open in this thread in recent weeks since phrases like 'bloke in a dress' started being thrown around more freely from certain quarters. A mask slipped.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 21, 2018)

trashpony said:


> You can identify as a fucking unicorn for all I care. You're not one




wow.

bitter much?

you aint lived my life, you dont know i shit rainbows.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 21, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Telling people things that they know aren't true and keeping telling them that until they think their perception is wrong.
> So: telling a woman that a man in a dress is actually a woman and that she's mad and crazy and bigoted and wrong for believing that += gaslighting.
> 
> But you don't believe this either. You've said (at least) a couple of times on this thread that transpeople have different experiences from men and women and that our experiences are not the same. Weirdly, no one has yelled TERF at you. I wonder why that is. I wonder why Nigel has not told you that you're a bigot. Or that kabbes, who's expressed some very gender critical views, hasn't had much criticism. Nigel hasn't called him a terf and a bigot at all although he's said some things that, if I wrote them, would get a page of boring crap from Nige.


Yeh. Well, like the beans and cheese thing I'm very much in a minority here with my view on gender and trans things. That and my argument doesn't revolve around other posters' choice of partner. And I've been something of a plague on both your houses person on the events at the bookfair. So I'm not surprised people aren't taking issue with me.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 21, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Telling people things that they know aren't true and keeping telling them that until they think their perception is wrong.
> So: telling a woman that a man in a dress is actually a woman and that she's mad and crazy and bigoted and wrong for believing that += gaslighting.
> 
> But you don't believe this either. You've said (at least) a couple of times on this thread that transpeople have different experiences from men and women and that our experiences are not the same. Weirdly, no one has yelled TERF at you. I wonder why that is. I wonder why Nigel has not told you that you're a bigot. Or that kabbes, who's expressed some very gender critical views, hasn't had much criticism. Nigel hasn't called him a terf and a bigot at all although he's said some things that, if I wrote them, would get a page of boring crap from Nige.



Nobody on this thread so far has come close to what you just did.  That was just nasty bigoted playground shit and if you can't see that you really need to have a word with yourself.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 21, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> wow.
> 
> bitter much?


No, not bitter. You can identify as whatever you like but you can't change your sex.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 21, 2018)

trashpony said:


> No, not bitter. You can identify as whatever you like but you can't change your sex.




no one is saying thats possible though, jesus. woman isnt a sex.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 21, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> no one is saying thats possible though, jesus. woman isnt a sex.


woman = adult human female


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 21, 2018)

ughhhh this again


----------



## JimW (Jan 21, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> In fact there’s a huge range of ideological positions “coming back” from that movement, questions and answers which range across the spectrum of possible positions, and that very range has the effect of denaturalising everything and putting everything up for question. But you bigoted clowns aren’t capable of stepping back and looking at the wider effects of, for instance, over a quarter of California teens becoming “gender non conforming” and what that does to normative assumptions about gender of a sort that rely on being unquestioned. Instead you just want to reduce a complex social movement to some hapless trans woman who likes to wear high heels and lipstick. The social conservatives the TERFs functionally serve are not as blinkered and they are correctly treating the whole phenomenon as a fundamental threat.


For me it's because it seems to be done in a very liberal way that focuses on gender as it impacts on the individual and that's partly because it hasn't listened to "boring old" 80s feminist analysis about how that was constructed on sex and its material consequences. Hope I'm wrong and the next stage is changes in child care roles and working patterns and all the rest but doesn't look like where it's going. 
Maybe that denaturalisation you mention will lead on to that eventually as gender gets hollowed out but strikes me that there's also a strong chance of instead of just delinking some epiphenomena of gender from sex while not attacking the latter as a basis for discrimination etc precisely because you deny its role.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 21, 2018)

trashpony said:


> woman = adult human female



woman = adult human female who men want to have sex with seems to be your actual definition.


----------



## bimble (Jan 21, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> It's the crude gender spectrum graphic presented as important FACT again. Fucking hell.


Ok. I mentioned it just in reference to ‘would you sleep with one then’ , which I think is irrelevant .


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 21, 2018)

elbows said:


> And the prejudice became a good deal more open in this thread in recent weeks since phrases like 'bloke in a dress' started being thrown around more freely from certain quarters. A mask slipped.



Yes, that’s what’s usually lurking behind “just asking questions” TERFery.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 21, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> ughhhh this again


I know, tedious innit


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 21, 2018)

JimW said:


> For me it's because it seems to be done in a very liberal way


Which is currently a problem with the left in general.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 21, 2018)

smokedout said:


> woman = adult human female who men want to have sex with seems to be your actual definition.


No, it just means adult human female who heterosexual adult males want to have sex with. 

It's in response to lesbians feeling/being told that they're transphobic for not wanting to have sex with transwomen. 

We can all fancy whoever we want to fancy but the cotton ceiling is most definitely a thing. Weirdly though, no one wants to push men's boundaries about who they want to have sex with. Not sure why that would be


----------



## JimW (Jan 21, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Which is currently a problem with the left in general.


Yep. I'm a terrible critical thinker so not wrapping my head around this at any speed but have a horrible feeling it will go the route of e.g. formal racial equality in the US with an ongoing racist reality because it's not attacking the roots of what all these divisions serve, bit of mobility and window-dressing but fundamental inequalities remain, and given how intrinsic sex is to social reproduction perhaps even less of a material shift than with race.
ETA Which, like with other rights, is not to deny that a gain that makes someone's life better in the here and now isn't to be dismissed.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 21, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The profoundly hostile TERF response to the rise in people declaring themselves to be non binary, agender or one of dozens of new genders is probably the clearest demonstration of how little interest they have in their alleged goal of “gender abolition”. Their politics are about preserving the status quo, and in particular freezing certain subcultures and “women’s spaces” in aspic. There’s absolutely no rational argument that can be made that such people are reinforcing gender stereotypes or gender roles, not even the kind of entirely disingenuous argument that TERFs who favour medical gatekeeping (and therefore the pressure towards stereotyped presentation that entails) make about trans women and trans men. There’s a movement of young people engaging in a DIY revolt against gender as a system and the people who most loudly claim to be gender abolitionists absolutely hate it, because it’s disruptive of the peace they themselves have made with gender. They are the equivalent of the Maoist sects which declared the students a terrible danger to working class politics during May 68.



This is absolutely spot on.


----------



## JimW (Jan 21, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> This is absolutely spot on.


Though the Maoists had a point about those students. Look at Cohn-Bendit now.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 21, 2018)

JimW said:


> For me it's because it seems to be done in a very liberal way that focuses on gender as it impacts on the individual and that's partly because it hasn't listened to "boring old" 80s feminist analysis about how that was constructed on sex and its material consequences. Hope I'm wrong and the next stage is changes in child care roles and working patterns and all the rest but doesn't look like where it's going.
> Maybe that denaturalisation you mention will lead on to that eventually as gender gets hollowed out but strikes me that there's also a strong chance of instead of just delinking some epiphenomena of gender from sex while not attacking the latter as a basis for discrimination etc precisely because you deny its role.



It’s hardly surprising that, in a society where liberalism is the dominant ideological frame, parts of almost any social movement have liberal inflections. Much British TERFery, for example, is only “radical feminist” when it comes to a subset of gender issues and is otherwise vehemently liberal in its politics (eg the New Statesman set who are in large part responsible for the unique prominence of these views in Britain).

I don’t agree with the 80s radfem minority of the feminist movement about the basis of the oppression of women (I think that Marxist feminists and socialist feminists had much more interesting things to say even then), but whether you agree with them or not, judging a social movement that is so clearly disruptive of gender as a system of naturalized assumptions by how closely it maps onto their schema is madness. In so far as TERFs have any effect on the evolution of that movement it’s entirely negative as they force its most radical elements into a constant defense of trans women against obsessive allegedly “feminist” attacks and associate terms like “gender abolition” and “gender critical” with close minded and vicious bigotry. Thankfully that effect is limited by the extreme marginality of TERFery outside of Britain.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 21, 2018)

trashpony said:


> No, it just means adult human female who heterosexual adult males want to have sex with.
> 
> It's in response to lesbians feeling/being told that they're transphobic for not wanting to have sex with transwomen.
> 
> We can all fancy whoever we want to fancy but the cotton ceiling is most definitely a thing. Weirdly though, no one wants to push men's boundaries about who they want to have sex with. Not sure why that would be



It wasn't in response to that at all.  No-one has done this on this thread.  And given the shocking rate of sexual violence faced by trans women and the number who end up in the sex industry this is as spurious as it is unpleasant.  Perhaps trans women are only good for rape and objectification, no normal man would want to fuck them after all.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 21, 2018)

...


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 21, 2018)

kabbes said:


> I don’t see the likes of FabricLiveBaby!, bimble, MochaSoul or ElizabethofYork as trying to prevent trans women from living their lives as women. I see them reacting to having their own protections as a marginalised group — namely women in a patriarchal society — be undermined. That’s what this thread is all about.



It's not just women arguing and protesting about it. Delving into the "Drop the T" backlash - and the related backlash against to a push to turn LGBT into SAGA (sexuality and gender acceptance) - you'll find yourself on another voyage into the ins and outs of erosions of meanings of words related to sexuality. Parents are worried about the possibility of pressure being exerted on kids frequenting the dredges of Tumbler. The common complaint is that of dialogue being stifled by accusations of trans hate (or self hate when the person speaking happens to be trans). On the main themes:
An epic rant on Owen Jones' twitter from a gay man (read the whole thread if possible lots of links there):


A thought provoking but very considerate account by a lesbian about learning to feel comfortable in one's own skin and the trials and tribulations of transitioning, detransitioning and societal misogyny. It's a great read.
Pressure to Transition
See also #LesbianErasure on twitter
https://www.thestranger.com/slog/20...-not-like-lesbians-but-porn-consumers-sure-do

The whole thing is a monumental can of worms and it's hard not to feel the reek of misogyny when everything from ideas of innate gender to opposition to wearing pink pussyhats to women's marches *inspired by the phrase "Grab them by the pussy"* seem to erase women. If we can't mention our grievances what's the point of going to a march?
If we erode the meanings of the basic terms related to the axis of our oppression how can we express it let alone begin to fight it? It will become impossible.



trashpony said:


> Guess that's a no then. So, transwomen are women until it comes to men wanting to have sex when actually they aren't women.
> 
> Glad we've cleared that up



All of you are women but we reserve the right to regard only some of you as sexual objects. In the meantime, we won't mind if the other group is roundly promoted as representing the lot of you, and their claims about womanhood using the worst stereotypes and reactionary theories about you are widely accepted and even enshrined in law  All of this while taking away or eroding the words you need to express your difficulties living in this society and using violent language and behavior to shut you up.





trashpony said:


> We can all fancy whoever we want to fancy but the cotton ceiling is most definitely a thing. Weirdly though, no one wants to push men's boundaries about who they want to have sex with. Not sure why that would be




Girl fighting the cotton ceiling to the point of convincing herself of needing conversion therapy


----------



## Sue (Jan 21, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> In the post where I said you were lying, I outlined exactly what you were lying about. Read it again. You were lying.



Okay, so this is the bit of my post you quoted when you accused me of lying.



Sue said:


> I'm not setting up abortion and trans rights against each other (and I'm certainly not afraid of either!). The whole topic of Ireland came up because Nigel Irritable kept holding it up as a model of progressiveness.





Nigel Irritable said:


> One of the peculiarities of transphobes in this thread is that they are so used to lying that they keep forgetting that when they lie about other people’s posts in this thread other people can easily see that they are lying.
> 
> Ireland is of significance to this discussion not because anyone is claiming it is a uniquely progressive country. It isn’t, although it does have a much bigger feminist movement than Britain because struggles over women’s rights have been so prominent. It is of significance to this discussion because it has self ID laws of the sort that British TERFs are loudly scaremongering about, it has had them for years, and not one of the terrible consequences TERFs have been predicting has come to pass. Instead of attempting to deal with this unfortunate fact, the transphobes here simply ignore it and repeat over and over again that Ireland has repressive abortion laws. They are dishonest down to their marrow.



You say you 'outlined exactly what [I was] lying about.' It certainly doesn't seem clear to me what you're actually referring to. In terms of abortion rights and trans rights, is it lying to point out that advances in Ireland have been made legally in respect of one and not in the other? Surely that's fact?

As to Ireland, you certainly seem to be saying it's more progressive than the UK (if I could bother trawling through everything, I imagine I'd find more):



Nigel Irritable said:


> I realize that it can be difficult to tell far right or social conservative transphobes from ”gender critical” transphobes when they are all posting much the same thing, but even the more obtuse among us should be able to work out which group people called things like “Dr Radfem” or with bios reading “still a radical feminist” belong to.
> 
> As for seeing them everywhere, no, fortunately not. Just in the pages of right wing (British) media and in the occasional social media swarm. *I’ve never once encountered someone pushing anti-trans “feminist” views in the real world, not socially, not at work, not on the left here and not in the abortion rights movement here*.





Nigel Irritable said:


> As for whether you are transphobic, it’s easy enough to test that: do you believe that trans people should be able to live as their preferred gender, socially and legally? If you do, and you oppose medical gatekeeping and regard those who deliberately misgender and seek to exclude trans people as bigots, then I’m certainly willing to accept that you arent yourself transphobic. Perhaps you could clarify.



If you'd been paying attention, you'd see I already did.



Sue said:


> Here's the thing though, I'm not a TERF and don't have 'paranoid fantasies' about this stuff. I absolutely believe that everyone should be treated with respect and dignity and that, of course, includes trans people.
> 
> I do think though that there are aspects around 'trans women are women' (for example) and what that means for non trans women that need to be thought about in a more nuanced way (on both sides of the debate) than is currently happening. Which is why I've been following this thread with interest.
> 
> If you're actually paying attention to this thread, it seems I'm not alone in having such concerns while not being a TERF. You don't seem to appreciate that not everything is black and white and that sometimes there are shades of grey. And I think there's a lot of grey around this.



'Respect and dignity' of course includes people living as their preferred gender, socially and legally and thinking people who deliberately misgender are bigots. I have some concerns as stated about some aspects of the debate on both sides. I don't think that's transphobic, do you?


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 21, 2018)

i'm chipping too, i cant be reading shit like this atm, I got things to do next week i need to focus on


----------



## trashpony (Jan 21, 2018)

smokedout said:


> It wasn't in response to that at all.  No-one has done this on this thread.  And given the shocking rate of sexual violence faced by trans women and the number who end up in the sex industry this is as spurious as it is unpleasant.  Perhaps trans women are only good for rape and objectification, no normal man would want to fuck them after all.


It is. If women are supposed to accept transwomen as identical then men should too. And yes, you’re right.  Transwomen are subject to horrific violence in the sex industry and I actively campaign against the industry


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 21, 2018)

bimble said:


> You do keep saying this.
> You think that individual young people choosing to identify their inner Gender Identity as some named kind of subsect of an infinite variety of newly-coined Gender Identities is the same thing as "a DIY revolt against gender as a system". Its not. It leaves the system perfectly in tact, or rather entrenches it, the definition of Gender Identity 'woman' becomes someone who wears lipstick and heels ffs.
> 
> And all those un-fun things trashpony just listed, you can't "identify" out of them.



I don't think you're aware of all the ways young people today are subverting gender. It absolutely doesn't align the idea of lipstick and heels with woman. And there are gender-non-conforming trans people too (by that I mean not conforming to traditional ideas of gender presentation or gender roles—both of which frequently get mixed up and mixed into discussions of gender without properly understanding that they can often mean different things). There are androgynous trans women, 'feminine' trans men who wear makeup, butch trans women, cis men who wear lipstick, nb people who will sometimes wear dresses and sometimes not shave.

In many ways, gender identity is separate to gender presentation for a huge amount of younger people, which is presumably what we should be pleased about, right? What complicates matters is that there are often, or at least have been, a lot of rules regarding gender presentation when it comes to trans people trying to access health care. Rules that state a person must 'live as their preferred gender' in part translating into 'if you're a trans woman you must look like a woman or make the attempt to do so'. There are many ways of looking like a woman, but our traditionally-binary society tends to say that means feminine clothes, feminine hair, feminine makeup. That is of course bullshit, but for a trans woman trying to access health care and any legal recognition it has often meant toeing that line. 

It's also often the case that passing is important for trans people so as to avoid additional aggro. That means not drawing attention to a mismatch in gender presentation and gender identity. It shouldn't need to be the case, but it frequently is because it's damn hard navigating an often hostile society as a trans person, at the same time as trying to access all the help you need.

The age of transition often impacts these things as well. I know a trans woman who transitioned in her teens, and I know one who transitioned far later in life. The woman who transitioned young seems to feel quite happy wearing a mixture of clothing, wearing her hair short, often appearing butch. The woman who transitioned later wears traditionally feminine clothes, wears full makeup, has long hair, etc. Now, this is just 2 people I happen to know, but it helps to understand the differences of experience people have when transitioning and how that can impact how they present. The younger woman passes with no problem. The older woman probably never will.

tl;dr Gender presentation has specific implications for trans people for a number of reasons; gender presentation isn't the same as gender identity; a whole range of younger people don't conform to binary gender presentations _regardless_ of their gender and whether they are trans, cis, nb or intersex.


----------



## elbows (Jan 21, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> Actually, I find myself agreeing with all manner of positions at different opposing ends of the arguments here.



Thanks for stopping by anyway, and yeah I can certainly relate to that sentiment!

Not so much when the dodgy language starts flying though, that just makes me suspicious and tempted to retreat to more simplistic shores.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 21, 2018)

trashpony said:


> No, it just means adult human female who heterosexual adult males want to have sex with.
> 
> It's in response to lesbians feeling/being told that they're transphobic for not wanting to have sex with transwomen.
> 
> We can all fancy whoever we want to fancy but the cotton ceiling is most definitely a thing. Weirdly though, no one wants to push men's boundaries about who they want to have sex with. Not sure why that would be



The fixation on the idea that the occasional “nobody fancies me, this is so unfair” bit of social media whining that you can undoubtedly find among trans people is a political conspiracy specifically targeted at lesbians is one of the most obvious demonstrations of the irrationalism and paranoia of the TERF milieu. It’s pure Transsexual Empire delusion about trans women as a secret collective of rapists.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 21, 2018)

Sue said:


> You say you 'outlined exactly what [I was] lying about.' It certainly doesn't seem clear to me what you're actually referring to.



You, along with a number of transphobes in this thread, claimed that Ireland was being brought into the discussion as an example of a  more progressive country, when it had been repeatedly stated that the relevance of Ireland to the discussion is that Ireland has the kind of self-ID laws that TERFs claim will have dire consequences without any of those consequences becoming apparent. This misrepresentation allowed you to avoid the point actually made in favour of a diversionary argument about the struggle for abortion rights here.




			
				Sue said:
			
		

> Respect and dignity' of course includes people living as their preferred gender, socially and legally and thinking people who deliberately misgender are bigots. I have some concerns as stated about some aspects of the debate on both sides. I don't think that's transphobic, do you?



That depends on what exactly these “concerns” are. Can I take it from this, by the way, that you regard trashpony’s remarks about trans women being “men in a dress” as bigoted?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 21, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> This talk in particular I found very good, fair, described what I was seeing accurately and the thought's. From a university employed philosopher.  It didn't come to any conclusions specifically other than point out some logical inconsistencies.




Thanks - v interesting point by point breakdown of why we're often talking past each other.
I've noticed myself using the term 'gender' with slightly different meanings at different times and it seems a lot of us are doing it.

And a great illustration of "good essentialism" vs. "bad essentialism".


----------



## Sue (Jan 21, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> *You, along with a number of transphobes *in this thread, claimed that Ireland was being brought into the discussion as an example of a  more progressive country, when it had been repeatedly stated that the relevance of Ireland to the discussion is that Ireland has the kind of self-ID laws that TERFs claim will have dire consequences without any of those consequences becoming apparent. This misrepresentation allowed you to avoid the point actually made in favour of a diversionary argument about the struggle for abortion rights here.
> 
> 
> 
> That depends on what exactly these “concerns” are. Can I take it from this, by the way, that you regard trashpony’s remarks about trans women being “men in a dress” as bigoted?



So you don't think Ireland is more progressive than the UK in respect of self ID? Why do you keep telling us to look to Ireland as an example then? 

In your first para, you appear to call me a transphobe, in your second you're not sure. I'm more confused than ever.

I'm sure we're also all grateful to you being the arbiter of what/who is/isn't transphobic.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 21, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> i'm chipping too, i cant be reading shit like this atm, I got things to do next week i need to focus on


Yeh but are they more important than this?


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 21, 2018)

Derail as fuck, but Yassin Al Haj Saleh


MochaSoul said:


> It's not just women arguing and protesting about it. Delving into the "Drop the T" backlash - and the related backlash against to a push to turn LGBT into SAGA (sexuality and gender acceptance) - you'll find yourself on another voyage into the ins and outs of erosions of meanings of words related to sexuality. Parents are worried about the possibility of pressure being exerted on kids frequenting the dredges of Tumbler. The common complaint is that of dialogue being stifled by accusations of trans hate (or self hate when the person speaking happens to be trans). On the main themes:
> An epic rant on Owen Jones' twitter from a gay man (read the whole thread if possible lots of links there):
> 
> 
> ...





You see, any serious point you made was lost when you start applauding that awful stuff trashpony was coming out with. We have had finger wagging for struggling to engage with sensible questions from  posters like yourself, but then you come out with stuff like that and the toilet creep thing the other day. It's why Nigel Irritable can't contain his rage and I struggle myself, but mindful of what I will be accused of if I blow my top. What to dooooo.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 21, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> I had to look up aetiology, and after doing so I'm not sure I agree. If I hurt my back by falling, or if I have a stomach ache after eating raw acorns, the doctor will want to know how I think my pain started.



Bugger - found Horatio's quote and lost it, but remember the thing about patient's sometimes being experts on their own conditions... will answer as best I can...

Mojo first:  while you need to collect the story, there is the possibility that the patient may be mistaken about the cause (and sometimes the medical professionals too).  We can agree that a person is unhappy and is describing their experience as concordant with having been "born in the wrong body", but unpacking what that means is difficult (for various reasons), and also that determining an appropriate way of managing this is difficult when so much is unknown and sometimes even the organisations involved are using the terminology in divergent and confusing ways.

Horatio:  yes, a person is the expert on their own experience and should be believed about that experience.  I think their interpretation of their own experience is also shaped by culture and expectation and a sense of "what are the available options for what this issue might be"*, and I'm personally not aware of that many ways of helping people in this area are not to a large extent based on the idea that "the body is wrong and needs to be fixed to an extent the person is most comfortable with".

The degree of success of surgical procedures is very variable to the best of my knowledge, and while a lot in this area can be done, it looks a bit like we could be _sometimes_ (when diagnosing transgender children at a young age, for example), befalling into the "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" trap.

* - as a tangential example when I started having seizures in my late teens that looked like epilepsy to those observing, I was funnelled very strongly down a neurology healthcare pathway, and the things which didn't quite fit the model felt like they were being minimised, however at the time I described my experiences as "epileptic fits" based on what I was told by others, the options on the table etc.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 21, 2018)

Sue said:


> So you don't think Ireland is more progressive than the UK in respect of self ID? Why do you keep telling us to look to Ireland as an example then?
> 
> In your first para, you appear to call me a transphobe, in your second you're not sure. I'm more confused than ever.
> 
> I'm sure we're also all grateful to you being the arbiter of what/who is/isn't transphobic.



I don’t think that Ireland is generally more progressive than Britain. Ireland’s example is of relevance because it has the self ID laws transphobes claim will lead to horrible consequences and yet those consequences haven’t happened. It’s secondarily of interest as one example among many of the general marginality of TERFery in countries other than Britain. The lack of interest from TERFs in what has actually happened in Ireland, Denmark, etc is fairly clear evidence that TERFs are more interested in pushing their own bigotry than in the actual results of self-ID laws.

No, I didn’t call you a transphobe in the second paragraph. I said that transphobes had repeatedly engaged in the same evasion as you - responding to arguments about self-ID not leading to the dire consequences they claim by instead changing the subject to other things wrong with Irish laws. I agree though that you are confused.

I note that you neither outline what these “concerns” you have are, nor say whether you regard trashpony’s “men in a dress” comments as bigoted.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 21, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Derail as fuck, but Yassin Al Haj Saleh
> 
> 
> 
> You see, any serious point you made was lost when you start applauding that awful stuff trashpony was coming out with. We have had finger wagging for struggling to engage with sensible questions from  posters like yourself, but then you come out with stuff like that and the toilet creep thing the other day. It's why Nigel Irritable can't contain his rage and I struggle myself, but mindful of what I will be accused of if I blow my top. What to dooooo.



I’m not angry, I’m quite deliberately rude to these shitheads.


----------



## snadge (Jan 21, 2018)

smokedout said:


> You'd really do well to stop making assumptions.  Interrogating someone about their sex life to try and prove how disgusting trans women are is about as vile as it can get.



You are the the thickest fuck on this thread.


----------



## snadge (Jan 21, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I’m not angry, I’m quite deliberately rude to these shitheads.



Well it's not working, you're not rude, only misinformed.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 21, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh but are they more important than this?




well it's therapy so shit like this is pretty detrimental to the process tbh

the roast was awesome btw


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 21, 2018)

We have had clear indications now from a couple of posters that the wish is to take all discussion regarding the rights of transgender people to call themselves male/female completely off the table. JimW and others have raised some very valid concerns, however the way some feminists are going to me also spells dark days ahead for the feminist movement and wider social justice movement in general if they were to succeed in getting transgender people to pipe down when talking about who they are and what they experience. 

As smokedout has asked a few times, where are people going with this?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 21, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> well it's therapy so shit like this is pretty detrimental to the process tbh






> the roast was awesome btw


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 21, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I’m not angry, I’m quite deliberately rude to these shitheads.


Apols for projected rage, it was meant as a positive.


----------



## elbows (Jan 21, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> You see, any serious point you made was lost when you start applauding that awful stuff trashpony was coming out with. We have had finger wagging for struggling to engage with sensible questions from  posters like yourself, but then you come out with stuff like that and the toilet creep thing the other day. It's why Nigel Irritable can't contain his rage and I struggle myself, but mindful of what I will be accused of if I blow my top. What to dooooo.



I think you've done a great job of venting without a pressure blowout, I will applaud you for that and the timely contents of your posts. I thought I'd seen it all with this thread but lately it left me stunned at times, to the extent that shock delayed the bulk of my anger. The timely posts of you and some others in recent days allowed me to stay relatively quiet and I dont know where my anger is now, maybe you made it obsolete


----------



## trashpony (Jan 21, 2018)

HELLO WE ARE MEN AND WOMEN SHOULD LISTEN TO WHAT WE TELL THEM

Do you actually have anything new to say or are you just spewing the same Nigel wallofwords that he's been giving us for the last 200 or so page? Eugh the disengenuous pain of people who have no fucking skin in the game is nauseating. 

Anyway, this is a pointless discussion . I'm not interested in what you have to say and vice versa. 

I'll walk away because I'm bored.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 21, 2018)

elbows said:


> I think you've done a great job of venting without a pressure blowout, I will applaud you for that and the timely contents of your posts. I thought I'd seen it all with this thread but lately it left me stunned at times, to the extent that shock delayed the bulk of my anger. The timely posts of you and some others in recent days allowed me to stay relatively quiet and I dont know where my anger is now, maybe you made it obsolete


Thanks! I shall exit the thread on that positive note as nightshift beckons, glad I have had some positive effect and I am chuffed you have paid it back


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 21, 2018)

elbows said:


> I think you've done a great job of venting without a pressure blowout, I will applaud you for that and the timely contents of your posts. I thought I'd seen it all with this thread but lately it left me stunned at times, to the extent that shock delayed the bulk of my anger. The timely posts of you and some others in recent days allowed me to stay relatively quiet and I dont know where my anger is now, maybe you made it obsolete


Anger is never obsolete


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 21, 2018)

trashpony said:


> HELLO WE ARE MEN AND WOMEN SHOULD LISTEN TO WHAT WE TELL THEM
> 
> Do you actually have anything new to say or are you just spewing the same Nigel wallofwords that he's been giving us for the last 200 or so page? Eugh the disengenuous pain of people who have no fucking skin in the game is nauseating.
> 
> ...




jesus


----------



## 8ball (Jan 21, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> We have had clear indications now from a couple of posters that the wish is to take all discussion regarding the rights of transgender people to call themselves male/female completely off the table.



Part of the problem is that both sides have red lines as to what is on the table and what isn’t, which is an impasse in itself, but it becomes even more confusing when the terminology is all over the place.

VP’s post about gender presentation was interesting, but while I can understand what gender presentation is, gender identity is still something that seems foggy to a good many of us.


----------



## elbows (Jan 21, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Anger is never obsolete



I heard a rumour that its an energy.


----------



## Sue (Jan 21, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I don’t think that Ireland is generally more progressive than Britain. Ireland’s example is of relevance because it has the self ID laws transphobes claim will lead to horrible consequences and yet those consequences haven’t happened. It’s secondarily of interest as one example among many of the general marginality of TERFery in countries other than Britain. The lack of interest from TERFs in what has actually happened in Ireland, Denmark, etc is fairly clear evidence that TERFs are more interested in pushing their own bigotry than in the actual results of self-ID laws.
> 
> *No, I didn’t call you a transphobe in the second paragraph.* I said that transphobes had repeatedly engaged in the same evasion as you - responding to arguments about self-ID not leading to the dire consequences they claim by instead changing the subject to other things wrong with Irish laws. I agree though that you are confused.
> 
> I note that you neither outline what these “concerns” you have are, nor say whether you regard trashpony’s “men in a dress” comments as bigoted.



First para of your previous as I said -- unless you're not including me with transphobes which really isn't clear:



Nigel Irritable said:


> *You, along with a number of transphobes in this thread.*..


 
Confused? Oh Nigel, I do love it when you patronise me like that. 

My concerns are that valid views and concerns on both sides are not being listened to by the other to the detriment of both. This is all relatively new stuff with a lot of things to be considered. Further debate around how this can be accommodated on both sides is essential. Trying to shut down debate seems the worst possible way of approaching this. That seems to be the tactic at play alas.

And if that makes me a transphobe in your eyes, then fuck it.

As to trashpony's views -- i haven't time to go back and she exactly what she said. As reported by you, it's not something I would say myself.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 21, 2018)

8ball said:


> VP’s post about gender presentation was interesting, but while I can understand what gender presentation is, gender identity is still something that seems foggy to a good many of us.



well presentation is about the aesthetic and identity is the sense of self, sometimes it's closely linked, sometimes not so much


----------



## trashpony (Jan 21, 2018)

Gender identity is a first world luxury. 95% of girls in Somalia have their clitorises cut off and their vaginas stitched shut. No one cares what they identify as. They are mutilated because they are born women.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 21, 2018)

am sure they love being the pawns in this argument as well

everything you encounter every day is a first world luxury so why just demonise gender identity in this way, or is it just a tobyjug fact?


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 21, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Gender identity is a first world luxury. 95% of girls in Somalia have their clitorises cut off and their vaginas stitched shut. No one cares what they identify as. They are mutilated because they are born women.



The joys of possessing a vagina.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 21, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Gender identity is a first world luxury. .



And yet India and several countries in South America have far more visible trans populations than most of the 'first world'.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 21, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> well presentation is about the aesthetic and identity is the sense of self, sometimes it's closely linked, sometimes not so much



I'm not too sure why people are presenting in ways that are at odds with their sense of self, though (unless they're doing it in a way that isn't really their choice, as in one of VP's examples).

And I don't quite get what the 'sense of self' is - it's a useful shorthand but there seem to be lots of problems with it.  Take non-binary.  I think you said gender was as varied as consciousness.  Doesn't that make almost *everyone* non-binary?


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 21, 2018)

8ball said:


> I'm not too sure why people are presenting in ways that are at odds with their sense of self, though (unless they're doing it in a way that isn't really their choice, as in one of VP's examples).
> 
> And I don't quite get what the 'sense of self' is - it's a useful shorthand but there seem to be lots of problems with it.  Take non-binary.  I think you said gender was as varied as consciousness.  Doesn't that make almost *everyone* non-binary?




well yes because binary is just a oversimplification of a spectrum, if it's a spectrum then no true binary can exist

some people just like the way something looks thats all, if you grown up complicated then shits gonna be complicated


----------



## 8ball (Jan 21, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> well yes because binary is just a oversimplification of a spectrum, if it's a spectrum then no true binary can exist
> 
> some people just like the way something looks thats all



Sometimes spectra are defined as a single dimension between poles, but I agree, gender expectations are such an odd bag of things that putting them on a line seems absurd.  Agree with your second point too.  Everyone should have more choice about what they can like, do etc.

Though as someone who's still fuzzy on what "gender identity" is, this seems basically like an argument for just dropping the word "gender" from the term and people just having identities.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 21, 2018)

Sue said:


> Confused? Oh Nigel, I do love it when you patronise me like that.



You are the one who declared yourself confused. I just agreed with you.




			
				Sue said:
			
		

> My concerns are that valid views and concerns on both sides are not being listened to by the other to the detriment of both.



What are the “valid views” on the transphobe side of this discussion that aren’t being listened to precisely?




			
				Sue said:
			
		

> As to trashpony's views -- i haven't time to go back and she exactly what she said. As reported by you, it's not something I would say myself.



I wouldn’t want you to miss out on the opportunity to clarify your views, so I looked it up for you. Here’s the full statement: 

“Telling people things that they know aren't true and keeping telling them that until they think their perception is wrong. So: telling a woman that a man in a dress is actually a woman and that she's mad and crazy and bigoted and wrong for believing that += gaslighting.” 

That was post 6843 on this thread. Just for good measure, she followed it up with:

“You can identify as a fucking unicorn for all I care. You're not one”

Which was post 6846.

So, is this description of trans women as men in dresses, followed by the standard right wing comparison with absurd invented identifications, bigoted?


----------



## Jonti (Jan 21, 2018)

8ball said:


> Part of the problem is that both sides have red lines as to what is on the table and what isn’t, which is an impasse in itself, but it becomes even more confusing when the terminology is all over the place.
> 
> VP’s post about gender presentation was interesting, but while I can understand what gender presentation is, gender identity is still something that seems foggy to a good many of us.


how about, gender is the attributes and expectations laid upon one by others, based on ones sex.  It's also part of the personality ~ the psychological adjustments and negotiations in response to that imposed gender.

dunno about gender identity


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 21, 2018)

trashpony said:


> HELLO WE ARE MEN AND WOMEN SHOULD LISTEN TO WHAT WE TELL THEM
> 
> Do you actually have anything new to say or are you just spewing the same Nigel wallofwords that he's been giving us for the last 200 or so page? Eugh the disengenuous pain of people who have no fucking skin in the game is nauseating.
> 
> ...



It's pretty impressive how you manage to completely ignore the women who disagree with you and find your bile disgusting.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 21, 2018)

Jonti said:


> how about, *gender is the attributes and expectations laid upon one by others, based on ones sex*.  It's also part of the personality ~ the psychological adjustments and negotiations in response to that imposed gender.
> 
> dunno about gender identity





forget that i mistread it


----------



## 8ball (Jan 21, 2018)

Jonti said:


> how about, gender is the attributes and expectations laid upon one by others, based on ones sex.  It's also part of the personality ~ the psychological adjustments and negotiations in response to that imposed gender.
> 
> dunno about gender identity



I agree - my point was that I’m also foggy on gender identity but I think that’s because we’re sometimes using the term differently.  Good to be able to separate it from gendet presentation, though that seems to be not about “presenting a gender” as I originally thought, but those parts of external presentation that happen to fit into the preconceived boxes.  

Meaning your gender presentation could be a mosaic of elements, rather than mapping to a binary or even a spectrum.


----------



## Sue (Jan 21, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> You are the one who declared yourself confused. I just agreed with you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In terms of valid views on both sides, read the thread. Actually *read it* and consider the views given rather than put your fingers in your ears and assume you know best or that if people don't agree with everything you say or ask questions that they're bad people. Who knows, you might even learn something! 

I've clarified my views on @trashpony’s comments. If you want to know more about her views, I suggest you ask her.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 21, 2018)

8ball said:


> I agree - my point was that I’m also foggy on gender identity but I think that’s because we’re sometimes using the term differently.  Good to be able to separate it from gendet presentation, though that seems to be not about “presenting a gender” as I originally thought, but those parts of external presentation that happen to fit into the preconceived boxes.
> 
> Meaning your gender presentation could be a mosaic of elements, rather than mapping to a binary or even a spectrum.




I think most people have asked for definitions of shit but that was pointless providing cus the threads so shit

like when someones saying gender it'd at least be helpful to state what kind of gender they are talking about whether thats gender roles or gender identity cus those two get confused the most imo and gender presentation is a totally different thing as well

but i am tired


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 21, 2018)

It's pretty bonkers, isn't it, to think that by accepting trans women and letting them live in a way that is true to the way they feel, it's somehow meant to follow that we'll all stop caring about fgm and rape and the pro-choice movement and so on. I'm not sure how that line of thinking goes. YES BUT FGM!!!11!!! Yes but fgm what? It's fucking awful. 

It reads like something right out of the alt-right playbook. "Why are you wasting your time on the gender pay gap or on locker room talk when there are women being raped in Africa?" Classic misdirection and whataboutery to disguise a nasty, vile agenda.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 21, 2018)

Sue said:


> In terms of valid views on both sides, read the thread. Actually *read it* and consider the views given rather than put your fingers in your ears and assume you know best or that if people don't agree with everything you say or ask questions that they're bad people. Who knows, you might even learn something!
> 
> I've clarified my views on @trashpony’s comments. If you want to know more about her views, I suggest you ask her.



I've read the views of the transphobes in detail. I'm asking which of their views you think are "valid" but aren't "being listened to". For some reason you seem reluctant to answer.

Similarly, you haven't clarified whether you think trashpony's comments were bigoted. I understand that they aren't comments you would make yourself, but that isn't what you were asked.


----------



## Mation (Jan 21, 2018)

Sue said:


> First para of your previous as I said -- unless you're not including me with transphobes which really isn't clear:


If Nigel had said 'you and *other* transphobes' they'd have been calling you a transphobe, but the wording was 'you and transphobes' i.e. you plus transphobes.

I don't even want to quote your posts, trashpony. You seem to have entirely lost your mind.


----------



## Sue (Jan 21, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I've read the views of the transphobes in detail. I'm asking which of their views you think are "valid" but aren't "being listened to". For some reason you seem reluctant to answer.
> 
> Similarly, you haven't clarified whether you think trashpony's comments were bigoted. I understand that they aren't comments you would make yourself, but that isn't what you were asked.



You may have read them but you patently haven't listened to the concerns raised. Thus far you've shown no interest in debating (and have even said so a number of times) or in the views of anyone who doesn't agree with you so I'm not too sure why you're suddenly so keen. Personally, after 200+ pages of this, I've absolutely lost the will.

Whether you agree with @trashpony’s comments or not (and as i said i don't ) it might be informative if you tried to find out why she made them.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 21, 2018)

Sue said:


> it might be informative if you tried to find out why she made them.


.... a fair enough request I suppose. Is trashpony doing similar in terms of why people disagree with her?

This is odd Sue isn't it? ... You claim it would be informative but don't say why...perhaps you could? Because she being a woman/natal/cis/woman won't be enough though I think because many of us have posted to show our concerns are absolutely not 'centred' and we do, like you admit to, disagree.


----------



## Sue (Jan 21, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> .... a fair enough request I suppose. Is trashpony doing similar in terms of why people disagree with her?
> 
> This is odd Sue isn't it? ... You claim it would be informative but don't say why...perhaps you could? Because she being a woman/natal/cis/woman won't be enough though I think because many of us have posted to show our concerns are absolutely not 'centred' and we do, like you admit to, disagree.



I don't know, you'd have to ask trashpony. (I'm not quite clear why people are asking me about her views or expecting me to know what she does or doesn't think or do -- bit weird really.)

I always think it's informative to know how people arrived at their views on things, especially if you don't agree with them. Gives you insight into their concerns/fears and helps inform how you might go about addressing them.

It also sometimes raises things you haven't really considered and helps you clarify your own views.

Eta Back in the day when I was a union rep in an unrecognised workplace, I had quite a lot of Eastern European colleagues who were virulently anti-union. It was a bit weird because most of them were sound but would take any opportunity to slag it and us off. Some of my fellow reps were like 'fuck them', I wondered why as it seemed pretty universal.

So I asked a couple I knew reasonably well in a non-confrontational manner what the problem was. Turned out in the Soviet Union, unions were run by the state and seen as being a tool of management/oppression and they assumed that's what we were about.

So once we knew what the problem was, we could start to explain that that's not what we were about. And in fact it was completely the opposite in an unrecognised workplace with a massively anti-union management. Ultimately quite a lot of them signed up.

Should we have just gone 'fuck it' or tried, as we did, to find out why they thought what they thought and then address their concerns? Pretty basic stuff no?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 21, 2018)

Usually when we want to find out why transphobes are transphobic, why homophobes are homophobic, why racists are racist, why sexists are sexist, it's so we can use that knowledge to change society so people don't become transphobic, homophobic, racist, or sexist. So yes, perhaps it is useful to understand why trashpony is transphobic. It would help us move forward to a better world.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 21, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Wilf An awareness of how sometimes aspects of identity and experience/issues may intersect in terms of institutional, personal and societal (political) engagement isn't inherently a bad thing is it?


I agree with all of that. I think the different bits of our identity and our real world experiences are crucial in terms of building any kind of politics that is worthwhile and effective. It's crucial because it allows us to think about different types of oppression and different sources of oppression - and it, genuinely, allows us to relate the political to the personal.  I happen to still believe in class analysis, the state and exploitation, so it follows that for me class politics has the potential for relating those experiences and building movements. But as anarcho type I also think prefigurative politics is important, not just as a way of behaving and organising, but also as a day to day conduit for people's complex needs and experiences.  S'pose I'm waffling and doing anarchist politics 101, but I think it's worth saying all that because the 'trans v terf' thing doesn't seem to display much of it.  To reduce both sides grievances to a ridiculous level, I recognise that trans people want recognition and rights - and that some feminists resist any kind of breach of gender/sexual definitions. But then so much of the battle seems to be fought within existing inequalities, categories and defintions.  Seems to me the only people being really challenged in this battle are actually _radical feminists and trans activists _- not the gruesome nature of our wider society in the way it deals with gender, sexual violence or indeed identity.  There could also, it seems to me from the outside, just be a bit more common decency.

Sorry, that ended up being longer than I thought... and so to finally answer your question. The tweet I quoted said everyone should attend the march with an 'INTERSECTIONAL MINDSET'.  That's the thing I object to, Intersectionality as a movement towards entirely self defined and subjective notions of oppression, _which then build into a tightly boundaried self ownership of the terms of debate, notions of offence and the like_.  Not so much Crenshaw's original ideas, more the reality that parts of the left have become, a managed left with gatekeepers. S_omething divorced from social forces_. Suppose I'm arguing along the line of things Kenan Malik has said about multiculturalism, that as it became established parts of it became more conservative and tied into power, but also more willing to offer up an image of idealised minority and religious groups.  The irony is, I'm not hostile to subjective notions of identity -  nor am I hostile to feminists saying that the combination of biology and gender oppression means we should keep woman as a 'clear' category (that's big of me, I know ). It's just where does either side go with those definitions that seems less productive.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 21, 2018)

That's a thoughtful post, Wilf.

I think for some of us, there is no issue with there being a 'clear' category of cis woman and one of trans woman, under the broader umbrella of 'woman'. An indication that we share much, but there are of course things that differ. For most purposes, 'woman' is enough. And of course, there are plenty of other reasons we might put another adjective in front of woman if the situation required it (disabled, British, gay, whatever). Acknowledging trans women as being under the broader woman umbrella doesn't stop cis women from campaigning on things specific to them (and indeed many trans women want to stand arm-in-arm with them, fighting with them as their allies). Making space for trans women under the umbrella of all women doesn't mean there will no longer be any acknowledgement of fgm, or expectations around child rearing, of marital rape, of access to abortion services (as implied up thread).


----------



## Mation (Jan 21, 2018)

Wilf said:


> Sorry, that ended up being longer than I thought... and so to finally answer your question. The tweet I quoted said everyone should attend the march with an 'INTERSECTIONAL MINDSET'.  That's the thing I object to, Intersectionality as a movement towards entirely self defined and subjective notions of oppression, _which then build into a tightly boundaried self ownership of the terms of debate, notions of offence and the like_.  Not so much Crenshaw's original ideas, more the reality that parts of the left have become, a managed left with gatekeepers. S_omething divorced from social forces_. Suppose I'm arguing along the line of things Kenan Malik has said about multiculturalism, that as it became established parts of it became more conservative and tied into power, but also more willing to offer up an image of idealised minority and religious groups.  The irony is, I'm not hostile to subjective notions of identity -  nor am I hostile to feminists saying that the combination of biology and gender oppression means we should keep woman as a 'clear' category (that's big of me, I know ). It's just where does either side go with those definitions that seems less productive.


I've seen so many tortuous and overly complicated definitions of intersectionality and terrible consequences that the definitions apparently lead to. I really don't get why it's hard to grasp simply as recognising the different sources of oppression and the fact that they interact, in order to make common cause with other oppressed people.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 21, 2018)

Mation said:


> I've seen so many tortuous and overly complicated definitions of intersectionality and terrible consequences that the definitions apparently lead to. I really don't get why it's hard to grasp simply as recognising the different sources of oppression and the fact that they interact, in order to make common cause with other oppressed people.



And also calls those it deems not oppressed ‘privileged’ based on what identity boxes they tick. Sounds like the perfect tool for building solidarity across the class.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 21, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> Usually when we want to find out why transphobes are transphobic, why homophobes are homophobic, why racists are racist, why sexists are sexist, it's so we can use that knowledge to change society so people don't become transphobic, homophobic, racist, or sexist. So yes, perhaps it is useful to understand why trashpony is transphobic. It would help us move forward to a better world.



IMO some transphobia arises from a fear that resources that feminists have fought for to redress patriarchal oppressions could be co-opted by men if the only barrier to accessing those resources is identification.

Edit: though this kind of co-option could also be seen as a threat to trans women


----------



## Mation (Jan 21, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> And also calls those it deems not oppressed ‘privileged’ based on what identity boxes they tick. Sounds like the perfect tool for building cross-class solidarity.


No, that's a misunderstanding. It recognises that there is privilege but it doesn't apply, as you suggest, solely to those who are not oppressed. For example, I'm a black, bisexual woman with a disability (a specific learning difficulty) and am marginalised on those fronts. I also have cis privilege, able-bodied privilege, some class privilege in terms of my accent and education, the privilege of living in a familiar culture and so on. The experience of marginalisation I have helps me to understand the marginalisation of people oppressed on different or overlapping fronts to me. I think the misunderstanding comes from thinking that having privilege means (people think) you've never had to struggle for anything. And, to be fair, the term privilege is obviously also applied to people who are just massively wealthy or fortunate etc.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 21, 2018)

Mation said:


> No, that's a misunderstanding. It recognises that there is privilege but it doesn't apply, as you suggest, solely to those who are not oppressed. For example, I'm a black, bisexual woman with a disability (a specific learning difficulty) and am marginalised on those fronts. I also have cis privilege, able-bodied privilege, some class privilege in terms of my accent and education, the privilege of living in a familiar culture and so on. The experience of marginalisation I have helps me to understand the marginalisation of people oppressed on different or overlapping fronts to me. I think the misunderstanding comes from thinking that having privilege means (people think) you've never had to struggle for anything. And, to be fair, the term privilege is obviously also applied to people who are just massively wealthy or fortunate etc.



What does it have to say about Capitalism?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 21, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> And also calls those it deems not oppressed ‘privileged’ based on what identity boxes they tick. Sounds like the perfect tool for building solidarity across the class.



Privilege theory and intersectionality are often mixed together by both proponents and opponents, along with other things like standpoint epistemology, call out culture etc. But that’s a result of particular political subcultures adopting a mixture of these things, not something inherent to them. There’s nothing in intersectionality as a framework that relies on privilege theory, or vice versa.


----------



## Mation (Jan 21, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> What does it have to say about Capitalism?


Directly? Nothing. But Capitalism obviously results in a shed load of the oppression (and privilege) recognised in intersectional analyses. It's not in conflict with class analysis. However, I said 'causes' of oppression in my previous post where I could probably have better said 'grounds for'.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 22, 2018)

Sue said:


> You may have read them but you patently haven't listened to the concerns raised. Thus far you've shown no interest in debating (and have even said so a number of times) or in the views of anyone who doesn't agree with you so I'm not too sure why you're suddenly so keen. Personally, after 200+ pages of this, I've absolutely lost the will.
> 
> Whether you agree with @trashpony’s comments or not (and as i said i don't ) it might be informative if you tried to find out why she made them.



You are the one claiming that there is something valid in the arguments of the transphobes that isn’t being listened to. Yet you seem to be having real difficulty in finding a single example of an argument from them that you are willing to assign validity to that isn’t being listened to. And yet again you are refusing to say whether you think trashpony’s remarks are bigoted, which is surely a very straightforward question.

As for why trashpony made those comments, she made them because she’s a supporter of a particular fringe ideology which is deeply hostile to trans people for allegedly feminist reasons. I really don’t care how she personally ended up supporting that ideology, but I’ve posted at some length here about where TERFery or “gender critical feminism” comes from as a mini movement.


----------



## Sue (Jan 22, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> You are the one claiming that there is something valid in the arguments of the transphobes that isn’t being listened to. Yet you seem to be having real difficulty in finding a single example of an argument from them that you are willing to assign validity to that isn’t being listened to. And yet again you are refusing to say whether you think trashpony’s remarks are bigoted, which is surely a very straightforward question.
> 
> As for why trashpony made those comments, she made them because she’s a supporter of a particular fringe ideology which is deeply hostile to trans people for allegedly feminist reasons. I really don’t care how she personally ended up supporting that ideology, but I’ve posted at some length here about where TERFery or “gender critical feminism” comes from as a mini movement.



After 200 pages of this, you want a debate having refused to do so up until now? You're a bit late to the discussion party. Given you've repeatedly ignored/dismissed what people have been saying, it also strikes me as being a spectacular waste of my time. If you're interested in my views, I suggest you go back and read the thread. 

As to why trashpony made those comments, why not ask rather than ascribing motives to her that may or may not be true? 

You say you don't care how she arrived at her views. Maybe you should. You might learn something. And surely it's always useful to know what the 'other side' are thinking.


----------



## Humberto (Jan 22, 2018)

Mad thread.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 22, 2018)

Sue said:


> After 200 pages of this, you want a debate having refused to do so up until now?



I’m not interested in debating the merits of transphobia with committed transphobes. As you insist you aren’t a transphobe, you have no reason to believe that statement applies to you. It seems though that you are trying to avoid tying yourself to any particular opinion here - you want to pander to transphobes, want them to be listened to, say that some of their arguments are valid and go out of your way to avoid saying that obviously bigoted statements are bigoted, but you balk at telling us which of their views you agree with or what it is of value that you think that they add to a discussion about trans rights.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 22, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Sorry I'm not joining in sexualised bullying like this.  I suppose trans woman are just supposed to accept this kind of abuse, anything else and they'll probably be accused of demanding sex.


Have I mentioned my cis het boyfriend who considers me a woman, has sex with me and is not even ashamed? And I know quite a few trans women in loving and sexual relationships with cis het men.

I also get hit on cis het men, some who know I'm trans and some who don't.

Have had the odd lesbian/ bisexual woman flirting with me too - however serious that is I don't know because I'm monogomous - but every time someone says that no lesbian or no cis men would fuck a trans woman you're essentially erasing the many who would, and do.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 22, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> I haven't met a transgender person I was attracted to yet,



As far as you know. Do you know whether everyone you met was trans or cis?


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 22, 2018)

trashpony said:


> He won't because he wouldn't. And I'm posting it because this is so much gaslighting.
> 
> Transwomen aren't women; transmen aren't men. If they were, we wouldn't have 7000 posts on this thread. There wouldn't be any discussion. If I get banned for stating a biological fact then I'll send you all foil hats.



And you wonder why trans women have such trouble with discussing this stuff. Because in any discussion about trans, this sort of thing makes up a large proportion of the messages we receive - even on quite formal political discussions online, even in my union's women's group which is supposedly moderated and yet i still got this whilst trying to have a reasonable discussion with those prepared to listen and discuss rationally. Closed minds do not want a discussion, they want to force their world-view on to others, and not have to listen at all.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 22, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> As far as you know. Do you know whether everyone you met was trans or cis?


Fair point,  I was just saying Trashpony was asking something that  wasn't really possible to answer.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 22, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Let's not deflect here. As a heterosexual man, would you have sex with a transwoman? Given they're identical to woman in every single way? That's your argument, isn't is? That we're all the same.



No-one has ever argued that cis women and trans women are identical, but then it's TERFS and transphobes who generally refuse to use the word cis, wheras the attempt to have cis and trans in the vocabulary was there to acknowledge the differences, but at the same time, we're all women.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 22, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Fair point,  I was just saying Trashpony was asking something that  wasn't really possible to answer.


Generally - have agreed with your posts, but this is a point dear to my heart. My boyfriend keeps having his cis-het status challenged by transphobes because he's with me.

And yeah - pretty much any trans woman will tell you about just how attracted to trans women cis men can be. I've had to turn down sex more times in the last 4 years than in the whole of my life before i transitioned.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 22, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Generally - have agreed with your posts, but this is a point dear to my heart. My boyfriend keeps having his cis-het status challenged by transphobes because he's with me.


No I meant it is not possible for the *individual* Trashpony was screeching at to answer in a general way, as it's hard to say. You sleep with people who you fancy, it's not possible to predict who that will be in the future.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 22, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> No I meant it is not possible for the *individual* Trashpony was screeching at to answer in a general way, as it's hard to say. You sleep with people who you fancy, it's not possible to predict who that will be in the future.


spot on. I'm sure there are some people for which the 'wrong' genitals would be a deal breaker but on the other hand I suspect those people are in a minority, and I'm sure plenty of people who are with trans people have in the past said they never would be - because when faced with a human being you desire/love/care about then it is possible to change your mind.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 22, 2018)

The idea that trans women want to sleep with TERFs though. It's just so bizarre. I wouldn't even let one in my house if I knew.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 22, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> The idea that trans women want to sleep with TERFs though. It's just so bizarre. I wouldn't even let one in my house if I knew.


Ha!


----------



## Sunset Tree (Jan 22, 2018)

Intersectionality as it was conceived is very different to how it is commonly understood and utilised by adherents.  It's a bit presumptuous to assume people reject it because they misunderstand it.  It's from seeing the type of political action it informs in practice.


----------



## Sunset Tree (Jan 22, 2018)

Mation said:


> I've seen so many tortuous and overly complicated definitions of intersectionality and terrible consequences that the definitions apparently lead to. I really don't get why it's hard to grasp simply as recognising the different sources of oppression and the fact that they interact, in order to make common cause with other oppressed people.



If people used it in this definition there wouldn't be so many complaints about it.  The most enthusiastic proponents I've seen are privileged middle-class using it to tally up oppression points.



Mation said:


> Directly? Nothing. But Capitalism obviously results in a shed load of the oppression (and privilege) recognised in intersectional analyses. It's not in conflict with class analysis. However, I said 'causes' of oppression in my previous post where I could probably have better said 'grounds for'.



It is in conflict with class analysis in the way it's used - reducing class to an identity on the wheel of oppression, rather than a description of material conditions, resources, social structure, opportunity.


----------



## Mation (Jan 22, 2018)

Sunset Tree said:


> Intersectionality as it was conceived is very different to how it is commonly understood and utilised by adherents.  It's a bit presumptuous to assume people reject it because they misunderstand it. It's from seeing the type of political action it informs in practice.


Intersectionality as it was conceived is very different to how it is often understood by people who don't subscribe to it. I don't have to assume misunderstandings - they're often very clear from what people say. Granted there are some people who say they subscribe to it but don't in practise.


----------



## Sunset Tree (Jan 22, 2018)

Mation said:


> Intersectionality as it was conceived is very different to how it is often understood by people who don't subscribe to it. I don't have to assume misunderstandings - they're often very clear from what people say. Granted there are some people who say they subscribe to it but don't in practise.



Some people?  It's widespread.  A lot of people aren't going to read academic intersectional theory (nor should they have to) and will base it on how they see it practiced by their peers, activists, online, etc.  Perhaps they misunderstand it because people using it have strayed so far from the original meaning.


----------



## Sunset Tree (Jan 22, 2018)

I've been thinking about people saying sex is binary while gender is only limited by consciousness.  I get that gender is socially constructed surely it is still rooted in material circumstances somewhat.  The gender roles/identities we have currently didn't just spring out of our minds, they have foundations in our material lives.  

I always learned that gender roles develop out of social structure.  Hence in capitalist society, women's role became unpaid domestic labour so the man can go to the factory etc.  And to some extent these roles lead to a sense of gender identity.  In post-industrial society these roles are not required so they changed.

The idea that you can just think up a gender in your head doesn't make sense to anything I've learned.  It's a bit galling to learn this can be considered bigoted as I always considered myself a fully paid-up progressive sociology student type.  It always seems to come back to materialism vs. idealism and I believed identities are rooted in material reality and have an embodied dimension. 

I hate the 'just educate yourself' line for this reason.  I try to think about it in educated terms and it just doesn't add up.


----------



## Mation (Jan 22, 2018)

Sunset Tree said:


> Some people?  It's widespread.  A lot of people aren't going to read academic intersectional theory (nor should they have to) and will base it on how they see it practiced by their peers, activists, online, etc.  Perhaps they misunderstand it because people using it have strayed so far from the original meaning.


I think we might be at cross purposes about its misuse, but I think you're wrong about most people straying from the original meaning. For example, several people seemed to read that Munroe Bergdorf tweet as saying you can't talk about female biology on a women's demo, but it wasn't saying that at all. It said if you're going to come you need to be prepared to include *all *women, not just women who were born with female biology. Problematic for TERFs yes, but absolutely intersectional in its original sense. We need to build find common cause between cis women and trans women (and black women and lesbians and disabled women) instead of rejecting some women as 'other'. 

She doesn't say or mean that women born with female biology are unwelcome or should be silenced; the people who are unwelcome are not unwelcome because of their identity, but because of their beliefs that are exclusionary of other people's identities. You don't need to read academic theory to get that - well, maybe some people might - but you can also get that from reading her other tweets or seeing her on TV or reading her non-academic opinion pieces online.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 22, 2018)

Sunset Tree said:


> I've been thinking about people saying sex is binary while gender is only limited by consciousness.  I get that gender is socially constructed surely it is still rooted in material circumstances somewhat.  The gender roles/identities we have currently didn't just spring out of our minds, they have foundations in our material lives.
> 
> I always learned that gender roles develop out of social structure.  Hence in capitalist society, women's role became unpaid domestic labour so the man can go to the factory etc.  And to some extent these roles lead to a sense of gender identity.  In post-industrial society these roles are not required so they changed.
> 
> ...



you dont just think up a gender in your head one day

gender roles arent synonymous with gender identity

is living a life and having experiences and thoughts and reactions not a material thing?


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 22, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> The idea that trans women want to sleep with TERFs though. It's just so bizarre. I wouldn't even let one in my house if I knew.




yeah you might catch C.I.S init lol


----------



## Sunset Tree (Jan 22, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> gender roles arent synonymous with gender identity



There is no relationship between the two?  This is what I'm genuinely wondering.  There was some discussing earlier in the thread about how identities are formed through the various social roles we are socialised into.  I saw you made a post earlier about how gender roles, identities, and presentation are all separate things but I've always felt they are related.  Particularly roles and identity.



pengaleng said:


> is living a life and having experiences and thoughts and reactions not a material thing?



No, yeah, that's what I'm saying.  How can the number of genders only be limited by human consciousness if gender is related to living a life and having material experiences?  Wouldn't gender be limited to the type of lives people generally live?  

I'm responding specifically to the idea there are almost infinite genders because they are purely a form of consciousness.  Not saying someone who is trans just makes up their gender in their head.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 22, 2018)

Sunset Tree said:


> There is no relationship between the two?  This is what I'm genuinely wondering.  There was some discussing earlier in the thread about how identities are formed through the various social roles we are socialised into.  I saw you made a post earlier about how gender roles, identities, and presentation are all separate things but I've always felt they are related.  Particularly roles and identity.
> 
> No, yeah, that's what I'm saying.  How can the number of genders only be limited by human consciousness if gender is related to living a life and having material experiences?  Wouldn't gender be limited to the type of lives people generally live?




well there can be a realationship between the two, internalised misogyny would be a good example, but most people wouldnt say they are trans due to role based reasoning, some might have issues with the expectations of roles, but it's not going to be solely that and being upset with roles isnt gonna make you decide you are gonna counter that by transitioning

it is limited to the lives people live imo, everyones life is varied as their fingerprints so i dunno where yer going with that one


----------



## Sunset Tree (Jan 22, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> well there can be a realationship between the two, internalised misogyny would be a good example, but most people wouldnt say they are trans due to role based reasoning, some might have issues with the expectations of roles, but it's not going to be solely that and being upset with roles isnt gonna make you decide you are gonna counter that by transitioning
> 
> it is limited to the lives people live, everyones life is varied as their fingerprints so i dunno where yer going with that one



People's lives are structured in important ways depending on the location/era they live in.  Hence roles today are generally different from 50 years ago due to economic changes etc.  I don't think there are infinite ways to live a life that aren't constrained by the social structures of the time.  

Not going anyway with it, just trying to think through the relationship between roles and identity.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 22, 2018)

Sunset Tree said:


> People's lives are structured in important ways depending on the location/era they live in.  Hence roles today are generally different from 50 years ago due to economic changes etc.  I don't think there are infinite ways to live a life that aren't constrained by the social structures of the time.



but thats looking at life in a very simplistic way and not really considering things like childhood experiences and stuff < development etc

think we coming from different angles, I just think the whole thing is a lot more complex than hormonal exposure in the womb and brain structure which is the usual go-to


----------



## Sunset Tree (Jan 22, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> but thats looking at life in a very simplistic way and not really considering things like childhood experiences and stuff < development etc



I was thinking that childhood experiences can be specific and individual, but gender is more of a social formation so would have less variance or be more linked to the broader social trends of the time period.  

I could very well be being over simplistic (wouldn't be the first time) and I do appreciate the discussion.  I'll come back to it tomorrow as I am up way too late.


----------



## Sue (Jan 22, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I’m not interested in debating the merits of transphobia with committed transphobes. As you insist you aren’t a transphobe, you have no reason to believe that statement applies to you.



As you appear to believe I am, why would I think that doesn't apply to me? Or are you now saying you don't think I'm a transphobe? Am I still a liar? Since you haven't apologised for calling me either of those things, I'm guessing your views haven't changed. 



Nigel Irritable said:


> It seems though that you are trying to avoid tying yourself to any particular opinion here - you want to pander to transphobes, want them to be listened to, say that some of their arguments are valid and go out of your way to avoid saying that obviously bigoted statements are bigoted, but you balk at telling us which of their views you agree with or what it is of value that you think that they add to a discussion about trans rights.



Read the thread Nigel. I really don't have the time or inclination to go back through all the stuff that's already beem discussed at length just because you now want a debate. (And even if I could be bothered, we seem to have very different ideas what 'debate' actually looks like.)

And if saying it's important to listen to both sides is 'pandering', then I guess I'm pandering to both sides. You ought to try it, you might find it interesting.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 22, 2018)

Mation said:


> I think we might be at cross purposes about its misuse, but I think you're wrong about most people straying from the original meaning. For example, several people seemed to read that Munroe Bergdorf tweet as saying you can't talk about female biology on a women's demo, but it wasn't saying that at all. It said if you're going to come you need to be prepared to include *all *women, not just women who were born with female biology. Problematic for TERFs yes, but absolutely intersectional in its original sense. We need to build find common cause between cis women and trans women (and black women and lesbians and disabled women) instead of rejecting some women as 'other'.


Woah there, that is _not_ intersectional in its original sense.  Have you read Crenshaw’s original paper?  I have — it’s very good.  Intersectional in its original sense was making a point about how legal frameworks are constructed to only recognise structural inequality along one axis, rather than in combination.  So companies could get away with discrimination against black women by showing that they were not discriminatory against black men, nor against white women. 

In other words, Intersectionality as it was originally conceived was very much about class and the way capital specifically is able to legally continue oppressing certain groups even in the face of anti-discriminatory legislation.  It was about reframing equality legislation to prevent capital’s piecemeal defence. It was nothing to do with how individuals should be prepared to go to a demo accepting that trans women are women.  If anything, intersectionality in its original sense would be a framework for arguing that the protections offered to women as a consequence of their material reality should not be able to be satisfied by instead giving those places to those materially born male.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 22, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Gender identity is a first world luxury. 95% of girls in Somalia have their clitorises cut off and their vaginas stitched shut. No one cares what they identify as. They are mutilated because they are born women.


Done to women by women. Fucking awful.


----------



## Sunset Tree (Jan 22, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Woah there, that is _not_ intersectional in its original sense.  Have you read Crenshaw’s original paper?  I have — it’s very good.  Intersectional in its original sense was making a point about how legal frameworks are constructed to only recognise structural inequality along one axis, rather than in combination.  So companies could get away with discrimination against black women by showing that they were not discriminatory against black men, nor against white women.
> 
> In other words, Intersectionality as it was originally conceived was very much about class and the way capital specifically is able to legally continue oppressing certain groups even in the face of anti-discriminatory legislation.  It was about reframing equality legislation to prevent capital’s piecemeal defence. It was nothing to do with how individuals should be prepared to go to a demo accepting that trans women are women.  If anything, intersectionality in its original sense would be a framework for arguing that the protections offered to women as a consequence of their material reality should not be able to be satisfied by instead giving those places to those materially born male.



Thank you for summarising Crenshaw so clearly.  I don't think many intersectionalists have read Crenshaw or are applying her framework as it was formulated.  I never see it used in this sense, yet regularly see people saying if you disagree with idpol you just don't understand the theory.  

I just searched through the identity politics thread to find this article that I found really useful.  History of intersectionality from a way of enriching socialism to a tool of individualistic liberalism.

Identity Crisis - Viewpoint Magazine


----------



## Mation (Jan 22, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Woah there, that is _not_ intersectional in its original sense.  Have you read Crenshaw’s original paper?  I have — it’s very good.  Intersectional in its original sense was making a point about how legal frameworks are constructed to only recognise structural inequality along one axis, rather than in combination.  So companies could get away with discrimination against black women by showing that they were not discriminatory against black men, nor against white women.
> 
> In other words, Intersectionality as it was originally conceived was very much about class and the way capital specifically is able to legally continue oppressing certain groups even in the face of anti-discriminatory legislation.  It was about reframing equality legislation to prevent capital’s piecemeal defence. It was nothing to do with how individuals should be prepared to go to a demo accepting that trans women are women.  If anything, intersectionality in its original sense would be a framework for arguing that the protections offered to women as a consequence of their material reality should not be able to be satisfied by instead giving those places to those materially born male.


Yes, I've read the original paper. How intersectionality came about and what effect an intersectional framework can have on the legal ability to discriminate based on who you are is related to but not synonymous with or in opposition to what that means about how you think about people negatively affected along structural inequality axes other than those that affect you. You could construct a framework purely as an intellectual or practical and even helpful exercise without feeling, but she didn't.

I didn't say it wasn't about class; I clearly mentioned class. And I was referring to the tweet when I said that 'it' was about how you need to be prepared to come to a demo. The protections currently afforded to women are a result of structural inequality that is based on biology but they are currently afforded to all cis women, whether or not they have primary and secondary sex characteristics and reproductive organs or not. This isn't about to change.


----------



## Sunset Tree (Jan 22, 2018)

Crenshaw herself has criticised identity politics in the form it has manifested.

I also don't know why we'd listen to Munroe Bergdorf about anything.  Her twitter feed alone is ridiculous.  All she does apparently is identifies women's issues and explain how trans women have it worse.  Not surprised at all that her background is middle class, private school, posh uni, working in PR... then oppressed twitter activist.  Her political platform is based on media controversy from saying all white people are guilty of racial violence.

None of this seems progressive to me.


----------



## Mation (Jan 22, 2018)

Sunset Tree said:


> Crenshaw herself has criticised identity politics in the form it has manifested.


Indeed she has. For example in this interview with her from 2016:


> Crenshaw is a veteran activist and theorist, but it is young feminists who have enthusiastically turned intersectionality into a feminist cornerstone. When I ask her why, she laughs. “As a term, ‘intersectionality’ has been around since the late 80s,” she says, “so there is something to be said about it being taken up in a robust way 30 years on. It’s like a lazy Susan – you can subject race, sexuality, transgender identity or class to a feminist critique through intersectionality.” But Crenshaw is aware of pitfalls. “Some people can use [intersectionality] as a way to deflect a critique of patriarchy – by saying: ‘How can there be any full structural critique when we are so many different things at the same time?’”



Is that what you meant?



Sunset Tree said:


> I also don't know why we'd listen to Munroe Bergdorf about anything.  Her twitter feed alone is ridiculous.  All she does apparently is identifies women's issues and explain how trans women have it worse.


What, like here?










I could go on. For quite some time. (And I probably will!)


----------



## Mation (Jan 22, 2018)

Content warning: extreme homophobia racism and violence.


Spoiler








Had to make a new post for these last two that I tried to include up there, as a post can only take 5 pieces of media.


----------



## co-op (Jan 22, 2018)

Sue said:


> Read the thread Nigel. I really don't have the time or inclination to go back through all the stuff that's already beem discussed at length just because you now want a debate. (And even if I could be bothered, we seem to have very different ideas what 'debate' actually looks like.)





Nigel spent the first 200 pages and most of his 140+ posts strutting around like some junior officer straight out of public school telling everyone there was literally nothing to debate, move along now, a posture that got more and more ludicrous the longer the thread went on. 

I don't think he has any understanding of the questions raised but that's not his interest, just to shout "transphobe" at anyone who doesn't sign up unquestioningly to his party line, denounce any woman who questions it as just old and unsexy, and try not to trip over his swagger stick. He's a hack.


----------



## Sunset Tree (Jan 22, 2018)

Identity is the primary source of privilege and oppression.  Class is just another identity.  Someone posted a video of her earlier in the thread where she had that same liberal condescension about how if people don't agree they just need to be educated.  It's one thing to pay lip service to your own privilege but another to avoid having that privilege inform the way you view the world.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 22, 2018)

co-op said:


> Nigel spent the first 200 pages and most of his 140+ posts strutting around like some junior officer straight out of public school telling everyone there was literally nothing to debate, move along now, a posture that got more and more ludicrous the longer the thread went on.
> 
> I don't think he has any understanding of the questions raised but that's not his interest, just to shout "transphobe" at anyone who doesn't sign up unquestioningly to his party line, denounce any woman who questions it as just old and unsexy, and try not to trip over his swagger stick. He's a hack.



Don't you just love men who tell women how they should be doing feminism?


----------



## Sunset Tree (Jan 22, 2018)

Mation said:


> [/spoiler]



Was this homophobic violence?  The most recent articles still say it's unsolved.  She'd had a hard life, had recently been released from jail, and this was apparently connected to a few other murders that happened?  Seems a bit disingenuous to call it extreme homophobia when there's no mention of that.  It is no less of a tragedy for it.

Plus it was covered on fox new and washington post so it's hardly keeping the populace in the dark.


----------



## elbows (Jan 22, 2018)

Allegations about a 'hate list' appear to have reached the legal threats stage.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 22, 2018)

elbows said:


> Allegations about a 'hate list' appear to have reached the legal threats stage.




Karen is _very_ cross about this!


She clearly thinks what she said is okay...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 22, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Karen is _very_ cross about this!
> View attachment 125876
> 
> She clearly thinks what she said is okay...
> ...


Ageism not a good look


----------



## Mation (Jan 22, 2018)

Sunset Tree said:


> Was this homophobic violence?  The most recent articles still say it's unsolved.  She'd had a hard life, had recently been released from jail, and this was apparently connected to a few other murders that happened?  Seems a bit disingenuous to call it extreme homophobia when there's no mention of that.  It is no less of a tragedy for it.
> 
> Plus it was covered on fox new and washington post so it's hardly keeping the populace in the dark.


I'm going to stay here, waving you goodbye as you set off down that diversionary route, and hope you enjoy the reactionary view at its dead end.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 22, 2018)

elbows said:


> Allegations about a 'hate list' appear to have reached the legal threats stage.





Mm.


----------



## bimble (Jan 22, 2018)

This is (allegedly) the invitation criteria to join the secret group - which compiled _the list of people to report_ which they are talking about above. And which Lily now claims never to have set eyes on. 
To join contact .. Lily Madigan.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 22, 2018)

Lily Madigan is a poisonous cunt.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 22, 2018)

Why are people pretending not to know that Lily/others are challenging the reason/description of a/the list?.... It's bloody obvious and addressed on a thread below Karen's tweet to  Stella Creasy.


----------



## 19force8 (Jan 22, 2018)

TopCat said:


> Lily Madigan is a poisonous cunt.


 You said "cunt"


----------



## elbows (Jan 22, 2018)

Madigan has become a very convenient focal point for hatred and abuse. Only a portion of that can be attributed to her own words and acts, a lot of it is simply down to what she represents and the position she has managed to get into. Even when she fucks up, those that attack her in brutal ways are usually just exposing their own disgusting prejudices and related hate-speech.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 22, 2018)

dont know who these people are


----------



## elbows (Jan 22, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> dont know who these people are



A partial introduction:

Lily Madigan and the Hunt for Past Transgressions


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 22, 2018)

i honestly dont think i care enough to find out tbh, cheers tho


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 22, 2018)

Ufff....it's out of control on all fronts... I wonder how this is actually playing out for people day to day outside of twitter..at their LP meetings? Amongst their peer/friends circles? As work?



It's seriously sad to read stuff like this too...causalities on all sides it seems.


----------



## elbows (Jan 22, 2018)

I havent got a shit misgendering list, but Pilgrim Tucker would probably qualify for it if I did.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 22, 2018)

yeah I well dont fuck with social media, it's weird and no one in real life even knows these convos happen it's a thorough waste of time, I am finding it hard to give a fuck about some pictures of tweets by some nobody.


----------



## elbows (Jan 22, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> yeah I well dont fuck with social media, it's weird and no one in real life even knows these convos happen it's a thorough waste of time, I am finding it hard to give a fuck about some pictures of tweets by some nobody.



I have no issue with people taking that approach, although I do think the relationship between 'real life' and things said on the internet is rather closer than some give it credit for.


----------



## elbows (Jan 22, 2018)

Speaking of Tuckers tweets, I'd be interested in whether any of the people who think misgendering is acceptable, think the use of pre-transition names are equally acceptable?

Tucker didnt go on about Liam instead of Lily, but they had no problem retweeting someone who did. It was in reply to one of Tuckers tweets about the list, and they retweeted it to draw attention to it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 22, 2018)

Each side becomes ever more convinced of the righteousness of their cause by the actions of the other side.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 22, 2018)

What's your point elbows? Pilgrim Tucker is a horrid meanie so that makes it ok to collate her personal information for purposes of getting her expelled from a political party?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 22, 2018)

Personal data in this case means her name and proof of her 'terfy' comments doesn't it? All one need do is look at her twitter feed and screen shot given what is seen as 'terf' comment. She is not being doxxed as all this talk of a _hate list and personal information _implies.

spanglechick posted earlier about each side laying traps for one another. That is spot on. Both in what is being said and how people are interpreting/representing the others positions.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 22, 2018)

Name, CLP (which reveals the area they live in), links to their Twitter and/or Facebook presence, Labour member numbers in some cases.


----------



## elbows (Jan 22, 2018)

weepiper said:


> What's your point elbows? Pilgrim Tucker is a horrid meanie so that makes it ok to collate her personal information for purposes of getting her expelled from a political party?



I note your use of the term 'horrid meanie' just as I noted but did not respond to trashponys use of 'people who have no fucking skin'. 

It seems to me that these attempts to downplay abuse would have been condemned if used to excuse racism or sexism, and I dont see why they should be any more acceptable when used in the face of other forms of prejudice.

As for your question, political parties and purges are a messy business, I'm still learning about this case and I'm sure as usual there are some sensible stances from several sides to be found at times beneath the hate. Slightly more broadly it should be fairly obvious that the level of revulsion I feel towards some of the language and attitudes on display means I favour consigning some hate-filled fringes much further to the margins.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 22, 2018)

What exactly is wrong with Labour Party members trying to get people who raised funds to sue the Labour Party to strip an oppressed minority of a right thrown out of their party?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 22, 2018)

Sue said:


> Read the thread Nigel. I really don't have the time or inclination to go back through all the stuff that's already beem discussed at length



That’s the third of fourth time now that you’ve point blank refused to say which views expressed by transphobes on this thread you think are “valid” but aren’t being listened to. You like to engage in pious posturing about how both sides need to be listened to, but you pretty clearly don’t want to tie yourself to any of the supposedly “valid” views transphobes are putting forward.


----------



## Mation (Jan 22, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Ufff....it's out of control on all fronts... I wonder how this is actually playing out for people day to day outside of twitter..at their LP meetings? Amongst their peer/friends circles? As work?
> 
> View attachment 125892
> 
> ...


She's being really fucking outrageously awful on Facebook too


----------



## Mation (Jan 22, 2018)

Edited because it was in conflict with what I intended.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 22, 2018)

weepiper said:


> Name, CLP (which reveals the area they live in), links to their Twitter and/or Facebook presence, Labour member numbers in some cases.



If someone wants to make a complaint about a party member's behaviour that is the information they would need. What's the problem? That the complaint shouldn't be made?


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 22, 2018)

> protections offered to women as a consequence of their material reality should not be able to be satisfied by instead giving those places to those materially born male.


Then we need new maps. A transgender person is murdered every 3 days worldwide. Other grim statistics have been offered before upthread. Of course if you read some of the more questionable stuff on tumblr-some of which to me seems to be folks from the Furry scene of old appropriating the term trans anyway - you could be forgiven for thinking this issue is easily ignored, assuming you were living in a box prior to 2014. But this would be  ignoring the sheer magnitude of what the average transgender person experiences whilst transitioning-whether physically, socially, culturally etc-from one identity to another. The idea that this group of millions of marginalised people are just going to accept no legal protections and fade away seems to me to be entirely at odds with critical thinking anyway. This phenomenon is not new, it isn't a first world luxury, and for most it is certainly not a trivial matter of "thinking up a gender".


pengaleng said:


> dont know who these people are


jah, and I personally won't have time to keep up with the lefts movers and shakers until i am well into my forties.
This may be no bad thing!


Nigel Irritable said:


> That the third of fourth time now that you’ve point blank refused to say which views expressed by transphobes on this thread you think are “valid” but aren’t being listened to.


Perhaps the topic of Smokedouts sex life really was worth exploring, since none of the critical thinking feminists seemed particularly disturbed by that particular contribution. I am no academic. 


Sunset Tree said:


> Identity is the primary source of privilege and oppression.  *Class is just another identity.*  Someone posted a video of her earlier in the thread where she had that same liberal condescension about how if people don't agree they just need to be educated.  It's one thing to pay lip service to your own privilege but another to avoid having that privilege inform the way you view the world.


Bit in bold would be my main problem with intersectionalist theory aye, if only it was possible to have these discussions with both parties taking each other at face value and in good faith


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 22, 2018)

Identity's a bit like the communist using an iphone thing. 







We can rail all we like about people basing some or even all of their activism and/or political awareness around identity but the truth remains that identity is a part of how we experience the world. A lot of that is down to how capitalism constructs us, and how we construct ourselves in response to it, but it's perfectly possible—in fact necessary—to recognise the relationship between capitalism (and class) and identities, to be critical of that relationship, and work in ways that take account of how we live within that system. Identity is a reality. That it's constructed doesn't make it any less real. 

And the thing about class as an identity: class is a system first and foremost, but it is _also_ an identity because of the way it has been constructed as one. The problem comes when the idea of it as an identity supplants the understanding of it as a system, and it requires constant work to keep grounding it in those terms. But one thing I think a lot of class-aware people do is think everyone who is engaging in any kind of progressive or leftwing politics should be 100% up to speed the moment they begin. It doesn't work like that. I spend time on tumblr. I've said before, over the years I've seen a distinct shift from solely 'identity politics' (of which there are various types, some far more conscious than others), towards class awareness. In some cases that class aspect is treated like another string of identity politics, but there are also good conversations discussing it in ways even the staunchest of gits on here would approve of. In large part that's been fuelled by Bernie Sanders' popularity, the rise of the DSA, and a subsection of more visible socialists and communists on social media (many of whom are people of colour). I feel largely positive about tumblr, because while there's a fuckton of absolute shite, it's also exposing a huge number of teens and young adults to leftwing politics that, sure, doesn't always have a perfect analysis but is the beginning of a journey. 

(I'm aware Sanders etc seats this in American politics, but when we talk about identity politics it's impossible to ignore the influence of American politics.)


----------



## bimble (Jan 22, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> I don't think you're aware of all the ways young people today are subverting gender. It absolutely doesn't align the idea of lipstick and heels with woman. And there are gender-non-conforming trans people too (by that I mean not conforming to traditional ideas of gender presentation or gender roles—both of which frequently get mixed up and mixed into discussions of gender without properly understanding that they can often mean different things). There are androgynous trans women, 'feminine' trans men who wear makeup, butch trans women, cis men who wear lipstick, nb people who will sometimes wear dresses and sometimes not shave.
> 
> In many ways, gender identity is separate to gender presentation for a huge amount of younger people, which is presumably what we should be pleased about, right? What complicates matters is that there are often, or at least have been, a lot of rules regarding gender presentation when it comes to trans people trying to access health care. Rules that state a person must 'live as their preferred gender' in part translating into 'if you're a trans woman you must look like a woman or make the attempt to do so'. There are many ways of looking like a woman, but our traditionally-binary society tends to say that means feminine clothes, feminine hair, feminine makeup. That is of course bullshit, but for a trans woman trying to access health care and any legal recognition it has often meant toeing that line.
> 
> ...



This is a really helpful thoughtful post. I completely get that having to prove you're 'living as a woman' imposes conformity of gender presentation on trans people who are going through the current system.

But when you say "In many ways, *gender identity is separate to gender presentation for a huge amount of younger people,* which is presumably what we should be pleased about" I don't really follow.
Are you suggesting that lets say 'cis women' dressing butch is somehow new? Because it's not, obviously. As far as I can tell what's new is the idea that everyone has this thing called a Gender Identity.
You say that "a whole range of younger people don't conform to binary gender presentations _regardless_ of their gender and whether they are trans, cis, nb or intersex." I love it that people are skewing gender presentation, have always been a fan of boys wearing eyeshadow and girls wearing suits and buzzcuts etc, all of that is great I agree, but what's happening now that is different is that all of this (basically clothes, hairstyles, interests and mannerisms or whatever) has become somehow to do with having a Gender Identity, picking your spot on the Gender Identity spectrum and if you aren't Barbie then you must be one of the flavours of  'non binary' / fluid (under the trans umbrella even if no dysphoria).

Maybe I should ignore what people say and just rejoice in their playing with clothes etc, but that's not really what's going on. Like my 'desisting' ex-trans cousin, she wasn't dressing as a boy during those couple of years but was saying I _am_ a boy.
Where does young people wanting to change their bodies to fit their Gender Identity fit with the idea that gender norms are being skewed by this 'DIY revolution' and the rules of what is feminine and masculine being eroded?


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 22, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> Identity's a bit like the communist using an iphone thing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Exactly, bit in bold is spot on. I meant to include something about the hopelessness of everyone being so bloody dogmatic and that whilst I disagree with the the notion of class as an identity much of what Mation out forward still holds true and it would seem both pointless and unhelpful to argue otherwise, but I was making the tea at the time!/


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 22, 2018)

I'll never be up to speed on all this theory, to the point that my level of confidence that I can even engage in the debate fluctuates daily. I see this hampering people who don't use the likes of Tumblr at all, or those who haven't heard of the bookfair, have no idea who these Labour dudes are etc etc It is a big problem.


----------



## Sue (Jan 22, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> That’s the third of fourth time now that you’ve point blank refused to say which views expressed by transphobes on this thread you think are “valid” but aren’t being listened to. You like to engage in pious posturing about how both sides need to be listened to, but you pretty clearly don’t want to tie yourself to any of the supposedly “valid” views transphobes are putting forward.


I'm glad you've noticed that that's the third or fourth time I've suggested you read the thread because I'm kind of bored repeating myself. 

If you ever do, it might be an idea to do so with a bit of an open mind -- if someone queries something or doesn't agree with everything you say, that does not automatically make them suspect or a transphobe. I'd have thought that was pretty obvious but you don't really seem to have grasped that point.

I'm going to leave this here as I really can't see us getting anywhere and life really is too short...


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 22, 2018)

bimble said:


> This is a really helpful thoughtful post. I completely get that having to prove you're 'living as a woman' imposes conformity of gender presentation on trans people who are going through the current system.
> 
> But when you say "In many ways, *gender identity is separate to gender presentation for a huge amount of younger people,* which is presumably what we should be pleased about" I don't really follow.
> Are you suggesting that lets say 'cis women' dressing butch is somehow new? Because it's not, obviously. As far as I can tell what's new is the idea that everyone has this thing called a Gender Identity.
> ...



"picking your spot on the Gender Identity spectrum and if you aren't Barbie then you must be one of the flavours of  'non binary' / fluid (under the trans umbrella even if no dysphoria)" -- That's not happening though. My post was to point out that's not happening. The claim was that young people are equating presentation with identity (hence the woman = lipstick comment), and my post was to explain that young people feel largely comfortable just being a boy or just being a girl and presenting in any way they want and in ways that might be at odds with what traditionally we might expect (lipstick on a boy, etc). That was my point about "whether they are trans, cis, nb or intersex". They do not think "I like lipstick, I must be nb." They think "I like lipstick." 

But the thing about everyone now having a gender identity. Well, I prefer to think of it as everyone feeling comfortable talking about gender. My mum always knew she was a woman. My dad always knew he was a man. There are trans women who've always known they were a woman. The difference now is that we have a more accepting society whereby people don't feel they have to hide that. That doesn't mean "omg everyone's inventing gender identities" but rather "wow, isn't it great people feel comfortable to say "I'm a woman/man/nb" where previously they weren't?" 

But even if it was the case that presentation is being linked with gender identities. So what? Why must it be fixed and set in stone? The gender critical feminists who want to abolish the idea of gender should surely be excited about this: playing with the idea of gender identity suggests it's not fixed, emphasises that it's a construction, recognises there are different ways in which gender is constructed and reconstructed, and that ultimately it doesn't matter. It's the insistence that someone must adhere to a specific category (based on sex) that causes harm. There's a whole swathe of young people who are throwing all of that up in the air and shouting "who the fuck cares?" It's when we tell them "but I care, you should know what you are and that should align with these pre-designed categories" that fucks things up.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 22, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> I'll never be up to speed on all this theory, to the point that my level of confidence that I can even engage in the debate fluctuates daily. I see this hampering people who don't use the likes of Tumblr at all, or those who haven't heard of the bookfair, have no idea who these Labour dudes are etc etc It is a big problem.



That's a problem with any kind of discussion surely?


----------



## bimble (Jan 22, 2018)

Vintage Paw I think we're talking past eachother. You say that what's happening now is great because "playing with the idea of gender identity suggests it's not fixed, emphasises that it's a construction, recognises there are different ways in which gender is constructed and reconstructed, and that ultimately it doesn't matter."
I think the opposite is happening, I think gender seems to matter greatly to young people now, with the advent of the concept of everyone having a Gender Identity. When people are identifying their inner selves as a particular Gender Identity, that makes the whole thing real and fixed and internal in a way diametrically opposed to the idea that its socially constructed, mutable and a load of oppressive nonsense enforced from outside. What do you make of the attempts to show, with science, that trans-ness might be biological?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 22, 2018)

I see what you mean. I disagree though. For me, 'everyone having a gender identity' is no different to before. I said my mum always knew she was a woman. That's no different to someone knowing they're a trans woman, or someone knowing they're nb. The only new thing about it is the willingness for people to be open about it and to be accepted.


----------



## bimble (Jan 22, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> I see what you mean. I disagree though. For me, 'everyone having a gender identity' is no different to before. I said my mum always knew she was a woman. That's no different to someone knowing they're a trans woman, or someone knowing they're nb. The only new thing about it is the willingness for people to be open about it and to be accepted.


How am i supposed to know if I'm a woman or nb?


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 22, 2018)

bimble said:


> How am i supposed to know if I'm a woman or nb?


I think that sort of question can be filed under the same heading as this:







In seriousness though, that's really hard to define. say I was to keep insisting you were a man, would this inspire any sort of strong feelings or would you be completely dispassionate about it?


----------



## bimble (Jan 22, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> In seriousness though, that's really hard to define. say I was to keep insisting you were a man, would this inspire any sort of strong feelings or would you be completely dispassionate about it?


When I first came here (u75) people called me he a lot, just as a default assumption, and I enjoyed it and didn’t correct anyone for quite a while but knew/felt that ‘he’ was not correct. What does that mean ? Is that some kind of answer to am I a woman or Nb?


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 22, 2018)

bimble said:


> When I first came here (u75) people called me he a lot, just as a default assumption, and I enjoyed it and didn’t correct anyone for quite a while but knew/felt that ‘he’ was not correct. What does that mean ? Is that some kind of answer to am I a woman or Nb?


I can't answer that but was just encouraging an exploration into what a strong sense of gender might feel like, as a cis person because I am not constantly being told I am a gender that i don't believe I am, it means I hadn't put much thought into it. But now I have, cis seems acceptable to me. As you hadn't really put your feelings forward at all I was interested to know what they were


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 22, 2018)

Pretty powerful stuff from Irish feminists here

*An open letter to the organisers of the “We Need to Talk Tour” from a group of feminists in Ireland*
Posted by Sinéad Redmond


We write as cisgender feminists in Ireland to the organisers of the ‘We Need To Talk’ speaking tour who plan to hold an event in Ireland in February.


An open letter to the organisers of the “We Need to Talk Tour” from a group of feminists in Ireland


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 22, 2018)

bimble said:


> When I first came here (u75) people called me he a lot, just as a default assumption, and I enjoyed it and didn’t correct anyone for quite a while but knew/felt that ‘he’ was not correct. What does that mean ? Is that some kind of answer to am I a woman or Nb?


You're an nb


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 22, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Pretty powerful stuff from Irish feminists here
> 
> *An open letter to the organisers of the “We Need to Talk Tour” from a group of feminists in Ireland*
> Posted by Sinéad Redmond
> ...


We need to talk makes them sound all preachy from the off tbh


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 22, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Pretty powerful stuff from Irish feminists here
> 
> *An open letter to the organisers of the “We Need to Talk Tour” from a group of feminists in Ireland*
> Posted by Sinéad Redmond
> ...


Excellent,  and I love it when the Irish Gaelic translates perfectly to us Scottish Gaels, arms across the sea.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 22, 2018)

Sue said:


> I'm glad you've noticed that that's the third or fourth time I've suggested you read the thread because I'm kind of bored repeating myself.
> 
> ...



And a fifth time you've dodged a very straightforward question. You made the claim that the transphobes in this argument were making "valid" points that weren't being listened to. Asking you for an example of such a "valid" but not listened to point is not unreasonable or a mean trick. You either can't think of one, which undermines your both sides need to be listened to handwringing, or you don't have the backbone to tie yourself to any of their opinions that you agree with.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 22, 2018)

weepiper said:


> What's your point elbows? Pilgrim Tucker is a horrid meanie so that makes it ok to collate her personal information for purposes of getting her expelled from a political party?



If this was someone collecting information on misogynists or racists in the Labour Party would they be facing this line of attack?


Sea Star said:


> Pretty powerful stuff from Irish feminists here
> 
> *An open letter to the organisers of the “We Need to Talk Tour” from a group of feminists in Ireland*
> Posted by Sinéad Redmond
> ...



Venice won't care


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 22, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Venice won't care
> ]



Maybe not but it sure punctures the lie that this is all about men attacking or silencing women. 

And it sure punctures the lie that all feminists agree with the extremist transphobia coming from TERFs.


----------



## bimble (Jan 22, 2018)

Nigel Irritable why did you post that silly tweet by ‘dr rad’?
I think she’s an idiot and she’s by no means any kind of important figure in gender critical feminism is she. 
That weird nationalist sounding tweet though was a response to someone right on who was saying ‘why are English women always so ugly like you’. So anyway, why post it it’s totally irrelevant to anything at all.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 22, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Excellent,  and I love it when the Irish Gaelic translates perfectly to us Scottish Gaels, arms across the sea.


Not sure when the Scots have sent weapons to the Irish


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 22, 2018)

She is 


smokedout said:


> If this was someone collecting information on misogynists or racists in the Labour Party would they be facing this line of attack?
> 
> 
> Venice won't care



fucking batshit.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 22, 2018)

bimble said:


> Nigel Irritable why did you post that silly tweet by ‘dr rad’?
> I think she’s an idiot and she’s by no means any kind of important figure in gender critical feminism is she.


I believe she is, you know. She's an organiser of the 'We Need to Talk' thing that the open letter above is rejecting.


----------



## bimble (Jan 22, 2018)

> ="Vintage Paw, post: 15410562, member: 11698] For me, 'everyone having a gender identity' is no different to before. I said my mum always knew she was a woman. That's no different to someone knowing they're a trans woman, or someone knowing they're nb. The only new thing about it is the willingness for people to be open about it and to be accepted.



So everyone here has a Gender Identity but some of us just haven’t figured out what it is yet, unlike your mum?
If your Mum had been given the option to identify as nb would her life have been different ?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 22, 2018)

bimble said:


> So everyone here has a Gender Identity but some of us just haven’t figured it out yet, unlike your mum?
> If your Mum had been given the option to identify as nb would her life have been different ?


Yes

If you're going to use abbreviations why not try explaining them as other nbs are available


----------



## bimble (Jan 22, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Yes


How so. What is your Gender Identity o Pickman's model and why?

(I was just copying vintage paw’s parlance, with Nb as shorthand for any number of flavours of ‘non binary’.)
I think I’ve made it clear earlier that I find the whole notion bizarre as it seems to me every 3D human is ‘non binary’.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 22, 2018)

bimble said:


> How so. What is your Gender Identity o Pickman's model and why?


None of your business, because it's not something I think you're genuinely interested in.


----------



## bimble (Jan 22, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> None of your business, because it's not something I think you're genuinely interested in.


Ok great, fair enough, but maybe refrain then from telling me what my Gender Identity is.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 22, 2018)

bimble said:


> So everyone here has a Gender Identity but some of us just haven’t figured out what it is yet, unlike your mum?
> If your Mum had been given the option to identify as nb would her life have been different ?



I think what I'm getting at is that what you're calling a gender identity is oftentimes just a willingness, or a comfortableness, in saying "I am x" just as it has always been comfortable for cis men and cis women to say "I am a man/woman." In the past everyone else has had to either say I am a woman/man while knowing inside that's not quite right, but now it's more acceptable to say "actually, that isn't quite right, I am x." It's not a new invention or adoption of gender identities, but rather saying I am x is exactly the same as anyone in the past who said I am a woman. It's seen as different because for a long time the binary was received wisdom.


----------



## bimble (Jan 22, 2018)

So I can say I’m not a woman, I’m x instead. What changes as a result?
I don’t look any different (as gender presentation is a separate thing you said). Do I get treated differently by society? What difference does it it make to anything at all how I identify?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 22, 2018)

bimble said:


> Ok great, fair enough, but maybe refrain then from telling me what my Gender Identity is.


Yeh. If you bothered explaining what your abbreviations meant (as I've already said but you didn't bother reading) this sort of thing might not happen. Btw gender identity not a proper noun so no need for caps.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 22, 2018)

bimble said:


> So I can say I’m not a woman, I’m x instead. What changes as a result?


Many people's attitude to you as so many people have been saying on the thread. Did you think about this before you posted it?


----------



## Mation (Jan 22, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> And a fifth time you've dodged a very straightforward question. You made the claim that the transphobes in this argument were making "valid" points that weren't being listened to. Asking you for an example of such a "valid" but not listened to point is not unreasonable or a mean trick. You either can't think of one, which undermines your both sides need to be listened to handwringing, or you don't have the backbone to tie yourself to any of their opinions that you agree with.


Your posts with the questions are there for anyone reading to see and the answers or lack thereof are also there to see along with the interpretation(s) of that. Probably not much mileage in just asking again.


----------



## bimble (Jan 22, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Many people's attitude to you as all the trans people have been saying on the thread. Did you think about this before you posted it?


Whose attitude will change as a result of me just declaring that I am not a woman I’m x instead. Not the people who make being a woman hard work sometimes. Nothing changes  in the real world as a result of me individually in my head ‘opting out’ of the category woman.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 22, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> I think what I'm getting at is that what you're calling a gender identity is oftentimes just a willingness, or a comfortableness, in saying "I am x" just as it has always been comfortable for cis men and cis women to say "I am a man/woman." In the past everyone else has had to either say I am a woman/man while knowing inside that's not quite right, but now it's more acceptable to say "actually, that isn't quite right, I am x." It's not a new invention or adoption of gender identities, but rather saying I am x is exactly the same as anyone in the past who said I am a woman. It's seen as different because for a long time the binary was received wisdom.


Yep, that's my understanding of what is meant by this stuff. Important to say as well, though, for clarity, that there's a difference between being comfortable saying 'I'm a man/woman' and being comfortable with the gendered expectations that come with that. The former does not necessarily imply the latter.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 22, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Not sure when the Scots have sent weapons to the Irish


It's in the post.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 22, 2018)

bimble said:


> So I can say I’m not a woman, I’m x instead. What changes as a result?
> I don’t look any different (as gender presentation is a separate thing you said). Do I get treated differently by society? What difference does it it make to anything at all how I identify?



You probably feel more comfortable.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 22, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> None of your business, because it's not something I think you're genuinely interested in.


Tell me then! *interested stare*


----------



## Mation (Jan 22, 2018)

bimble said:


> Whose attitude will change as a result of me just declaring that I am not a woman I’m x instead. Not the people who make being a woman hard work sometimes.


The person themselves who can finally stop having to put on a constant facade? Friends who will believe them and support them? Actual intersectional feminists? That would be a good start, no?


----------



## bimble (Jan 22, 2018)

Mation said:


> The person themselves who can finally stop having to put on a constant facade? Friends who will believe them and support them? Actual intersectional feminists? That would be a good start, no?


And that’s the way forward for feminism is it? Being able to opt out of the class called women and saying I’m x now and your friends believing you.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 22, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yep, that's my understanding of what is meant by this stuff. Important to say as well, though, for clarity, that there's a difference between being comfortable saying 'I'm a man/woman' and being comfortable with the gendered expectations that come with that. The former does not necessarily imply the latter.



Of course. That's the difference between gender, gender presentation, and gender roles. They often all get conflated, and it's why we hear a lot of stuff like "just because a boy likes girly stuff doesn't mean he's a trans girl, just let him be a boy" when in fact a cis boy can like 'girly stuff', a trans girl can like girly stuff, a trans boy can like girly stuff, a cis girl can like girly stuff...

It leads to some bonkers stuff, with feminist transphobes often arguing for freedom of gender presentation and gender roles ("girls can be engineers and wear combat boots; boys can be dancers and play with dolls; girls can wear pink, girls can wear blue, boys can wear camo, boys can wear sparkles") but getting angry when trans women want to wear lipstick.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 22, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yep, that's my understanding of what is meant by this stuff. Important to say as well, though, for clarity, that there's a difference between being comfortable saying 'I'm a man/woman' and being comfortable with the gendered expectations that come with that. The former does not necessarily imply the latter.


Lots of trans women aren't happy with the gendered expectations that come with being a woman, however, by not being a complete stereotype we often are accused of not being women.


----------



## bimble (Jan 22, 2018)

What is the difference between gender and gender roles?


----------



## Mation (Jan 22, 2018)

bimble said:


> And that’s the way forward for feminism is it? Being able to opt out of the class called women and saying I’m x now and your friends believing you.


You're right, albeit unintentionally. I didn't take account of the fact that in your post that I was replying to, you talked about people 'just' declaring themselves a woman, implying that it would be a whim, when, of course, it wouldn't be.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 22, 2018)

bimble said:


> And that’s the way forward for feminism is it? Being able to opt out of the class called women and saying I’m x now and your friends believing you.


If that's genuinely how a person feels, then that's the way forward for everyone, no? Why wouldn't it be? I only know one person who self-defines as non-binary - a natal woman who sometimes presents as a man, other times as a woman, who varies in which pronoun they prefer to use. I don't pretend to understand - but I don't need to to be able to respect them and how they want to be. It's certainly not my place to insist that they jump into boxes for my benefit.


----------



## bimble (Jan 22, 2018)

Mation said:


> You're right, albeit unintentionally. I didn't take account of the fact that in your post that I was replying to, you talked about people 'just' declaring themselves a woman, implying that it would be a whim, when, of course, it wouldn't be.


I was talking about declaring oneself not a woman but x instead (non binary, of whatever kind). So feminism is basically over, there’s no need, as we can just opt out of the class called women and patriarchy will die as a result. Cool.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 22, 2018)

bimble said:


> What is the difference between gender and gender roles?



Is this asked in good faith, because it increasingly doesn't feel like it.

A gender role is a role society tends to say should be filled by a specific gender. That role might be caregiver, provider, etc. This is feminism 101 isn't it?


----------



## Mation (Jan 22, 2018)

bimble said:


> I was talking about declaring oneself not a woman but x instead (non binary, of whatever kind).


Does that affect your point?


----------



## bimble (Jan 22, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> Is this asked in good faith, because it increasingly doesn't feel like it.
> 
> A gender role is a role society tends to say should be filled by a specific gender. That role might be caregiver, provider, etc. This is feminism 101 isn't it?


It is a real question I promise. I thought gender role meant something much broader than particular kinds of work usually associated with one / other sex.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 22, 2018)

bimble said:


> And that’s the way forward for feminism is it? Being able to opt out of the class called women and saying I’m x now and your friends believing you.



It's the way forward for a more equal society. 

Are you concerned some people will on a whim decide to no longer call themselves women because society says it's icky to be a woman and being a woman is difficult and so instead of fighting patriarchy they'll take the easy way out?

It's really not the easy way out, lol.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 22, 2018)

Sunset Tree said:


> Intersectionality as it was conceived is very different to how it is commonly understood and utilised by adherents.  It's a bit presumptuous to assume people reject it because they misunderstand it.  It's from seeing the type of political action it informs in practice.



Aaargh.... Intersectionality has also become the PR word to pay lip service to minorities while, in effect, ignoring them and leaving them to fend for themselves. Intersectionality is about action to address women's different oppressions, so it defends, on domestic violence, for example, that structures and social networks be built around victims of domestic violence that enable them to escape the violence. What ends up getting the louder voice is the lib feminists demand for more police/judicial intervention. All this does is allow for police budgets to increase and police accountability to be evaluated in number of arrests or similarly wholly unhelpful and asinine values. The end result being that black victims of domestic violence in the US often then find themselves between a brutal partner and the brutal police given the police has been too often known to arrest both parties in a domestic dispute or even to arrest the woman (often the caller herself) instead because a lot of black women don't present as the white defenseless victim stereotypes dictate and are perceived as belligerent or hostile or aggressive (or all three). Class analysis (a lot of black feminism employs it) would more or less agree with intersectionality because it recognises the police as an arm of capital. The police doesn't care what black women who are victims of domestic violence identify as. They're black in society's eyes and that's what enables them to get away with this sort of thing.

Intersectionality was never about banning pink pussyhats and shit like that but intersectionality, in the hands of chockablock full of individualism lib feminism, means that a professional dominatrix transgender woman who has actively campaigned for the boycotting and defunding of a rape relief center can and was one of the speakers at the women's march in Vancouver. This would not never stand if that feminism was based on class analysis first of all because prostitution is but a manifestation of oppression. We know it exists and understand why it does and don't go about condemning women for engaging in it because women are objectified in a capitalist system and their bodies are commodities but we'd not refer to it as a "profession" or a "choice" or "work" as The Guardian does nor would we de facto promote it as they do. This is not to say that prostitutes should not be listened to but the idea that the bodily degradation of women can be called work is not just daft, it puts an awful lot of women in danger and it makes these sort of feminisms complicit with capitalism by turning the women involved into capitalists themselves which is why demands that the criminal records of women sex slaves go wholly unheard. Same for porn, stripping, etc.

And Crenshaw hasn't taken kindly to any of it btw.


----------



## bimble (Jan 22, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> It's the way forward for a more equal society.
> 
> Are you concerned some people will on a whim decide to no longer call themselves women because society says it's icky to be a woman and being a woman is difficult and so instead of fighting patriarchy they'll take the easy way out?
> 
> It's really not the easy way out, lol.



What isn’t. Identifying as non binary ? What work does it involve?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 22, 2018)

bimble said:


> It is a real question I promise. I thought gender role meant something much broader than particular kinds of work usually associated with one / other sex.



Work, roles expected emotionally, ways of acting, etc. I said caregiver and provider to signify the traditional split in marriage because it's an easy one to understand.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 22, 2018)

bimble said:


> What isn’t. Identifying as non binary ? What work does it involve?



Answer mine first.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 22, 2018)

bimble said:


> Nigel Irritable why did you post that silly tweet by ‘dr rad’?
> I think she’s an idiot and she’s by no means any kind of important figure in gender critical feminism is she.
> That weird nationalist sounding tweet though was a response to someone right on who was saying ‘why are English women always so ugly like you’. So anyway, why post it it’s totally irrelevant to anything at all.



I didn’t post that arsehole’s tweet. Look again.

You are no doubt right that she’s not a major figure in radical feminism, but she is certainly a major figure in the TERF lobbying campaign against GRA refor.,


----------



## bimble (Jan 22, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> Work, roles expected emotionally, ways of acting, etc. I said caregiver and provider to signify the traditional split in marriage because it's an easy one to understand.


Yes that’s what I thought, ways of acting, ways of being, associated with femininity / manliness. What is the difference between this stuff (gender roles) and gender as a separate idea?


----------



## Mation (Jan 22, 2018)

Christ. 235 pages in now and still we haven't determined whether Urban is totally perplexed, despite some medal-winning performances. When will we know?


----------



## bimble (Jan 22, 2018)

I am still totally perplexed.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 22, 2018)

There is an abundance of perplexment.  I think this thread may be generating levels of perplexitude that may leak into other corners of the internet, possibly even diluting the certainty of Twitter users.

Scary times.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 22, 2018)

bimble said:


> Yes that’s what I thought, ways of acting, ways of being, associated with femininity / manliness. What is the difference between this stuff and gender as a separate idea?



Gender on it's own is difficult to pin down because more than anything it's a way of _feeling_, of _knowing_ what you are.

Feminism has long fought to break down traditional gender roles, to untie the notion of, for example, caregiving or providing from the genders they have long been associated with. The understanding is there, that the things you do should not be and are not dependent on the gender you are. None of that changes by opening up the space for people to say they are a different gender to what they were originally classified as.

There's a tendency to ask trans and non-binary people to be able to explicitly prove something about their gender, about how they feel, about what gender is at its very core, before they can be allowed to be that gender. That's something not expected of cis men and women. And it's a nifty trap because of how almost impossible it is to do.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 22, 2018)

I see we're adding swerf to the roster today.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 22, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> Gender on it's own is difficult to pin down because more than anything it's a way of _feeling_, of _knowing_ what you are.



Ways of feeling and thinking about what you are, are in general quite prone to change, though, aren’t they?

Whereas the claims about gender identity (lots of them, anyway), seem to be pointing to something more immutable.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 22, 2018)

Mation said:


> Christ. 235 pages in now and still we haven't determined whether Urban is totally perplexed, despite some medal-winning performances. When will we know?


How would I know whether I am perplexed, not perplexed, or somewhere on the spectrum?


----------



## bimble (Jan 22, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> Gender on it's own is difficult to pin down because more than anything it's a way of _feeling_, of _knowing_ what you are.
> 
> Feminism has long fought to break down traditional gender roles, to untie the notion of, for example, caregiving or providing from the genders they have long been associated with. The understanding is there, that the things you do should not be and are not dependent on the gender you are. None of that changes by opening up the space for people to say they are a different gender to what they were originally classified as.
> 
> There's a tendency to ask trans and non-binary people to be able to explicitly prove something about their gender, about how they feel, about what gender is at its very core, before they can be allowed to be that gender. That's something not expected of cis men and women. And it's a nifty trap because of how almost impossible it is to do.



Agreed. I feel that now though, with everyone having a Gender Identity (be that cis or non binary or woman or whatever) we are all supposed to have this inexplicable un-pin-downable but important core sense of a gendered self that you call “A way of feeling, of knowing what you are”. That’s the meaning of the word gender now, that ineffable inner feeling of belonging to a gender category? 

To be honest I think that’s just nonsense, I think (and care about the idea that) we humans don’t have any essential fixed nature, we are incredibly flexible and born free of categories, we do not ‘know what we are’ in any meaningful fixed way IMO. And to choose gender as a fixed point of this idea of the Self just perplexes me more.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 22, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> It's the way forward for a more equal society.
> 
> Are you concerned some people will on a whim decide to no longer call themselves women because society says it's icky to be a woman and being a woman is difficult and so instead of fighting patriarchy they'll take the easy way out?
> 
> It's really not the easy way out, lol.



There’s a similar bizarre logic at work in TERF concern trolling about teenage trans boys. Usually they ignore trans men, historically they tended to treat them as traitors, but recently they’ve been starting to claim that teenage lesbians are being pressured into declaring themselves trans because supposedly that’s more acceptable than homosexual desire now. Which is one of the most deranged claims made by a group of people notable for deranged claims. Quite apart from anything else, only 46% of 18-24 year olds consider themselves entirely straight in the UK. Homophobic bullying still happens, but overall there has never been a more accepting time to be a gay or bisexual teenager.

My suspicion is that this particular line of argument is related to the equally paranoiac gibberish about how lesbians specifically are being coerced by the trans conspiracy into having sex with people with dicks.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 22, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> How would I know whether I am perplexed, not perplexed, or somewhere on the spectrum?



The perplexment has gone recursive!


----------



## Mation (Jan 22, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> How would I know whether I am perplexed, not perplexed, or somewhere on the spectrum?


Easy. Check your terfometer. It's linked to galvanic skin response. Hear the word and it shoots up? Hmmm. Hovers low? You can probably get along without endless car crashing.


----------



## bimble (Jan 22, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> My suspicion is that this particular line of argument is related to the equally paranoiac gibberish about how lesbians specifically are being coerced by the trans conspiracy into having sex with people with dicks.


What are you talking about? Why are you talking about people with dicks? Why not say trans women?
(I can’t believe my phone kept trying to auto correct that to people with socks).


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 22, 2018)

bimble said:


> Agreed. I feel that now though, with everyone having a Gender Identity (be that cis or non binary or woman or whatever) we are all supposed to have this inexplicable un-pin-downable but important core sense of a gendered self that you call “A way of feeling, of knowing what you are”.
> To be honest I think that’s just nonsense, I think (and care about the idea that) we humans don’t have any essential fixed nature, we are incredibly flexible and born free of categories, we do not ‘know what we are’ in any meaningful fixed way IMO. And to choose gender as a fixed point just perplexed me more.



That's not how we experience life though.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 22, 2018)

Sunset Tree said:


> Thank you for summarising Crenshaw so clearly.  I don't think many intersectionalists have read Crenshaw or are applying her framework as it was formulated.  I never see it used in this sense, yet regularly see people saying if you disagree with idpol you just don't understand the theory.
> 
> I just searched through the identity politics thread to find this article that I found really useful.  History of intersectionality from a way of enriching socialism to a tool of individualistic liberalism.
> 
> Identity Crisis - Viewpoint Magazine



Nice to see the Combahee River Collective mentioned there. It's 40 yrs this year since they published their statement:
The Combahee River Collective Statement



> We believe that sexual politics under patriarchy is as pervasive in Black women's lives as are the politics of class and race. We also often find it difficult to separate race from class from sex oppression because in our lives they are most often experienced simultaneously. We know that there is such a thing as racial-sexual oppression which is neither solely racial nor solely sexual, e.g., the history of rape of Black women by white men as a weapon of political repression.





> We realize that the liberation of all oppressed peoples necessitates the destruction of the political-economic systems of capitalism and imperialism as well as patriarchy. We are socialists because we believe that work must be organized for the collective benefit of those who do the work and create the products, and not for the profit of the bosses. Material resources must be equally distributed among those who create these resources. We are not convinced, however, that a socialist revolution that is not also a feminist and anti-racist revolution will guarantee our liberation.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 22, 2018)

bimble said:


> What are you talking about? Why are you talking about people with dicks? Why not say trans women?
> (I can’t believe my phone kept trying to auto correct that to people with socks).



Because that's the line of argument spouted by some transphobic lesbians. He was adopting their language to make a point.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 22, 2018)

8ball said:


> Ways of feeling and thinking about what you are, are in general quite prone to change, though, aren’t they?
> 
> Whereas the claims about gender identity (lots of them, anyway), seem to be pointing to something more immutable.




you have to remember that some people cling to immutable concepts because it validates them

and feeling and thinking about what you are isnt really subject to change no matter what facade tyou put on it and I doubt you notice anything unless something is wrong


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 22, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> That's not how we experience life though.


Or it might be how some people experience life, and that's ok too, no? Isn't a very big part of this that we don't all go around imposing how we feel about a particular thing, in this case gender identity, on everybody else?


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 22, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> There’s a similar bizarre logic at work in TERF concern trolling about teenage trans boys. Usually they ignore trans men, historically they tended to treat them as traitors, but recently they’ve been starting to claim that teenage lesbians are being pressured into declaring themselves trans because supposedly that’s more acceptable than homosexual desire now. Which is one of the most deranged claims made by a group of people notable for deranged claims. Quite apart from anything else, only 46% of 18-24 year olds consider themselves entirely straight in the UK. Homophobic bullying still happens, but overall there has never been a more accepting time to be a gay or bisexual teenager.
> 
> My suspicion is that this particular line of argument is related to the equally paranoiac gibberish about how lesbians specifically are being coerced by the trans conspiracy into having sex with people with dicks.



My friend, Charlie Kiss, a trans man, touches on that in this short blog. Butch women and trans men


----------



## smokedout (Jan 22, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Intersectionality was never about banning pink pussyhats and shit like that but intersectionality, in the hands of chockablock full of individualism lib feminism, means that a professional dominatrix transgender woman who has actively campaigned for the boycotting and defunding of a rape relief center can and was one of the speakers at the women's march in Vancouver.



Do you have a link for this?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 22, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> you have to remember that some people cling to immutable concepts because it validates them
> 
> and feeling and thinking about what you are isnt really subject to change no matter what facade tyou put on it and I doubt you notice anything unless something is wrong



Well yeah, when you feel something os wrong, it can be a signal that you need to change your ideas (speaking specifically about my experiences with depression).


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 22, 2018)

8ball said:


> Well yeah, when you feel something os wrong, it can be a signal that you need to change your ideas (speaking specifically about my experiences with depression).



what\? i think you misunderstood what i meant


----------



## bimble (Jan 22, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> That's not how we experience life though.


No. We live our lives with our Selves taking shape from the pressures of the people and ideas and imposed roles we’re given to play by everyone around us. Personal stuff: part of my ‘identity’, like ‘woman’, is Jew. This was taught to me from earliest childhood as a Thing that I am. But there is nothing at all intrinsically inside my ‘soul’ or my personality or brain that makes it so, it’s just something I’ve been given to carry around by society and family and history etc and now can’t opt out of in any real way. I see gender like this, imposed and learnt and tbh damaging, restrictive. You said your Mum knew she was a woman. Did this knowing come from some ineffable inner feeling about the nature of her Self or was it taught and she just adapted well to the shape society told her that woman was.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 22, 2018)

theres not just one self bungle but that shits a bit deep for this thread


----------



## 8ball (Jan 22, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> what\? i think you misunderstood what i meant



Yeah, I think I probably did.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 22, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> theres not just one self bungle


This would be excellent if it were being discussed on Rainbow.


----------



## bimble (Jan 22, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> theres not just one self bungle but that shits a bit deep for this thread


Go deeper pengaleng, the waters lovely.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 22, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> This would be excellent if it were being discussed on Rainbow.




you seen queer kid stuff on youtube?? lol

might help some people on here tbh


----------



## 8ball (Jan 22, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> This would be excellent if it were being discussed on Rainbow.



Zippy’s introduction to nihilism was a 70s classic.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 22, 2018)

bimble said:


> Go deeper pengaleng, the waters lovely.



i would but yer minge is fulla cheese

open goal


----------



## bimble (Jan 22, 2018)




----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 22, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I didn’t post that arsehole’s tweet. Look again.
> 
> You are no doubt right that she’s not a major figure in radical feminism, but she is certainly a major figure in the TERF lobbying campaign against GRA refor.,



Thing is...she was worthy (to some here) of posting earlier in the thread when it was all OUTRAGE because she was asked to leave an event...she wasn't so honest about why though...she did nothing wrong but supposedly 'trigger' Lily Madison by simply being there....and then pictures like this told us what she was really up to...being a grade a, try hard, trolling twat...purposely courting conflict...taking selfies like this and enjoying making people feel uncomfortable... She is making a name for herself.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 22, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Do you have a link for this?



There’s a women’s refuge in Vancouver that famously won’t accept trans victims. It’s one of the last redoubts of Canadian TERFery and a constant flashpoint between the majority of Canadian feminists and their TERF minority. The refuge concerned doesn’t just refuse to accept trans women victims of male violence it also campaigned publicly against trans rights laws. The defunding claims are about rows within the local union federation which used to give money to that particular refuge but recently withdrew it over its anti-trans stance. The union federation still gives money to other refuges. 

Many Canadian feminists, most of them not trans, campaigned to have union funding shifted to other refuges, but TERFs obviously prefer to single out a trans woman and imply she’s opposed to refuges rather than simply on the other side of a row about what kind of refuges progressive organizations should fund. Having a trans woman speak at the local women’s march is a pretty clear indication of the side of those rows the bulk of local feminists are on.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 22, 2018)

bimble said:


> No. We live our lives with our Selves taking shape from the pressures of the people and ideas and imposed roles we’re given to play by everyone around us. Personal stuff: part of my ‘identity’, like ‘woman’, is Jew. This was taught to me from earliest childhood as a Thing that I am. But there is nothing at all intrinsically inside my ‘soul’ or my personality or brain that makes it so, it’s just something I’ve been given to carry around by society and family and history etc and now can’t opt out of in any real way. I see gender like this, imposed and learnt and tbh damaging, restrictive. You said your Mum knew she was a woman. Did this knowing come from some ineffable inner feeling about the nature of her Self or was it taught and she just adapted well to the shape society told her that woman was.



I just can't shake the feeling that all of this is a roundabout way of getting to the argument that trans women aren't women because gender isn't real but I'm still a woman because society said so.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 22, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Many Canadian feminists, most of them not trans, campaigned to have union funding shifted to other refuges, but TERFs obviously prefer to single out a trans woman and imply she’s opposed to refuges rather than simply on the other side of a row about what kind of refuges progressive organizations should fund. Having a trans woman speak at the local women’s march is a pretty clear indication of the side of those rows the bulk of local feminists are on.



Sure, I just couldn't find any evidence beyond one unsourced tweet that this particular women was involved in that campaign.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 22, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Pretty powerful stuff from Irish feminists here
> 
> *An open letter to the organisers of the “We Need to Talk Tour” from a group of feminists in Ireland*
> Posted by Sinéad Redmond
> ...



I’m not a fan of the “we are this, we are that” style of writing, and the decision of whoever drafted this to emphasize a peculiarly nationalist take on the north is a bit odd, but this is going to end up with a huge list of signatories. The decision of the Brit TERFs to bring their anti-trans roadshow to Dublin was always going to be seen as a provocation by backward bigots by most Irish feminist activists. As I’ve mentioned before, every feminist group and women’s rights campaign that I’m aware of here is trans inclusive and supports the self ID law.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 22, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> I just can't shake the feeling that all of this is a roundabout way of getting to the argument that trans women aren't women because gender isn't real but I'm still a woman because society said so.



I don't want that cake. I HATE IT.
Give it back, it's mine, even if I don't like it. MINE!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 22, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Sure, I just couldn't find any evidence beyond one unsourced tweet that this particular women was involved in that campaign.



I haven’t seen any evidence either, but it’s probably true that she was at least supportive of it. That was the majority stance among feminist, union and trans activists.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 22, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> Because that's the line of argument spouted by some transphobic lesbians. He was adopting their language to make a point.



It’s even been the language used by some transphobes in this thread.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 22, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> So basically smokedout, you're saying once women are told to fuck off and "go do research" your opinion is that these women go directly to "hate sites"? How many women have you actually bothered asking how they came to that conclusion?
> 
> I think you are really selling women short here.
> 
> ...




I've watched this now.  It strikes me as pretty disingenuous.  The bulk of her argument seems to be that gender identity is not a thing because it's not something she experiences and she can't find a definition for it that satisfies her.  She then goes on to describe what could appear to be gender identity based on socialisation when she talks about the pink and blue boxes and concedes that not only does she better fit the pink box but she realises some people born biologically male might also feel they fit better into that box, and some people assigned female in the blue box.  Her answer to trans people is why not destroy the boxes, yet she has a box, and it seems an unfair burden to place on trans people that they must destroy the gender binary, something radical feminism has failed to do, rather than just get on with their lives the same way she has.

It gets more dubious when she hints at reparation therapy.  Initially she makes the (largely straw man) claim that trans people claim gender identity is fixed and unchangeable, something she claims to rejct.  Then she goes ha, but what about gender fluid or non binary people, gender idenity can't be unchangeable.  This strikes me as her really just inventing what she thinks trans people think to fit her critique.  She ducks whether she actually supports reparative therapy and ignores gender dysphoria pretty much completely.  Which really renders what she's saying incomplete.  She makes a couple of mildly interesting point but when you deconstuct it I felt there wasn't as much there as appears on the surface and I can't say I was particularly impressed with her analysis.


----------



## Athos (Jan 22, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> And a fifth time you've dodged a very straightforward question. You made the claim that the transphobes in this argument were making "valid" points that weren't being listened to. Asking you for an example of such a "valid" but not listened to point is not unreasonable or a mean trick. You either can't think of one, which undermines your both sides need to be listened to handwringing, or you don't have the backbone to tie yourself to any of their opinions that you agree with.



It's a bit rich to make loads of posts refusing to  debate this issue, preferring to call women bigots, instead, and then to demand that they engage substantively with you when it suits. 

But I'll give you an example of a valid concern that's not only not listened to, but in respect of which women are shut down by men like you. And that's the concern that feminism is being directed away from those issues which are most fundamental to vast majority of women (i.e. biological matters such as reproductive health), in favour of those issues that are of particular interest to that tiny minority of women with male biology, who were socialised as boys and men.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 22, 2018)

Athos said:


> But I'll give you an example of a valid concern that's not only not listened to, but in respect of which women are shut down by men like you. And that's the concern that feminism is being directed away from those issues which are most fundamental to vast majority of women (i.e. biological matters such as reproductive health), in favour of those issues that are of particular interest to that tiny minority of women with male biology, who were socialised as boys and men.


One would have thought that this would be especially pertinent in Ireland, given the ongoing struggle there over reproductive rights. And yet...



> We can see from your social media posts about your tour and its contents, that your opposition to the GRA is based on the idea that feminist organising and women’s rights will somehow be harmed through trans inclusivity and organising with our trans sisters. We know this is not true. We, the signatories of this letter, organise hand in hand with our trans sisters. Together, cis and trans, we are Irish feminism. Trans women are our sisters; their struggles are ours, our struggles theirs. They were our sisters before any state-issued certification said so and will always be no matter what any legislation says, either now or in the future.



An open letter to the organisers of the “We Need to Talk Tour” from a group of feminists in Ireland


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 22, 2018)




----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 22, 2018)

Athos said:


> It's a bit rich to make loads of posts refusing to  debate this issue, preferring to call women bigots, instead, and then to demand that they engage substantively with you when it suits.
> 
> But I'll give you an example of a valid concern that's not only not listened to, but in respect of which women are shut down by men like you. And that's the concern that feminism is being directed away from those issues which are most fundamental to vast majority of women (i.e. biological matters such as reproductive health), in favour of those issues that are of particular interest to that tiny minority of women with male biology, who were socialised as boys and men.



Here we are again saying that it's the bad men who are stopping the women from speaking, completely ignoring that women like me take issue with transphobic arguments as well.

In fact I spent some time previously on this thread talking about why it's absolute balderdash to suggest that equality for trans people means issues that affect cis women will be sidelined or done away with altogether.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 22, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> Here we are again saying that it's the bad men who are stopping the women from speaking, completely ignoring that women like me take issue with transphobic arguments as well.



See my screenshot above...the men, those BAD ones...stopping the women being heard/listened to. Right. Bit fucking rich indeed.


----------



## bimble (Jan 22, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> I just can't shake the feeling that all of this is a roundabout way of getting to the argument that trans women aren't women because gender isn't real but I'm still a woman because society said so.





Rutita1 said:


> I don't want that cake. I HATE IT.
> Give it back, it's mine, even if I don't like it. MINE!



Basically yes. Spot on.

I am a member of the category 'woman', I didn't choose it but there it is. I do not like the things that society says belong to the category of woman, a bunch of roles and expectations, or the way we are treated as a result of those gender roles, or the history that got us here, as a result of our reproductive class, but also do not feel that I can opt out of it in any meaningful way by 'identifying' as something else.


----------



## Athos (Jan 22, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> One would have thought that this would be especially pertinent in Ireland, given the ongoing struggle there over reproductive rights. And yet...
> 
> 
> 
> An open letter to the organisers of the “We Need to Talk Tour” from a group of feminists in Ireland



I've already argued that any discussion should include a measured consideration of the evidence of the Irish experience (albeit that it had its limitations - small sample size, too early to know full effects etc.). But men like Nigel refuse to discuss it; they have decided that women's concerns aren't valid, and so dismiss them ad TERFs.


----------



## Athos (Jan 22, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> See my screenshot above...the men, those BAD ones...stopping the women being heard/listened to. Right. Bit fucking rich indeed.



Are you suggesting that I've tried to stop any woman being heard? Because I haven't.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 22, 2018)

bimble said:


> Basically yes. Spot on.
> 
> I am a member of the category 'woman', I didn't choose it but there it is. I do not like the things that society says beloing to category of woman, or the way we are treated, but also do not feel that I can opt out of it.



At least you're being honest.

No one is asking you to opt out of it.

The problem here is that you see trans people as deciding to opt in or out of something. Like it's a whimsical choice. For the heck of it.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 22, 2018)

Athos said:


> I've already argued that any discussion should include a measured consideration of the evidence of the Irish experience (albeit that it had its limitations - small sample size, too early to know full effects etc.). But men like Nigel refuse to discuss it; they have decided that women's concerns aren't valid, and so dismiss them ad TERFs.



Women have opinions too, Athos. Nigel isn't the only person speaking on this, but his is the only voice you're willing to notice. Why do you ignore women, Athos?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 22, 2018)

Athos said:


> But I'll give you an example of a valid concern that's not only not listened to, but in respect of which women are shut down by men like you. And that's the concern that feminism is being directed away from those issues which are most fundamental to vast majority of women (i.e. biological matters such as reproductive health), in favour of those issues that are of particular interest to that tiny minority of women with male biology, who were socialised as boys and men.



That’s not a “valid concern”, it’s zero sum horseshit that assumes that solidarity with those with overlapping but not identical concerns wastes energy rather than creating a stronger movement on all fronts. As you are no doubt aware, the feminist movement in Ireland has a very large mobilizing capacity (it can put more people on the street than any other social movement by a distance) and it has a primary, even overwhelming, focus on issues of reproductive health. Supporting trans rights hasn’t negatively impacted that movement in any way and has helped it develop mutual solidarity with lgbt movements. The only reason why trans issues can be viewed as a distraction in Britain is because an obsessively  anti trans minority of bigots keep creating rows about the subject. Where such bigots are completely marginal that hasn’t happened. That open letter is a response to those bigots in Britain trying to create similar rows here.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 22, 2018)

Athos said:


> Are you suggesting that I've tried to stop any woman being heard? Because I haven't.



It's okay for you, a man, to talk a lot about this subject because you're on the side of women you agree with. It's not okay for Nigel to talk a lot about this subject because he's on the side of women you disagree with.

Got it.


----------



## Athos (Jan 22, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> Here we are again saying that it's the bad men who are stopping the women from speaking, completely ignoring that women like me take issue with transphobic arguments as well.
> 
> In fact I spent some time previously on this thread talking about why it's absolute balderdash to suggest that equality for trans people means issues that affect cis women will be sidelined or done away with altogether.



 Which is a reasonable position, and one with which i broadly agree, in most instances (to the extent it's my place to say, as a man).  But you've not behaved in the same way as Nigel.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 22, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> At least you're being honest.
> 
> No one is asking you to opt out of it.
> 
> The problem here is that you see trans people as deciding to opt in or out of something. Like it's a whimsical choice. For the heck of it.


I wouldn't have chosen this if I had a choice. I spent all my life until 4 years ago trying to escape this. But if you're a trans woman, you just can't. I'd love to see how a cis woman gets on living as a man - I don't think it can be done. The psychological strain of trying to be someone you're not is too great.


----------



## bimble (Jan 22, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> At least you're being honest.
> 
> No one is asking you to opt out of it.
> 
> The problem here is that you see trans people as deciding to opt in or out of something. Like it's a whimsical choice. For the heck of it.



Under trans people you include everyone who identifies as all the flavours of non binary?
I know that Miranda Yardley is persona non grata round here but they once described themselves as a 'refugee from masculinity'. That makes sense to me, doesn't make them a woman but someone who has tried to do whatever they felt they had to do at the time to get out of the rigid roles ascribed to them.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 22, 2018)

Athos said:


> Which is a reasonable position, and one with which i broadly agree, in most instances (to the extent it's my place to say, as a man).  But you've not behaved in the same way as Nigel.



I've liked a large number of Nigel's posts. I broadly agree with what he's posted.


----------



## Athos (Jan 22, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> It's okay for you, a man, to talk a lot about this subject because you're on the side of women you agree with. It's not okay for Nigel to talk a lot about this subject because he's on the side of women you disagree with.
> 
> Got it.



No that's not it. First because I don't think it's a binary as that (no pun intended); I'm not on the opposite side from him - I'm broadly pro-inclusion.  And, secondly, because I've not tried to shout down those with whom I've disagreed (on both sides of the debate), by calling them names.


----------



## Athos (Jan 22, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> Women have opinions too, Athos. Nigel isn't the only person speaking on this, but his is the only voice you're willing to notice. Why do you ignore women, Athos?



That's a cheap shot. You'll see that I've engaged with women throughout this thread. And I've explained why I find his approach so objectionable.


----------



## Athos (Jan 22, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> I've liked a large number of Nigel's posts. I broadly agree with what he's posted.



Yet you've not behaved as he has.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 22, 2018)

bimble said:


> Under trans people you include everyone who identifies as all the flavours of non binary?



My original point, and your reply of admission, was that you don't believe trans women are women. That was my frame of reference for my reply.

You seem particularly interested in the non-binary side of things. Is it to further invalidate the position of trans women? Is it to further invalidate the notion of gender apart from yours? What is it about non-binary people in particular that interests you?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 22, 2018)

Athos said:


> Yet you've not behaved as he has.



Because I'm largely conflict-averse and I don't want to be shouted at for calling people terfs. But I do believe there are terfs on this thread and I find them and their ideas and their arguments objectionable. I don't often see the point in engaging with them because their tactics are transparent. Sometimes I engage out of sheer anger and frustration, sometimes out of a silly idealism and naivety thinking maybe my arguments might make a difference. But largely I don't. Because their arguments are dishonest and tedious and engaging supposes their ideas are in some way valid, and they are not.


----------



## Athos (Jan 22, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> That’s not a “valid concern”, it’s zero sum horseshit that assumes that solidarity with those with overlapping but not identical concerns wastes energy rather than creating a stronger movement on all fronts. As you are no doubt aware, the feminist movement in Ireland has a very large mobilizing capacity (it can put more people on the street than any other social movement by a distance) and it has a primary, even overwhelming, focus on issues of reproductive health. Supporting trans rights hasn’t negatively impacted that movement in any way and has helped it develop mutual solidarity with lgbt movements. The only reason why trans issues can be viewed as a distraction in Britain is because an obsessively  anti trans minority of bigots keep creating rows about the subject. Where such bigots are completely marginal that hasn’t happened. That open letter is a response to those bigots in Britain trying to create similar rows here.



Quite. The context of feminism in Ireland and the UK are quite different. But don't let that stop you, and Irish man, from deciding the validity of British women's concerns.


----------



## snadge (Jan 22, 2018)

Athos said:


> Are you suggesting that I've tried to stop any woman being heard? Because I haven't.




It's alright, the women that have spoken are also ignored.


----------



## Athos (Jan 22, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> Because I'm largely conflict-averse and I don't want to be shouted at for calling people terfs. But I do believe there are terfs on this thread and I find them and their ideas and their arguments objectionable.



So do I. But I also believe there are a number of women who've been unjustly slurred as such (and others who are too intimidated to even voice their misgivings).


----------



## bimble (Jan 22, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> My original point, and your reply of admission, was that you don't believe trans women are women. That was my frame of reference for my reply.
> 
> You seem particularly interested in the non-binary side of things. Is it to further invalidate the position of trans women? Is it to further invalidate the notion of gender apart from yours? What is it about non-binary people in particular that interests you?



I am particularly interested in the idea of there being non binary people because I don't get it. I think surely everyone is non binary, really. This must be because my understanding of the mysterious thing called Gender Identity is still not up to speed.
I'm not interested in an argument about whether or not Trans Women Are Women, I'm happy to treat people how they desire to be treated* but the word woman is clearly up for grabs at the moment and has, currently, no particular shared meaning.
*unless treating them how they want to be treated hurts me in some way


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 22, 2018)

Athos said:


> So do I. But I also believe there are a number of women who've been unjustly slurred as such (and others who are too intimidated to even voice their misgivings).



I've not seen the word terf used against anyone I didn't think it applied to. Perhaps I haven't looked hard enough. You see, I didn't come on this thread for a very, very long time because I felt too intimidated to voice my misgivings.


----------



## Athos (Jan 22, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> I've not seen the word terf used against anyone I didn't think it applied to. Perhaps I haven't looked hard enough. You see, I didn't come on this thread for a very, very long time because I felt too intimidated to voice my misgivings.



Well I hope I did nothing to add to that intimidation. I think this is an issue that deserves sensible discussion (for the sake of women and trans people). That's why I object to Nigel's position.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 22, 2018)

bimble said:


> Under trans people you include everyone who identifies as all the flavours of non binary?
> I know that Miranda Yardley is persona non grata round here but they once described themselves as a 'refugee from masculinity'. That makes sense to me, doesn't make them a woman but someone who has tried to do whatever they felt they had to do at the time to get out of the rigid roles ascribed to them.


That's not how I feel. I tried to be a man. There are many ways to be masculine, and a man, but I came to realise and accept I'm not a man.


----------



## bimble (Jan 22, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> That's not how I feel. I tried to be a man. There are many ways to be masculine, and a man, but I came to realise and accept I'm not a man.


I really don't want to say anything that will hurt you, I like you, especially your stink pipe website etc, but how did you come to feel that what you are is defined (in part) by the word woman?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 22, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> I've not seen the word terf used against anyone I didn't think it applied to. Perhaps I haven't looked hard enough. You see, I didn't come on this thread for a very, very long time because I felt too intimidated to voice my misgivings.



The findings of that Stonewall survey really don't seem to tally with a group that has seized feminism and the Labour Party for it's own, terrified women's organisations into supporting trans inclusion, silenced all women's and all right wing voices, controls the media, the NHS, the legal system and the school system and can force lesbians to have sex against their will with people with penises because they are too scared of being shunned by civil society if they don't.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 22, 2018)

bimble said:


> I really don't want to say anything that will hurt you, I like you, especially your stink pipe website etc, but how did you come to feel that what you are is defined (in part) by the word woman?


I don't think there's any way to simply answer that. Just persistent internal knowledge that wore away at me over years, with dissociation associated with living as a fake, constructed personality,

Truly, I never accepted myself as a woman until the last couple of years. I transitioned thinking it was just something I need to do for my mental health, but as I've let myself become more me I now know who I am. Probably in the same way that cis people just know who they are. My dysphoria had mostly gone. My dissociative feelings have gone. I now no longer feel like I'm an observer inside another person watching their life crash while I feel I'm missing out on my real life.

Anyway, I feel I've come full circle now. I don't think there's much mileage to be had in talking about one persons experience. While mine aren't untypical, they are just my experience.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 22, 2018)

bimble said:


> I really don't want to say anything that will hurt you, I like you, especially your stink pipe website etc, but how did you come to feel that what you are is defined (in part) by the word woman?


Tbh what I am is defined (at least in part) by the word woman, as one doesn't just define oneself by what one is but against what one isn't.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 22, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> I don't think there's any way to simply answer that. Just persistent internal knowledge that wore away at me over years, with dissociation associated with living as a fake, constructed personality,
> 
> Truly, I never accepted myself as a woman until the last couple of years. I transitioned thinking it was just something I need to do for my mental health, but as I've let myself become more me I now know who I am. Probably in the same way that cis people just know who they are. My dysphoria had mostly gone. My dissociative feelings have gone. I now no longer feel like I'm an observer inside another person watching their life crash while I feel I'm missing out on my real life.
> 
> Anyway, I feel I've come full circle now. I don't think there's much mileage to be had in talking about one persons experience. While mine aren't untypical, they are just my experience.



This is part of what I meant earlier, that trans people (particularly women) are asked to prove beyond doubt what gender is to them, what makes them a woman, what gender is in its entirety, and to account for how gender works throughout society. Cis women aren't asked to do the same thing before they are accepted as being women. I don't think the balance of expectation is equal or fair.


----------



## bimble (Jan 22, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> I don't think there's any way to simply answer that. Just persistent internal knowledge that wore away at me over years, with dissociation associated with living as a fake, constructed personality,
> 
> Truly, I never accepted myself as a woman until the last couple of years. I transitioned thinking it was just something I need to do for my mental health, but as I've let myself become more me I now know who I am. Probably in the same way that cis people just know who they are. My dysphoria had mostly gone. My dissociative feelings have gone. I now no longer feel like I'm an observer inside another person watching their life crash while I feel I'm missing out on my real life.
> 
> Anyway, I feel I've come full circle now. I don't think there's much mileage to be had in talking about one persons experience. While mine aren't untypical, they are just my experience.



Thanks for trying to answer Sea Star. The personal experience stuff is really helpful imo. I think I'm a 'cis person' but don't 'know who i am' in the way you suggest that all cis people might do, but I think to some extent i get the dissociative state and feelings.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 22, 2018)

Athos said:


> Well I hope I did nothing to add to that intimidation. I think this is an issue that deserves sensible discussion (for the sake of women and trans people). That's why I object to Nigel's position.



You don't intimidate me, Athos. You never have and you never will. I've always had the measure of you.


----------



## Athos (Jan 22, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> You don't intimidate me, Athos. You never have and you never will. I've always had the measure of you.



Good, I don't want to.

I get the feeling you're playing the man, not the ball, now, though.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 22, 2018)

"Demanding education is often a tactic to exhaust & distract people."

I just saw this elsewhere.

I think that's worth keeping in mind when looking at certain 'discussion' techniques.


----------



## bimble (Jan 22, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Tbh what I am is defined (at least in part) by the word woman, as one doesn't just define oneself by what one is but against what one isn't.


Yes. Just as the meaning of the word 'yellow' is defined by being not blue or green. (this was the endgame of my trans rights v unreconstructed feminism argument with the bf last night. We ended up with this, handing each other coloured pencils and agreeing that nobody knows what yellow is anyway. )
But my idea of woman is totally informed by my idea of what man means, of course. Can't exist without it.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 22, 2018)

Athos said:


> Good, I don't want to.
> 
> I get the feeling you're playing the man, not the ball, now, though.



I've made it clear in the past I do not believe your intentions. I see no need to rehash that. It needs no more said other than I don't trust you and I don't believe your posts are made in good faith.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 22, 2018)

bimble said:


> Yes. Just as the meaning of the word 'yellow' is defined by being not blue or green. (this was the endgame of my trans rights v unreconstructed feminism argument with the bf last night. We ended up with this, handing each other coloured pencils and agreeing that nobody knows what yellow is anyway. )
> But my idea of woman is totally informed by my idea of what man means, of course. Can't exist without it.



The problem comes when it's only trans women (or trans men, or non-binary people, but mostly trans women) who are expected to forgo parts of their existence because of this, while cis people can carry on regardless.


----------



## Athos (Jan 22, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> I've made it clear in the past I do not believe your intentions. I see no need to rehash that. It needs no more said other than I don't trust you and I don't believe your posts are made in good faith.



That's a cop out, without any basis in truth, and unsuported by any evidence.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 22, 2018)

Athos said:


> That's a cop out, without any basis in truth, and unsuported by any evidence.



I don't need to prove whether I trust you.


----------



## Athos (Jan 22, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> I don't need to prove whether I trust you.



I didn't say you did.  It's a convenient way of declining to engage with the argument, though.


----------



## bimble (Jan 22, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> The problem comes when it's only trans women (or trans men, or non-binary people, but mostly trans women) who are expected to forgo parts of their existence because of this, while cis people can carry on regardless.


I get that. Trans women are in the spotlight as people who are asked to explain their idea of gender identity in a way that I'm not. If I just carried on with my life and didn't become totally perplexed by this stuff I could probably carry on regardless, like most of the 4 billon or so people in the world with vaginas who have for the most part no choice whatsoever about whether or not they are / 'identify as' women.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 22, 2018)

bimble said:


> I get that. Trans women are in the spotlight as people who are asked to explain their idea of gender identity in a way that I'm not. If I just carried on with my life and didn't become totally perplexed by this stuff I could probably carry on regardless, like most of the 4 billon or so people in the world with vaginas who have for the most part no choice about whether or not they are / 'identify as' women.



And I think the point is that trans people don't really have a choice either because trying to ignore what they really are really fucks them up. All around the world.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 22, 2018)

Athos said:


> I didn't say you did.  It's a convenient way of declining to engage with the argument, though.



I've discussed with you at length in the past why I don't believe you are genuine or honest. I will not have that discussion again. Feel free to search back for it if you want the key talking points. I won't be baited by your distraction techniques. I don't care if that's not good enough for you.


----------



## Athos (Jan 22, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> I've discussed with you at length in the past why I don't believe you are genuine or honest.



No you haven't.


----------



## bimble (Jan 22, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> And I think the point is that trans people don't really have a choice either because trying to ignore what they really are really fucks them up. All around the world.


You honestly think this (identifying out of the gender expected of your biological sex) is an option for people 'all around the world'?
I know you don't think that because you're not silly. So lets not bring 'all around the world' into this conversation.
I do stuff for work with women's not for profits, and got to go to Bangladesh recently.
There are massive issues there to do with the life chances and options of people born with female bodies AKA women. Are those people cis?


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 22, 2018)

This is something I've thrown in before, but I think it was back when the debate was so heated that anything i said got shot down and disregarded immediately. I think i was told that i needed to stop using intersex people to prop up my arguments about trans. Well, before I go there, there is an important cross-over between trans and intersex and one that frequently leads to intersex people also identifying as trans. For me it's objective evidence of some sort of internal gender identity. I know an intersex campaigner and we chat about this stuff from time to time. They were born a boy, physically and it turned out, in gender identity terms too. But with very small genitals they were reshaped as a vagina when he was very young. So, anyway, no-one asked him. His parents brought him up as a girl. Now he reports feeling classic dysphoria symptoms from a young age. Eventually he was old enough to tell everyone he was actually a boy, but he wasn't then aware of having surgeries, that he was actually born a boy. But he knew. Anyway I looked this up. It seems that for years surgeons who do this have bought into the gender is totally a construct and can be changed by socialisation theory. But 50% of the time they got it wrong. There was a tendency for years to make more into girls than boys because the surgery was easier. Anyway - over the years I've come across a few trans women who have since found out they are intersex and were actually born girls but raised as boys and forced into a male puberty. And there are many, many cases of this sort of thing. To me it says we all know who we are but there's only a problem if we disagree with what the whole of society, doctors, churches, schools, parents, etc tell us we are. Then every moment of life can just be hellish. Anyway I just mention this because i was really struck by this at the time - how similar my early feelings of dysphoria were to my friends', but seemingly for different reasons.


also - an aside - see i get confused as I've been told that sex and gender are such different things and yet gender dysphoria, for me anyway, and others that I've discussed this with, is largely about the physical body and not having the body shape that some part of you tells you that you ought to have - borne out in studies of trans women and cis men losing/removing genitalia and our very different ways of responding - a little bit like phantom limb disorder except with external genitalia and trans women don;t just dont have it, while cis men do. So for me my feelings of being a woman stem at least in part from expectation that my voice should be higher, my face more feminine, that i should have female body, and genitals, and not having any of those things just consistently hit me every day, driving me more and more into myself. I'm not saying that's all trans people, but it's many of us.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 22, 2018)

Athos said:


> No you haven't.



Yes, I have. And it eventually culminated in you saying you were leaving this type of thread alone, doing so, and then coming back claiming to be a new man.

I will not talk about it anymore.


----------



## Athos (Jan 22, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> Yes, I have.



No you haven't.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 22, 2018)

Clearly don't know your own mind then Vintage Paw 

Either that or you aren't being listened to. 

Amazing, really. The unravelling.


----------



## Athos (Jan 22, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Clearly don't know your own mind then Vintage Paw
> 
> Either that or you aren't being listened to.
> 
> Amazing, really. The unravelling.



It's nothing to do with knowing her own mind.

I'm listening and replying.

I just don't think what she claims is true.

Don't let that deter your shit-stirring, though.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 22, 2018)

bimble said:


> You honestly think this (identifying out of their gender role/ out of their biological sex) is an option for people 'all around the world'?
> I know you don't think that because you're not silly. So lets not bring 'all around the world' into this conversation.
> I do stuff for work with women's not for profits, and got to go to Bangladesh recently.
> There are massive issues there to do with the life chances and options of people born with female bodies AKA women. Are those people cis?


it wasn't an option for me 40 years ago, living in a working class community in the UK, that's not the point. There's anecdotal evidence that trans people in the UK at least often just committed suicide - or, and I've read accounts of very senior trans women - they just deal with it, keep it hidden, or live a secret second life when they can. But that brings associated mental disorders. And this is how it will happen globally. Those who try to express it may well be outcast, or even killed, which might end up being a suicide. I've commonly heard of trans people engaging in extremely risky behaviour once they feel they have no reason to live - or met the ones that keep going out of duty to family. In Brazil trans women are pretty much all dead before old age kicks in. In the US trans women on average die much younger than cis people. In ages gone by trans people were considered human trash to be disposed off or thrown away. Even the gay community didn't want us.


----------



## bimble (Jan 22, 2018)

What is this pantomine bollocks. I failed my 3rd driving test today due to female brain issues and i want a proper barney about ideas not this boring playground personality shite.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 22, 2018)

bimble said:


> View attachment 125918
> What is this pantomine bollocks. I failed my 3rd driving test today due to female brain issues and i want a proper barney about ideas not this boring playground personality shite.


my sister told me only women pass first time. I passed first time. My sister didn't. It's all bollocks really!


----------



## bimble (Jan 22, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> my sister told me only women pass first time. I passed first time. My sister didn't. It's all bollocks really!


No bollocks. I've researched the stats.
It is a sad but true fact that men pass their driving test first time a lot more often than women (like really a lot i can't remember the numbers but it was a really significant margin).
That sort of thing interests me a lot.
I ascribe it to culture, deep gender roles stuff, (in my understanding of gender). Like i think it has to do with how I never played computer games because that was boy stuff, and my confidence is relatively low so I am overly cautious etc.
Would you ascribe the lower pass rate of biological women to innate female brains being worse at spacial reasoning and so on?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 22, 2018)

bimble said:


> You honestly think this (identifying out of their gender role/ out of their biological sex) is an option for people 'all around the world'?
> I know you don't think that because you're not silly. So lets not bring 'all around the world' into this conversation.
> I do stuff for work with women's not for profits, and got to go to Bangladesh recently.
> There are massive issues there to do with the life chances and options of people born with female bodies AKA women. Are those people cis?



What I'm saying is that there are people all around the world who feel a mismatch between their bodies and their gender. Campaigns for trans rights don't stop at the border to Europe and North America. 

You speak specifically about Bangladesh. The most cursory of google searches will bring up articles talking about trans people in Bangladesh. It really is a western conceit to suggest "those people can't possibly care about x because they have other more important things to care about." That completely erases the reality for the people who do experience those things.

And again we're back to the dishonest implication that it's not possible to talk about or care about the problems faced by both cis and trans women. Whataboutery. 

You are right, though. The option to live freely as the gender you know yourself to be isn't as easy for many people as it is even here. I hope that changes.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 22, 2018)

bimble said:


> No bollocks. I've researched the stats.
> It is a sad but true fact that men pass their driving test first time a lot more often than women (like really a lot i can't remember the numbers but it was a really significant margin).
> That sort of thing interests me a lot.
> I ascribe it to culture, deep gender roles stuff, (in my understanding of gender). Like i think it has to do with how I never played computer games because that was boy stuff, and my confidence is relatively low so I am overly cautious etc.
> Would you ascribe the lower pass rate of biological women to innate brains and nature type stuff?



I played computer games and still do, and have shit confidence and have never taken a driving test and hated the 7 lessons I had as a kid (by kid I mean when I was 17). I'm fucking great at computer games though.


----------



## elbows (Jan 22, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> Yes, I have. And it eventually culminated in you saying you were leaving this type of thread alone, doing so, and then coming back claiming to be a new man.
> 
> I will not talk about it anymore.





Athos said:


> I just don't think what she claims is true.



Since on a different thread I recently made blunt and cynical remarks that questioned your motives and methods in regards discussing these subjects Athos, I shall take this opportunity to somewhat explain myself.

I recall you finding the need to claim some sort of realisation and rebirth in terms of some of your beliefs, attitudes, style of debate or whatever combo it was. But my memory has dimmed as to any real details. But at the very least it means I've probably always read your posts on this sort of thread with a degree of extra wariness and suspicion to say the very least. I just aint convinced. But nor am I especially coherent right now, so that will have to do for now.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 22, 2018)

bimble said:


> No bollocks. I've researched the stats. It is a sad but true fact that men pass their driving test first time a lot more often than women (like really a lot i can't remember the numbers but it was a really significant margin).
> That sort of thing interests me a lot. I ascribe it to culture, deep gender roles stuff, (in my understanding of gender). Like i think it has to do with how I never played computer games and my confidence is relatively low etc.
> Would you ascribe it to biology innate brains and nature type stuff?


Not that sort of thing, no. In my case I had a hell of a lot of lessons because I cancelled my first test as I didn't feel ready. I think male privilege plays a role yes. Boys more likely to have access to a vehicle? More likely to be taught by their father, have mates with a car? Though surely this is changing. My mum didn't drive because my dad shouted at her when he was supposed to be teaching her. Luckily he didn't teach me. My sister had access to cars from a very young age and I didn't, but maybe I was just lucky. Who knows? I don't.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 22, 2018)

Get Learning to Drive Simulator.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 22, 2018)

bimble said:


> No bollocks. I've researched the stats.
> It is a sad but true fact that men pass their driving test first time a lot more often than women (like really a lot i can't remember the numbers but it was a really significant margin).
> That sort of thing interests me a lot.
> I ascribe it to culture, deep gender roles stuff, (in my understanding of gender). Like i think it has to do with how I never played computer games because that was boy stuff, and my confidence is relatively low so I am overly cautious etc.
> Would you ascribe the lower pass rate of biological women to innate brains and nature type stuff?


SeaStar just said it was bollocks.

Anyhoo, the difference isn't huge. Yes, men pass marginally quicker than women, but the single biggest determinant is age. Far easier to pass at 17. 

Men race ahead of women in driving test pass rates

Presentation of the stats in there is a bit all over the place, but at 17 the rates are 58% men, 55% women. Small difference really. Need to be a bit careful about the headline figure as men and women may not take the test at the same average age, and the failure rate goes right up with age.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 22, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> I played computer games and still do, and have shit confidence and have never taken a driving test and hated the 7 lessons I had as a kid (by kid I mean when I was 17). I'm fucking great at computer games though.


I passed first time (aged 35) but I still take anxiety attacks if have to drive on a motorway though I ease into it after a day or so.  It's a brilliant thing to do, the freedom, blasting punk tunes whilst toorin aboot etc....


(Cross thread beef- Laurie Pennie wasn't lying when she said she could tweet during attack, you can do anything you like !)


----------



## Athos (Jan 22, 2018)

elbows said:


> Since on a different thread I recently made blunt and cynical remarks that questioned your motives and methods in regards discussing these subjects Athos, I shall take this opportunity to somewhat explain myself.
> 
> I recall you finding the need to claim some sort of realisation and rebirth in terms of some of your beliefs, attitudes, style of debate or whatever combo it was. But my memory has dimmed as to any real details. But at the very least it means I've probably always read your posts on this sort of thread with a degree of extra wariness and suspicion to say the very least. I just aint convinced. But nor am I especially coherent right now, so that will have to do for now.



You're right to some extent. But, first that's slightly inaccurate: I explained that I'd realised that it wasn't worth debating these issues merely for philosophical curiosithy, when to do so upsets trans people; but the landscape has changed since then, this is no loger an idle question - it's becoming a pressing concern, given the potential impact on sex-based protections.  And, secondly, that's not quite what VP claimed.  In any event, I've tried very ard to be mindful of my tone, and to try not to say anything hurtful or disrespectful to trans people.


----------



## elbows (Jan 22, 2018)

Athos said:


> You're right to some extent. But, first that's slightly inaccurate: I explained that I'd realised that it wasn't worth debating these issues merely for philosophical curiosithy, when to do so upsets trans people; but the landscape has changed since then, this is no loger an idle question - it's becoming a pressing concern, given the potential impact on sex-based protections.  And, secondly, that's not quite what VP claimed.



I'm actually rather impressed with just how many things you've confirmed there with so few words.

You never changed, you were just waiting till you found a new justification. 

Well, its been fascinating.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 22, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> I passed first time (aged 35) but I still take anxiety attacks if have to drive on a motorway though I ease into it after a day or so.  It's a brilliant thing to do, the freedom, blasting punk tunes whilst toorin aboot etc....
> 
> 
> (Cross thread beef- Laurie Pennie wasn't lying when she said she could tweet during attack, you can do anything you like !)


I drove about twice in the 7/8 years after I passed my test, and that was in an automatic. In 97 my wife taught me to drive all over again and I absolutely refused to go on motorways for ages. Left to my own devices I probably would never have got back into driving. I was probably about 32/33 by the time I was confident enough to drive anywhere by myself.


----------



## Athos (Jan 22, 2018)

elbows said:


> I'm actually rather impressed with just how many things you've confirmed there with so few words.
> 
> You never changed, you were just waiting till you found a new justification.
> 
> Well, its been fascinating.



The last line of my post is missing from your quote; it confirms what I changed.  Also, I expained how the circumstances changed.

But, really, you can say believe (or claim to) what you want, though I am suspicious of the motives of those who slur those with whom they disagree, rather than engage with the content of their posts.


----------



## bimble (Jan 22, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> SeaStar just said it was bollocks.
> 
> Anyhoo, the difference isn't huge. Yes, men pass marginally quicker than women, but the single biggest determinant is age. Far easier to pass at 17.
> 
> ...



Nah its worse than that its way more than a 3% difference across time. 
If I told the examiner that I do not identify as a woman would it help me with 4th time lucky? 
To be clear, I do not think that I am suffering from having a woman-brain, less well adapted to spatial reasoning or whatever, I think that is nonsense and that the difference in these results is entirely cultural not biological. 
My fail today was due to me being unlucky though, obvs. 

 


.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 22, 2018)

bimble said:


> Nah its worse than that its way more than a 3% difference across time.
> If I told the examiner that I do not identify as a woman would it help me with 4th time lucky?
> To be clear, I do not think that I am suffering from having a woman-brain, less well adapted to spatial reasoning or whatever, I think that is nonsense and that the difference in these results is entirely cultural not biological.
> My fail today was due to me being unlucky though, obvs.
> ...


Doesn't matter how many times I say I don't subscribe to lady brains crap it just keeps getting trotted out.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 22, 2018)

face it yer just shit bongle


----------



## bimble (Jan 22, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Doesn't matter how many times I say I don't subscribe to lady brains crap it just keeps getting trotted out.


But you did say, ages ago (on that toxic masculinity thread) that maybe your over-dipmlomatic style and lack of assertiveness was due to being female. Do you understand why that is problematic for someone like me?


----------



## bimble (Jan 22, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> face it yer just shit bongle


No I am a really good driver apart from in driving tests.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 22, 2018)

bimble said:


> But you did say, ages ago (on that toxic masculinity thread) that maybe your over-dipmlomatic style and lack of assertiveness was due to being female. Do you understand why that is problematic for someone like me?


Learned behaviour, that's all. And that's me, not you. Just because something is statistically probable (and I read in feminist articles how lacking in confidence and assertiveness so many women are) it doesn't mean that its everyone's destiny.

And again - the double standards. That is something that would go unremarked on if said by cis women, in fact I believe it was said by some cis women on that thread, but it's me that had to defend it, consider how it might affect every other woman, etc.

I just don't have the energy.


----------



## bimble (Jan 22, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Learned behaviour, that's all


But how did you learn the habits of womanly diplomacy? Do you mean you learnt them since publically coming out as a woman?


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 22, 2018)

bimble said:


> No I am a really good driver apart from in driving tests.




are you as bad as maureen from driving school?


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 22, 2018)

bimble said:


> But how did you learn the habits of womanly diplomacy? Do you mean you learnt them since publically coming out as trans?




basically if you grow up viewing yourself as xyz you will behave like xyz cus people mirror social behaviour


----------



## bimble (Jan 22, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> are you as bad as maureen from driving school?


eh rah hah.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 22, 2018)

That open letter is at 600 or so signatories already, all of them non trans women involved in the feminist movement.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 22, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> basically if you grow up viewing yourself as xyz you will behave like xyz cus people mirror social behaviour


Possibly even more so if you're autistic. So called high functioning autism, especially among girls, is all about learning from watching the behaviour of others, rather than learning or understanding the underlying rules.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 22, 2018)

bimble said:


> But how did you learn the habits of womanly diplomacy? Do you mean you learnt them since publically coming out as a woman?


What Peng said


----------



## bimble (Jan 22, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> basically if you grow up viewing yourself as xyz you will behave like xyz cus people mirror social behaviour



Thats the stuff i find really interesting. So if you observe some other person / group of people being treated a way, and if you identify with them (that group) then you are basically being socialised as them, just at a distance? So you know what its like to be them (and come to feel that you are one of them)?


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 22, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> That open letter is at 600 or so signatories already, all of them non trans women involved in the feminist movement.


I've no doubt Athos will be keen to ensure no one shuts these women down.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 23, 2018)

Right. I need to get at least one episode of walking dead in before I fall asleep...


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 23, 2018)

bimble said:


> Thats the stuff i find really interesting. So if you observe some other person / group of people being treated a way, you are basically being socialised as them, just at a distance? So you know what its like to be them (and come to feel that you are them) if you identify with them ?




well people also have siblings, diverse social groups and acquaintances, so it depends on the extent that you get treated as such i guess, you notice things

and more often than not you decide how you feel about yourself early on without having much exposure to the world


----------



## Athos (Jan 23, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> I've no doubt Athos will be keen to ensure no one shuts these women down.



Absolutely.  I explicitly called for us to hear more evidence from the Irish experience of self-ID, earlier in the thread, when challanging MY's suggestion that it would be apocalyptic in the UK.  I've never tried to shut down the debate on this issue.  It's dishonest of you to imply otherwise.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 23, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Possibly even more so if you're autistic. So called high functioning autism, especially among girls, is all about learning from watching the behaviour of others, rather than learning or understanding the underlying rules.


Yes, and with some learning difficulties this is the case too, certainly more so than usual.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 23, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Right. I need to get at least one episode of walking dead in before I fall asleep...


Night night!


----------



## bimble (Jan 23, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> and more often than not you decide how you feel about yourself early on without having much exposure to the world


Intriguing. And that decision about what your self is like, what sort of a self it is,  doesn't change as you evolve in the face of you know, the world? . I hope it does change, as people get a bit wiser very slowly. Like my 17 year old ideas about what my Self was like were a bit rubbish tbh.


----------



## elbows (Jan 23, 2018)

Athos said:


> The last line of my post is missing from your quote; it confirms what I changed.  Also, I expained how the circumstances changed.
> 
> But, really, you can say believe (or claim to) what you want, though I am suspicious of the motives of those who slur those with whom they disagree, rather than engage with the content of their posts.



Is the last line missing from my quote because I deleted it, or because you added it to your post after I had already quoted you?

One persons slur may be anothers fair assessment of a person based on hundreds of their posts over time. Be as suspicious as you like, dont know what difference it will make to your bloody unconvincing mr reasonable act.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 23, 2018)

bimble said:


> Intriguing. And that decision about what your self is like, what sort of a self it is,  doesn't change as you evolve in the face of you know, the world? . I hope it does change, as people get a bit wiser very slowly. Like my 17 year old ideas about what my Self was like were a bit rubbish tbh.




you taken the word 'decide' a bit too literally I think it's not actually a conscious decision like deciding to go on holiday or what you want to do with your life cus like most people get this shit at like 4 years old isnt it and it's not like the self as in personality it's like the realisation that you have things called hands

like the first time you hear people talk about this shit they are usually adults and it's brand new to you so it gets interpreted as a whimsical decision or something people are only just considering now, but it's not new to the person the only thing thats new to them is the fact they are talking about it and that the medical world has advanced so that they have options now


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 23, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Pretty powerful stuff from Irish feminists here
> 
> *An open letter to the organisers of the “We Need to Talk Tour” from a group of feminists in Ireland*
> Posted by Sinéad Redmond
> ...





> We do not need you here. We have not had your support in our fight for #repealthe8th, our fight against the historical and ongoing impact of the Magdalene Laundries, our fight for taking back control of our hospitals from religious orders, our fight for justice for women and babies tortured and entombed in Mother and Baby homes.



"Agree or you're out and we'll disavow you despite all you may have done to get us this far."
Women excluding women from debating an issue regarding women and usurping them of their roles and contributions to earlier achievements.
It's actually quite depressing.

On twitter the simple questioning of building trans prisons or trans wings in prisons (as in Italy) could mean solitary confinement at least occasionally (depending on their proportion in the population) and that's not humane is a scandal. I get angry and irritated and I don't always make sense not even to myself but FFS. These groups need a rethink of terms like solidarity and what they mean in practice, big time.

That article ST posted on identity politics should be compulsory reading to everyone.


> As everyone knows, those who are said to belong to a certain identity often – if not most of the time – fail to behave according to their ascribed interests. When this happens, a number of arguments are marshalled to salvage the determinism of identity politics. First, in language hauntingly similar to the discredited concept of “false consciousness,” partisans of identity politics blame those who betray their interests as having been duped. Second, they charge collaboration. For example, instead of engaging with the content of their work, some critics denounce writers like Adolph Reed and Barbara Fields as “Uncle Toms,” even likening them to Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. Third, those who deviate from the politics demanded by their identity might be accused of not actually being of that identity. This is why people of color who criticize identity politics are so often accused of being white.



We've seen all of that and more in this debate and the purges haven't started yet.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 23, 2018)

bimble said:


> No I am a really good driver apart from in driving tests.



I think most of us who have been driving for years would flunk a driving test in the first 5 minutes if called up to do one out of the blue.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 23, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> basically if you grow up viewing yourself as xyz you will behave like xyz cus people mirror social behaviour



Though some of us are really shit at the mirroring bit.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 23, 2018)

You don’t learn anything until you’ve passed anyway.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 23, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> You don’t learn anything until you’ve passed anyway.



Well, the test is about basic car control, teaching you the rules and how to be safe on the road etc.

You def start learning in a different way after that, but what some people learn isn’t exactly how to be a safe driver.  Especially when in the first flush of testosterone.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 23, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> "Agree or you're out and we'll disavow you despite all you may have done to get us this far."
> Women excluding women from debating an issue regarding women and usurping them of their roles and contributions to earlier achievements.



Exactly what have British TERFs done to get the women signing this letter anywhere? Much of the point of the letter is that they’ve never encountered any useful solidarity from any of the transphobic minority of the British feminist movement in their struggles for abortion rights and bodily autonomy. Including in the struggle for abortion rights in Northern Ireland, a part of the British state. Yet those same TERFs now see fit to send an expedition to Ireland to try to inject transphobia into a feminist movement that lacks it.





			
				MochaSoul said:
			
		

> We've seen all of that and more in this debate and the purges haven't started yet.



Well, Dr Radfem has just announced that the Labour Party have suspended her...


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 23, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> you taken the word 'decide' a bit too literally I think it's not actually a conscious decision like deciding to go on holiday or what you want to do with your life cus like most people get this shit at like 4 years old isnt it and it's not like the self as in personality it's like the realisation that you have things called hands


FWIW from my observations going to toddler group with my son he seemed to become aware of his gender once he was on his feet but before he could talk, started looking to play with Boys as if he realised thats what i am. It was just me and him at home and I was quite isolated otherwise due to being single, miles away from family, and pretty unwell (PND not far off PPP i think). His awareness of actual gender roles seemed to come about when he started nursery, this is boys stuff etc. He had long hair but dressed boyishly so I guess that could account for the awareness when younger, I guess it can be in your face, but his sudden awareness did seem quite marked. It's interesting. 


8ball said:


> Well, the test is about basic car control, teaching you the rules and how to be safe on the road etc.
> 
> You def start learning in a different way after that, but what some people learn isn’t exactly how to be a safe driver.  Especially when in the first flush of testosterone.


God aye I am bad for speed if alone in car with no kids. Luckily my current Nissan Micra is way up at 3 revs going 60, and I don't like the sound of upset engines so that's correcting my adrenaline addiction.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 23, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Exactly what have British TERFs done to get the women signing this letter anywhere? Much of the point of the letter is that they’ve never encountered any useful solidarity from any of the transphobic minority of the British feminist movement in their struggles for abortion rights and bodily autonomy. Including in the struggle for abortion rights in Northern Ireland, a part of the British state. Yet those same TERFs now see fit to send an expedition to Ireland to try to inject transphobia into a feminist movement that lacks it.



I was going to abortion rights demos before I was old enough to be able to affiliate myself to any sort of political organisations. I went by my mum's hand who never really affiliated herself to political organisations outside of her union. I went to the Stop the War massive demo even though I wasn't affiliated to any political organisations in this country at the time because I hadn't yet developed a meaningful social network let alone a political one. And when I went to the "Stop the Cuts" demo three or four years ago or the anti-austerity one last year I didn't go as a member of a union even though I am unionised. I went as a human being who disagreed with government's politics. You may want those women disavowed completely but you won't convince me that *none* of those women contributed in any way.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 23, 2018)

bimble said:


> No I am a really good driver apart from in driving tests.


Because it’s not the spatial awareness or handling skill that is affected by the cultural bias so much as it is the reaction to being tested.

(For the record, the kabbess is better than me at driving across every conceivable axis with the exception of parallel parking, where my willingness to apply a specific method at slow speeds lends me an edge).


----------



## Athos (Jan 23, 2018)

elbows said:


> Be as suspicious as you like, dont know what difference it will make to your bloody unconvincing mr reasonable act.



It's not a  act. My position on this *is* reasonable.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2018)

Athos said:


> It's not a  act. My position on this *is* reasonable.


.'. Other people *un*reasonable


----------



## Athos (Jan 23, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> .'. Other people *un*reasonable



Some are, some aren't. I think it's possible for two people to disagree about certain aspects on this issue with neither of them being unreasonable, necessarily.


----------



## co-op (Jan 23, 2018)

Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival to End after 40 Years

Anyone think this is a victory for transwomen? Or a defeat of transphobia?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2018)

co-op said:


> Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival to End after 40 Years
> 
> Anyone think this is a victory for transwomen? Or a defeat of transphobia?


what do you think?


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 23, 2018)

co-op said:


> Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival to End after 40 Years
> 
> Anyone think this is a victory for transwomen? Or a defeat of transphobia?


It's a loss for women. Lesbians in particular.

E2a: And it's a perfect example of taking away women's right to set their own boundaries. The future is bleak.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 23, 2018)

Sunset Tree said:


> Identity is the primary source of privilege and oppression.  Class is just another identity.



More confused than ever


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 23, 2018)

I suspect sarcasm was involved.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> The future is bleak.


the future is orange


----------



## co-op (Jan 23, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> It's a loss for women. Lesbians in particular.



A very articulate recent mumsnet post from a lesbian about all this;

Transactivism and the lesbian community | Mumsnet Discussion


----------



## bimble (Jan 23, 2018)

This is expected today:
Labour’s NEC Set To Confirm Trans People Allowed On All-Women Shortlists
They (Labour)  are going to be 'ahead of the law' on this, in their own words. The all women shortlists are legally about sex (governed by equalities act which talks about sex not gender identies). They're now going to say sex is no longer relevant to these all women shortlists and self id is what counts.


----------



## co-op (Jan 23, 2018)

> as I was fairly masculine presenting (before I grew my hair out) and I was constantly asked if I was trans/what my pronouns were, and people were openly wondering _when_ (not if) I would come out as a TIF. This happened to the level that I really started questioning my gender and identified as trans for a while. The amount of gender role enforcement that I saw in these LGBT groups was astonishing


----------



## TopCat (Jan 23, 2018)

smokedout said:


> The findings of that Stonewall survey really don't seem to tally with a group that has seized feminism and the Labour Party for it's own, terrified women's organisations into supporting trans inclusion, silenced all women's and all right wing voices, controls the media, the NHS, the legal system and the school system and can force lesbians to have sex against their will with people with penises because they are too scared of being shunned by civil society if they don't.


A whole field of straw men.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 23, 2018)

co-op said:


> Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival to End after 40 Years
> 
> Anyone think this is a victory for transwomen? Or a defeat of transphobia?



Or a minor victory for spelling?


----------



## co-op (Jan 23, 2018)

8ball said:


> Or a minor victory for spelling?



Or an opportunity for sneering at feminists?


----------



## co-op (Jan 23, 2018)

Off twitter so all the usual warnings but;

Since being elected women's officer, Lily Madigan has posted
842 tweets about transwomen
934 about how "fabulous" she is
13 tweets about how she is trying to get pregnant
0 tweets about women

(original tweet I saw misgendered LM, I have corrected that, I really don't give a shit about pronouns unless they are clearly being used abusively)


----------



## 8ball (Jan 23, 2018)

co-op said:


> Or an opportunity for sneering at feminists?



Yep, that would be all of them, then wouldn't it.


----------



## co-op (Jan 23, 2018)

8ball said:


> Yep, that would be all of them, then wouldn't it.




Oh absolutely what I said. Well done.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 23, 2018)

co-op said:


> Oh absolutely what I said. Well done.



Wevs.  Honestly can't be arsed with you.

edit:  To be fair, on looking it up, I wasn't aware that the word had quite such a transphobic history, so thanks for the educative point.  It's clearly very sad for some people that it's ending...


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 23, 2018)

co-op said:


> Off twitter so all the usual warnings but;
> 
> Since being elected women's officer, Lily Madigan has posted
> 842 tweets about transwomen
> ...



That is bullshit though...I just had a little scroll through and saw retweets and tweets about specific women's issues/interests.

If she wasn't subjected to such daily vile abuse I dare say she would find more time not to have to talk about being trans, deadnamed and misgendered.

Whomever provided those figures/that tweet is a great example of laying traps whilst simultaneously provoking the kind of response from Lily that proves them right. A cunt's trick tbf.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 23, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> If she wasn't subjected to such daily vile abuse I dare say she would find more time not to have to talk about being trans, deadnamed and misgendered.



Hadn't heard the term 'deadnaming' (though have seen it done).  Pretty horrible.


----------



## Combustible (Jan 23, 2018)

co-op said:


> Since being elected women's officer, Lily Madigan has posted
> 842 tweets about transwomen
> 934 about how "fabulous" she is
> 13 tweets about how she is trying to get pregnant
> 0 tweets about women



Even if that's true so what? She's the women's officer for a CLP, do people check all the hundreds of other CLP women's officers to make sure they have enough position relevant tweets.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 23, 2018)

The bullying of Madigan is sickening. Mostly done by people old enough to be her parents. If your political position compels you to persecute teenagers on the internet, I suggest you have another look at your political position.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 23, 2018)

co-op said:


> A very articulate recent mumsnet post from a lesbian about all this;
> 
> Transactivism and the lesbian community | Mumsnet Discussion





co-op said:


>




I'm not surprised at either of those stories (there are more in both thread comments btw) and I know there are elements of those connected to lesbophobia such as shown on this twitter thread:


It's becoming harder to overlook or even dismiss the inherent misogyny in all of this especially when taking into account the pressure young lesbians say they feel into transitioning... and it just worries me more. An acquaintance of mine who's a lesbian tweeted yesterday or the day before that's she's been trying to fending off this kind of pressure and lesbian erasure since around 2010. The whole having to hide and meeting in private has been happening for a long time. I can't add more than what the comments in both threads say already except that (and this purely anecdotal) "Lesbians are the worst TERFs" is a tweet too frequent for anyone's comfort (those who believe in freedom of thought and don't just pay lip service to it).


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 23, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The bullying of Madigan is sickening. Mostly done by people old enough to be her parents. If your political position compels you to persecute teenagers on the internet, I suggest you have another look at your political position.



FGS she’s not a teen you crybully bullshitter


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 23, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> FGS she’s not a teen you crybully bullshitter



As of a week ago.


----------



## co-op (Jan 23, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> That is bullshit though...I just had a little scroll through and saw retweets and tweets about specific women's issues/interests.
> 
> If she wasn't subjected to such daily vile abuse I dare say she would find more time not to have to talk about being trans, deadnamed and misgendered.
> 
> Whomever provided those figures/that tweet is a great example of laying traps whilst simultaneously provoking the kind of response from Lily that proves them right. A cunt's trick tbf.



I follow LM and I see almost nothing from her on non-trans women's issues. It looks to me like she's building a political career for herself and also surfing a wave of sympathy and support that must be pretty intoxicating if you're that young. 

If she dug in and started really representing women she would do far more to neutralise - or at least marginalise - aggressive attacks from feminists. But it would do far less for her career of course. Years of patient and largely thankless work vs a short cut to a safe Labour seat and selfies with the good and great. Who wouldn't choose the latter?


----------



## co-op (Jan 23, 2018)

Combustible said:


> Even if that's true so what? She's the women's officer for a CLP, do people check all the hundreds of other CLP women's officers to make sure they have enough position relevant tweets.



It's quite common to go through the twitter accounts of people occupying positions in public life - I see it a lot.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jan 23, 2018)

Labour To Confirm Trans People Rights To All-Women Shortlists

"Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour party are set to strengthen transgender women’s rights, including access to all-women shortlists for Parliamentary selections."


----------



## co-op (Jan 23, 2018)

8ball said:


> Wevs.  Honestly can't be arsed with you.
> 
> edit:  To be fair, on looking it up, I wasn't aware that the word had quite such a transphobic history, so thanks for the educative point.  It's clearly very sad for some people that it's ending...



I think your 'transphobia' slur might be a bit out of date old boy. This is a very fast-moving scene these days. Lily Madigan - among others - has claimed in public that she can have babies via a womb transplant. So transwomen can be womyn. 

You despicable transphobe.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 23, 2018)

co-op said:


> I think your 'transphobia' slur might be a bit out of date old boy. This is a very fast-moving scene these days. Lily Madigan - among others - has claimed in public that she can have babies via a womb transplant. So transwomen can be womyn.
> 
> You despicable transphobe.




and


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 23, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> FGS she’s not a teen you crybully bullshitter



Actually, in many ways, we should look at her just like that. Maybe not so much as a teen but as a very young person. The whole contained overly protective environment in unis and such these days doesn't do much for kids like her (especially with her personal problems) but I find it amazing that the Labour party has allowed itself to become a kind of pastiche of the worst of student politics instead of acting in ways that would teach her and others. She's a kid surrounded by people who let her behave as such and that includes the media.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 23, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> FGS she’s not a teen you crybully bullshitter


Deliberate misgendering and deadnaming are bullying.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 23, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Deliberate misgendering and deadnaming are bullying.



What you mean you never knew she had had a birthday? How dare you even post on this thread?


----------



## co-op (Jan 23, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Deliberate misgendering and deadnaming are bullying.



Of course they are. But equally, to the savvy ambitious operator, they are career drivers. I think they'll get Lily into Parliament where she'll be idolised by many, chased constantly by fawning media, paid huge amounts of money and generally live the life of riley, all the while claiming unimpeachable victim status. 

It'll actually fuck her up.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Actually, in many ways, we should look at her just like that. Maybe not so much as a teen but as a very young person. The whole contained overly protective environment in unis and such these days doesn't do much for kids like her (especially with her personal problems) but I find it amazing that the Labour party has allowed itself to become a kind of pastiche of the worst of student politics instead of acting in ways that would teach her and others. She's a kid surrounded by people who let her behave as such and that includes the media.


having seen the worst of student politics i can confirm the labour party has not ascended to that level


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 23, 2018)

co-op said:


> Of course they are. But equally, to the savvy ambitious operator, they are career drivers. I think they'll get Lily into Parliament where she'll be idolised by many, chased constantly by fawning media, paid huge amounts of money and generally live the life of riley, all the while claiming unimpeachable victim status.
> 
> It'll actually fuck her up.



Argh... that's not a good story and it'll be worse if she transitions and regrets it or decides to detransition.
I watched this the other day. The young lady at the end of it had to give her testimony anonymously because of the flak from the trans community.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 23, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Actually, in many ways, we should look at her just like that. Maybe not so much as a teen but as a very young person. The whole contained overly protective environment in unis and such these days doesn't do much for kids like her (especially with her personal problems) but I find it amazing that the Labour party has allowed itself to become a kind of pastiche of the worst of student politics instead of acting in ways that would teach her and others. She's a kid surrounded by people who let her behave as such and that includes the media.


And Dr RadFem and her chums, what's their excuse?


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 23, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> having seen the worst of student politics i can confirm the labour party has not ascended to that level



Tell that to Kiri Tunks, Pilgrim Tucker or Ruth Serwotka among the more anonymous one's some of whom on benefits and have been receiving veiled threats of the "I'll report you to the DWP, you lazy TERF." kind. "Off to the gulag with you" would not be too far off in the right conditions. People have no idea.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Tell that to Kiri Tunks, Pilgrim Tucker or Ruth Serwotka among the more anonymous one's some of whom on benefits and have been receiving veiled threats of the "I'll report you to the DWP, you lazy TERF." kind. "Off to the gulag with you" would not be too far off in the right conditions. People have no idea.


yeh. the worst of student politics is worse than that.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 23, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And Dr RadFem and her chums, what's their excuse?



I posted that because I'd not want to be on LM's shoes and I can see why the trans community feels under siege even if I don't agree with most of their premises. Are you so blind to the other side? Just take a look at the first comment on the reddit thread Co-Op posted. Women/parents are having to go underground to discuss these issues and are advising each other to meet in secret. Is it any wonder some of them go overboard? How would you respond to a bunch of kids threatening to take your livelihood away or that of your friends?
How about you discuss the toxic environment created when even professionals in the women's issues feel they have to keep their mouths shut because they know their funding could be at risk on the grounds of TERFdom?
How would you feel if you were the parent of a young lesbian girl being pressured into becoming a man and after that still having to fend off penises? How would you feel if they started thinking of conversion therapy such as the screenshots I posted two or three days ago?
What are your comments on this story? Would you not be worried to contemplate the possibility of schools, children services, etc being on your case if you decided to teach your child to feel great to be themselves and not give permission for transition before your child were of age? Read this story and make a comment that's not just demolishing some else's argument: I hated her guts at the time: A trans-desister and her mom tell their story


----------



## 8ball (Jan 23, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Argh... that's not a good story and it'll be worse if she transitions and regrets it or decides to detransition.
> I watched this the other day. The young lady at the end of it had to give her testimony anonymously because of the flak from the trans community.



This is really difficult.  Some people on all sides react incredibly hatefully to people who don't fit in the right box.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 23, 2018)

hang on wasnt that lesbian festival shut down actual years ago, like at least 4

also if you're a lesbian attracted to vagina specifically then you're gynephilic thats all.

gynephilic lesbian.

dont come for me i dont invent the words.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 23, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> hang on wasnt that lesbian festival shut down actual years ago, like at least 4



Last one was 2 and half years ago, I think.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 23, 2018)

8ball said:


> Last one was 2 and half years ago, I think.




and it's on this thread because?? where is the thread that was about that?? do people actually care?? or are they using it out of convenience

it's lovely going oooh look at this lesbian festival what was shut down cus of scary trans people but if thats all you are doing then it's fucked up.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 23, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> I posted that because I'd not want to be on LM's shoes and I can see why the trans community feels under siege even if I don't agree with most of their premises. Are you so blind to the other side? Just take a look at the first comment on the reddit thread Co-Op posted. Women/parents are having to go underground to discuss these issues and are advising each other to meet in secret. Is it any wonder some of them go overboard? How would you respond to a bunch of kids threatening to take your livelihood away or that of your friends?
> How about you discuss the toxic environment created when even professionals in the women's issues feel they have to keep their mouths shut because they know their funding could be at risk on the grounds of TERFdom?
> How would you feel if you were the parent of a young lesbian girl being pressured into becoming a man and after that still having to fend off penises? How would you feel if they started thinking of conversion therapy such as the screenshots I posted two or three days ago?
> What are your comments on this story? Would you not be worried to contemplate the possibility of schools, children services, etc being on your case if you decided to teach your child to feel great to be themselves and not give permission for transition before your child were of age? Read this story and make a comment that's not just demolishing some else's argument: I hated her guts at the time: A trans-desister and her mom tell their story


There are lots of worrying developments around much of this and many things to discuss. But bringing those up in response to a post condemning the actions of certain individuals towards one other individual, which amount imo to a concerted hate campaign, is just whatabouttery.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 23, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There are lots of worrying developments around much of this and many things to discuss. But bringing those up in response to a post condemning the actions of certain individuals towards one other individual, which amount imo to a concerted hate campaign, is just whatabouttery.



Yeah.. I knew there was a reason my eyes tended to skip your posts.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 23, 2018)

wheres the thread about the lesbian festival??


----------



## 8ball (Jan 23, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> and it's on this thread because?? where is the thread that was about that?? do people actually care?? or are they using it out of convenience
> 
> it's lovely going oooh look at this lesbian festival what was shut down cus of scary trans people but if thats all you are doing then it's fucked up.



I can't comment on the motives for referring to it.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 23, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. the worst of student politics is worse than that.



Except that wasn't directed at some student in a debate society. It's a disabled [now ex]member of the Labour Party.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 23, 2018)

8ball said:


> I can't comment on the motives for referring to it.




well i wasnt directly asking you, it just seems highly suspect to me because I remember the michigan festival being shut cus i was on social media at the time  just kinda wanna see if anyone was upset enough at the time to do a thread to highlight it cus they cared so much, yes i could search but I'm not as invested as the others here condemning it


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Except that wasn't directed at some student in a debate society. It's a disabled [now ex]member of the Labour Party.


i was thinking of your actual student politics, not of events in a student society


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 23, 2018)

was kinda expecting the mocha to smack me with links to threads about the michigan lesbian festival, but I can only assume no one was involved or knew about it or bothered


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 23, 2018)

bimble said:


> This is expected today:
> Labour’s NEC Set To Confirm Trans People Allowed On All-Women Shortlists
> They (Labour)  are going to be 'ahead of the law' on this, in their own words. The all women shortlists are legally about sex (governed by equalities act which talks about sex not gender identies). They're now going to say sex is no longer relevant to these all women shortlists and self id is what counts.



Still waiting for confirmation but...


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 23, 2018)

co-op said:


> A very articulate recent mumsnet post from a lesbian about all this;
> 
> Transactivism and the lesbian community | Mumsnet Discussion


just straight up transphobia that is.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 23, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> just straight up transphobia that is.




I aint bothered reading any of those long bait essay posts OR the bait as fuck links, dont give em hits


----------



## smokedout (Jan 23, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> "Agree or you're out and we'll disavow you despite all you may have done to get us this far."
> Women excluding women from debating an issue regarding women and usurping them of their roles and contributions to earlier achievements.
> It's actually quite depressing.
> 
> On twitter the simple questioning of building trans prisons or trans wings in prisons (as in Italy) could mean solitary confinement at least occasionally (depending on their proportion in the population) and that's not humane is a scandal. I get angry and irritated and I don't always make sense not even to myself but FFS. These groups need a rethink of terms like solidarity and what they mean in practice, big time.



Are you saying you would support trans prisoners being held in de facto solitary confinement a lot of the time?  Alongside your earlier demand of seperate monitoring of trans people who commit crimes?  At least we have some demands now.  What next?  Are pink triangles too gendered?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Are you saying you would support trans prisoners being held in de facto solitary confinement a lot of the time?  Alongside your earlier demand of seperate monitoring of trans people who commit crimes?  At least we have some demands now.  What next?  Are pink triangles too gendered?


non-oppressive circles.


----------



## co-op (Jan 23, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> I aint bothered reading any of those long bait essay posts OR the bait as fuck links, dont give em hits



LOL. Like Mumsnet is desperate for your clicks.


----------



## co-op (Jan 23, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> just straight up transphobia that is.



I can be pretty sure that you won't try to explain why it's transphobic but if you (or anyone else) can be bothered I'd like to know why. Using 'transphobia' to shut up everyone who doesn't agree with you is going to backfire on trans activists eventually.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 23, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Are you saying you would support trans prisoners being held in de facto solitary confinement a lot of the time?  Alongside your earlier demand of seperate monitoring of trans people who commit crimes?  At least we have some demands now.  What next?  Are pink triangles too gendered?



Get a grip. I was having that conversation with some other people and I was the one saying that I grew up in a country with a very short history of democracy and I wouldn't feel comfortable with de facto solitary confinement for trans people who may have found themselves on wrong side of the law for non-sexual offences as many gay and lesbians suffered during those years. You got me very wrong but I don't care what you think of me no longer. I'm a TERF, remember?


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 23, 2018)

co-op said:


> I can be pretty sure that you won't try to explain why it's transphobic but if you (or anyone else) can be bothered I'd like to know why. Using 'transphobia' to shut up everyone who doesn't agree with you is going to backfire on trans activists eventually.


I don't use "transphobia" to shut anyone up, but I do call it out and refuse to engage with it. That's my right.

If you don't think that page is transphobic I'd like to know what you think transphobia actually is.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 23, 2018)

co-op said:


> I can be pretty sure that you won't try to explain why it's transphobic but if you (or anyone else) can be bothered I'd like to know why. Using 'transphobia' to shut up everyone who doesn't agree with you is going to backfire on trans activists eventually.


It's already doing it. You can't fool everyone the whole of the time


----------



## co-op (Jan 23, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> was kinda expecting the mocha to smack me with links to threads about the michigan lesbian festival, but I can only assume no one was involved or knew about it or bothered



It was me that linked to that article (which you haven't read?). It was brought up and debated at length on here under the Goldsmith's diversity officer thread which was running at the time.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> I don't use "transphobia" to shut anyone up, but I do call it out and refuse to engage with it. That's my right.
> 
> If you don't think that page is transphobic I'd like to know what you think transphobia actually is.


isn't calling it out engaging with it?


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 23, 2018)

co-op said:


> It was me that linked to that article (which you haven't read?). It was brought up and debated at length on here under the Goldsmith's diversity officer thread which was running at the time.




but you'd only see it then if you were interested in some goldsmiths thing, didnt warrant a thread of it's own to y'know highlight the issue to a wider audience?

I will read that link when you read something positive about gender identity.

how the fuck someone is supposed to know theres talk of a michigan festival on a thread about goldsmiths diversity officer, i presume the uk university, how the fuck does thast even happen it's like chinese whispers


----------



## co-op (Jan 23, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> I don't use "transphobia" to shut anyone up, but I do call it out and refuse to engage with it. That's my right.



And it's my right to debate and discuss the issues raised by transactivists campaigns, if you don't want to engage with that, fine, but just shouting 'transphobe' and running away is pointless imo.



Sea Star said:


> If you don't think that page is transphobic I'd like to know what you think transphobia actually is.



It's complex because to be 'non-transphobic' the demand appears to be that everyone else meekly accepts that the entire parameters of the debate be set by one side. So if you don't accept that, then by definition you're a transphobe.

Hating, shunning, trying to fuck up transpeople = transphobia for sure. Bullying misgendering, etc etc likewise. I don't do any of those things and I'd happily bet I've had far more interaction with transpeople than most people, they have been in my life since the 1980s; but according to many on this thread, I'm a transphobe. If I am then the term is just a political slur, it's meaningless.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 23, 2018)

virtue signalling


----------



## co-op (Jan 23, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> but you'd only see it then if you were interested in some goldsmiths thing, didnt warrant a thread of it's own to y'know highlight the issue to a wider audience?
> 
> I will read that link when you read something positive about gender identity.



You're criticising my _non-posting_ history? Surreal. 

The Goldsmiths thread was the trans thread at the time. It was also when more-or-less anyone refusing to accept the standard line was flamed out of sight (just 2 years ago, how things have changed). The idea of restarting yet another flamefest was  obviously a bad one, but you'd have to have actually read some of these posts to have any idea what I'm talking about just as you'd have to read the Womyn Fest blogpost to know what that's about. 

But you'd sooner criticise me for something I didn't post in your preferred format, over 2 years ago?

PS fwiw I guess I've read a good deal more about gender identity than you, but you'd have to actually read and debate things before we'd know that for sure one way or the other.


----------



## co-op (Jan 23, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> virtue signalling



You mean rubbishing people without reading what they've posted? Absolutely.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 23, 2018)

co-op said:


> You're criticising my _non-posting_ history? Surreal.
> 
> The Goldsmiths thread was the trans thread at the time. It was also when more-or-less anyone refusing to accept the standard line was flamed out of sight (just 2 years ago, how things have changed). The idea of restarting yet another flamefest was  obviously a bad one, but you'd have to have actually read some of these posts to have any idea what I'm talking about just as you'd have to read the Womyn Fest blogpost to know what that's about.
> 
> ...




 oh i doubt it


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 23, 2018)

co-op said:


> You mean rubbishing people without reading what they've posted? Absolutely.



no I think you'll find it's called protecting ones mental state from detrimental statements.

and actually I probably did read the fancy festival statements like 3 years ago or whenever it was happening and I found no benefit in it then so why would I now?


----------



## co-op (Jan 23, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> oh i doubt it





OK it's perfectly possible I haven't. Link me to some funky positive gender identity stuff and I'll tell you if it's news to me.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 23, 2018)

co-op said:


> OK it's perfectly possible I haven't. Link me to some funky positive gender identity stuff and I'll tell you if it's news to me.




patronising idiot.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jan 23, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> patronising idiot.



What were you saying about detrimental statements?


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 23, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> What were you saying about detrimental statements?



were they not being patronising and idiotic?

they dont have to read it. same as i dont have to read shitty posts.

my point still stands that if this michigan festival was important then there should have been a thread about it instead of dragging it around the talk of trans people


----------



## co-op (Jan 23, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> patronising idiot.



It was pretty patronising of you to demand that I read x,y,z - as though I hadn't - when you've explicitly boasted that you won't read my links. You tried denouncing me for not starting a thread on something 2 years ago, and ignore the fact that I explained to you why that was, and where I did post on it. You have no idea what I've read and you've tipped up on this thread 200 pages in as though you're the centre of the fucking thing.

Have you ever heard of 'entitlement'?


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 23, 2018)

co-op said:


> It was pretty patronising of you to demand that I read x,y,z - as though I hadn't - when you've explicitly boasted that you won't read my links. You tried denouncing me for not starting a thread on something 2 years ago, and ignore the fact that I explained to you why that was, and where I did post on it. You have no idea what I've read and you've tipped up on this thread 200 pages in as though you're the centre of the fucking thing.
> 
> Have you ever heard of 'entitlement'?



glad you been taking minutes. 

yeah i have I got a shit tonne of it


----------



## co-op (Jan 23, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> yeah i have I got a shit tonne of it



You really do. I wonder where it came from? It's almost like you're a stereotypical egotistical man.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 23, 2018)

co-op said:


> You really do. I wonder where it came from? It's almost like you're a stereotypical egotistical man.




why, thank you


----------



## co-op (Jan 23, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> why, thank you



Top bantz mate.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 23, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Get a grip. I was having that conversation with some other people and I was the one saying that I grew up in a country with a very short history of democracy and I wouldn't feel comfortable with de facto solitary confinement for trans people who may have found themselves on wrong side of the law for non-sexual offences as many gay and lesbians suffered during those years. You got me very wrong but I don't care what you think of me no longer. I'm a TERF, remember?



I haven't called you that, and if you don't agree with trans only prisons then I withdraw the comment.  But I would urge you and others to acknowledge what some of these demands from trans critical feminists mean - what trans people are to be expected to give up in the name of solidarity or reasonableness, such as access to life saving services if they are victims of domestic violence.

And also to recognise that with the trans critical movement being led by people who want to morally mandate transsexuality out of existence then trans activists would be crazy to give an inch because it wouldn't stop if they do.  If trans only prisons were set up then the right wing press and trans critical feminists alike would scour them for evidence of some kind of privilege, or luridly report any single act of misconduct from prisoners.  If trans only crime statistics were developed they would be shouted from the rooftops by both the right and trans critical feminsists, no matter what the numbers said because both of those groups have a track record of lying.  If a trans only women's refuge ever received a penny of funding that might have gone to a cis women's refuge there would be outrage from the trans critical community, and from the right who would object to half emptry hostels being run with tax payer's money.  If trans people were legally acknowledged as some kind of thrid gender, like the Hijra, they would immediately become a social out group - a one percent gender freak caste and would likely face even more horrifying discrimination than they do already.  If anti-discrimination laws were weakened then trans people would find it even harder to access jobs and housing than they do already.

Of course this is exactly what the likes of Sheila Jeffries wants - to make life for trans people so stigmatising and unbearable that transgenderism once again becomes invisible.  I suspect Jeffries thinks this means it would disappear, but things were like that, and it didn't.   And even if these aims were met, would the gender binary really be weakened by the creation of such a society?  Would gender non-conformity become more tolerated? If all the kids experimenting with gender were put back in their woman/man boxes would this be a real gain for those opposed to the gender binary?  Or would it mean that gender conformity became policed just as it was before trans visibility?  And there was nothing radical or feminist about that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2018)

co-op said:


> PS fwiw I guess I've read a good deal more about gender identity than you, but you'd have to actually read and debate things before we'd know that for sure one way or the other.


it's one thing reading it, and quite another understanding it.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 23, 2018)

I never thought that this thread could actually cheer me, but it has


----------



## elbows (Jan 23, 2018)

I reckon a lot of transphobes are shooting themselves in the feet when it comes to party politics. Because the online abuse is alerting people within the Labour party to the levels of hate coming from this direction.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 23, 2018)

i dont think they meant viscous, maybe vicious


----------



## elbows (Jan 23, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> i dont think they meant viscous, maybe vicious



Yeah I just noticed that myself


----------



## co-op (Jan 23, 2018)

smokedout said:


> And also to recognise that with the trans critical movement being led by people who want to morally mandate transsexuality out of existence then trans activists would be crazy to give an inch because it wouldn't stop if they do.



This is such horseshit to make this point; literally no one on this thread who has been critical of what has become the standard trans agenda has got even _near_ the idea of wanting to 'morally mandate transexuality out of existence'. It's such nonsense to make that what this debate has been about, it's utterly dishonest. The fact that some of those people exist is no different from the fact that there are utter crazies on the trans side and this doesn't utterly invalidate a trans perspective.




smokedout said:


> And even if these aims were met, would the gender binary really be weakened by the creation of such a society?  Would gender non-conformity become more tolerated? *If all the kids experimenting with gender were put back in their woman/man boxes would this be a real gain for those opposed to the gender binary?*  Or would it mean that gender conformity became policed just as it was before trans visibility?  And there was nothing radical or feminist about that.



How on earth is anything that gender-critical feminists saying about "putting kids back in their woman/man boxes"? It's literally the opposite of what they have been demanding for 40 years.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 23, 2018)

smokedout said:


> I haven't called you that, and if you don't agree with trans only prisons then I withdraw the comment.



I stopped reading right there. I managed to get further with the people who thought what I was saying was scandalous to start with and other people came in to talk of risk assessments and such. But that may be because they didn't take my comments out of the context in which they were made (feminists excluding other feminists due to lack of solidarity with each other and feminists being so angry reactive with trans they couldn't see trans people past the dangers of male sexual predatory behavior (another example of lack of solidarity).
I wouldn't bother talking to me again, if I were you. It will be a waste of typing effort as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 23, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> i dont think they meant viscous, maybe vicious



It's not nice to be intolerant of the viscous, after all. Some just have a different pace of thinking.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> It's not nice to be intolerant of the viscous, after all. Some just have a different pace of thinking.


it's wicked to mock the afflicted


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 23, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> It's not nice to be intolerant of the viscous, after all. Some just have a different pace of thinking.




well I was gonna say unless they mean thick


----------



## co-op (Jan 23, 2018)

Great bantz lads.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 23, 2018)

sir bantingdon of banterbury


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 23, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> isn't calling it out engaging with it?


Do you think so?


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 23, 2018)

co-op said:


> And it's my right to debate and discuss the issues raised by transactivists campaigns, if you don't want to engage with that, fine, but just shouting 'transphobe' and running away is pointless imo.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ok. Noted.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 23, 2018)

co-op said:


> Great bantz lads.


I think we seem to have found our natural rhythm of being arrogant and rude as fuck whilst having a laugh. This might turn out to be The Thread of the Year.


----------



## co-op (Jan 23, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> I think we seem to have found our natural rhythm of being arrogant and rude as fuck whilst having a laugh. This might turn out to be The Thread of the Year.



There's nothing like a bit of performative adolescent masculinity to establish your credentials for telling feminists to shut up.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 23, 2018)

co-op said:


> There's nothing like a bit of performative adolescent masculinity to establish your credentials for telling feminists to shut up.


I like performative adolescent masculinity especially when it is accompanied by a natal cis vagina, like mine. Now fuck up and listen


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 23, 2018)

*my lack of politics forthwith is due to flying off Night shift number 3, is the GIF thread still up? I should scurry off there.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Do you think so?


i think it may be


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 23, 2018)

oh snap


----------



## co-op (Jan 23, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> I like performative adolescent masculinity* especially when it is accompanied by a natal cis vagina, like mine*. Now fuck up and listen



That's meant to be a killer point? On a thread about gender and sex?

Sheesh.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 23, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> It's already doing it. You can't fool everyone the whole of the time



A key tactic in this debate is to reframe disagreement as hate. What this does is to let the transactivist off the hook when it comes to providing evidence to defend their argument. It's just another way of suffocating debate.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 23, 2018)

i am going to watch hollyoaks, it's way more inclusive than this thread.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 23, 2018)

co-op said:


> That's meant to be a killer point? On a thread about gender and sex?
> 
> Sheesh.



It's a reaction to you calling people _entitled, stereotypical_ men.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 23, 2018)

co-op said:


> That's meant to be a killer point? On a thread about gender and sex?
> 
> Sheesh.



YES! KILLER! 

I wrote an essay in response to soc fem vs rad fem. Ama return to that after more sleep. This is bantz tuesday.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> YES! KILLER!
> 
> I wrote an essay in response to soc fem vs rad fem. Ama return to that after more sleep. This is bantz tuesday.


yes, after st george bantz, who was martyred for his faith on this day in 1412

he refused to shut up after winning an argument with transylvanian heretics and in rage they ripped him limb from limb


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 23, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> i am going to watch hollyoaks, it's way more inclusive than this thread.


Eastenders is my alternative to chemical sedation. Use it wisely, but it sure helps


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 23, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> i think it may be


Ok.


----------



## co-op (Jan 23, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> It's a reaction to you calling people _entitled, stereotypical_ men.



That answer was utterly explicitly to one poster and not to HoratioCuthbert and it's extremely dishonest of you to suggest otherwise. But no surprise to me.


----------



## bimble (Jan 23, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> a natal cis vagina


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 23, 2018)

co-op said:


> That answer was utterly explicitly to one poster and not to HoratioCuthbert and it's extremely dishonest of you to suggest otherwise..



Also see... for example...

'Top bantz lads'



> But no surprise to me



ohhhhhhh ouchhhhhhhy.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 23, 2018)

co-op said:


> That answer was utterly explicitly to one poster and not to HoratioCuthbert and it's extremely dishonest of you to suggest otherwise. But no surprise to me.


Do you think slightly mistaken might work just as well in that sentence, cope?


----------



## co-op (Jan 23, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Also see... for example...
> 
> 'Top bantz lads'



PM isn't a bloke? Pengaleng isn't a bloke? 

I'd accept that you made an honest mistake but when you try and justify it, you're just a liar.


----------



## elbows (Jan 23, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> A key tactic in this debate is to reframe disagreement as hate. What this does is to let the transactivist off the hook when it comes to providing evidence to defend their argument. It's just another way of suffocating debate.



If anyone elses evidence is of the same quality as yours I'd rather they didnt bother providing it.

Key tactic my wobbly arse. Mind you, if you do want to talk about key tactics you've certainly demonstrated a few yourself. eg suggesting people support violence against women, which falls on its face in record time when the technique is performed as crudely as you managed earlier in the thread.


----------



## co-op (Jan 23, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Do you think slightly mistaken might work just as well in that sentence, cope?



Not when she tries to prove that she's right, as she just has done. She has form.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 23, 2018)

co-op said:


> I'd accept that you made an honest mistake but when you try and justify it, you're just a liar.



 Double ouchhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhyyyyyyyyyy!


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 23, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Double ouchhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhyyyyyyyyyy!


Sick burn yo


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 23, 2018)

co-op said:


> Not when she tries to prove that she's right, as she just has done. She has form.



When you've worked out the gaff you made we'll talk about it...till then


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 23, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> i dont think they meant viscous, maybe vicious



To be fair it is also viscous, trying to wade through that sludge of hate.


----------



## elbows (Jan 23, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> A key tactic in this debate is to reframe disagreement as hate. What this does is to let the transactivist off the hook when it comes to providing evidence to defend their argument. It's just another way of suffocating debate.



Mind you despite my frequent hostility towards your stance and a lot of the things you say, I will sporadically search for any common ground.

So, I know we arent going to agree about pronouns so I wont go there again. But are there some examples of things said that do qualify as being hate-sponsored as far as your concerned? A specific example: Some people delight in using the old, dead names of people who have transitioned. I'm going to assume you dont agree with that being done, please correct me if Im wrong, and I would like to know whether its fair enough to think hate might come into things at that point?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 23, 2018)

Loving the direction of this thread today. Good job, everyone.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 23, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> Loving the direction of this thread today. Good job, everyone.


I assume this is sarcasm, as the thread descends into nothing more than tedious name-calling?


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 23, 2018)

kabbes said:


> I assume this is sarcasm, as the thread descends into nothing more than tedious name-calling?


Descends? From that OP? Don't think so!!


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 23, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> Loving the direction of this thread today. Good job, everyone.


I honestly though cope was being comradely when I appeared, hence erroneously in bants mode. 


kabbes said:


> I assume this is sarcasm, as the thread descends into nothing more than tedious name-calling?


But we get cool discussions in between, like last night was nice. I think we can survive the name calling, most seem to have thick skins.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 23, 2018)

I thing the arguments have regularly burnt out themselves, like we had a tete a tete with Bimble yesterday but we still got some progress out of it, with Sea Star giving some personal thoughts and Bimble thinking about concepts a bit. Then some helpful scamp turns up and tries to police the whole thing "men r shuttin women down" usually the summing up. Leave us to it like, we can fucking handle it.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 23, 2018)

co-op said:


> This is such horseshit to make this point; literally no one on this thread who has been critical of what has become the standard trans agenda has got even _near_ the idea of wanting to 'morally mandate transexuality out of existence'. It's such nonsense to make that what this debate has been about, it's utterly dishonest. The fact that some of those people exist is no different from the fact that there are utter crazies on the trans side and this doesn't utterly invalidate a trans perspective.



I didn't say on these boards, I said the trans critical movement.  Venice Allen has called Jeffries her hero, and she is probably one of the key organisers of the current campaign.  These are not marginalised crazies, they are organising meetings, meeting with MPs and journalists and trying, in their own way, to set the agenda - such as Allen's relentless onslaughts against Lily Madigan.  And since you mentioned it there has been some pretty vile transphobia on this thread and those who are more trans critical have steadfastly refused to condemn it.

Under such conditions it would be stragetically suicidal for trans people to give an inch, especially because of the greater pressure from the conservative right.  The trans critical side have shown they will not protect them from that, and neither will the social conservatives protect them from the likes of Allen and Jeffries.  Capitulation and appeasement does not have a good history for groups under attack like this.  You can choose to recognise that or not, but whilst trans critical feminists apologise for the likes of Jeffries and team up with the Murdoch press then they are forcing trans people to fight for their right to exist.  To expect concessions, compromises or comradly debate under these circumstances is just naive.



> How on earth is anything that gender-critical feminists saying about "putting kids back in their woman/man boxes"? It's literally the opposite of what they have been demanding for 40 years.


  Isn't it just.  And just when it looks like they might have an outside chance of getting it they attack the very generation facilitating that.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 23, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> I thing the arguments have regularly burnt out themselves, like we had a tete a tete with Bimble yesterday but we still got some progress out of it, with Sea Star giving some personal thoughts and Bimble thinking about concepts a bit. Then some helpful scamp turns up and tries to police the whole thing "men r shuttin women down" usually the summing up. Leave us to it like, we can fucking handle it.




i liked that bit with bangle

OR BANTLE


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 23, 2018)

co-op said:


> PM isn't a bloke? Pengaleng isn't a bloke?
> 
> I'd accept that you made an honest mistake but when you try and justify it, you're just a liar.




what you saying?


----------



## bimble (Jan 23, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> i liked that bit with bangle
> 
> OR BANTLE



It was good last night, having a friendly fight with you lot made me feel loads better about drinking alone after my crap driving test. Ouch my head this morning though


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 23, 2018)

bimble said:


> It was good last night, having a friendly fight with you lot made me feel loads better about drinking alone after my crap driving test. Ouch my head this morning though


Good to know lassie


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 23, 2018)

elbows said:


> Mind you despite my frequent hostility towards your stance and a lot of the things you say, I will sporadically search for any common ground.
> 
> So, I know we arent going to agree about pronouns so I wont go there again. But are there some examples of things said that do qualify as being hate-sponsored as far as your concerned? A specific example: Some people delight in using the old, dead names of people who have transitioned. I'm going to assume you dont agree with that being done, please correct me if Im wrong, and I would like to know whether its fair enough to think hate might come into things at that point?



Is this common ground with you as someone who is trans, who disagrees with my position on trans issues and considers my views on trans issue to be antithetical, or as someone who is not trans, who considers my views on trans issue to be antithetical? Just to be clear?

I think there is often more common ground than most people think, even between transactivists and radical feminists; there has been a shift in the last ten years where it is now _de rigeur_ for transgender males to claim 'woman' and even 'female' for themselves, with no debate on this entertained. This is a huge problem, and I think does more to create inertia on both sides than any other.

One of the frustrating things about this thread is that the whole trans debate is painted in 'all or nothing', or 'black and white' terms, and disagreement is reframed as hate. This happens on both sides, as I stated earlier in this thread apropos of Lily Madigan.

Here are three topics this thread has contained and my stated (and often restated) position on them, explaining why I consider my position 'pro-trans':

Self-ID: I oppose this as it weakens the protections that currently exist for transsexuals (replacing 'gender reassignment' with 'gender identity'). I can prove the former(!) but nobody can objectively prove the latter;
'Trans women' in female prisons: I don't think this is fair either on women or 'trans women', the latter have very specific needs and requirements and should have their own facilities where they are safe. As a side note, prisons are awful, it's the government's failure and something about these needs to be done across the board especially given the dreadful suicide rate. Also, to ensure people are cared for properly, we need proper statistics reported;
The Dhejne long-term follow-up paper: the key point behind this which is almost always completely ignored is that the second group's outcome was better than the first group's outcome because the former group had a better somatic and psychological care protocol both before and after surgery. These protocols are not offered anywhere else, indeed in the UK mental health care is poorly funded, and I believe we should be campaigning for protocols that give a better outcome instead of engaging in a war of words over what the paper says. Also, we need proper statistics and unbiased research.
I'm interested on whether you believe these positions are pro- or anti-trans.

Regarding pronouns, as someone who has been out of the closet for almost three decades (although only a decade post transition) it bugs me when I get told online by someone who lives 29 days a month as Brian and a day a month as Brianna how bloody awful I am because I don't consider him to be a woman. This also extends to newly transitioned 'trans women' who seem to come out of the closet, hit Twitter and head straight for me to tell me what an awful human being I am because I don't think 'women' like them are 'real women'. I can totally understand why women get pissed off when transitioners tell them they're doing 'woman' wrong. I have made a political statement as to why I disavow the use of 'woman' for myself and other trans-identified males.

Personally, I don't believe in outing or doxing political enemies; we are all entitled to private lives and to enjoy safety and comfort. I also think it's a rather vindictive thing to do when based on an argument on the internet. HOWEVER I have no problem with women naming and identifying transgender male sex offenders/or convicted of violence against girls or women, who are 'identifying as women' and thus hiding their male identity. I make no apology for this, and would reaffirm my belief that men convicted of sexual or other violent acts should not be allowed to change their legal sex.

I do know pronouns and 'dead names' can be antagonistic. However, if these same people had been on the trans scene in say 1995, this was routine amongst ourselves (the joy of '90s banter). I remain concerned people are creating fragile and unstable identities for themselves, and it benefits us all to take a realistic approach of recognising we cannot control other people's minds. And I have no problem with pronouns or 'deadnaming' for myself. I have experienced first-hand homophobic abuse, one particular episode in 2009 took me weeks to overcome (the police treated is as a 'transphobic hate crime' but unfortunately didn't catch the culprits). As far as hate goes, pronouns, 'deadnaming' and pointing out I'm male/am a man come nowhere near this.

I hope this answers your questions, and thanks for the conciliatory post.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 23, 2018)

it wasnt fighting it was learning


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Is this common ground with you as someone who is trans, who disagrees with my position on trans issues and considers my views on trans issue to be antithetical, or as someone who is not trans, who considers my views on trans issue to be antithetical? Just to be clear?
> 
> I think there is often more common ground than most people think, even between transactivists and radical feminists; there has been a shift in the last ten years where it is now _de rigeur_ for transgender males to claim 'woman' and even 'female' for themselves, with no debate on this entertained. This is a huge problem, and I think does more to create inertia on both sides than any other.
> 
> ...


You seemed very happy with the stats till it was pointed out they didn't say what you said they did


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 23, 2018)

co-op said:


> A very articulate recent mumsnet post from a lesbian about all this;
> 
> Transactivism and the lesbian community | Mumsnet Discussion



This actually is a very useful insight, but probably not in the way you intend.

It makes it very clear that much anti-trans sentiment among a minority of older participants in lesbian scenes is mixed up with a deep resentment of the changing subcultural mores of younger lesbians and bisexual women. There’s a sort of tragedy in people like this responding to a growth in the numbers of younger women who are able to be open about their sexual attraction to other women primarily by feeling indignation that those younger women aren’t interested in replicating the communities and rules that some of their elders developed.

It’s an interesting example of the conservative, subcultural nostalgias that drive a lot of what claims to be a movement for radical social change.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 23, 2018)

co-op said:


> It's quite common to go through the twitter accounts of people occupying positions in public life - I see it a lot.



The idea that all of the thousands of Labour Party branch officers are “in public life” is laughable. Transphobes go through her tweets looking for ammunition because they are transphobes obsessed with bullying a young woman. Nobody does this to the thousands of other holders of internal Labour branch positions and you know it.


----------



## co-op (Jan 23, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> This actually is a very useful insight, but probably not in the way you intend.
> 
> It makes it very clear that much anti-trans sentiment among a minority of older participants in lesbian scenes is mixed up with a deep resentment of the changing subcultural mores of younger lesbians and bisexual women. There’s a sort of tragedy in people like this responding to a growth in the numbers of younger women who are able to be open about their sexual attraction to other women primarily by feeling indignation that those younger women aren’t interested in replicating the communities and rules that some of their elders developed.
> 
> It’s an interesting example of the conservative, subcultural nostalgias that drive a lot of what claims to be a movement for radical social change.



No, in fact I think there's some truth in what you say here (although "deep resentment" is surely overdoing it), the first time I've noticed you get off your high horse. I've mentioned my own generational take on this in other posts. But there are many young women who are saying similar things too; what's problematic is the demand for a total monopoly over what is and isn't transphobic by a massively vocal minority and the unconditional support for that line from the likes of you.


----------



## co-op (Jan 23, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The idea that all of the thousands of Labour Party branch officers are “in public life” is laughable. Transphobes go through her tweets looking for ammunition because they are transphobes obsessed with bullying a young woman. Nobody does this to the thousands of other holders of internal Labour branch positions and you know it.



Seriously don't be silly; she's at the epicentre of a national debate, you think it's odd that her twitter feed is scrutinised? Daft take.


----------



## co-op (Jan 23, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> what you saying?



There are plenty of transpeople on the thread.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 23, 2018)

co-op said:


> There are plenty of transpeople on the thread.




and what?


----------



## co-op (Jan 23, 2018)

And that's a good thing right?


----------



## trashpony (Jan 23, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> This actually is a very useful insight, but probably not in the way you intend.
> 
> It makes it very clear that much anti-trans sentiment among a minority of older participants in lesbian scenes is mixed up with a deep resentment of the changing subcultural mores of younger lesbians and bisexual women. There’s a sort of tragedy in people like this responding to a growth in the numbers of younger women who are able to be open about their sexual attraction to other women primarily by feeling indignation that those younger women aren’t interested in replicating the communities and rules that some of their elders developed.
> 
> It’s an interesting example of the conservative, subcultural nostalgias that drive a lot of what claims to be a movement for radical social change.


Your enthusiasm for policing women's sexuality is really fucking creepy


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 23, 2018)

co-op said:


> Seriously don't be silly; she's at the epicentre of a national debate, you think it's odd that her twitter feed is scrutinised? Daft take.



She’s “at the epicenter of a national debate” because TERFs fed her to their friends in the right wing media as a shock story. Then they use a prominence they themselves vindictively created to justify endless continuing monitoring and bullying.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 23, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> She’s “at the epicenter of a national debate” because TERFs fed her to their friends in the right wing media as a shock story. Then they use a prominence they themselves vindictively created to justify endless continuing monitoring and bullying.



Give over. She’s an adult politician who has pulled a number of deliberately provacative stunts and is reaping the benefit of doing so. 

Typical IDPol crybully crap - attack and then burst into tears when called on it.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 23, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Your enthusiasm for policing women's sexuality is really fucking creepy



It wasn’t me who posted up a piece where an older lesbian expresses her resentments about the changes younger women have made to a cherished subculture. And I expressed absolutely no views about her sexuality.




			
				mumsnet post said:
			
		

> For those who don’t know, queer is now used as an all-encompassing term for anyone who doesn’t identify as a heterosexual “cis” person. However, it is also preferred by certain people over terms like lesbian, gay and bisexual because it does away with what are considered the rigid boundaries of ‘gender’ and sexuality e.g. lesbian and gay meaning being attracted to the same sex, bisexual as being attracted to ‘both’ sexes, when certain people reject these categories and the idea that there are two sexes.
> 
> Take, for example, Lily Madigan who is a biological male who has now come out as a lesbian and is dating a woman. Let’s presume for a moment that this woman (let’s call her Chloe) is a) a biological female b) and a passionate trans uber-ally. Chloe is a bio female who is dating a bio male with a penis who wears a pink hoodie and identifies as a woman. Say, before that, Chloe was dating a bio male with a penis who wears a blue hoodie and is, therefore, a man. Maybe in her next relationship, she will date a bio male with a penis who has purple hair and identifies as ‘genderqueer’. Therefore, Chloe can say that she dates men, women and genderqueer people, including both cisgender and trans people. Therefore, she is a queer or pansexual woman.
> 
> ...


----------



## trashpony (Jan 23, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It wasn’t me who posted up a piece where an older lesbian expresses her resentments about the changes younger women have made to a cherished subculture. And I expressed absolutely no views about her sexuality.


No I know that. But you read it and then you made a point of making a post about how younger lesbians are doing lesbianism The Nigel Way and how they should be congratulated. No lesbian gives a shit about your approval or otherwise.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 23, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The idea that all of the thousands of Labour Party branch officers are “in public life” is laughable. Transphobes go through her tweets looking for ammunition because they are transphobes obsessed with bullying a young woman. Nobody does this to the thousands of other holders of internal Labour branch positions and you know it.


It surprised me how suddenly, as a minor candidate, for a minor party in an unwinnable seat, in 2015, i became the centre of a TERF shit storm including demands that I be deselected, and many, many people telling me I was a misogynist man. It's obvious what happens - an organised pile on, using national media. I plunged into a deep depression at the time, had to go on medication, offered to resign as candidate but everyone told me I shouldn't, and I'm glad I didn't despite the toll it took on me. Imagine what I'd have experienced if I'd won! I think I was lucky compared to what trans women are having to deal with now though. I won't be standing for election again, as openly trans, any time soon.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 23, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It wasn’t me who posted up a piece where an older lesbian expresses her resentments about the changes younger women have made to a cherished subculture. And I expressed absolutely no views about her sexuality.



Your contempt for lesbians and other women is quite something to behold.


----------



## co-op (Jan 23, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> She’s “at the epicenter of a national debate” because TERFs fed her to their friends in the right wing media as a shock story. Then they use a prominence they themselves vindictively created to justify endless continuing monitoring and bullying.



She's at the epicentre today because she's been in on the organising of a list of people she wants to get expelled from the Labour Party. Nearly all of them women naturally, because that's what a Women's Officer ought to be doing in your Brave New World.


----------



## co-op (Jan 23, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Lesbianism The Nigel Way



Out shortly on Pluto Press.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 23, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Give over. She’s an adult politician who has pulled a number of deliberately provacative stunts and is reaping the benefit of doing so.
> 
> Typical IDPol crybully crap - attack and then burst into tears when called on it.



If TERFs hadn’t fed her to the right wing press as anti-trans shock of the week, she would be as obscure as the thousands of other Labour branch officials. You are well aware that nobody has heard of 99.9% of Labour branch officers and that nobody is systematically going through their old tweets in order to attack them. This is happening to Madigan because transphobes have fixated on her as a hate figure. It takes a certain shamelessness to insist that she’s a public figure for any other reason.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 23, 2018)

co-op said:


> She's at the epicentre today because she's been in on the organising of a list of people she wants to get expelled from the Labour Party. Nearly all of them women naturally, because that's what a Women's Officer ought to be doing in your Brave New World.



"So how are you going to approach the role of women's officer?"
"Expel all women who disagree with me."


----------



## elbows (Jan 23, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Is this common ground with you as someone who is trans, who disagrees with my position on trans issues and considers my views on trans issue to be antithetical, or as someone who is not trans, who considers my views on trans issue to be antithetical? Just to be clear?



I am not trans. However I wouldnt go throwing words like antithetical around too readily, or I would at least narrow that sort of judgement down to certain very specific things. Your position is complicated and I dont want to erase all the detail just because there are a couple of glaring areas where antithetical does seem the appropriate term.



> One of the frustrating things about this thread is that the whole trans debate is painted in 'all or nothing', or 'black and white' terms, and disagreement is reframed as hate. This happens on both sides, as I stated earlier in this thread apropos of Lily Madigan.



Although this thread frequently becomes polarised, there is no way I could describe this thread as failing because of exclusively black & white thinking. A hell of a lot of the disagreement is in far greyer areas than that.



> I'm interested on whether you believe these positions are pro- or anti-trans.



In a vacuum, I dont consider them anti-trans. I dont consider you anti-trans, but I do think some of your stances are problematic to say the least. Especially when many of those positions are presently seized on by people and groups that I very much consider to be persuing agendas that are at best misguided and damaging to a variety of groups, at worst frequently powered by the sort of anti-trans venom that does exist. If I focus excessively on my revulsion towards pronoun abuse and talk about 'blokes in dresses' it's because I've seen what venom often powers such deliberate choices of language, the deliberately intended harm.



> HOWEVER I have no problem with women naming and identifying transgender male sex offenders/or convicted of violence against girls or women, who are 'identifying as women' and thus hiding their male identity. I make no apology for this, and would reaffirm my belief that men convicted of sexual or other violent acts should not be allowed to change their legal sex.



Well I certainly dont believe that revelations about a persons violent past should not happen if a transition occurred somewhere in their history.

For me 'violent acts' is a rather broad category and I tend to believe that safe-guards should be way more granular than that. I believe in the proper assessment of the risk that individuals pose, with appropriate measures. A lot of problems in legal areas stem from our need to have simplistic rules applied too broadly. Systemic failures and lack of nuance end up leaving people at risk, so I dont think I am 'soft' on these issues, although I am aware that well-meaning tinkering along these lines could also leave people at risk and I dont want that.



> As far as hate goes, pronouns, 'deadnaming' and pointing out I'm male/am a man come nowhere near this.



I'm not really interesting in disregarding certain forms of hate just because they dont make someones top 10.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 23, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> If TERFs hadn’t fed her to the right wing press as anti-trans shock of the week, she would be as obscure as the thousands of other Labour branch officials. You are well aware that nobody has heard of 99.9% of Labour branch officers and that nobody is systematically going through their old tweets in order to attack them. This is happening to Madigan because transphobes have fixated on her as a hate figure. It takes a certain shamelessness to insist that she’s a public figure for any other reason.



So nowt to do with her own choices. It’s all everyone else’s fault.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 23, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> If TERFs hadn’t fed her to the right wing press as anti-trans shock of the week, she would be as obscure as the thousands of other Labour branch officials. You are well aware that nobody has heard of 99.9% of Labour branch officers and that nobody is systematically going through their old tweets in order to attack them. This is happening to Madigan because transphobes have fixated on her as a hate figure. It takes a certain shamelessness to insist that she’s a public figure for any other reason.


Oh come on. You can't possibly believe that.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 23, 2018)

co-op said:


> She's at the epicentre today because she's been in on the organising of a list of people she wants to get expelled from the Labour Party. Nearly all of them women naturally, because that's what a Women's Officer ought to be doing in your Brave New World.



How shocking that a young woman who has been fed to the right wing press by TERFs, then obsessively monitored and continuously bullied by TERFs, then seen TERFs raise money to sue her party to try to take a right away from her, might want to see those TERFs thrown out of that party.


----------



## co-op (Jan 23, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It takes a certain shamelessness to insist that she’s a public figure for any other reason.



Her obviously stratospheric level of ambition and self-promotion has totally passed you by then.


----------



## co-op (Jan 23, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Oh come on. You can't possibly believe that.



Nope that's obviously what he believes - everything,_ everything_ that goes wrong in our beautiful world is down to the TERFs


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 23, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> So nowt to do with her own choices. It’s all everyone else’s fault.



No, it’s not everyone else’s fault. It’s quite specifically the fault of the TERFs who are obsessed with her and their friends in the right wing press who monstered her.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 23, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> How shocking that a young woman who has been fed to the right wing press by TERFs, then obsessively monitored and continuously bullied by TERFs, then seen TERFs raise money to sue her party to try to take a right away from her, might want to see those TERFs thrown out of that party.


Authoritarianism lesson #1 wholly unlearned then. She's not fit for political office in a democratic country.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 23, 2018)

co-op said:


> Her obviously stratospheric level of ambition and self-promotion has totally passed you by then.



Hmmm.  Might be a bit of both going on.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 23, 2018)

co-op said:


> Nope that's obviously what he believes - everything,_ everything_ that goes wrong in our beautiful world is down to the TERFs



I realize that you would prefer it if your opponents really did think that TERFs were enormously influential, but I’ve  been pretty clear on this thread that it’s an ultra marginal movement with little real world power, even in Britain it’s epicentre. Most of the damage TERFs actually do consists of bullying trans women on the internet and feeding shock stories to the right wing press.


----------



## co-op (Jan 23, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> There’s a sort of tragedy in people like this responding to a growth in the numbers of younger women who are able to be open about their sexual attraction to other women primarily by feeling indignation that those younger women aren’t interested in replicating the communities and rules that some of their elders developed.



Here's a good example of the sort of cool and groovy modern way that young people get to deal with their sexuality; The Nigel Way.

I hated her guts at the time: A trans-desister and her mom tell their story

How can anyone read this and think that older lesbians aren't entitled to question the way modern trans theory is impacting on young people? Or that the very act of questioning is 'hateful'?


----------



## bimble (Jan 23, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> .. TERFs raise money to sue her party *to try to take a right away from her*


What right is that? Self id is not law here (yet). Lily doesn't have a certificate so is not _legally_ a woman. The all women shortlists (legally governed by the equalities act) are defined as about sex, that old fashioned notion, and not gender identity anyway.


----------



## co-op (Jan 23, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I realize that you would prefer it if your opponents really did think that TERFs were enormously influential, but I’ve  been pretty clear on this thread that it’s an ultra marginal movement with little real world power, even in Britain it’s epicentre. Most of the damage TERFs actually do consists of bullying trans women on the internet and feeding shock stories to the right wing press.



I was being sarcastic Nigel. You've made the point about how irrelevant anyone who disagrees with you is multiple times, you must have said it 20 or 30 times on this thread. It didn't work, maybe on attempt 31 suddenly it'll come true?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 23, 2018)

elbows said:


> I am not trans.



I know. LOL.



elbows said:


> However I wouldnt go throwing words like antithetical around too readily... Your position is complicated and I dont want to erase all the detail just because there are a couple of glaring areas where antithetical does seem the appropriate term.



Hmmmmm.



elbows said:


> Although this thread frequently becomes polarised, there is no way I could describe this thread as failing because of exclusively black & white thinking. A hell of a lot of the disagreement is in far greyer areas than that.



Black and white thinking is a specific term, it means adopting a view that presents a false dichotomy of 'you're either with us or against us' and is a method used by both adults and children in an attempt to present a position that makes the subject take a side.



elbows said:


> In a vacuum, I dont consider them anti-trans. I dont consider you anti-trans, but I do think some of your stances are problematic to say the least.



Which views, and why?



elbows said:


> Especially when many of those positions are presently seized on by people and groups that I very much consider to be persuing agendas that are at best misguided and damaging to a variety of groups, at worst frequently powered by the sort of anti-trans venom that does exist. If I focus excessively on my revulsion towards pronoun abuse and talk about 'blokes in dresses' it's because I've seen what venom often powers such deliberate choices of language, the deliberately intended harm.



Please find a single instance of my words being used to attack someone. This is not why I do what I do.



elbows said:


> Well I certainly dont believe that revelations about a persons violent past should not happen if a transition occurred somewhere in their history.



Sometimes we need to be clear a crime was perpetrated by a man, not a woman: eg rape, child molestation, other sexual crimes. We should be looking to protect females, not the feelings of a few.



elbows said:


> For me 'violent acts' is a rather broad category and I tend to believe that safe-guards should be way more granular than that. I believe in the proper assessment of the risk that individuals pose, with appropriate measures. A lot of problems in legal areas stem from our need to have simplistic rules applied too broadly. Systemic failures and lack of nuance end up leaving people at risk, so I dont think I am 'soft' on these issues, although I am aware that well-meaning tinkering along these lines could also leave people at risk and I dont want that.



Assault and battery on the human anatomy, sexual crimes, etc.



elbows said:


> I'm not really interesting in disregarding certain forms of hate just because they dont make someones top 10.



Please define 'hate'.

Thanks - sorry to be short, still working argh.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 23, 2018)

bimble said:


> What right is that? Self id is not law here (yet). Lily doesn't have a certificate so is not _legally_ a woman. The all women shortlists (legally governed by the equalities act) are defined as about sex, that old fashioned notion, and not gender identity anyway.



Do you think the presence of a certificate would stop the hatred against Lily?


----------



## elbows (Jan 23, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I know. LOL.



Dont waste my time asking the question then.



> Which views, and why?



I feel no need to answer this at all, we've been over them all in the thread. I didnt tackle them all, since others rubbished them far more effectively than I could.



> Please find a single instance of my words being used to attack someone. This is not why I do what I do.



I acknowledged when I first started talking to you here weeks ago that your pronoun stuff was at least consistent with your clearly stated views. I'm sure you are aware that many others are not indulging in the same language with quite the same motivations and ideological standpoint as you though. Having a common starting point in regards to whether transwomen are women doesnt mean the destination they have in mind is quite the one you envisage though, though I dearly hope the political landscape does not evolve to the point where you ever find this out the hard way.



> Sometimes we need to be clear a crime was perpetrated by a man, not a woman: eg rape, child molestation, other sexual crimes. We should be looking to protect females, not the feelings of a few.



This basic sentiment can be used as part of many disparate recipes. And I would certainly call the health inspectors in if I found 'false dichotomy regarding competing rights' on the restaurant menu. 



> Please define 'hate'.



No, I made my point, if youd like to expand on it or argue with it then please do it directly, dont waste my time with this shit.


----------



## bimble (Jan 23, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> Do you think the presence of a certificate would stop the hatred against Lily?


No. But do you get why I questioned Nigel’s thing about her having a right to a place on all women shortlists? Legally currently she doesn’t have any such right, far as i can tell. Which may be why the planned announcement from labour nec didn’t happen today ?


----------



## elbows (Jan 23, 2018)

bimble said:


> No. But do you get why I questioned Nigel’s thing about her having a right to a place on all women shortlists? Legally currently she doesn’t have any such right, far as i can tell. Which may be why the planned announcement from labour nec didn’t happen today ?



Someone else who is trans got onto a Labour AWS not so long ago, are you aware of that one? I'm afraid I forgot their name and have no link right now.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 23, 2018)

Her name is Heather Peto. She's the PPC for Rutland and Melton.

She has also been selected for the Jo Cox Women in Leadership scheme.


----------



## bimble (Jan 23, 2018)

elbows said:


> Someone else who is trans got onto a Labour AWS not so long ago, are you aware of that one? I'm afraid I forgot their name and have no link right now.


Yes , basically it’s like Labour have been doing a self Id policy (for all women shortlists).


----------



## elbows (Jan 23, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> Her name is Heather Peto. She's the PPC for Rutland and Melton.
> 
> She has also been selected for the Jo Cox Women in Leadership scheme.



Thanks for the info. And Lily applied for but was not successful in being selected for the Jo Cox Women in Leadership scheme I believe?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 23, 2018)

bimble said:


> Yes , basically it’s like Labour have been doing a self Id policy (for all women shortlists).



You must realise the self-id thing is water-testing, right? Those pulling the levers of the anti-trans campaigns aren't especially bothered by self-id in and of itself, but want to ensure trans women aren't allowed on AWS even with legal recognition, don't want them holding positions that have anything to do with women, and ultimately don't want them recognised as women in public life at all. I'm sure not everyone who's involved in this debate on that side feels the same way, and I do understand where some of the (misguided) concern about self-id can come from. But those in control? Their agenda is far more sinister and hateful.

Or perhaps you do realise that.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 23, 2018)

elbows said:


> Thanks for the info. And Lily applied for but was not successful in being selected for the Jo Cox Women in Leadership scheme I believe?



That's right.


----------



## bimble (Jan 23, 2018)

I wasn’t making a judgement on it just pointing out that Nigel was mistaken when he described the fundraiser as trying to ‘take a right away from her’.


----------



## elbows (Jan 23, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> You must realise the self-id thing is water-testing, right? Those pulling the levers of the anti-trans campaigns aren't especially bothered by self-id in and of itself, but want to ensure trans women aren't allowed on AWS even with legal recognition, don't want them holding positions that have anything to do with women, and ultimately don't want them recognised as women in public life at all. I'm sure not everyone who's involved in this debate on that side feels the same way, and I do understand where some of the (misguided) concern about self-id can come from. But those in control? Their agenda is far more sinister and hateful.
> 
> Or perhaps you do realise that.



I have a sudden urge to totally subvert the lyrics to 'They're changing guards at Buckingham Palace'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Your contempt for lesbians and other women is quite something to behold.


Yeh. Your contempt for the truth is evident from your refusal to admit your error over prisoners' stats


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 23, 2018)

elbows said:


> Dont waste my time asking the question then.



Although I admit my views are often adjacent to current vectors in trans culture, I always explain them and why; I think it has some bearing that I am someone who has lived this life. This does at least give me perspective and also depth of knowledge: I have seen trans politics evolve over thirty years and in that time I have seen transsexuals become marginalised more and more not just by the rise of 'transgender' people who don't approach assimilation etc in the way we do, and who in this process have declared a political war on women, but we are also marginalised by the very men who support the rank and file transgender activists, people like Nigel Irritable whose attitudes towards women should make everyone who claims to be a classic liberal or anywhere further to the left cringe: cultural regressivism is the new progressivism.

I have seen allies come and go: our allies were always the lesbians and other women, and the gay men, as well as straight men who wanted to show the world how progressive they are, now the men I see allied to transgender people are generally neo-liberal, authoritarian men who claim to be leftist and who claim to be into equality, as far as this suits them, who use transgender individuals as human shields for their own misogyny: they are the passive sexists and homophobes that in the 1970s and 1980s stood by while lesbians, gay men and transsexuals were culturally and legislatively ostracised.

As someone who is trans who has throughout my life moved within gay culture, I know who the real allies of trans people are, and I know full well that, come the inevitable backlash, men like you are the very men who will turn on us.

So, no. I do not accept your arguments.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 23, 2018)

bimble said:


> I wasn’t making a judgement on it just pointing out that Nigel was mistaken when he described the fundraiser as trying to ‘take a right away from her’.



You acknowledged yourself a few posts later that the Labour Party was already allowing self-ID trans women the right to be considered for all women shortlists. The fundraiser was to sue the Labour Party to force it to remove this right.


----------



## elbows (Jan 23, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> As someone who is trans who has throughout my live moved within gay culture, I know who the real allies of trans people are, and I know full well that, come the inevitable backlash,men like you are the very men who will turn on us.



I'd like to know more about this. You could not be more wrong about me turning on trans people under any future scenario, and rather than spit my dummy out about this hilarious prediction, I would like to understand how on earth you have reached that conclusion. And for that matter the one about some great backlash against trans being inevitable?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 23, 2018)

Dr Radfem, a central organiser of the TERF speaking tour, on the struggle for abortion rights:


----------



## elbows (Jan 23, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I have seen allies come and go: our allies were always the lesbians and other women, and the gay men, as well as straight men who wanted to show the world how progressive they are, now the men I see allied to transgender people are generally neo-liberal, authoritarian men who claim to be leftist and who claim to be into equality, as far as this suits them, who use transgender individuals as human shields for their own misogyny: they are the passive sexists and homophobes that in the 1970s and 1980s stood by while lesbians, gay men and transsexuals were culturally and legislatively ostracised.



While waiting to see if you reply to my question, I suppose in the meantime I might make the assumption that your claim that I will turn on trans people one day somehow relates to this bit.

Well, what are you playing at? You've got a general template that sounds rather crude and you think you can attach it to every supporter of modern trans campaigns that you bash heads with on an internet forum? When you've got no long-term knowledge of posters here and their political positions? I'm not neo-liberal for a start, and as for authoritarian, lol you are the one calling for simplistic laws banning anyone with a violent record from ever being able to transition. Even when you qualify such statements with more specifics about what sort of violence later, its still you that are happy to spout out authoritarian-sounding policy beliefs, not me. And one of the reasons I am interested in granular, individually judged approaches to justice is that is one way to help reduce authoritarianism and spread things like power out. I could not partake in the struggles of the 1970's and 80's because I was too young, so have no credentials to inspect on that particular front at that time. etc, etc, I wont repeat the same for all the other stuff that does not apply to me or many other people I know, since that would be redundant.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 23, 2018)

Why would some random bloke off Twitter know what support women are or aren't giving to abortion charities in NI? Would he or you listen to Dr Radfem if you found out that she'd donated a grand to the Abortion Support Network? Or is this just another stick you found lying around?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 23, 2018)

trashpony said:


> lesbianism The Nigel Way



Top tag line


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 23, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Why would some random bloke off Twitter know what support women are or aren't giving to abortion charities in NI? Would he or you listen to Dr Radfem if you found out that she'd donated a grand to the Abortion Support Network? Or is this just another stick you found lying around?



He didn’t know or claim to know. The letter being discussed asked British TERFs what they’d done to campaign for the abortion rights of women in Northern Ireland, part of their state, and then further asked why, if they actually had done something to help, none of the women in the abortion rights movement had ever heard about it.

The “random bloke off twitter” repeated the same question already put by hundreds of women. Dr Radfem responded by describing the struggle for abortion rights as the struggle to make “careless sex easier”. You can probably take it from that that she hasn’t in fact “donated a grand” to the ASN.

Your mini-movement really is blessed in its most prominent figures.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 23, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Dr Radfem responded by describing the struggle for abortion rights as the struggle to make “careless sex easier”.



Damn... and I keep thinking *my* English is not good enough.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 23, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Why would some random bloke off Twitter know what support women are or aren't giving to abortion charities in NI? Would he or you listen to Dr Radfem if you found out that she'd donated a grand to the Abortion Support Network? Or is this just another stick you found lying around?



So random posts taken out of context by complete nobodies who support the anti-trans agenda are indicative of what the brave anti-trans souls are fighting against, but similar posts by people on the opposite side are verboten?


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 23, 2018)

Wes Streating is helping in the transphobia witch-hunt group FFS. That says a lot


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Wes Streating is helping in the transphobia witch-hunt group FFS. That says a lot


Never heard of him till this post


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 23, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> He didn’t know or claim to know. The letter being discussed asked British TERFs what they’d done to campaign for the abortion rights of women in Northern Ireland, part of their state, and then further asked why, if they actually had done something to help, none of the women in the abortion rights movement had ever heard about it.
> 
> The “random bloke off twitter” repeated the same question already put by hundreds of women. Dr Radfem responded by describing the struggle for abortion rights as the struggle to make “careless sex easier”. You can probably take it from that that she hasn’t in fact “donated a grand” to the ASN.
> 
> Your mini-movement really is blessed in its most prominent figures.



What campaigning have you done for Northern Ireland?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> What campaigning have you done for Northern Ireland?


I thought yer man was based in the free state


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 23, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Never heard of him till this post


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


>



 I see no Jim murphy


----------



## elbows (Jan 23, 2018)

Anyone else believe in this 'inevitable backlash' stuff Miranda made reference to? Or care the describe any reasoning behind the prediction it in any detail?

Because if I am blind towards the potential for such a backlash to occur, then the claim that I will turn on trans people after the backlash could be changed to something that could on paper at least have a modicum of credibility. A picture could be painted of me helping to lead people over a cliff, encouraging their dangerous folly, etc. Yes, I believe some people could make that story work using plenty of their already assembled techniques and tropes. And we could at least get straight into discussing various things relating to the predicted backlash, rather than me just boring everyone by trying to defend myself against wacky claims about what I will do when the tide turns.


----------



## elbows (Jan 24, 2018)

Oh tell me about the tide, and why I am a sandcastle in your eyes, otherwise I might have to sing, and that scenario certainly isnt win-win.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 24, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> As someone who is trans who has throughout my life moved within gay culture, I know who the real allies of trans people are, and I know full well that, come the inevitable backlash, men like you are the very men who will turn on us.
> .


What the fuck is this? You have only just arrived here, remember. You want to know what a 'man like' elbows is, go and check out the various Arab Spring threads. Give them a good fucking read, particularly elbows' posts. You might learn something. 

Fuck me.


----------



## elbows (Jan 24, 2018)

Actually some of those threads probably contain the other known instances of me being called a neo-liberal  Casually Red didnt take kindly to people who would not salute colonel Gaddafi after all.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 24, 2018)

whats happening?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 24, 2018)

This debate has reached an impossible point. It's ok to slag off a male poster just cos he's male. That's justification enough. It's fucking depressing to read.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 24, 2018)

terrible, this is urbans politics forum, you slag people off for being cunts not male, fuckin shameful


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 24, 2018)

My favourite moments have come when people have tried slagging you off, peng, tbf.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 24, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> My favourite moments have come when people have tried slagging you off, peng, tbf.



me too tbh it's been well fun


----------



## elbows (Jan 24, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This debate has reached an impossible point. It's ok to slag off a male poster just cos he's male. That's justification enough. It's fucking depressing to read.



I'm sure the justification isnt just because I'm male. Hopefully it will at least be various things I've said, plus of course not being on Mirandas side of the debate. This thread has motivated me to do a lot more for the cause in future, I wonder if and where I can be any use at all.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 24, 2018)

ahhhh i had to put miranda on ignore, they dont talk in circles they talks in vortexes


----------



## elbows (Jan 24, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> ahhhh i had to put miranda on ignore, they dont talk in circles they talks in vortexes



Gronda Gronda.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 24, 2018)

yeh it's gone well beyond pete burns init

grimes oblivion is on me playlist, kinda fits the theme well

credit for the vortex line goes to mac lethal - tune called shannon iirc


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 24, 2018)

elbows said:


> I'm sure the justification isnt just because I'm male. Hopefully it will at least be various things I've said, plus of course not being on Mirandas side of the debate. This thread has motivated me to do a lot more for the cause in future, I wonder if and where I can be any use at all.


I will say that, it certainly has helped me clarify where I stand on ting. 





pengaleng said:


> yeh it's gone well beyond pete burns init
> 
> grimes oblivion is on me playlist, kinda fits the theme well
> 
> credit for the vortex line goes to mac lethal - tune called shannon iirc


The perplexed playlist, here's one


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 24, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> I thought yer man was based in the free state



He’s asking people in England what campaigning they’ve done so I wondered what he had done. He’s connected by land after all.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> He’s asking people in England what campaigning they’ve done so I wondered what he had done. He’s connected by land after all.


Like brandon stark you mean with the tree?


----------



## co-op (Jan 24, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> My favourite moments have come when people have tried slagging you off, peng, tbf.





And yet you can’t quite work out how to turn it to your advantage can you? Gender is so complicated sometimes isn’t it?

Also don’t forget HoratioCuthbert boasting about having a natal vagina, that was pretty amusing from the ‘you’re all trans-exclusionary’ gang.


----------



## elbows (Jan 24, 2018)

Meanwhile over at the premier of elbows the musical, the critics were wishing that people had taken elbows threats to sing more seriously.....

Oh oh oh, its lonely up heeerreeeee,
At the punnacle of my ambitions,
with the mental malnutrition
and the lack of contrition...

zzzrrppp, fizzzz, swoooosssshhhh

We apologise for the in-terf-fear-rants to this trans-mission.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 24, 2018)

co-op said:


> And yet you can’t quite work out how to turn it to your advantage can you? Gender is so complicated sometimes isn’t it?
> 
> Also don’t forget HoratioCuthbert boasting about having a natal vagina, that was pretty amusing from the ‘you’re all trans-exclusionary’ gang.


Boasting


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 24, 2018)

did you hit play on the chastity belt song cope? In it, there is a girl boasting she is an actual 20 ft tall vagina. How utterly dishonest of her.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 24, 2018)

cheers for the lols, lads 

cant hang about, got an appt


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> cheers for the lols, lads
> 
> cant hang about, got an appt


see you later then


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 24, 2018)

co-op said:


> And yet you can’t quite work out how to turn it to your advantage can you? Gender is so complicated sometimes isn’t it?
> 
> Also don’t forget HoratioCuthbert boasting about having a natal vagina, that was pretty amusing from the ‘you’re all trans-exclusionary’ gang.


I haven't been trying to win arguments by pointing out some spurious 'what' about a poster I disagree with. 

But it is rather ironic to look at who on this thread has been making gendered assumptions and using gender-based insults, especially when they have been so hopelessly wide of the mark most of the time.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 24, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> cheers for the lols, lads
> 
> cant hang about, got an appt



Lads is gender neutral in whatever part of Ireland the Rubberbandits are from


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 24, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I haven't been trying to win arguments by pointing out some spurious 'what' about a poster I disagree with.
> 
> *But it is rather ironic to look at who on this thread has been making gendered assumptions and using gender-based insults, especially when they have been so hopelessly wide of the mark most of the time.*



Spot on. It would be funny if it wasn't so bloody depressing. Given the generally dogmatic, know-it-all tone of those that have done this.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 24, 2018)

fucking hell... 'if you need a pick me up?'



This is the equivalent to standing around in the playground shouting FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT...so much pleasure and glee taken it make me feel sick tbh.

The person behind this account yet again proving they are a nasty piece of work deep down.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 24, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> fucking hell... 'if you need a pick me up?'
> 
> View attachment 125996
> 
> ...


It’s all depressing as hell, frankly, from both sides of the schoolyard fighting.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 24, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> fucking hell... 'if you need a pick me up?'
> 
> View attachment 125996
> 
> ...


It's Venice Allen. She does seem to take enormous glee in upping the tension as much as she can


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 24, 2018)

trashpony said:


> It's Venice Allen. She does seem to take enormous glee in upping the tension as much as she can



Funny you say that because I was going to say it seems like her MO. She is a serious shit stirrer. She _too_ seems to be intent on making a name for herself.


----------



## bimble (Jan 24, 2018)

I don't see the point of this posting up 'evidence' of the worst of the playground bullies on twitter (on both sides).


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 24, 2018)

kabbes said:


> It’s all depressing as hell, frankly, from both sides of the schoolyard fighting.


This both sides crap pisses me off. When do we get our almost daily chance to attack TERFs in the media? 

It's not both sides. One side is a bunch of extremists aggravating the situation to roll back rights of a vulnerable minority, working with whatever retrogressive forces they need to to get results. The other side are mostly extremely vulnerable people who just want to get on with their lives and have appropriate legislation and support systems in place so we don't have to spend all our lives in hiding like we used to have to do.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 24, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> This both sides crap pisses me off. When do we get our almost daily chance to attack TERFs in the media?
> 
> It's not both sides. One side is a bunch of extremists aggravating the situation to roll back rights of a vulnerable minority, working with whatever retrogressive forces they need to to get results. The other side are mostly extremely vulnerable people who just want to get on with their lives and have appropriate legislation and support systems in place so we don't have to spend all our lives in hiding like we used to have to do.


You're saying there are no elements of trans activism (whether the individuals themselves are trans or no) that seek out targets to attack and encourage others to attack?  Who encourage the labelling of those without 100% alignment as transphobic and hateful?  

Basically, are you claiming that Nigel Irritable doesn't actually exist?


----------



## Cloo (Jan 24, 2018)

Well people will always pick outliers and then be all 'Look! Look! This is what *all* these people really are!' , whether it be TERFs going 'Look! Here's a trans rapist who wants to got to a women's prison, this is what everyone who supports trans rights wants!' to rights supporters finding the nastiest, most vicious TERFs and saying 'Look! This is what anyone who has any difficulty with the implications of full trans access to women's spaces is!' etc


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2018)

bimble said:


> I don't see the point of this posting up 'evidence' of the worst of the playground bullies on twitter (on both sides).


yeh let's portray them as adolescents or pre-pubescent children, that will calm things down.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 24, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> fucking hell... 'if you need a pick me up?'
> 
> View attachment 125996
> 
> ...



 "Peak trans". Yes yes, it's just some of the activists we have a problem with.


----------



## bimble (Jan 24, 2018)

This is pretty good: 
A trans woman talking about the need to do something other than just shout TERF at people. 
Social acceptance of trans people springs from our relationship with society – and that works both ways


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 24, 2018)

Cloo said:


> Well people will always pick outliers and then be all 'Look! Look! This is what *all* these people really are!' , whether it be TERFs going 'Look! Here's a trans rapist who wants to got to a women's prison, this is what everyone who supports trans rights wants!' to rights supporters finding the nastiest, most vicious TERFs and saying 'Look! This is what anyone who has any difficulty with the implications of full trans access to women's spaces is!' etc



But random tumblrs and crude abstract graphics are okay?

I picked that especially because that account on twitter and facebook has been at the heart of the organising and discussion since the bookfair debacle. That is not an _outlier._ They (Venice) is in the thick of it and fully intent in whipping it up as much as possible.


----------



## bimble (Jan 24, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> But random tumblrs and crude abstract graphics are okay?



That 'crude abstract graphic' is being used as a teaching tool by the leading UK charity concerned with trans-identifying children, to explain Gender Identity. I am not sure what your problem is with it having been included on the thread.


----------



## elbows (Jan 24, 2018)




----------



## Sea Star (Jan 24, 2018)

kabbes said:


> You're saying there are no elements of trans activism (whether the individuals themselves are trans or no) that seek out targets to attack and encourage others to attack?  Who encourage the labelling of those without 100% alignment as transphobic and hateful?
> 
> Basically, are you claiming that Nigel Irritable doesn't actually exist?


Is Nigel Irritable trans then?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 24, 2018)

kabbes said:


> You're saying there are no elements of trans activism (whether the individuals themselves are trans or no) that seek out targets to attack and encourage others to attack?  Who encourage the labelling of those without 100% alignment as transphobic and hateful?
> 
> Basically, are you claiming that Nigel Irritable doesn't actually exist?



It’s almost as if the incident that triggered this thread never happened.


----------



## Cloo (Jan 24, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> But random tumblrs and crude abstract graphics are okay?
> 
> .


 sorry, should have contextualised more, I wasn't responding to you post, rather what I'd seen on Twitter of people straw-manning (straw personing?) the extremes.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jan 24, 2018)

bimble said:


> That 'crude abstract graphic' is being used as a teaching tool by the leading UK charity concerned with trans-identifying children, to explain Gender Identity. I am not sure what your problem is with it having been included on the thread.



I thought I read a clarification post that said it was from a training session with public servants... Or am I getting that mixed up?


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 24, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> It’s almost as if the incident that triggered this thread never happened.



Kiri Tunks
I keep mentioning Kiri Tunks but what I find horrific about the petition to get her sacked and the barrage of abuse she got is that she never actually pronounced herself in support or in opposition to the GRA. All she did was appeal to more dialogue and listening to women's voices.

e2a: I meant changes to the GRA


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 24, 2018)

Thimble Queen said:


> I thought I read a clarification post that said it was from a training session with public servants... Or am I getting that mixed up?



You are right. The issue with the crude graphic usage here is that no context in terms of how it is being used what is being said etc can be given. Just pointing at it and saying looooookkkkkkk seeeee what they are using!?!?! without even knowing the what and how is pretty shit. The discussion around that image within a presentation like that is really important to know before anyone can have an informed response to it and value/devalue the teaching method.

..but posting the tweets and FBposts from those in the thick of and driving some of the nastier sides of the debate...not so important apparently.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 24, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Is Nigel Irritable trans then?





kabbes said:


> You're saying there are no elements of trans activism (*whether the individuals themselves are trans or no*) that seek out targets to attack and encourage others to attack?  Who encourage the labelling of those without 100% alignment as transphobic and hateful?
> 
> Basically, are you claiming that Nigel Irritable doesn't actually exist?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 24, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Kiri Tunks
> I keep mentioning Kiri Tunks but what I find horrific about the petition to get her sacked and the barrage of abuse she got is that she never actually pronounced herself in support or in opposition to the GRA. All she did was appeal to more dialogue and listening to women's voices.



It was a balanced, compassionate piece she wrote and she was hung out to dry because of it.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 24, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> It was a balanced, compassionate piece she wrote and she was hung out to dry because of it.



At the time I just felt bewildered. I read the article, saw nothing controversial and put it down and thought the whole thing was just silly. It's only now I see the idea was to, in effect, shut people up.


----------



## elbows (Jan 24, 2018)

I thought that article made plenty of fair points and as a call for dialogue it certainly wasnt something that would make me start ranting at the author.

I'm not sure I can call it entirely balanced and compassionate though because it really wasnt even pretending to cover every other position properly in the article, it didnt even pay any lip service to issues trans people face or real transphobia. 

For example, I think it is important to make the point about women being affected by the proposals. But why the need to say they will be most affected? I would have thought trans people would be equally affected at least, but they dont even exist in this point.



> The demand for self-identity has huge implications for all of us and how we are defined. And, because women are an oppressed group (whose fight for equality has never been won or sustained) it is women who are most affected by the proposals.


----------



## elbows (Jan 24, 2018)

In other words, I support calls for inclusivity but making occasional reference to 'all of us' isnt even going to begin to carry that weight.


----------



## elbows (Jan 24, 2018)

And no, I'm under no illusion that if the points I've just made had been taken into account in that article then there would have been no abuse hurled at the author. Things are way too polarised, at least at the edges for that. I was just responding to the idea of it being balanced and compassionate.

edited to add - and I certainly am not demanding that such articles must be utterly balanced and inclusive. Plus we've seen what we get with media legislation that claims to enforce balance, its bad comedy most of the time and no less lopsided. But I would describe that article as interesting and not abusive, as opposed to balanced.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 24, 2018)

Kiri Tunks supports Dr Radfem’s speaking tour, has tweeted approvingly about the sue Labour fundraiser and is or has been convenor of the “Socialist Feminist Network”, an organization primarily devoted to lobbying against expansion of gender recognition rights (every single article on its webpage bar one is about trans rights from an, ahem, “gender critical” perspective). The “just asking questions” routine is cynical horseshit whether she was doing it or or people on this thread who actually have very firm answers are doing it.




And here she is signing herself as convenor of the Socialist Feminist Network
Violence has no place in transgender debate | Letters

The website of the SFN, almost all of which is devoted to opposing the expansion of trans rights:
SocFems.net


----------



## elbows (Jan 24, 2018)

Yeah, I remember ranting about that org some weeks ago. Was just trying to be fair about a single article. Not entirely sure why I bothered.

Maybe its because the accusations of bad faith on both sides are further poisoning things. Efforts to get round this are bloody hard though, especially when I'm invited to shed a tear for transphobes.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 24, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The website of the SFN, almost all of which is devoted to opposing the expansion of trans rights:
> SocFems.net


. 

This tends to be the giveaway with TERFS. It's never just one post/question/point. It's relentless. Nothing gives them pause, they just keep at it.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 24, 2018)

I almost never block anyone on twitter but I had to block a SFN person last week. They don't half pile on in the nastiest of ways.


----------



## Cloo (Jan 24, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> You are right. The issue with the crude graphic usage here is that no context in terms of how it is being used what is being said etc can be given. Just pointing at it and saying looooookkkkkkk seeeee what they are using!?!?! without even knowing the what and how is pretty shit. The discussion around that image within a presentation like that is really important to know before anyone can have an informed response to it and value/devalue the teaching method.
> 
> ..but posting the tweets and FBposts from those in the thick of and driving some of the nastier sides of the debate...not so important apparently.


This is a really good point, you don't know what they're saying. For all we know, they could be saying 'People *think* it's like this, but it's not.'


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 24, 2018)

elbows said:


> I thought that article made plenty of fair points and as a call for dialogue it certainly wasnt something that would make me start ranting at the author.
> 
> I'm not sure I can call it entirely balanced and compassionate though because it really wasnt even pretending to cover every other position properly in the article, it didnt even pay any lip service to issues trans people face or real transphobia.
> 
> For example, I think it is important to make the point about women being affected by the proposals. But why the need to say they will be most affected? I would have thought trans people would be equally affected at least, but they dont even exist in this point.



You can think whatever you want about the article. I was referring to the holier than thou attitude inherent in only pointing out the worst of so called TERF's on twitter as somehow nastier than trans activists when there are plenty of examples of trans activism leading to as terrible consequences as the ending of a longstanding bookfair, to give yet another example.

In this thread, for example, every tactic is employed to get away from discussing very valid points of concern, from picking on bits of posts subjectively deemed unsavoury to somehow escape actually discussing the others, to wholesale dismissal on the flimsiest of grounds. There are people who only come in to snipe at other people or insult them. Frequently people seem to deliberately to miss the points actually made as if they can only read what they want to read (see my very first encounter with HoratioCuthbert which included Rutita1 asking me a question I had already addressed; my last with smokedout  and Sea Star 's last to kabbes ).

Anyway those are just examples and this is a mere microcosm of what's going on out there from what I can see, albeit with a lot less trolling, and my own perception is that there are a lot of people invested in not having a proper debate which heightens my suspicion that there may be more to this than meets the eye. Other factors don't help. Off the top of my head: that some proponents of the change to self-ID in AWSs in the Labour Party (some of whom involved in the TERF witchhunt and in urging CLP's to expel anyone who may disagree with self-ID) have also been longstanding opponents of AWSs in the first place; that parents worried about GD dysphoria therapy are dismissed as conspiraloons and then reading this which includes further info links which help to work out their fundamentals as I did this morning; seeing trans people dismissed as self-haters, the equivalent of traitors and tokens of TERFs as I have in this very thread when they don't toe the "genderology" line; the conflation of criticism of the ideology with hatred (which always reminds me of 2002/3 criticism of the plans to invade Iraq being equated to treason in the US) and everyone making similar criticisms being automatically said to be allied with the worst haters; the fact that people who have personal accounts of transitioning and detransioning having to give their testimonies in anonymity;

I was listening to people whose families were torn apart by a police state before I read my first political book. Some were little older than my mum (who had me quite young herself). It's really hard not to see undertones of a very uncomfortable form of authoritarianism here especially when I read of people conducting witch hunts in a political party. Why is it necessary to go so overboard regarding the rights of any group of people. I'll keep asking questions and trying to find out. But I don't think I'll do it here.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 24, 2018)

In fact, I've just decided I most definitely won't do it here. I only ask not to be quoted or tagged. Thanks


----------



## bimble (Jan 24, 2018)

Cloo said:


> This is a really good point, you don't know what they're saying. For all we know, they could be saying 'People *think* it's like this, but it's not.'


If it was that it'd be great. Only it wasn't. It said on it (under the barbie - gi joe thing, _with body shapes to match the gender identities)_ "Gender identity is a spectrum. Where on the spectrum might your gender identity lie?"
I honestly cannot imagine any context at all in which that graphic with that message is ok. But deja vue, i think we've done this already.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 24, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> In fact, I've just decided I most definitely won't do it here. I only ask not to be quoted or tagged. Thanks




\lol good


----------



## xenon (Jan 24, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Kiri Tunks supports Dr Radfem’s speaking tour, has tweeted approvingly about the sue Labour fundraiser and is or has been convenor of the “Socialist Feminist Network”, an organization primarily devoted to lobbying against expansion of gender recognition rights (every single article on its webpage bar one is about trans rights from an, ahem, “gender critical” perspective). The “just asking questions” question routine is cynical horseshit whether she was doing it or or people on this thread who actually have very firm answers are doing it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





And you infer what from this?


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 24, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> .
> 
> This tends to be the giveaway with TERFS. It's never just one post/question/point. It's relentless. Nothing gives them pause, they just keep at it.


Early on when I was a  newby to being openly trans, I used to try to field every question I received on Twitter and give an honest answer. Then as I became better known the volume of questions coming just kept growing and often it was the same questions and similarly worded put downs that gradually turned into abuse as I kept my responses civil. Then I had a period of waking up and my timeline being filled with abusive or semi abusive messages. After my name was mentioned in a national publication I had to resort to TERF block bots. Even now I get a trickle of abuse from various quarters: religious, MRAs and US conservatives, and UK extreme right wingers, as well as TERFs.

Oddly one of the first lot of harassment I got online was a group of self identified 'anarchists' who'd found some old pictures of me online and were mocking them on their social media. It was a really odd period. I met a couple who knew these people, knocked around with them for a bit, they got the others to stop attacking me. I thought they were nice people. Then I noticed the guy was getting a lot of flack from pro trans feminists. Soon after he turned on me, so did his wife. Thinking back this lot could well have been linked to the current group of anti trans campaigners. I'm not going to use any identifiers here because the guy sent some seriously nasty threats my way and I took them very seriously.
And at the same time I had no less than Cathy Brennan attacking me and setting her minions on me. None of this was about having a discussion, it was just heckling, calling me names, some abusive, some not.

And I'm a nobody in trans activism. I've seen others actually go into hiding over what they've received, just by trying to help other trans people, or try to challenge the shit storm of crap that fills the media on an almost daily basis.

Yeah, definitely not both sides are the same. We are not as a rule as obsessed with them as they are with us. Most of us would rather be doing other stuff. I wasnt even standing for trans rights in 2015 when I stood, I was standing on a few key policies that were relevant to my area, including housing, transport, pollution, NHS, protecting open spaces and was the only woman who took part in a local hustings about women's rights, and was by far the most feminist person in that room. And yet, I was still undermined and attacked by TERFs just for taking part in the political process as a woman which is my right, effectively helping UKIP and other far right groups who were competing for votes along side me. Makes you wonder what their true motivations are doesn't it?

ETA - I met a good friend of mine last year from Seattle over here visiting, in a pub. She was with a group of her friends. 6 months later she tells me that the woman who got punched at Hyde Park was a friend of hers and I was actually sitting next to her husband at the pub. Small fucking world!!

Also - more synchronicity - the person we'd gone to see giving a talk in the pub was a trans woman.

Anyway she's no longer friends with those people!


----------



## xenon (Jan 24, 2018)

Actually fuck it. Fuck twitter archiology bubble shit.


----------



## elbows (Jan 24, 2018)

Regarding that Labour NEC self-id AWS statement that didnt happen yesterday, the main evidence that could be seen to support the claim about what happened was the silence instead of the expected statement.

I noticed that the Huffington Post article has been updated at the bottom and now includes this:



> UPDATE: A Labour party spokesperson said: “At the NEC today it was confirmed that all women shortlists are and always have been open to all women, which of course includes trans women.
> 
> “The party will consult with key stakeholders about the wording of this policy and will issue guidance to CLPs.”



So yeah, they were not able to address self-id stuff explicitly and played for time with this statement. I wonder what sort of consultations there will actually be. 

Labour To Confirm Trans People Rights To All-Women Shortlists


----------



## elbows (Jan 24, 2018)

Anyone checked if what they were able to say has been enough to cause outrage from some quarters?


----------



## bimble (Jan 24, 2018)

elbows said:


> Anyone checked if the statement they were able to issue has been enough to cause outrage from some quarters?


No outrage, a bit of 'we were right then' (as the point of the dispute was about self-id without certificates).


----------



## elbows (Jan 24, 2018)

bimble said:


> No outrage, a bit of 'we were right then' (as the point of the dispute was about self-id without certificates).



Cheers, I will have a look for myself in a bit.

Sorry also because I changed the wording of my post a bit after you'd already quoted it. Because I didnt want to create the impression that there might be another statement beyond what the Huffington Post quoted from a spokesperson.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 24, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> .
> 
> This tends to be the giveaway with TERFS. It's never just one post/question/point. It's relentless. Nothing gives them pause, they just keep at it.



Why shouldn’t people be allowed to fight for their rights if they believe they’re about to be eroded?

It’s almost as if anything other than questions are off bounds.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 24, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Why shouldn’t people be allowed to fight for their rights if they believe they’re about to be eroded?
> .


Good question


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 24, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Good question



It works both ways, true.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 24, 2018)

But it’s a clash of ideologies.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 24, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Why shouldn’t people be allowed to fight for their rights if they believe they’re about to be eroded?
> 
> It’s almost as if anything other than questions are off bounds.


Fight. Transgender people. For their rights. Relentlessly. 


((((((Class politics))))))))))


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 24, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Fight. Transgender people. For their rights. Relentlessly.
> 
> 
> ((((((Class politics))))))))))



Women are a class though if we’re doing class politics.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 24, 2018)

Daft of you to bring up class tbh. IDPol works better.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 24, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> But it’s a clash of ideologies.


Not so. Posters on here have taken care to distinguish between radical feminists and socialist feminists. Butchersapron, Jim W to name a couple. As of yet there has been no such distinction made with transgender activists or even transgender people in general.

A lot of people- myself included- use terms like identity gender  and cis and identify etc. It is hard not to, the transgender phenomenon, it's causes basis etc is poorly understood by everybody in every field. But we need some kind of language to explain what is going on wi wurselves. It isn't the best way to tell if someone is radical or socialist though, this language on this subject. Most of us are not dogmatic as fuck. 


I hope as people become more familiar with this "new set of people" these issues will be ironed out a bit more.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 24, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Daft of you to bring up class tbh. IDPol works better.


I was being sarcastic.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 24, 2018)

But Trans, albeit facing struggles of their own, haven’t faced the struggles that women have. It isn’t just about looking like or thinking like a woman (whatever that is). It’s material struggles.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 24, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> But Trans, albeit facing struggles of their own, haven’t faced the struggles that women have. It isn’t just about looking like or thinking like a woman (whatever that is). It’s material struggles.


Are trans struggles imaginary like?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 24, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Are trans struggles imaginary like?



Did you read my post fully?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 24, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> But Trans, albeit facing struggles of their own, haven’t faced the struggles that women have. It isn’t just about looking like or thinking like a woman (whatever that is). It’s material struggles.


ffs you're doing wheel of oppression id pol top trumps. The very thing you say you despise.


----------



## bimble (Jan 24, 2018)

elbows A view from the other side:
Does the Labour Party Really Hate Women? – Harvey Jeni – Medium


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 24, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> ffs you're doing wheel of oppression id pol top trumps. The very thing you say you despise.


Isn't he? Aren't they all? Maaaan!


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 24, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> ffs you're doing wheel of oppression id pol top trumps. The very thing you say you despise.



Woman isn’t an identity.


----------



## co-op (Jan 24, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> You can think whatever you want about the article. I was referring to the holier than thou attitude inherent in only pointing out the worst of so called TERF's on twitter as somehow nastier than trans activists when there are plenty of examples of trans activism leading to as terrible consequences as the ending of a longstanding bookfair, to give yet another example.
> 
> In this thread, for example, every tactic is employed to get away from discussing very valid points of concern, from picking on bits of posts subjectively deemed unsavoury to somehow escape actually discussing the others, to wholesale dismissal on the flimsiest of grounds. There are people who only come in to snipe at other people or insult them. Frequently people seem to deliberately to miss the points actually made as if they can only read what they want to read (see my very first encounter with HoratioCuthbert which included Rutita1 asking me a question I had already addressed; my last with smokedout  and Sea Star 's last to kabbes ).
> 
> ...



The defenders of the New Orthodoxy get in a real bind when any of this stuff comes up in debate. On the one hand it’s absolutely part of the orthodoxy itself that to debate with “transphobia” is by definition transphobic so the only response they’re really allowed is to chant simplistic mantras and slurs at anyone who isn’t fully signed up. But on the other hand they can see how this alienates the unconverted or ‘ignorant’ majority outside of their tiny political bubbles so they feel obliged to join debate. 

The tension between the two poles leads to the sort of chronic dishonesty you’ve highlighted and often means it all gets kind of weird at some point - case in point, the outbreak of kids-in-the-back-row sniggering on the last few pages; you can almost feel the nervous tension bursting out. Face? Bovvered? Am I?


----------



## bimble (Jan 24, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Woman isn’t an identity.


Well that's the whole argument isn't it. Apparently it is now.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 24, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Did you read my post fully?


Yes, but I took it in good faith and assumed you didn't really think being trans is just thinking or looking a bit like a woman, and perhaps just had a clumsy way of talking.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 24, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> ffs you're doing wheel of oppression id pol top trumps. The very thing you say you despise.


Surely not.

Also...are all women the same 'class' now and face the same material struggles? I can imagine getting monstered if I posted anything like that... I'd have WC manhood all up in my face within seconds.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 24, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Yes, but I took it in good faith and assumed you didn't really think being trans is just thinking or looking a bit like a woman, and perhaps just had a clumsy way of talking.



I talk fine. And I’m fine with people identifying how they choose. But the discussion was about feminism specifically. That is steeped in improving material conditions for women based on women’s struggles as you well know.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 24, 2018)




----------



## elbows (Jan 24, 2018)

co-op said:


> The tension between the two poles leads to the sort of chronic dishonesty you’ve highlighted and often means it all gets kind of weird at some point - case in point, the outbreak of kids-in-the-back-row sniggering on the last few pages; you can almost feel the nervous tension bursting out. Face? Bovvered? Am I?



I think you should factor the general posting and humour style of particular participants into any analysis of that moment in the thread.

I wont speak for anyone else but personally I'm usually ready to be silly, flippant, playful etc without much notice, and in stark contrast to what the mood may have been like just moments before. Just like happens in real life. And despite the fact I am usually in tedious nerd mode.

Yes sometimes tension is involved, or difficult themes, just like with gallows humour. But there is plenty else going on too, and not everyone picks up on every aspect of it. Its certainly not just for when things have gone impossibly weird or dishonest.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 24, 2018)

xenon said:


> And you infer what from this?



That Tunks is not some innocent who was just asking questions and got attacked for it. She’s a political activist with firmly held views on this subject which she was presenting as questions or a call for debate for tactical reasons. Which is exactly the same bad faith approach used by people on her side of the discussion here, who in fact have their minds made up but know that their views if clearly expressed will arouse hostility.

This is a tactic often used by the right when they are trying to make racist or homophobic or misogynist views acceptable in places where they know they will be met with strong opposition if they argue their views openly. “I’m not saying that there’s a link between race and IQ, necessarily but I think we should be able to debate scientific questions openly and without people being shouted down” etc.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 24, 2018)

Cope is on about me again innit. Eeeek!


----------



## Athos (Jan 24, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> That Tunks is not some innocent who was just asking questions and got attacked for it. She’s a political activist with firmly held views on this subject which she was presenting as questions or a call for debate for tactical reasons. Which is exactly the same bad faith approach used by people on her side of the discussion here, who in fact have their minds made up but know that their views if clearly expressed will arouse hostility.
> 
> This is a tactic often used by the right when they are trying to make racist or homophobic or misogynist views acceptable in places where they know they will be met with strong opposition if they argue their views openly. “I’m not saying that there’s a link between race and IQ, necessarily but I think we should be able to debate scientific questions openly and without people being shouted down” etc.



The fact that IQ tests have a cultural bias, such that they discriminate against minorities seems like a legitimate subject for debate to me, depending on who raises it and how.  Surely, it's not the topic that's verboten, but the motivation?


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 24, 2018)

pengaleng said:


>




Ken whit like


----------



## xenon (Jan 24, 2018)

What’s difference between trans sexual and trans gender? I’ve drawn possibly an arbitry distinction  But are people using the terms interchangeably?

E2a

People shouldbefree to expresstheir gender identity how they wishAFAIC.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 24, 2018)

Here Pengaleng, Sea Star, you are officially an ideology. How does that feel? Indeed, how would you know you were one? maybe Bungle kanes! 


xenon said:


> What’s difference between trans sexual and trans gender? I’ve drawn possibly an arbitry distinction possibly. But are people using the terms interchangeably?



Some are, some are very specific as to the definitions. It pays to keep an open mind on what people might mean, dogmatists are like vegans anyway, if they want you to know they are specifically trying to distance themselves from certain language they will soon tell you. Google the terms.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 24, 2018)

xenon said:


> What’s difference between trans sexual and trans gender? I’ve drawn possibly an arbitry distinction possibly. But are people using the terms interchangeably?



Currently orthodoxy is that transsexuals are part of the transgender community. You might find this graphic helpful:


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 24, 2018)

Who created that graphic?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 24, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> Who created that graphic?



Dunno. It's being doing the rounds for years. I remember seeing it three years ago.

Edit: the transgender umbrella is certainly no new thing. If you Google search the term you get loads of results.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 24, 2018)

From Wikipedia (transgender entry) :

 Transgender people are sometimes called _transsexual_ if they desire medical assistance to transition from one sex to another. _Transgender_ is also an umbrella term: in addition to including people whose gender identity is the opposite of their assigned sex (trans men and trans women), it may include people who are not exclusively masculine or feminine (people who are genderqueer or non-binary, including bigender, pangender, genderfluid, or agender).[2][4][5]Other definitions of _transgender_ also include people who belong to a third gender, or conceptualize transgender people as a third gender.[6][7] Infrequently, the term _transgender_is defined very broadly to include cross-dressers,[8] regardless of their gender identity


----------



## trashpony (Jan 24, 2018)

Tara Wood has been charged with 'assault by beating' and will be appearing at Westminster Magistrate's Court on Feb 15th.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 24, 2018)

o noes mi tumblr idologies


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 24, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Here Pengaleng, Sea Star, you are officially an ideology. How does that feel? Indeed, how would you know you were one? maybe Bungle kanes!
> 
> 
> Some are, some are very specific as to the definitions. It pays to keep an open mind on what people might mean, dogmatists are like vegans anyway, if they want you to know they are specifically trying to distance themselves from certain language they will soon tell you. Google the terms.



Whimsical essences of something.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 24, 2018)

pinnochio


----------



## crossthebreeze (Jan 24, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> Who created that graphic?


Its from "the GENDER book".  It says on the graphic that its by Mel Reiff Hill (one of the authors of the book) adapted from an original idea by Josephine Tittsworth.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 24, 2018)

is it peer reviewed tho?


----------



## bimble (Jan 24, 2018)

crossthebreeze said:


> Its from "the GENDER book".  It says on the graphic that its by Mel Reiff Hill (one of the authors of the book) adapted from an original idea by Josephine Tittsworth.


yay ! I love crude graphics.


----------



## xenon (Jan 24, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Here Pengaleng, Sea Star, you are officially an ideology. How does that feel? Indeed, how would you know you were one? maybe Bungle kanes!
> 
> 
> Some are, some are very specific as to the definitions. It pays to keep an open mind on what people might mean, dogmatists are like vegans anyway, if they want you to know they are specifically trying to distance themselves from certain language they will soon tell you. Google the terms.





FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Currently orthodoxy is that transsexuals are part of the transgender community. You might find this graphic helpful:




Can’t see the pics. And admit to certain amount of clumsyness re my posts on thread. Twitter fucks ne off. I’m cis het male. with general live and let live attitude. But fibding the whole deliberate gender id ferocity, adherence and or, rejection thereof confusing

Just chucking stufff, questions in as way of learning. Maybe makes me a TERF. Maybe a liberal goof. Gender roles are bullshit though. Waste of a person’s potential.
/pub phone waffle

Articulation later...


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 24, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> This is a tactic often used by the right when they are trying to make racist or homophobic or misogynist views acceptable in places where they know they will be met with strong opposition if they argue their views openly. “I’m not saying that there’s a link between race and IQ, necessarily but I think we should be able to debate scientific questions openly and without people being shouted down” etc.


Quite often I've assumed a far right person to be a TERF because of what they say to me - and only realised my mistake when i checked their account - that's how similar they sound when asking questions that they don;t need answers to to a trans woman. How the far right transphobes approach trans now seems to be much in the same vein as how they approached LGB except now they try to appear LGB friendly while attempting to persuade LGB people to reject the T. I see people falling for it too, sadly.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 24, 2018)

uh ho


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 24, 2018)

xenon said:


> What’s difference between trans sexual and trans gender? I’ve drawn possibly an arbitry distinction  But are people using the terms interchangeably?.



transsexual is a much more medical term, pretty much referring to someone who has undergone or wants what used to be called sex change surgery. Transgender was an attempt to move away from defining trans people by surgery alone and to make it much more inclusive -though how inclusive is still hotly debated.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 24, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Currently orthodoxy is that transsexuals are part of the transgender community. You might find this graphic helpful:



Taking the yellow text at the bottom literally, that would seem to cover a hell of a lot of people.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 24, 2018)

co-op said:


> The defenders of the New Orthodoxy get in a real bind when any of this stuff comes up in debate. On the one hand it’s absolutely part of the orthodoxy itself that to debate with “transphobia” is by definition transphobic so the only response they’re really allowed is to chant simplistic mantras and slurs at anyone who isn’t fully signed up. But on the other hand they can see how this alienates the unconverted or ‘ignorant’ majority outside of their tiny political bubbles so they feel obliged to join debate.


meanwhile, back on planet earth....


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 24, 2018)

8ball said:


> Taking the yellow text at the bottom literally, that would seem to cover a hell of a lot of people.



I'm a transsexual and I'm very much also transgender. Who said i wasn't?
 As for that graphic, not something I'd agree with at all. Not sure who would other than the person who produced it.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 24, 2018)

8ball said:


> Taking the yellow text at the bottom literally, that would seem to cover a hell of a lot of people.



Yes. I would say so. The Wikipedia entry seems to back it up.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 24, 2018)

Wow! TERFs not pro abortion anyone? Yes - just why are they trying to cause a split in the Irish feminist movement right now? Hmmmmm.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 24, 2018)

Athos said:


> The fact that IQ tests have a cultural bias, such that they discriminate against minorities seems like a legitimate subject for debate to me, depending on who raises it and how.  Surely, it's not the topic that's verboten, but the motivation?


You ever seen anyone raise that question from anything other than an already-racist pov? I haven't. 

There's a decent parallel between the Bell Curve nonsense and some of the theories brought up on this thread. 

The 'science' behind the Bell Curve's conclusions has been thoroughly debunked, to such an extent that the authors of that racist piece of drivel almost did us a favour by collecting the data to help debunk their conclusions. The conclusions they reached are entirely untenable once you've been through the debunking - we had a thread on it here a few years ago linking to the various ways that the data should be analysed - so much so that we are able to claim the opposite with a huge degree of confidence based on that very same data: there is no link between race and intelligence.

It is similar on here with Blanchard's mad - and at root homophobic, among other prejudices - theories about transgender. Anyone still clinging to those theories, or even just posing them as a topic of discussion, if they have also read the debunking, is either being dishonest or experiencing a huge degree of cognitive dissonance due to the unacknowledged fact that they really really really _want_ it to be true.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 24, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> meanwhile, back on planet earth....



It's all getting a bit Black Mirror, I feel as if I refused an implant at some point. 


FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Yes. I would say so. The Wikipedia entry seems to back it up.



Albeit with words like "may" and "infrequently"


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 24, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> is it peer reviewed tho?



You used to agree with materislist concepts of oppression.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 24, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Anyone still clinging to those theories, or even just posing them as a topic of discussion, if they have also read the debunking, is either being dishonest or experiencing a huge degree of cognitive dissonance due to the unacknowledged fact that they really really really _want_ it to be true.



 Confirmation bias is a powerful thing.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 24, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Albeit with words like "may" and "infrequently"



Well yes. I stated already in this thread that there is a problem with definitions and people talking past each other. Particularly because no one can say anything concrete.

As a note:

"May" does not mean "infrequently", and "infrequently"  does not mean "incorrectly".


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 24, 2018)

For me it’s this: 

Supporting feminism based on improving the material conditions of women as a class furthers the struggle for socialism. 

The opposing argument is bolstering individualism and liberalism. 

In case anyone wondered.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 24, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Tara Wood has been charged with 'assault by beating' and will be appearing at Westminster Magistrate's Court on Feb 15th.



Not quite as serious as the ABH that Miranda Yardley claimed she'd been charged with then.  I think some people have been lying so long they've forgotten to tell the truth.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 24, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> "infrequently"  does not mean "incorrectly".



Thanks. Though I am not sure any word has a preordained definition we are struggling to unearth


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 24, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> But Trans, albeit facing struggles of their own, haven’t faced the struggles that women have. It isn’t just about looking like or thinking like a woman (whatever that is). It’s material struggles.


I just don't know how to keep rebutting ignorant crap like this. But really - trans people die younger than any other group of people, have serious mental health issues caused by the situation we're in, a high suicide rate, comparable to people who live in oppressive regimes, are often considered unemployable just because they are trans, and so are more likely to be in poverty, more likely to be homeless (and get treated like shit, often excluded from shelters when homeless), more likely to be sexually assaulted than cis women and with almost no provision for care if we are. Many of us end up stuck in abusive relationships with no means to escape. We often get stuck in this situation that while we live as one gender, we only need a small thing to wrong in our lives for us to end up relying on others who then may misgender us, reject us, treat us as a different gender where we may be harmed. The right to gender based protections that most women of my generation have taken for granted are just not there for trans women. And yet we are subject to misogyny, sexism, transphophobia and homophobia, which can and does kill people. I'm just gobsmacked that you think we have no material struggles.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 24, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> For me it’s this:
> 
> Supporting feminism based on improving the material conditions of women as a class furthers the struggle for socialism.
> 
> ...



By opposing argument do you mean improving the material conditions of transwomen and men?


----------



## crossthebreeze (Jan 24, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Wow! TERFs not pro abortion anyone? Yes - just why are they trying to cause a split in the Irish feminist movement right now? Hmmmmm.



I don't like or agree with Janice Raymond, and I think that abortion pills are important in certain situations, but i don't think the text linked to in that tweet can in any way be described as pro forced birth/anti-abortion.  It talks positively about suction abortions and the last line is a concern that these type of abortion services are under threat. I can't see that being concerned about the safety or efficacy of a drug or cynical of pharmaceutical companies motives is the same as wanting people to suffer from the condition that the drug has been developed to relieve.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 24, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> uh ho
> 
> View attachment 126021



The TERFs in Britain have an astonishing level of access to the mainstream right wing media for a small group that endlessly and bitterly complains that they are “silenced”. I’m sure that any broadcaster choosing to make a documentary with Dr Radfem about trans issues is looking to make a balanced and nuanced film...


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 24, 2018)

I might not be understanding ting, but this seems clear to me: 


*"Materialism*. ... *Materialism* is a form of *philosophical* monism which holds that Matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental aspects and consciousness, are results of material interactions"


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 24, 2018)

crossthebreeze said:


> I don't like or agree with Janice Raymond, and I think that abortion pills are important in certain situations, but i don't think the text linked to in that tweet can in any way be described as pro forced birth/anti-abortion.  It talks positively about suction abortions and the last line is a concern that these type of abortion services are under threat. I can't see that being concerned about the safety or efficacy of a drug or cynical of pharmaceutical companies motives is the same as wanting people to suffer from the condition that the drug has been developed to relieve.



Yes, the piece is scaremongering about an important method of abortion, but it’s not doing so from a lifer perspective.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 24, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> I just don't know how to keep rebutting ignorant crap like this. But really - trans people die younger than any other group of people, have serious mental health issues caused by the situation we're in, a high suicide rate, comparable to people who live in oppressive regimes, are often considered unemployable just because they are trans, and so are more likely to be in poverty, more likely to be homeless (and get treated like shit, often excluded from shelters when homeless), more likely to be sexually assaulted than cis women and with almost no provision for care if we are. Many of us end up stuck in abusive relationships with no means to escape. We often get stuck in this situation that while we live as one gender, we only need a small thing to wrong in our lives for us to end up relying on others who then may misgender us, reject us, treat us as a different gender where we may be harmed. The right to gender based protections that most women of my generation have taken for granted are just not there for trans women. And yet we are subject to misogyny, sexism, transphophobia and homophobia, which can and does kill people. I'm just gobsmacked that you think we have no material struggles.



I haven’t said you have no material struggles. But the fact you place you place your identity struggle above any class struggle proves the point I was making.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 24, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Yes, the piece is scaremongering about an important method of abortion, but it’s not doing so from a lifer perspective.


ok - i stand corrected.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 24, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> I might not be understanding ting, but this seems clear to me:
> 
> 
> *"Materialism*. ... *Materialism* is a form of *philosophical* monism which holds that Matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental aspects and consciousness, are results of material interactions"



Wer’re All separate now. Individuals with their own materialist struggles.


----------



## Athos (Jan 24, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You ever seen anyone raise that question from anything other than an already-racist pov? I haven't.
> 
> There's a decent parallel between the Bell Curve nonsense and some of the theories brought up on this thread.
> 
> ...



Yeah, the cultural bias in IQ testing has been raised from an anti-racist perspective, by posters here, recently.  I don't think the *topic* is taboo.  Nothing wrong with discussing it, _per se_; just when the motivation is dodgy. I think sometimes the trans activist backlash against some legitimate debate misses this. But I accept that this is probably largely the fault of bigots who don't approach the issue with good faith. I guess when you've been attacked a few times, it's hard not to suspect the worst of people who disagree; similarly, for women who've been on the end of violence by males, I guess it's natural to suspect people born and socialised as males.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 24, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Wer’re All separate now. Individuals with their own materialist struggles.


How does your reasoning apply to women as a class but not transgender people? Genuine question, in good humour.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 24, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I haven’t said you have no material struggles. But the fact you place you place your identity struggle above any class struggle proves the point I was making.



How does she do this, and why don't you beat the feminists on here with the same stick?


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 24, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I haven’t said you have no material struggles. But the fact you place you place your identity struggle above any class struggle proves the point I was making.


Thing is others have genuinely tried to explain they are socialists not Idpol dudes, but you chop and change between socialism and idpol whenever it suits. Maybe you struggle with these concepts as I do. So admit it, it is alright


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 24, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Thing is others have genuinely tried to explain they are socialists not Idpol dudes, but you chop and change between socialism and idpol whenever it suits. Maybe you struggle with these concepts as I do. So admit it, it is alright


I'm a socialist. How am I putting my struggle above the class struggle? I know how capitalism enforces heteronormativity and cissexism but in order to do anything but constantly defend myself the left need to recognise us as who we are and not constantly attack us or undermine us.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 24, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> I'm a socialist. How am I putting my struggle above the class struggle? I know how capitalism enforces heteronormativity and cissexism but in order to do anything but constantly defend myself the left need to recognise us as who we are and not constantly attack us or undermine us.


I don't believe you are!

This is my thinking:

Socialist feminists simply haven't thought about transgender folks yet. There is little theory that helps here, as it needs someone prominent to apply Marxism to your particular situation.
Most people don't understand the trans phenomenon to start with.
Identity politics takes a front seat here easily as we are dealing with people who experience gender as clashing with their biological sex. Identity. Identify. This leads the unfamiliar to conclude you guys just subscribe to idpol and are running with it like buggery.
Socialists need to understand that transgender people are not just arsing about, and that people indeed exist that face material conditions that are not quite as inextricably linked to biology as we previously thought. And that they can only survive on cookie cutter summing up for so long! This Is NEW TERRITORY.
As I said before, we need new maps.


ETA: I believe you are a socialist!


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 24, 2018)

By the way I put that up for smarter people to rubbish, particularly Vintage Paw as she is good at explaining things! Tell me what I do not get, I am willing to learn!


----------



## bimble (Jan 24, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> I'm a socialist. How am I putting my struggle above the class struggle? I know how capitalism enforces heteronormativity and cissexism but in order to do anything but constantly defend myself the left need to recognise us as who we are and not constantly attack us or undermine us.



Is ’cissexism’ the same thing as transphobia?


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 24, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> By the way I put that up for smarter people to rubbish, particularly Vintage Paw as she is good at explaining things! Tell me what I do not get, I am willing to learn!


I think Marxist analysis already exists for trans people. Or at least is in the process of being worked out by trans people. It's a pity most of us don't get much further than constantly having to defend ourselves. And of course the priority for us is to achieve equality so we have people in a position where we have influence, where people begin to take notice of our opinions. And if we can't do that through the left - well, I'm in the green party because I found labour an uncomfortable place. But I joined labour in 1983 at age 16 and I always thought I'd be there. Maybe I can go back one day.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 24, 2018)

bimble said:


> Is ’cissexism’ the same thing as transphobia?


No. Not entirely. Transphobia is a bit of an outdated term tbh. I'm trying to remember not use it. Cissexism is more precise.

And then there's transmisia which just means hatred of trans people. I would use it more but I don't think many people know what it means.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 24, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> I think Marxist analysis already exists for trans people. Or at least is in the process of being worked out by trans people. It's a pity most of us don't get much further than constantly having to defend ourselves. And of course the priority for us is to achieve equality so we have people in a position where we have influence, where people begin to take notice of our opinions. And if we can't do that through the left - well, I'm in the green party because I found labour an uncomfortable place. But I joined labour in 1983 at age 16 and I always thought I'd be there. Maybe I can go back one day.


Brilliant, hopefully we can exchange this information as you guys work it out, where I said "prominent people " I should have said other cis femimists. This obviously has to come from you guys. I think despite the doom  and gloom this is interesting times and i don't think it all leads in one direction , the conversation will branch off in many different ways. Ultimately there will be progress for LGBT in general. But nothing is perfect


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 24, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> How does your reasoning apply to women as a class but not transgender people? Genuine question, in good humour.



I think a lot of your side of the argument is borne from feminist gains. Post feminism? Otherwise I don’t know why you’re confused by my point.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 24, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Brilliant, hopefully we can exchange this information as you guys work it out, where I said "prominent people " I should have said other cis femimists. This obviously has to come from you guys. I think despite the doom  and gloom this is interesting times and i don't think it all leads in one direction , the conversation will branch off in many different ways. Ultimately there will be progress for LGBT in general. But nothing is perfect


I know certain people on here won't believe me, but I'm involved day to day with cis feminists, supported by cis feminists, and join in with discussions with cis feminists. Unfortunately most of it at the moment is about how to defend trans people and parents of trans children, which is a great shame.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 24, 2018)

.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 24, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> I know certain people on here won't believe me, but I'm involved day to day with cis feminists, supported by cis feminists, and join in with discussions with cis feminists. Unfortunately most of it at the moment is about how to defend trans people and parents of trans children, which is a great shame.


I do not doubt you, I keep wording my posts clumsily-wine! I have seen the vitriol hurled at trans parents who are just listening to their kids and supporting them. Kids can be especially adamant about their gender. My Son for ages thought pink cups were toxic waste but now he Educates others: There is no such thing as girls stuff


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 24, 2018)

But he knows he is a boy. I can imagine how adamant he would be if he knew he was a girl. People seem to think we programme kids, it doesn't work like that, they have a personality all of their own and the only way you could possibly interfere with that is by bullying them.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 24, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> But he knows he is a boy. I can imagine how adamant he would be if he knew he was a girl. People seem to think we programme kids, it doesn't work like that, they have a personality all of their own and the only way you could possibly interfere with that is by bullying them.


Which is how most of my generation grew up. No wonder were mostly pretty screwed up. I tried once to tell my mum about who I really was, when I was 6, and I got so scared, mostly by my dad, that I never tried it again. Just bottled it up.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 24, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Which is how most of my generation grew up. No wonder were mostly pretty screwed up. I tried once to tell my mum about who I really was, when I was 6, and I got so scared, mostly by my dad, that I never tried it again. Just bottled it up.



Which is fine and nobody here is saying isn’t.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 24, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Which is how most of my generation grew up. No wonder were mostly pretty screwed up. I tried once to tell my mum about who I really was, when I was 6, and I got so scared, mostly by my dad, that I never tried it again. Just bottled it up.


Not remotely comparable but I first remember experiencing severe depression when I was 8. We didn't have words for it then, things would probably be a bit different now. 
But that's the thing, people also don't realise we have long memories and realise we have little control over who we are. Some one said that in another trans thread "I feel I did not have a choice in this at all."


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 24, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Not remotely comparable but I first remember experiencing severe depression when I was 8. We didn't have words for it then, things would probably be a bit different now.
> But that's the thing, people also don't realise we have long memories and realise we have little control over who we are. Some one said that in another trans thread "I feel I did not have a choice in this at all."


Yeah. I spent most of my childhood and 30 years of adulthood trying to pretend it wasn't happening, or finding ways to manage it, or actively trying to purge it out of me. I didn't tell anyone again until I was 27 and that was online to someone in the US (a cis woman, supportive and still a friend today). I was all set to come out properly at 33 but my wife made it clear that she wouldn't tolerate it, so I went back in the closet for another 12 years.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 24, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Yeah. I spent most of my childhood and 30 years of adulthood trying to pretend it wasn't happening, or finding ways to manage it, or actively trying to purge it out of me. I didn't tell anyone again until I was 27 and that was online to someone in the US (a cis woman, supportive and still a friend today). I was all set to come out properly at 33 but my wife made it clear that she wouldn't tolerate it, so I went back in the closet for another 12 years.


I read your post a few days back about how much better you were feeling now and I think you are so brave to climb that mountain and how much it must have been worth it! It's made me think I need to be more open about my sexuality as I hear bi folks have high rates of suicide and that, my silence makes it harder for others. I shy away from telling people though so I have so much respect for you, and keep fighting!


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 24, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> I read your post a few days back about how much better you were feeling now and I think you are so brave to climb that mountain and how much it must have been worth it! It's made me think I need to be more open about my sexuality as I hear bi folks have high rates of suicide and that, my silence makes it harder for others. I shy away from telling people though so I have so much respect for you, and keep fighting!


That's something else that happened. Because I couldn't see who I was objectively all those years, though I was clearly bisexual as a child, I dismissed it as a phase. I was brought up in very homophobic times and a very homophobic community. My parents drummed it into me quite heavily what they would think if I turned out gay. So I suppressed it. Not very effectively. I had a series of relationships with women, partly to try to shake off being gay, and whatever that weird thing was that kept making me think I was, or wanted to be a woman. I mean it cropped up in dreams even if I could stop myself from thinking about it, my dreams would scream it at me, YOU'RE A BLOODY WOMAN, GET USED TO IT!!

and though I knew about bisexuality I just never even entertained the idea, not for a second.

So once my gender was sorted my sexuality sorted itself out pretty quickly. I still fancy girls but I hate penetrative sex so going out with straight women wasn't an option for me any more. But, I started getting hit on by men. Cis women I met would talk to me about men, and sex and that, so I think it changed my thinking. I don't think I have any homophobia in me anymore. I have strong compassion and empathy for gay men, but I know I'm not one now. But have been with a straight cis man for three years now and I think we're together for life now. Best relationship I've ever had.

Oh by the way - I'm a stonewall bi role model 

I fully intend to get involved in the bisexual community asap. There's bi fest every august which I keep missing. Maybe this year


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 24, 2018)

It’s always me. Never we.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 24, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> It’s always me. Never we.


Assume we. As I've said before, I'm not atypical, but neither am I going to talk for other trans people. They deserve to be able to talk for themselves.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 24, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> That's something else that happened. Because I couldn't see who I was objectively all those years, though I was clearly bisexual as a child, I dismissed it as a phase. I was brought up in very homophobic times and a very homophobic community. My parents drummed it into me quite heavily what they would think if I turned out gay. So I suppressed it. Not very effectively. I had a series of relationships with women, partly to try to shake off being gay, and whatever that weird thing was that kept making me think I was, or wanted to be a woman. I mean it cropped up in dreams even if I could stop myself from thinking about it, my dreams would scream it at me, YOU'RE A BLOODY WOMAN, GET USED TO IT!!
> 
> and though I knew about bisexuality I just never even entertained the idea, not for a second.
> 
> So once my gender was sorted my sexuality sorted itself out pretty quickly. I still fancy girls but I hate penetrative sex so going out with straight women wasn't an option for me any more. But, I started getting hit on by men. Cis women I met would talk to me about men, and sex and that, so I think it changed my thinking. I don't think I have any homophobia in me anymore. I have strong compassion and empathy for gay men, but I know I'm not one now. But have been with a straight cis man for three years now and I think we're together for life now. Best relationship one ever had.


Thats amazing, it's good to see someone working it out. I had some other physical issues and stuff I won't go into, I also now know my capacity for denial as i worked through my issues with my dad (believed that old lie, abused become abusers, took me til now to realise I could never be capable of that but it ruined the early precious years of being a mum as i went nuts thinking he wasn't safe wth me). I am aware that I have a tendency to go along with stuff sometimes as I crave to not be the piece of shit my dad told me I was, need to be told otherwise. Have always had an issue in that I am mostly romantically attracted to people, sexual stuff is just awkward and difficult! But i now know to be angry at people who failed me and to know never to fail my son in that way. i feel I am at the start of something. Since I got ill every year has been new. Here is to another!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 24, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> It’s always me. Never we.


You talk like that to the other people who've posted about their gender dysphoria on this thread?


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 24, 2018)

I thought twice about posting that but Magnus tried the whole "someone talking about their personal experience isnt a socialist" shit. We aren't talking about socialism. Butt out.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 24, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Thats amazing, it's good to see someone working it out. I had some other physical issues and stuff I won't go into, I also now know my capacity for denial as i worked through my issues with my dad (believed that old lie, abused become abusers, took me til now to realise I could never be capable of that but it ruined the early precious years of being a mum as i went nuts thinking he wasn't safe wth me). I am aware that I have a tendency to go along with stuff sometimes as I crave to not be the piece of shit my dad told me I was, need to be told otherwise. Have always had an issue in that I am mostly romantically attracted to people, sexual stuff is just awkward and difficult! But i now know to be angry at people who failed me and to know never to fail my son in that way. i feel I am at the start of something. Since I got ill every year has been new. Here is to another!


Good to meet you, and thanks for being an ally 

We have a lot in common I think. And yeah, to another year. The last couple have been shit so I'm hoping this one is better


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 24, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You talk like that to the other people who've posted about their gender dysphoria on this thread?



It’s just instructive in political terms.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 24, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Good to meet you, and thanks for being an ally
> 
> We have a lot in common I think. And yeah, to another year. The last couple have been shit so I'm hoping this one is better


You are very welcome and my PM inbox is always open if this board gets a bit much! Yes, here is to a happy 2018!


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 24, 2018)

My politics aren’t a personal journey. The system fucks lots of people. I base mine on class which may be old fashioned but it’s still correct.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 24, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> It’s just instructive in political terms.


I wasnt taking about politics


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 24, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> I wasnt taking about politics



Nobody else was talking about themselves on a political thread.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 25, 2018)

Wow! The demand to talk about "we" and not me, firstly, to do so would leave me open to being a trans representative that I've been accused of before. Also I know every trans person's experience, though we mostly have much in common, is different. 
Secondly I was talking personally, not politically.
Thirdly, only in the last five years have I not felt completely apart from every other human being on earth. Nothing I felt made sense. I had no terms of reference to work from. I just felt totally alone, so not feeling totally alone is going to take some time. I'm going through an adjustment period which would be a whole lot easier if I want having to constantly defend myself and answer demands from those who think they deserve an explanation.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 25, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Nobody else was talking about themselves on a political thread.


Oh God, yes they were


----------



## elbows (Jan 25, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Nobody else was talking about themselves on a political thread.



Thats so untrue on so many fronts that I dont know where to start and frankly probably dont need to.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 25, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Nobody else was talking about themselves on a political thread.



A lot of people have talked about their own experiences on this thread. Mostly with less direct relevance.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 25, 2018)

.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 25, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> My politics aren’t a personal journey. The system fucks lots of people. I base mine on class which may be old fashioned but it’s still correct.


You've not read one word I've written.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 25, 2018)

Wow, sorry I got angry. It's not personal, it's frustration.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 25, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Wow, sorry I got angry. It's not personal, it's frustration.


Anger is an energy, so I've heard


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 25, 2018)

.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 25, 2018)

masturbate


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 25, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> masturbate


I wish I could. My meds are leaving me with zero sex drive.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 25, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> masturbate


 Maxed oot already


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 25, 2018)

i got a twix and weed


----------



## Mungy (Jan 25, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> I wish I could. My meds are leaving me with zero sex drive.


This is one of them things that really gets me down. Nothing works like it once did and currently, I don't even know how sex is supposed to work anymore. I do occasionally feel like sex but just end up crying to porn. I'm hopeful that once I have my own life, there will be good things in it and that it includes sex.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 25, 2018)

Am ditching wine wednesdays. Still think poking people with sticks for chatting shit is bad socialism though :-D


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 25, 2018)

Mungy said:


> This is one of them things that really gets me down. Nothing works like it once did and currently, I don't even know how sex is supposed to work anymore. I do occasionally feel like sex but just end up crying to porn. I'm hopeful that once I have my own life, there will be good things in it and that it includes sex.


it's sertralin that has killed my sex drive, not that I'm too bothered. When i first transitioned i was fully prepared to give up any kind of sex life, if it came to that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Am ditching wine wednesdays. Still think poking people with sticks for chatting shit is bad socialism though :-D


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 25, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


>


Oi! I am busy eye rolling at masel here


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Yes, here is to a happy 2018!


If that's what you want you'll be sorely disappointed


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Oi! I am busy eye rolling at masel here


If you think it's bad socialism you're in the wrong place hc


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 25, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> If you think it's bad socialism you're in the wrong place hc


We were idly chatting shit about wursels, finding common ground and got told off for being individualistic. It was silly.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> We were idly chatting shit about wursels, finding common ground and got told off for being individualistic. It was silly.


There is nothing more serious than silliness


----------



## kabbes (Jan 25, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Early on when I was a  newby to being openly trans, I used to try to field every question I received on Twitter and give an honest answer. Then as I became better known the volume of questions coming just kept growing and often it was the same questions and similarly worded put downs that gradually turned into abuse as I kept my responses civil. Then I had a period of waking up and my timeline being filled with abusive or semi abusive messages. After my name was mentioned in a national publication I had to resort to TERF block bots. Even now I get a trickle of abuse from various quarters: religious, MRAs and US conservatives, and UK extreme right wingers, as well as TERFs.
> 
> Oddly one of the first lot of harassment I got online was a group of self identified 'anarchists' who'd found some old pictures of me online and were mocking them on their social media. It was a really odd period. I met a couple who knew these people, knocked around with them for a bit, they got the others to stop attacking me. I thought they were nice people. Then I noticed the guy was getting a lot of flack from pro trans feminists. Soon after he turned on me, so did his wife. Thinking back this lot could well have been linked to the current group of anti trans campaigners. I'm not going to use any identifiers here because the guy sent some seriously nasty threats my way and I took them very seriously.
> And at the same time I had no less than Cathy Brennan attacking me and setting her minions on me. None of this was about having a discussion, it was just heckling, calling me names, some abusive, some not.
> ...


I'm sorry to hear about your experiences.

You are an innocent caught in a war.  Like all who find themselves in such circumstances, you find a lot to despise in the enemy soldiers that are making your life unbearable.

But your negative experiences don't mean that there aren't also your counterparts in the other country who also are having their own lives made hell by soldiers from your side.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 25, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> uh ho
> 
> View attachment 126021


Fucking hell. Given her role in recent events that is a really poor choice on the broadcasters part. Or maybe she's just the kind of gleeful shit stirrer they need.


----------



## elbows (Jan 25, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Fucking hell. Given her role in recent events that is a really poor choice on the broadcasters part. Or maybe she's just the kind of gleeful shit stirrer they need.



I'm finding it hard to say very much about the Dr RadFem documentary due to the (fairly standard) lack of detail publicly available at this stage. 

There are so many ways this could turn out in a manner that isnt what Dr RadFem & friends would like. I say that partly because there are different rules on the internet to tv broadcasting and its far from clear how happy they will be to make their message less spiteful and one-sided to meet broadcasting regulations. And many other things can go wrong when documentary making, I never assume anything will see the light of day at least until the process is far advanced past the 'done a deal' stage.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 25, 2018)

co-op said:


> The defenders of the New Orthodoxy get in a real bind when any of this stuff comes up in debate. On the one hand it’s absolutely part of the orthodoxy itself that to debate with “transphobia” is by definition transphobic so the only response they’re really allowed is to chant simplistic mantras and slurs at anyone who isn’t fully signed up. But on the other hand they can see how this alienates the unconverted or ‘ignorant’ majority outside of their tiny political bubbles so they feel obliged to join debate.
> 
> The tension between the two poles leads to the sort of chronic dishonesty you’ve highlighted and often means it all gets kind of weird at some point - case in point, the outbreak of kids-in-the-back-row sniggering on the last few pages; you can almost feel the nervous tension bursting out. Face? Bovvered? Am I?



The issue is that 'trans women are women, end of; no debate'. You can't go anywhere from this starting point, because it *is* the debate.

Finding Middle Ground Between Women’s Rights and Transgender Rights


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 25, 2018)

elbows said:


> I'm finding it hard to say very much about the Dr RadFem documentary due to the (fairly standard) lack of detail publicly available at this stage.
> 
> There are so many ways this could turn out in a manner that isnt what Dr RadFem & friends would like. I say that partly because there are different rules on the internet to tv broadcasting and its far from clear how happy they will be to make their message less spiteful and one-sided to meet broadcasting regulations. And many other things can go wrong when documentary making, I never assume anything will see the light of day at least until the process is far advanced past the 'done a deal' stage.



Of course, all fair points. I am just suspicious and wholly disappointed with her particularly spiteful way of driving momentum and self-promotion tbh.


----------



## elbows (Jan 25, 2018)

I'm still waiting to hear detail about the inevitable backlash Miranda.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2018)

elbows said:


> I'm still waiting to hear detail about the inevitable backlash Miranda.


this would be the liar yardley? you'll be waiting a long time, elbows


----------



## elbows (Jan 25, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> this would be the liar yardley? you'll be waiting a long time, elbows



Maybe. Or I might be treated to some explanation, I dont rule that out.

In any case for me the main thing about backlashes isnt whether they are inevitable, its what scale they end up being and whether they change the big picture or are just the last flickers of resistance to a change that sticks.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 25, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> *I understand* that one of the individuals in that video at the beginning of this thread has been charged with actual bodily harm. The other two have not been located.





smokedout said:


> Not quite as serious as the ABH that Miranda Yardley claimed she'd been charged with then.  I think *some people have been lying so long* they've forgotten to tell the truth.



How thoroughly dishonest of you.

And let's no lose sight of what this is: a man has been charged with assaulting a woman, and your response is 'well it's not as serious as so and so said it was'. You seem to think it's okay(!) Remind me again how men's violence against women is not cultural...


----------



## elbows (Jan 25, 2018)

Remind me never to use instances of disgusting and unacceptable violence against women as crude point-scoring instruments. Women deserve much better than this, and I look forward to talking about this case once the justice process allows it to be discussed more fully.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jan 25, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> How thoroughly dishonest of you.
> 
> And let's no lose sight of what this is: a man has been charged with assaulting a woman, and your response is 'well it's not as serious as so and so said it was'. You seem to think it's okay(!) Remind me again how men's violence against women is not cultural...



Quoting this as a reminder of your repeated misgendering of trans women


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> How thoroughly dishonest of you.


yeh? you don't have a leg to stand on here, miranda





Miranda Yardley said:


> To oppose sexual violence, one needs to be able to identify the agent. If the agent is misreported, for example as female when male, we are not identifying where the problem lies. For example, the imprisonment statistics for sexually violent women are often quoted by transactivists claiming 'woman can be violent too'. Yes, they can, sure. But as the figures released by the government last year show, a proportion of the 110-odd women reported for being in prison for sexual violence are 'trans women' with gender recognition certificates.
> 
> Note I am not saying 'trans women' are at higher risk of being sexually violent.


perhaps you could withdraw this claim now


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 25, 2018)

Thimble Queen said:


> Quoting this as a reminder of your repeated misgendering of trans women



Thanks for confirming your trivialisation of male violence against women by prioritising the thought-crime of 'misgendering'.


----------



## elbows (Jan 25, 2018)

You trivialise it with some of your crapper accusations, fuckwit. Tell me about the backlash you lying, disingenuous piece of shit.


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

elbows said:


> You trivialise it with some of your crapper accusations, fuckwit. Tell me about the backlash you lying, disingenuous piece of shit.


Great stuff. Posting as a reminder of what a great ally you are to all trans people.


----------



## co-op (Jan 25, 2018)

elbows said:


> You trivialise it with some of your crapper accusations, fuckwit. Tell me about the backlash you lying, disingenuous piece of shit.



Fucks sake.


----------



## elbows (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> Great stuff. Posting as a reminder of what a great ally you are to all trans people.



Yeah yeah, very convincing. I've been asking for over 24 hours about the backlash under which circumstance Miranda suggested I would betray trans people. If you dont think I have the right to be angry about that and all the other things I've been angry about in this thread then never mind.

I wouldnt throw Miranda under the bus under any circumstances, but I make zero apology for being rude to their face given what they've said here.


----------



## elbows (Jan 25, 2018)

co-op said:


> Fucks sake.



Oh noes, I called someone a piece of shit. I've clearly betrayed an entire minority. Fuck off.


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

Over 24 hours without them jumping to do your bidding? How awful.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 25, 2018)

co-op said:


> The defenders of the New Orthodoxy get in a real bind when any of this stuff comes up in debate. On the one hand it’s absolutely part of the orthodoxy itself that to debate with “transphobia” is by definition transphobic so the only response they’re really allowed is to chant simplistic mantras and slurs at anyone who isn’t fully signed up. But on the other hand they can see how this alienates the unconverted or ‘ignorant’ majority outside of their tiny political bubbles so they feel obliged to join debate.
> 
> The tension between the two poles leads to the sort of chronic dishonesty you’ve highlighted and often means it all gets kind of weird at some point - case in point, the outbreak of kids-in-the-back-row sniggering on the last few pages; you can almost feel the nervous tension bursting out. Face? Bovvered? Am I?



I am bothered. Not by their antics but by the consequences of their sophistry to women out there in the real word like Labour, de facto, making AWS's illegal by including transgender women, when it's patently clear all it would take to dismantle them is one of the men who have been against them from the start to challenge them on the grounds of sex discrimination (not even sure if this would not apply even if the transgender woman has a GRC); or younger lesbians worried that even associating as friends risks ostracism even from their own communities. Here I'm just wasting my time (I am bothered by that too actually  ) and it breaks my heart to see people having to apologise as they enter a debate as one of xenon 's last posts clearly shows. I come to urban to have fun. Sophistry in the place of debate is not fun. I didn't take "God works in mysterious ways" from Catholics and I won't take the mantras of some transgender people. I've given ample opportunity to convince me that I was right to easily dismiss my friend who first spoke to me about the threat to women's places. No more. More importantly though... the real struggle is out there and we've only just started with women awakening from their slumber and siding with our younger lesbian sisters (the ones born with a vagina that is) for whom few and far between words of solidarity are heard from the virtual signalling SJW crowd and instead the baying chant of "transphobic" as in the medieval display I have heard took place at the book fair. My voice is needed there. Not here. #LabourLosingWomen is gaining Momentum  on twitter by the way and creative displays of resistance are a pleasure in and of themselves. Like this one:

Over and out... again.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 25, 2018)

elbows said:


> You trivialise it with some of your crapper accusations, fuckwit. Tell me about the backlash you lying, disingenuous piece of shit.



Again, you frame disagreement and difference of opinion as hate. You're gaslighting me, this just shows how abusive you really are.

With allies like you, we don't need enemies.


----------



## elbows (Jan 25, 2018)

Oh well thats cleared everything up. 

Do you know what gaslighting means?  What false information have I fed you to make you doubt your sanity?


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jan 25, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Thanks for confirming your trivialisation of male violence against women by prioritising the thought-crime of 'misgendering'.



LOL. Why are you they and not he if its so insignificant 

I'm not even going to respond to your bullshit claim.


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

This obsession with pronouns is telling i think, its like that's the only thing some people want to talk about, nothing else.


----------



## elbows (Jan 25, 2018)

Oh great, now my blood pressure has gone all wrong because I am livid that the term gaslighting is being watered down and trivialised, robbing people of the accurate language they need to describe and challenge abusive behaviour and abuse of power.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 25, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> My politics aren’t a personal journey. The system fucks lots of people. I base mine on class which may be old fashioned but it’s still correct.



It's correct, but not to the detriment of all other things.  Or should we get rid of fighting for disability access, challenging racism, protecting LGBT spaces, calling for better mental health provision or teaching migrants English?  If the class is divided because of racism, misogyny, homophobia and transphobia - or a failure to recognise the material needs of some sections of the class - then class struggle is going nowhere.  It's not identity politics to ensure all working class people are included, united, and mentally and physically healthy enough to fight.

The recent trans demands centred about better education, healthcare and prisons, less state bureacracy and increased protection against discrimination in the workplace.  You can want those things, and fight for those things for everybody and still recognise that some sections of the working class are not receiving even the basics of the shite attempt at a social wage and so-called rights they fob us off with.


----------



## elbows (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> This obsession with pronouns is telling i think, its like that's the only thing some people want to talk about, nothing else.



People like me? If you checked my output in that regard you might notice it was a brief foray into that territory in response to some specific things. I'm not generally obsessed with it, but I make no apology for use it as an indicator.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jan 25, 2018)

elbows said:


> Oh great, now my blood pressure has gone all wrong because I am livid that the term gaslighting is being watered down and trivialised, robbing people of the accurate language they need to describe and challenge abusive behaviour and abuse of power.



Not liking for your blood pressure, obvs. But for the sentiment.


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

I wasn't talking about you elbows, it was in reply to Thimble Queen.


----------



## elbows (Jan 25, 2018)

elbows said:


> Oh great, now my blood pressure has gone all wrong because I am livid that the term gaslighting is being watered down and trivialised, robbing people of the accurate language they need to describe and challenge abusive behaviour and abuse of power.



And yes, I am sensitive to the arguments people make about certain modern trends in ideas and language potentially causing damage to other groups. For example, I have assembled at least a partial understanding of why some people have a problem with things like cis, and I keep my own useage of such terms to a minimum at this stage, especially when I am still learning.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> I wasn't talking about you elbows, it was in reply to Thimble Queen.



Why not quote me in the first place rather than refering to some people. It was thinly fucking veiled anyway


----------



## smokedout (Jan 25, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Thanks for confirming your trivialisation of male violence against women by prioritising the thought-crime of 'misgendering'.



You never did tell us whether as a business owner and employer you would refuse to treat a trans employee in their acquired gender.  Would you?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> This obsession with pronouns is telling i think, its like that's the only thing some people want to talk about, nothing else.



Well, doing something to confront violence against women and homophobia, two cultural vectors which do have a material impact on the lives of trans people, would be too much like hard work.


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

Thimble Queen said:


> Why not quote me in the first place rather than refering to some people. It was thinly fucking veiled anyway


Its not just you. Your post was a really striking example is all of the pronoun thing.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 25, 2018)

I’m not sure that misgendering is a relevant issue when describing the (alleged) attacker at Hyde park, given that a) (as has been said) it’s less important than the violent act itself, b) the individual isn’t a participant in this conversation (so upsetting them isn’t really a concern), and c) it’s relevant to reference their biological sex to make sense of the socialisation and power dynamics that underly the assault.


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

I think some people would disagree with you on all 3 of those points MadeInBedlam, but especially the last one.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> Its not just you. Your post was a really striking example is all of the pronoun thing.



The conversation has moved on from the rights and wrongs of the incident that kicked off this thread. I didn't see a need to go back there tbh. 

Further, it's not the misgendering in itself that I was highlighting more that MY continues not to treat people the way MY expects to be treated. MYs behaviour stinks.


----------



## elbows (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> Over 24 hours without them jumping to do your bidding? How awful.



I dont really think asking someone to explain more about their accusations towards me that I will abandon trans people and that there will be an inevitable backlash against trans people is demanding that they do my bidding.

Especially when a large-scale backlash would be a hideous thing, and so surely something rather important to discuss further, not just chuck out there and walk away.

But no, apparently its just more trivialised shit used crudely in this polarised debate.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jan 25, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Well, doing something to confront violence against women and homophobia, two cultural vectors which do have a material impact on the lives of trans people, would be too much like hard work.



Ahahaha like you know anything about what I do outside of these boards.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 25, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> c) it’s relevant to reference their biological sex to make sense of the socialisation and power dynamics that underly the assault.



Yes, exactly. At that incident, the one described as 'Ponytail' snatched my phone and ran off with it, I caught him and wrestled it off him. His associates were yelling at me to 'leave her alone'. I could not believe what I was hearing. Does this look like a woman to you?


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

I want to ask something. There are folk here, like Nigel Irritable and smokedout , who have been saying that feminists should be rejoicing about the way in which young people by asserting their various gender identities are dealing a blow to the whole oppressive social system of gender. 
I do not get how that argument in any way ties in to either 
a) The attempts to show a biological basis for people being trans
or
b) the fact that (some) young people are choosing to surgically / medically alter their bodies to better fit their gender identities.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 25, 2018)

I just want to point something out, which seems to have become a point of tedious blockage.





Miranda Yardley said:


> As someone who is trans who has throughout my life moved within gay culture, I know who the real allies of trans people are, and I know full well that, come the inevitable backlash, *men like you *are the very men who will turn on us.
> 
> So, no. I do not accept your arguments.





elbows said:


> I'd like to know more about this. You could not be more wrong about me turning on trans people under any future scenario, and rather than spit my dummy out about this hilarious prediction, I would like to understand how on earth you have reached that conclusion. And for that matter the one about some great backlash against trans being inevitable?



And then subsequent increasingly irate demands for proof that you personally, elbows, will turn on whoever “us” is referring to.

Whilst the language that MY has used is hardly the friendliest (not that this has arisen in isolation), the statement does not say anything about what you, specifically and personally, will do given the theoretical backlash.  It’s about “men like you”.  

Now, I also find this categorisation vague and unhelpfully antagonistic. I can only interpret it (and MY may correct) as meaning something like “men who are particularly vocal about how women should not feel threatened by the widening of legislation to encompass those born male”.  This, or whatever else MY means, may or may not be an appropriate descriptor of you personally.  Either way, however, that doesn’t affect MY’s statement about their impressions of how men who do fall into this category will behave given a change in circumstances.  

As personal as it may feel to be lumped into whatever the category is MY is referring to, basically, the statement is not actually making a prediction about what you, personally, will do given any future theoretical backlash.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 25, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Well, doing something to confront violence against women and homophobia, two cultural vectors which do have a material impact on the lives of trans people, would be too much like hard work.



Has Terrorizer magazine commented on this yet, not just the currently dropped charges but the response from the band's fans?  Bit embarrassing for you isn't it, you've given this band quite a lot of support.

You're a hypocrite, you're probably one of the most influential people in the most misogynist music scene that exists in the UK and I haven't seen any evidence of you doing much, or anything, to challenge that.  Instead you promote bands that glorify rape at worst and trivialise it at best - one of the reasons misogyny is so prevalent on the extreme metal scene.  Yet you call yourself a radical feminist because you go round misgendering trans people.  Because that's obviously the priority, not doing what you can to end male sexual violence against women.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 25, 2018)

Thimble Queen said:


> Further, it's not the misgendering in itself that I was highlighting more that MY continues not to treat people the way MY expects to be treated. MYs behaviour stinks.



Your statement is untrue.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 25, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Yes, exactly. At that incident, the one described as 'Ponytail' snatched my phone and ran off with it, I caught him and wrestled it off him. His associates were yelling at me to 'leave her alone'. I could not believe what I was hearing. Does this look like a woman to you?




Dunno. What are women supposed to look like?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 25, 2018)

kabbes said:


> the statement does not say anything about what you, specifically and personally, will do given the theoretical backlash. It’s about “men like you”.



while I am so not getting into this, you've just described weasel words pretty well, and how insinuation works. no need to respond, I am merely an observer here.


----------



## elbows (Jan 25, 2018)

kabbes said:


> As personal as it may feel to be lumped into whatever the category is MY is referring to, basically, the statement is not actually making a prediction about what you, personally, will do given any future theoretical backlash.



In my much calmer and more reflective mood of yesterday and the night before when Miranda made that post, I was able to dwell on that sort of rather charitable interpretation of what she was saying. Its the reason I have repeatedly asked about this in terms of this supposed backlash. I'm not going to pretend that I didnt take some of the comments personally, but the idea of the backlash is where my primary concern is focussed, and I've got nothing to work with at the moment!


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jan 25, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Your statement is untrue.



So we are continuing to talk about pronouns then, ok. 

I've read this before. And it doesn't explain why you are 'they' and not 'he'. Why should everyone tiptoe around you and your pronouns when you don't do it for others? It's about basic decency tbh.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 25, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> while I am so not getting into this, you've just described weasel words pretty well, and how insinuation works. no need to respond, I am merely an observer here.


Yes, it’s a weasel way to behave.  But hardly out of step for what else MY has both taken and received on this thread.  It doesn’t warrant a personal odyssey into the personality breakdown of elbows as proof one way or other of how he specifically will react to an entirely theoretical future scenario.  And getting hung up on that is getting boring now.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Your statement is untrue.


yeh. the cutting nature of your claim is undermined by your being one of britain's worst liars


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 25, 2018)

Thimble Queen said:


> So we are continuing to talk about pronouns then, ok.
> 
> I've read this before. And it doesn't explain why you are 'they' and not 'he'. Why should everyone tiptoe around you and your pronouns when you don't do it for others? It's about basic decency tbh.



Has Miranda requested anyone ‘tiptoe around’ their pronouns?


----------



## elbows (Jan 25, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Has Miranda requested anyone ‘tiptoe around’ their pronouns?



I might be able to fairly describe at least part of Mirandas attitude towards that. They have their own opinions about this stuff, but have emphasised that they know they cannot control how other people choose to use such words.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 25, 2018)

elbows said:


> In my much calmer and more reflective mood of yesterday and the night before when Miranda made that post, I was able to dwell on that sort of rather charitable interpretation of what she was saying. Its the reason I have repeatedly asked about this in terms of this supposed backlash. I'm not going to pretend that I didnt take some of the comments personally, but the idea of the backlash is where my primary concern is focussed, and I've got nothing to work with at the moment!


Ah, well. I am also both interested in and worried about the potential for backlashes.  They rarely manifest as predicted — witness the backlash to capitalism emerging as a step to the right rather than the left in many places, for example.  So I am interested to hear from anybody about their views as to what could potentially emerge in this instance.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 25, 2018)

kabbes said:


> It’s about “men like you”.
> 
> Now, I also find this categorisation vague and unhelpfully antagonistic. I can only interpret it (and MY may correct) as meaning something like “men who are particularly vocal about how women should not feel threatened by the widening of legislation to encompass those born male”.  This, or whatever else MY means, may or may not be an appropriate descriptor of you personally.  Either way, however, that doesn’t affect MY’s statement about their impressions of how men who do fall into this category will behave given a change in circumstances.
> 
> As personal as it may feel to be lumped into whatever the category is MY is referring to, basically, the statement is not actually making a prediction about what you, personally, will do given any future theoretical backlash.



Basically what I am saying is that here we have a man who is not trans telling someone who is trans, and has lived this life, that they are wrong on a number of counts about trans issues, even though, in their own words, on this they are



elbows said:


> still learning.



People cannot self-identify as allies, they can only offer to be so. Being an ally is not about being an outsider to that group and expecting individuals within that group to form an ideological monolith, then criticising and attacking those who refuse to comply with group or the outsider's own ideology.

If you get me.

My worry is he's very hostile towards trans people he doesn't like, for whatever reason, and as we've seen disagreement is reframed as hate and expressions of opinion as lies. This is polarising behaviour, and makes me doubt the sincerity of his claimed allegiance. In this debate, radical deminists are painted as the villains, yet in my experience the real bad guys are the allies.

Here's a 'for example'.

I'm sorry if my language sometimes comes across as terse, it's just the way I write: you won't though find my using abusive language against anyone.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 25, 2018)

Thimble Queen said:


> So we are continuing to talk about pronouns then, ok.
> 
> I've read this before. And it doesn't explain why you are 'they' and not 'he'. Why should everyone tiptoe around you and your pronouns when you don't do it for others? It's about basic decency tbh.



I don't care about pronouns. Call me 'he'. It doesn't bother me.


----------



## elbows (Jan 25, 2018)

On the other hand, I think I'd also make a pretty crummy trans ally if I had to agree with every theory every trans person comes out with, and could never disagree rudely with any of them.

I recognise that while some of my posts attempt to cross the crude divide, others are very much part of the pronounced polarisation of some of these discussions. You too are nothing if not polarising, but recognition of that seems limited.


----------



## elbows (Jan 25, 2018)

I'll tell you something else I will acknowledge. It was me that brought up the question of allies first, and suggested that some of the people you are aligned with do not have the same overarching agenda and destination in mind as you.

As such it is entirely understandable that part of your response was to try to turn ally-related matters back against me.

If you wont discuss the backlash with me, will you at least provide links to any of your existing articles that cover it?


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jan 25, 2018)

elbows said:


> I might be able to fairly describe at least part of Mirandas attitude towards that. They have their own opinions about this stuff, but have emphasised that they know they cannot control how other people choose to use such words.



Yeah that's fair. I was feeling a bit cross when I posted that. But it's absolute bollocks to say that MY doesn't care about them. MY wouldn't have written a whole bloody blog post about it otherwise


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 25, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I'm sorry if my language sometimes comes across as terse, it's just the way I write: you won't though find my using abusive language against anyone.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 25, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Ah, well. I am also both interested in and worried about the potential for backlashes.  They rarely manifest as predicted — witness the backlash to capitalism emerging as a step to the right rather than the left in many places, for example.  So I am interested to hear from anybody about their views as to what could potentially emerge in this instance.



I think a backlash started with the incident at the start of this thread. I think the situation has been made worse by the abject failure of groups like Stonewall and individuals like Peter Tatchell to exercise any community leadership over this. I think with the way that groups like Mermaids, Gendered Intelligence and GIRES are going into schools and as near as dammit presenting children with a change of sex as a resolution to their own interests not matching cultural expectations of biological sex (in effect telling them their body does not match their personality) may backfire especially badly. Gender dysphoria and transsexual is a complicated thing, and there is no one cause. There is a cultural vector at the moment which tells us we have to have treatment protocols which treat all trans people the same, which ignores the different etiologies. I don't think instrumentalising children in this way is either an effective or sustainable way to promote the acceptance of trans people.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 25, 2018)

Thimble Queen said:


> Yeah that's fair. I was feeling a bit cross when I posted that. But it's absolute bollocks to say that MY doesn't care about them. MY wouldn't have written a whole bloody blog post about it otherwise



Do you ever listen to yourself?


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 25, 2018)

ahhhhhh dave is back


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 25, 2018)

krtek a houby said:


> View attachment 126084



As a tranny who, like many other trannies, has used the word 'tranny' for considerable periods of time, you are not ever going to stop me using the word 'tranny'. And 'tranny' when used by trannies in this way, is not abusive. 

Tranny.
Tranny.
Tranny.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 25, 2018)

FWIW, I think some of the current activity just dismissed as “TERFs, huh” by the likes of Nigel is itself actually a backlash.  One arising from women seeing their political spaces undermined by a focus on and priority of transgender issues rather than the material disadvantages that still exist for natal women (and frequently in life threatening ways at that).  As long as support for the direction of transgender rights was simply a case of live and let live, it was easy to give it tacit support, and to not have an opinion one way or other on the underlying politics of the situation.  However, when you start being told that you are no longer allowed to join the very institutions that were set up to protect you because you don’t think the “right way” about gender, that is the kind of stimulus that backlashes are made of.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 25, 2018)

elbows said:


> If you wont discuss the backlash with me, will you at least provide links to any of your existing articles that cover it?


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 25, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> As a tranny who, like many other trannies, has used the word 'tranny' for considerable periods of time, you are not ever going to stop me using the word 'tranny'. And 'tranny' when used by trannies in this way, is not abusive.
> 
> Tranny.
> Tranny.
> Tranny.



Just wanted to clarify what's abusive and what's not.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 25, 2018)

krtek a houby said:


> Just wanted to clarify what's abusive and what's not.



It's not. HTH.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 25, 2018)

tranny was an affectionate term back in the day, I learned that off jack halberstam, people just get offended at it because people shout it at em in the street, getting shouted tranny in the street by a bunch of kids changes things. yer fucking dense Dave.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jan 25, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Do you ever listen to yourself?



Do you?


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 25, 2018)

too little too late init


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> a change of sex as a resolution to their own interests not matching cultural expectations of biological sex


This. How is this idea (change your body to match your 'gender identity') helping to break down the whole oppressive regime of gender?
Nobody will answer this question.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jan 25, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> As a tranny who, like many other trannies, has used the word 'tranny' for considerable periods of time, you are not ever going to stop me using the word 'tranny'. And 'tranny' when used by trannies in this way, is not abusive.
> 
> Tranny.
> Tranny.
> Tranny.



Isn't that classic idpol? You are allowed to say it because of your identity. Ok.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 25, 2018)

I'm allowed to call meself a cripple


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> This. How is this idea (change your body to match your 'gender identity') helping to break down the whole oppressive regime of gender?




i find it oppressive sometimes tbh elements of it


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> i find it oppressive sometimes tbh


Which bit, the idea that you have to change your body to better fit your gender id?


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 25, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> It's not. HTH.



Because you say so? Not really.

And my previous question (regarding your comment about the Speakers Corner clip); what should women look like?


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> Which bit, the idea that you have to change your body to better fit your gender id?




well no one HAS to but theres several elements that leave bitter tastes, I'm off this thread tho, I got half the idiots here on ignore cus they are so thick, the whole things a joke.


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

krtek a houby said:


> And my previous question (regarding your comment about the Speakers Corner clip); what should women look like?



Well they should at least make an effort, bit of lippie etc.
(bitter joke).


----------



## elbows (Jan 25, 2018)

Thanks Miranda for providing a backlash explanation. One that is at least consistent with your position, and the themes already well-discussed in this thread.

It appears the alternative theoretical criticism of me which I came up with later that night is indeed a much better fit for that kind of backlash - that my views at this time might help enable that backlash, rather than me abandoning people once the backlash is in full swing.

I must say that trying to prevent a backlash by becoming part of the first wave of it is a curious strategy, good luck.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 25, 2018)

kabbes said:


> However, when you start being told that you are no longer allowed to join the very institutions that were set up to protect you because you don’t think the “right way” about gender, that is the kind of stimulus that backlashes are made of.



Quite.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> This. How is this idea (change your body to match your 'gender identity') helping to break down the whole oppressive regime of gender?
> Nobody will answer this question.



Well, it's not; it is, if anything, taking us far far far back in time.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 25, 2018)

krtek a houby said:


> Because you say so? Not really.
> 
> And my previous question (regarding your comment about the Speakers Corner clip); what should women look like?



My point wasn't about what any woman looks like, my point was (and is) that 'Ponytail' is a bloke.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 25, 2018)

elbows said:


> I must say that trying to prevent a backlash by becoming part of the first wave of it is a curious strategy, good luck.



What are you talking about?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 25, 2018)

Thimble Queen said:


> Isn't that classic idpol? You are allowed to say it because of your identity. Ok.



No, not really. It's because I have used that word (and 'transsexual') for decades and I'm not allowing someone else's politics to be imposed on my language.

I'd hope anyone who claimed to be a 'trans ally' would understand this.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 25, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> My point wasn't about what any woman looks like, my point was (and is) that 'Ponytail' is a bloke.



In fairness, I wasn't there and the video quality isn't the best. If you say they're a male, I'll take your word for it.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 25, 2018)

Soldiers on your side of the war. This is not idpol? I am so confused.

Which is my side of the war ?


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

The word cissexism was new to me yesterday.
So I've had a google. I think its a more extreme version of 'transphobia', it expresses the idea that any distinctions at all drawn between biological members of a sex and people who identify as that gender are now to be verboten.
I also don't like the appropriation of the word sexism.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 25, 2018)

krtek a houby said:


> In fairness, I wasn't there and the video quality isn't the best. If you say they're a male, I'll take your word for it.



Well, I was there: like I said here, he snatched my phone. When I had got it off him, he squared up to me, right in my face, seething with hate. It was pretty scary. But yeah, Ponytail is a man.


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

krtek a houby said:


> In fairness, I wasn't there and the video quality isn't the best. If you say they're a male, I'll take your word for it.


krek this is not the thread for you then.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> The word cissexism was new to me yesterday.
> So I've had a google. I think its a more extreme version of 'transphobia', it expresses the idea that any distinctions at all drawn between biological members of a sex and people who identify as that gender are now to be verboten.
> I also don't like the appropriation of the word sexism.



Transgenderists will appropriate anything that's not nailed to the floor:

misogyny
homophobia
'woman'
'female'
women's political positions
women's places on shortlists
etc


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 25, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> well no one HAS to but theres several elements that leave bitter tastes, I'm off this thread tho, I got half the idiots here on ignore cus they are so thick, the whole things a joke.


If we put the whole "other side" of "the war" on ignore we can make this thread of the year yet! 


I thought it was a class war, I am on everyone's side


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 25, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Soldiers on your side of the war. This is not idpol? I am so confused.
> 
> Which is my side of the war ?




ffs you aint supposed to mention the war


----------



## Athos (Jan 25, 2018)

krtek a houby said:


> If you say they're a male, I'll take your word for it.


----------



## elbows (Jan 25, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> ffs you aint supposed to mention the war



Have we had any dodgy terf warfare puns yet?


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> well no one HAS to but theres several elements that leave bitter tastes, I'm off this thread tho, I got half the idiots here on ignore cus they are so thick, the whole things a joke.


Ye but you like bad really uncomfortable jokes so, stay.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I'm not allowing someone else's politics to be imposed on my language.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> well no one HAS to but theres several elements that leave bitter tastes, I'm off this thread tho, I got half the idiots here on ignore cus they are so thick, the whole things a joke.


aw  stay


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

smokedout ? Nigel Irritable ? Anybody?
How is people changing their bodies to better suit their 'gender identity' helping to destroy the whole oppressive system of binary gender roles?
Also how do attempts to marshal science (female brains etc) to explain trans-ness help to do this?


----------



## elbows (Jan 25, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> What are you talking about?



I ran out of time but I promise to answer this no later than tomorrow evening, hopefully much sooner.


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

elbows said:


> I ran out of time but I promise to answer this no later than tomorrow evening, hopefully much sooner.


Don't leave it 24 hours whatever you do.


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Well, it's not; it is, if anything, taking us far far far back in time.


I don't understand how people are not getting this. That's why i'm so fixated on the whole thing, I can't believe what's happening, under the guise of progress, lefty progress at that. And any dissenting voice is called regressive. Its amazing, to me.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> I don't understand how people are not getting this. That's why i'm so fixated on the whole thing, I can't believe what's happening, under the guise of progress, lefty progress at that. And any dissenting voice is called regressive. Its amazing, to me.





how i imagine you being is like alice in wonderland, curiouser and curiouser


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> how i imagine you being is like alice in wonderland, curiouser and curiouser


That bit, with the rabbithole, and the clocks.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 25, 2018)

I am that jokes cat init, just fucking with you

or am i the caterpillar? I do love a good question and weed


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 25, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> I am that jokes cat init, just fucking with you
> 
> or am i the caterpillar? I do love a good question and weed



I wish I cud still smoke weed. Would take the edge off. Everything wud make more sense n all.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> I don't understand how people are not getting this. That's why i'm so fixated on the whole thing, I can't believe what's happening, under the guise of progress, lefty progress at that. And any dissenting voice is called regressive. Its amazing, to me.



It's antithetical to leftist thinking: consider Mill or Engels, neither would have put up with this.


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> It's antithetical to leftist thinking: consider Mill or Engels, neither would have put up with this.


It is set up in total opposition to history & material reality, far as i can see. It's like a new religion.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> This. How is this idea (change your body to match your 'gender identity') helping to break down the whole oppressive regime of gender?
> Nobody will answer this question.


I don't think that's a fantastic argument to begin with. Is that what most of the people on this thread are trying to do?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> It is set up in total opposition to history & material reality, far as i can see. It's like a new religion.



It's a cult.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> smokedout ? Nigel Irritable ? Anybody?
> How is people changing their bodies to better suit their 'gender identity' helping to destroy the whole oppressive system of binary gender roles?
> Also how do attempts to marshal science (female brains etc) to explain trans-ness help to do this?
> 
> View attachment 126095


Because most people are not doing this to destroy oppressive binary roles. And if some think they are, what can you do?


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 25, 2018)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I wish I cud still smoke weed. Would take the edge off. Everything wud make more sense n all.



maybe thats the problem, everyone should just get stoned before thinking about this shit

I always am


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Because most people are not doing this to destroy oppressive binary roles. And if some think they are, what can you do?


 ok. So there is nothing progressive then about either
1) transitioning physically to closer approximate your gender identity
or
2) trying to use science to show that being trans is a biological thing.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 25, 2018)

I'd say progressive by proxy cus it's not solely for progressive purposes and you can never get round people using science to show things


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> I'd say progressive by proxy cus it's not solely for progressive purposes and you can never get round people using science to show things


progressive by proxy means ... it feels ok?


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> progressive by proxy means ... it feels good?




no like the act of transitioning or whatever the individual wont do it for reasons of progressiveness, but it'll still be seen as a progressive thing, it's still progressive cus it's moving forward

i am too high for this shit, dont actually take me as a authority on such matters i dont even know whether by proxy is the right term, pickmans will correct me init


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> ok. So there is nothing progressive then about either
> 1) transitioning physically to closer approximate your gender identity
> or
> 2) trying to use science to show that being trans is a biological thing.



Most simply feel they don't have a choice and it is who they are and what they need to do. Presumably Miranda felt that way, but only differs in disavowing the term woman. I don't see how it is progressive or regressive. It is a fact that millions of people just have to live with. And some of them just happen to subscribe to radical feminist ideology. I can bet for everyone one that does, a few will not.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 25, 2018)

The why's are poorly understood by everybody, I think that much is clear.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 25, 2018)

Even my GP tells me they don't really know for sure what is going on with something simple like anxiety. But people frontin like they kane whit like.


Sorry, flooding the boards like shit.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 25, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> The why's are poorly understood by everybody, I think that much is clear.




everyone needs to fucking chill with the search for why, it just is


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> no like the act of transitioning or whatever the individual wont do it for reasons of progressiveness, but it'll still be seen as a progressive thing, it's still progressive cus it's moving forward
> 
> i am too high for this shit, dont actually take me as a authority on such matters i dont even know whether by proxy is the right term, pickmans will correct me init


it'll do to be getting on with


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 25, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Even my GP tells me they don't really know for sure what is going on with something simple like anxiety. But people frontin like they kane whit like.



well exactly

what if the answer is never the truth.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 25, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> it'll do to be getting on with




ohhhh safe m8


----------



## smokedout (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> smokedout ? Nigel Irritable ?
> How is people changing their bodies to better suit their 'gender identity' helping to destroy the whole oppressive system of binary gender roles? Also how do attempts to marshal science (female brains etc) to explain trans-ness help to do this?



Firstly the number of people changing their bodies is tiny, especially at a young age.  Just 32 people under 15 were proscribed hormone blockers in 2015 according to the Tavistock Institute.  So the idea that this is an epidemic, or that young lesbians are being compelled to do this, is completely spurious.  Another lie in fact.

The huge numbers of people identifying as non-binary are not in the main changing their bodies.  Some people though experience a gender and often bodily dysphoria that is so strong that they do seek medical intervention.  This is usually evident from an early age - boys sitting to pee in infanthood, complaints about genitalia in early childhood, are just two of the symptoms of gender dysphoria in children.  Later in life this can also include severe discomfort with the sexed parts of the body, often leading to sexual problems, relationship problems and depression.  Nobody knows whether this is purely due to the social environment or whether biology plays a part although the consensus amongst some specialists is moving in that direction.  What is known is that transition to some degree is the only treatment which has any substantial success in alleviating these problems.

Of course if it's a purely social phenomena then this distress might be down to what you could crudely call cosmetic factors, which is not to undermine any changes that might be made, the NHS carries out cosmetic work regularly.  Or it might be down to something we don't yet understand about how the brain maps the body, or something else, or a combination of several things both social and biological - much like sexuality just because we can't 'see' it yet does not mean that gender dysphoria does not exist. No-one chooses to have this degree of gender dysphoria and it is often present since very early childhood.  Until recently many people did everything they could to deny it, hence why so many people transitioned later in life.  Nor does it means that gender identity, at this level, has anything at all to do with tastes, interests and attributes.

There was a time when only people who experienced severe gender dysphoria were generally known as transsexuals.  Now a bunch of kids have come along and thrown a lot of that out of the window, saying they don't need to be gender dysphoric to reject or change their gender they can be whatever the fuck they want.  A lot of young people now are rejecting gender completely, or identifying as non-binary, or gender fluid.  I do not believe that this is strengthening the gender binary, I think it is weakening it.  I think it's possible, given that the material conditions that underpinned the gender binary have changed significantly, that the importance of gender is likely to diminish significantly inthe future and this generation are the vanguard of that.  I hope so, it certainly looks like a more sustained challenge to the gender binary than anything trans critical feminists ever managed to pull off. 

But because it's not quite pure a lot of gender opposed feminists are attacking this generation.  I think that's a real shame and I think this should be allowed to play out because I haven't seen a greater challenge to what it means to be a man/woman in my lifetime and I think the deconstruction, or even demolition of the gender binary would probably look a lot like this, and probably involve lots of arguments about pronouns and changing rooms.

None of this means I support the rise in identity politics across all social spheres, or that I don't recognise that a lot of these young people are quite annoying.  Neo-liberalism is also certainly playing its part in shaping social attitudes and individual identities and I initially had some sympathy with the truscum position because of that.  But I've changed my mind, this is starting to look less like a youth culture, fad or fashion and more like something which might endure and develop so I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater.  The triumph over capital looks a long way off but perhaps this is something that can be won now.  The working class can only be stronger for that.

tl:dr ... leave them kids alone.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 25, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> it'll do to be getting on with


You would have been terrifying at the bookfair IRL pedantry


----------



## elbows (Jan 25, 2018)

I've found some time already, but I've developed a temperature and after smokedouts post am struggling to think of anything that isnt directly connected to issues stemming from phenomenon that are often crudely labelled as 'generation gap'.

If I keep feeling sicker I'll have to go into a mostly listening-only mode for a bit because I'm just going to babble.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 25, 2018)

oh i am ill as fuck too, not anything viral i am just perma sick

oh and the pug has got the shits


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> no like the act of transitioning or whatever the individual wont do it for reasons of progressiveness, but it'll still be seen as a progressive thing, it's still progressive cus it's moving forward



Moving forward like paying for stuff on your phone at tescos is progressive?


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> Moving forward like paying for stuff on your phone at tescos is progressive?




yes. yer just being a dick now tho


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> Moving forward like paying for stuff on your phone at tescos is progressive?


Ha!!!


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 25, 2018)

Excellent post smokedout


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

smokedout said:


> There was a time when only people who experienced severe gender dysphoria were generally known as transsexuals.  Now a bunch of kids have come along and thrown a lot of that out of the window, saying they don't need to be gender dysphoric to reject or change their gender they can be whatever the fuck they want.  A lot of young people now are rejecting gender completely, or identifying as non-binary, or gender fluid.  I do not believe that this is strengthening the gender binary, I think it is weakening it.  I think it's possible, given that the material conditions that underpinned the gender binary have changed significantly, that the importance of gender is likely to diminish significantly inthe future and this generation are the vanguard of that.  I hope so, it certainly looks like a more sustained challenge to the gender binary than anything trans critical feminists ever managed to pull off.



Go on. How is it that identifying out of the category called women (without having any dysphoria with your body) helps to destroy the gender binary? What are they identifying out of? How does that help?
Do you think that someone identifying as rainbow unicorn gender with pronouns to fit helps destroy sexism? More than if they just carried on with their lives and were wrestlers/ scientists or whatever thing is not the role of 'cis women'?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 25, 2018)

.


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

uh, you just quoted your self.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> Go on. How is it that identifying out of the category called women (without having any dysphoria with your body) helps to destroy the gender binary? What are they identifying out of? How does that help?
> Do you think that someone identifying as rainbow unicorn gender with pronouns to fit helps destroy sexism? More than if they just carried on with their lives and were wrestlers/ scientists or whatever thing is not the role of 'cis women'?




you hurt my brain sometimes lol


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> you hurt my brain sometimes lol


 I am not going to suffer alone.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> uh


((((bimble))))


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)




----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> It's a cult.


I think so too. But when a cult gets really big its not a cult anymore its just what there is. eg) christianity. Loads of stuff in there that makes no sense and a massive body count, but nobody nowadays calls it a cult.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 25, 2018)

the extremists are cult like, their movements have cult like characteristics, but those people are an extreme minority just like terfs


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> the extremists are cult like, their movements have cult like characteristics, but those people are an extreme minority


Who are the majority then? Just individuals trying to get on with their lives who never go online?


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> Who are the majority then? Just individuals trying to get on with their loves who never go online?



regular people who dont give a fuck either way and just want people to be happy


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> regular people who dont give a fuck either way and just want people to be happy


People will never be happy, or regular. Its sweet but misguided.
But seriously, stats are not in yet on whether identifying as a rainbow unicorn or going through surgery will make you more or less happy in the long term.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> People will never be happy, or regular. Its sweet but misguided.



not really, you ever hear these convos in the street or on the night bus?? no cus everyone is doing themselves

the only time i ever see of this shit is when i come on here and this used to be an alright website


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> But seriously, stats are not in yet on whether identifying as a rainbow unicorn or going through surgery will make you more or less happy in the long term.




I think you misunderstand what I'm saying, being happy isnt the point,, most people arent but they want others to be

I well gotta go smoke me spliff and do some cleaning


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> this used to be an alright website


Yeah i wasn't here back then.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> People will never be happy, or regular. Its sweet but misguided.



This reminds me of that saying "normal is a cycle on a washing machine".. When I first heard it I thought it was "normal is a psychological washing machine". 

I think my mishearing is more correct. 

Anyway, I think your right.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> Yeah i wasn't here back then.




that was what I was getting at


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 25, 2018)

It's clearly not a cult and its a dismissive suggestion to say it is.


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> It's clearly not a cult and its a dismissive suggestion to say it is.


Expand. What are the defining characteristics of a cult?


----------



## lazythursday (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> The word cissexism was new to me yesterday.
> So I've had a google. I think its a more extreme version of 'transphobia', it expresses the idea that any distinctions at all drawn between biological members of a sex and people who identify as that gender are now to be verboten.
> I also don't like the appropriation of the word sexism.


out of interest, does the word heterosexism bother you in the same way (appropriation?)


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 25, 2018)

I stand by my suggestion that some groups are cult like as one of me m8s went to a group and when someone used the wrong language they were ostracised and removed from the only support network they had so it does happen and it makes me think of scientology, but thats not a cult either is it it's a religion

just putting it out there


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> Expand. What are the defining characteristics of a cult?



There are groups of people within any sort of community / grouping  (whichever way you want to describe it) that act in a cult like way.  Do they reflect upon everyone?  Doe's every oddball leftie whose member of some weird micro group reflect the wider left movement?

A handful of shouty people on the internet means nothing more than there is a handful of shouty people on the internet.  I'm concerned you're beginning to see demons around corners.

ETA: and saying the sort of thing my dad would have said in the 80's.


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

lazythursday said:


> out of interest, does the word heterosexism bother you in the same way (appropriation?)


Never heard it before you just said it. Is it in any way different from heteronormativity?
If not then yes.
Sexism exists, its based on sex discrimination (as in people with vaginas being treated different).


----------



## elbows (Jan 25, 2018)

elbows said:


> I must say that trying to prevent a backlash by becoming part of the first wave of it is a curious strategy, good luck.





Miranda Yardley said:


> What are you talking about?



Had a bath, feel well enough to answer this now, though I think I'll keep it short and fill in more later if anyone requires.

At the moment its extremely hard for me to disassociate in my mind the sort of groups who might try to encourage, energise and use a backlash, from some of the groups, people and ideological positions you are taking/are aligned with.

I could be wrong, I might have misunderstood the nature of the suggested backlash, or of your relationship with certain groups and positions.

I'm not sure how much I will really learn about this from this thread, compared to how much may become clearer if we get past the current phase where 'self-id' is claimed as the central issue of a particular campaign or two. Because I doubt many people believe that, should for example some self-id issues within the Labour party be settled one way or another, that certain groups will simply declare 'we won' and not just move on to other issues, expressed with the same degree of venom. For example that gofundme page didnt manage to stick to the self-id issue alone, there was no apparent desire to maximise the number of people who would support the fundraiser over the self-id thing but not some of the other stuff expressed at length on that page.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 25, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> I stand by my suggestion that some groups are cult like as one of me m8s went to a group and when someone used the wrong language they were ostracised and removed from the only support network they had so it does happen and it makes me think of scientology, but thats not a cult either is it it's a religion
> 
> just putting it out there


The left is indeed stressful. Someone in the Labour party here tried to "erase" for want of a better word my refugee aid collection because I told him Assad was a cunt, and there were factual errors in his EU ref posts. If any serious challenge to the state were to happen, these guys would have little to do with it I suspect.


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> A handful of shouty people on the internet means nothing more than there is a handful of shouty people on the internet.


In the early days of Christianity, there were the equivalent of just a handful of shouty people on the internet, except they wore sandals and didn't go online they wrote on hide and called meetings. Apostates have been chopped up ever since. What is your point? There is an extreme and new ideological paradigm being promoted, about gender identity being a state of mind/ inner truth beyond explaining and sex being nothing. You said its not a cult, please explain why not, is it because its already too big?


----------



## lazythursday (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> Never heard it before you just said it. Is it in any way different from heteronormativity?
> If not then yes.
> Sexism exists, its based on sex discrimination (as in people with vaginas being treated different).


I think there's a subtle difference from heteronormativity but beyond me to figure it out. But it's a term that's been in use for quite some time now and I've never heard anyone criticise it for appropriation.


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> In the early days of Christianity, there were the equivalent of just a handful of shouty people on the internet, except they wore sandals and didn't go online they wrote on hide and called meetings. Apostates have been chopped up ever since. What is your point? There is an extreme and new ideological paradigm being promoted, about gender identity being a state of mind/ inner truth beyond explaining and sex being nothing. You said its not a cult, please explain why not, is it because its already too big?



Nah, its mostly just people trying to get on with their lives in a way that makes it as bearable as possible.  There is obviously a shouty element which will have elements of cultist behaviour like any vocal grouping but it appears to me that you are grouping every trans persons into being a cultist. Which ain't right is it?


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

lazythursday said:


> I think there's a subtle difference from heteronormativity but beyond me to figure it out. But it's a term that's been in use for quite some time now and I've never heard anyone criticise it for appropriation.


Yeah, well I am then. The word sexism means something, and it still exists, it means discriminations by sex. As in keeping people with vaginas in their place. The scandal of the week with that men-only charity fundraising do with everyone groping the 'hostesses': Why didn't the people working there just identify as non binary unicorns they'd have been fine.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 25, 2018)

That open letter to the Brit TERFs now at well over a thousand signatures.

I see that the Women’s Place speaking tour hasn’t just had Beatrix Campbell on its platform, it’s also had a (male) academic who contributes to Spiked and wants to see alcoholism reclassified as a moral failing on its platform. There are no allies this crowd won’t make to get at trans people.


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> it appears to me that you are grouping every trans persons into being a cultist. Which ain't right is it?


No i'm not doing that. I'm just saying seems to me there's a cult-like thing going on. With loads of dissenters, trans and not trans.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> In the early days of Christianity, there were the equivalent of just a handful of shouty people on the internet, except they wore sandals and didn't go online they wrote on hide and called meetings. Apostates have been chopped up ever since. What is your point? There is an extreme and new ideological paradigm being promoted, about gender identity being a state of mind/ inner truth beyond explaining and sex being nothing. You said its not a cult, please explain why not, is it because its already too big?


Cults can be very big, bimble. It's not you go loony, cult, religion. What about the moonies? Or mormons? Or scientologists? Loads of them! Not to mention the auld mystery religions/cults, e.g. isis, mithras


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> No i'm not doing that. I'm just saying seems to me there's a cult-like thing going on. With loads of dissenters, trans and not trans.


Yeh. And what's the point of your just saying?


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Cults can be very big, bimble. It's not you go loony, cult, religion. What about the moonies? Or mormons? Or scientologists? Loads of them! Not to mention the auld mystery religions/cults, e.g. isis, mithras


Well quite. Its not a cult because the Labour Party are into it? Teaboy brought up the cult thing, saying it's definitely not that.


----------



## elbows (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> No i'm not doing that. I'm just saying seems to me there's a cult-like thing going on. With loads of dissenters, trans and not trans.



It's just more polarising focus on the extremes though. Because exactly the same cult claims could be directed towards certain rad-fem stances that see people labelled traitors if you dont buy into the whole of their thing.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> Yeah i wasn't here back then.



At least we can agree on one thing.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 25, 2018)

co-op said:


> And it's my right to debate and discuss the issues raised by transactivists campaigns, if you don't want to engage with that, fine, but just shouting 'transphobe' and running away is pointless imo.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What is "bullying misgendering" ?
Excuse my ignorance but I have never heard the term before and am interested.
Cheers


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> At least we can agree on one thing.


I don't want to agree with you i want you to answer my questions. You saw them I tagged you.


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> Well quite. Its not a cult because the Labour Party are into it? Teaboy brought up the cult thing, saying it's definitely not that.



Eh?

You're going on about Alice in Wonderland, Unicorns and saying I brought it up?  I only responded to your post saying it was a cult.  Its up page you can still see it?

How odd.

Ah an edit.


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> Eh?
> 
> You're going on about Alice in Wonderland, Unicorns and saying I brought it up?  I only responded to your post saying it was a cult.  Its up page you can still see it?
> 
> ...



You've just backtracked then, saying some shouty people are in a cult but some trans folk just want to get on with their lives. There we can agree.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 25, 2018)

Hey, do you think trans women who pass experience sexism?

Maybe we can all work together to crush it?


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> You've just backtracked then, saying some shouty people are in a cult but some trans folk just want to get on with their lives. There we can agree.



What are you on about now?

Seriously. Everyone can see the exchange.  You seem OK on other threads.  I don't know what war you think your fighting here but its got weird.


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> Hey, do you think trans women who pass experience sexism?
> 
> Maybe we can all work together to crush it?



So physical appearance is key then? Or social experience of being hassled and subjugated by men?




Teaboy said:


> What are you on about now?
> Seriously. Everyone can see the exchange.  You seem OK on other threads.  I don't know what war you think your fighting here but its got weird.



Teaboy I'm not following you. You said there is nothing cult-like about this movement that we are discussing on this thread. I think that's what you said? I asked you to explain what you think the word cult signifies. You didn't, so I said why I think it bears the hallmarks of cult-like-ness, without all trans people being somehow classed as in that cult.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> What are you on about now?
> 
> Seriously. Everyone can see the exchange.  You seem OK on other threads.  I don't know what war you think your fighting here but its got weird.


Yeh, it's a bimble brainstorm, a common phenomenon


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jan 25, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> No, not really. It's because I have used that word (and 'transsexual') for decades and I'm not allowing someone else's politics to be imposed on my language.
> 
> I'd hope anyone who claimed to be a 'trans ally' would understand this.



People have been doing all sorts of things for decades it doesn't make them right. Seriously your debating skills are going down the pan.

I'm not sure what you think you know about me. I'm not an 'ally'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2018)

Thimble Queen said:


> People have been doing all sorts of things for decades it doesn't make them right. Seriously your debating skills are going down the pan.
> 
> I'm not sure what you think you know about me. I'm not an 'ally'.


You can't trust a word mendacious miranda says. She'd tell you it was Friday if she thought she might gain something by it


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> I don't want to agree with you i want you to answer my questions. You saw them I tagged you.



As I’ve already explained my view of the social impact of the largest movement of gender non conformism in nearly five decades more than once, and given that smokedout has just explained his view of the same process at length, I can only conclude that you aren’t at all interested in any answers to your rhetorical questions. If I answer them yet again you will only wheel out the same talking points again in a few days, you tedious bigot.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> So physical appearance is key then?



The argument seems to go that sexism can only be experienced by cis women because of their genitalia. When I experience sexism people aren't generally taking a look in my pants first. So it follows that the perception people have of me as being and living as a woman is what causes me to be part of the group that experiences sexism. If a trans woman lives as a woman and experiences life as a woman she's going to experience sexism. 

Anyway, quite apart from that, patriarchy affects everyone. It's responsible for shit (cis and trans) women go through, shit (cis and trans) men go through... I think it's kind of cool when we all bunch together to fight.


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

Thimble Queen said:


> People have been doing all sorts of things for decades it doesn't make them right. Seriously your debating skills are going down the pan.
> 
> I'm not sure what you think you know about me. I'm not an 'ally'.



Your debating skills are basically 'oh look they said the word 'he', snigger and point and do a thumbs-up smiley. What have you got to contribute apart from policing other peoples use of words?




Nigel Irritable said:


> As I’ve already explained my view of the social impact of the largest movement of gender non conformism in nearly five decades more than once, and given that smokedout has just explained his view of the same process at length, I can only conclude that you aren’t at all interested in any answers to your rhetorical questions. If I answer them yet again you will only wheel out the same talking points again in a few days, you tedious bigot.


 ok. Your answer is 'you are a bigot'. Cool.
 So people changing their bodies to better match their gender identities is totally smashing the gender system according to you, as are appeals to regressive science about female brains.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> So people changing their bodies to better match their gender identities is totaly smashing the gender system according to you, as are appeals to regressive science about female brains.



You've been given a couple of really thoughtful and measured posts in reply to this, and you're demonstrating time and again you're not prepared to engage with what's said in good faith. I think it's a shame.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> You've been given a couple of really thoughtful and measured posts in reply to this, and you're demonstrating time and again you're not prepared to engage with what's said in good faith. I think it's a shame.


It's a shame but also how bimble has reacted on threads on all manner of subjects since she joined.


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> You've been given a couple of really thoughtful and measured posts in reply to this, and you're demonstrating time and again you're not prepared to engage with what's said in good faith. I think it's a shame.


smokedout's response basically said that only people with serious dysphoria are doing this (changing their bodies). I don't think that's correct (eg my cousin the dissister). 
And the other bit about how the 'scientific' explanations (trans people have different biology etc) is helping was not addressed at all by anyone, including smokedout, the main proponent of those ideas.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. And what's the point of your just saying?


bimble you want people to answer your questions. It's strange then you're reluctant to answer those asked of you


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> bimble you want people to answer your questions. It's strange then you're reluctant to answer those asked of you


Sorry I mostly skim over your posts as they are pointless. Please ask me a question and I will answer best I can promise.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> smokedout's response basically said that only people with serious dysphoria are doing this (changing their bodies). I don't think that's correct.


How come?


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> How come?


People are being put on hormone blockers 'to give them time', eg my cousin's kid who is off them now. She/they did not have any physical dysphoria, it was all about gender roles from my (not many) talks with her/him at the time). 
Things are changing fast, kids are going on tumblr and identifying as trans for reasons totally different from what might have motivated folks years ago, I hope its ok to acknowledge this.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> Sorry I mostly skim over your posts as they are pointless. Please ask me a question and I will answer best I can promise.


I have asked you a question. But answer comes there none.

Oh - and it's strange that you only skim the posts of your most-liked poster (as of when the wapoc thing went up)


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> People are being put on hormone blockers 'to give them time', eg my cousin's kid who is off them now. She/they did not have any physical dysphoria, it was all about gender roles from my (not many) talks with her/him at the time).
> Things are changing fast, kids are going on tumblr and identifying as trans for reasons totally different from what might have motivated folks years ago, I hope its ok to acknowledge this.


So you agree, most are not changing their bodies after being given time? 

I would have liked to see you chatting to this bairn.


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> I have asked you a question. But answer comes there none.


And so I searched and found your v important question. You asked What is the point of me saying that there is a cult-like nature to this movement. After someone else said it was a cult. That is your question? Bollocks I'm going to the shops.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 25, 2018)

Get me a cornetto from the cope cheers


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> And so I searched and found your v important question. You asked What is the point of me saying that there is a cult-like nature to this movement. After someone else said it was a cult. That is your question? Bollocks I'm going to the shops.


I asked what was the point of your "just saying". It seems that, like so many of your 'contributions' it was pointless.


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> So you agree, most are not changing their bodies after being given time?
> 
> I would have liked to see you chatting to this bairn.



It was not fun those chats, its what made me interested in this rabbbithole. Listening to her/ him/ them made me want to cry but I waited till they weren't looking obvs. At school (america) they're still going by their boy name, because its really embarassing and uncool to be a desister. 
It was all about not liking “girly things”.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 25, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Get me a cornetto from the cope cheers


Just one cornetto?


----------



## co-op (Jan 25, 2018)

comrade spurski said:


> What is "bullying misgendering" ?
> Excuse my ignorance but I have never heard the term before and am interested.
> Cheers



There was meant to be a comma between the two although misgendering could easily be an example of bullying in its own right. My point was that transphobia (imo) shouldn't mean 'disagreeing with a particularly vociferous strand of trans theorists' - it should mean actively trying to mess up transpeople's lives.

Any thread on this topic seems to head inevitably to a very vocal group chanting "transphobe" at anyone who isn't 100% signed up to - eg self ID as the sole criterion of what it is to be a 'woman' etc. It's an abuse of the word.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 25, 2018)

elbows said:


> At the moment its extremely hard for me to disassociate in my mind the sort of groups who might try to encourage, energise and use a backlash, from some of the groups, people and ideological positions you are taking/are aligned with.
> 
> I could be wrong, I might have misunderstood the nature of the suggested backlash, or of your relationship with certain groups and positions.



I think you do misunderstand me. The point I was making is that I think the backlash will come from ordinary people. I specifically mentioned concerns over the way children are being transed.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 25, 2018)

Thimble Queen said:


> People have been doing all sorts of things for decades it doesn't make them right. Seriously your debating skills are going down the pan.
> 
> I'm not sure what you think you know about me. I'm not an 'ally'.



Like I said, I've been doing this for decades, so no I'm not changing my language for you or anyone else.


----------



## co-op (Jan 25, 2018)

Interesting essay on the idea of binary here

The idea that gender is a spectrum is a new gender prison | Aeon Essays


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Like I said, I've been doing this for decades, so no I'm not changing my language for you or anyone else.


perhaps after several decades you should reconsider your language to make sure it still cuts the mustard


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> perhaps after several decades you should reconsider your language to make sure it still cuts the mustard


 
Telling other people what words they’re allowed to use to describe their own selves. This totally is the way forward.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 25, 2018)

The woman who started the sue Labour fundraiser is now saying that she has also been suspended from Labour. It occurs to me that announcing publicly that you are going to sue a party probably isn’t a particularly good way to get on the good side of its apparatchiks.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> Telling other people what words they’re allowed to use to describe their own selves. This totally is the way forward.


i haven't made any suggestions to the liar yardley for what language they should use, but if they've been using the same language for a long time maybe they should examine it themselves to ensure it still conveys the meaning they desire and does not carry connotations they would be unhappy with. you always do this, bimble, make out something's been said which hasn't. it doesn't make you look big or clever, quite the reverse from my pov.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 25, 2018)

Rod Liddle another newfound friend and ally of the “gender critical”. Very principled of the “feminists” in his piece to give him quotes attacking Momentum and comparing trans people to the Pedophile Information Exchange. 

Women come last in Labour’s deranged victim hierarchy | The Spectator


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 25, 2018)

co-op said:


> There was meant to be a comma between the two although misgendering could easily be an example of bullying in its own right. My point was that transphobia (imo) shouldn't mean 'disagreeing with a particularly vociferous strand of trans theorists' - it should mean actively trying to mess up transpeople's lives.
> 
> Any thread on this topic seems to head inevitably to a very vocal group chanting "transphobe" at anyone who isn't 100% signed up to - eg self ID as the sole criterion of what it is to be a 'woman' etc. It's an abuse of the word.



Thanks.
Like I said...it was a genuine question.

I was confused because I thought it meant that deliberately calling someone she when they have asked to be called he (and visaversa) regardless of how that made the person feel was a form of bullying.

Then I noticed Miranda Yardley had liked your post and from my understanding Miranda refuses to call trans people by their chosen pronoun. Miranda used the comparison of...if your friend said they were a zebra would you accept them as a zebra? (I may have got the animal wrong)

So I was then confused by what it meant.

None of this is to dig at Miranda.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 25, 2018)

comrade spurski said:


> Then I noticed Miranda Yardley had liked your post and from my understanding Miranda refuses to call trans people by their chosen pronoun. Miranda used the comparison of...if your friend said they were a zebra would you accept them as a zebra? (I may have got the animal wrong)



I think it was a tiger


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The woman who started the sue Labour fundraiser is now saying that she has also been suspended from Labour. It occurs to me that announcing publicly that you are going to sue a party probably isn’t a particularly good way to get on the good side of its apparatchiks.


Yay. Dissenters up against the wall. She was right, the fundraiser, was legally correct, that’s why no announcement on it from Labour.


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> YAy. Dissenters up against the wall. She was right, the fundraiser, was legally correct, that’s why no announcement on it from Labour.



She was suspended, I believe, for saying words to the effect of 'women don't have dicks'. If the Labour Party suspended anyone who challenged Party positions that had not been approved according to rules, that would be pretty grim.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> YAy. Dissenters up against the wall. She was right, the fundraiser, was legally correct, that’s why no announcement on it from Labour.


yeh cos the labour party has never been nasty to dissenters before. it's not like they expelled militant or got rid of councillors who refused to set a poll tax or anything. more than a hundred years of being nasty to dissenters but for you it's always something new.


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> If the Labour Party suspended anyone who challenged Party positions that had not been approved according to rules, that would be pretty grim.


So, it’s pretty grim.


----------



## elbows (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> She was right, the fundraiser, was legally correct, that’s why no announcement on it from Labour.



A tad premature to claim that. We may assume that there were legal issues that prevented the announcement, but legal processes often involve debate themselves and thats a process that I would assume will take a while before we see exactly what possibilities are deemed legally acceptable.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> Telling other people what words they’re allowed to use to describe their own selves. This totally is the way forward.


But Miranda believes that they have "right" to use the word he to refer to someone who wishes to be known as she (and visaversa).
Surely that it unnecessary, rude, arrogant and hurtful.
Miranda is effectively doing what you are (rightly in my view) criticising.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 25, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Rod Liddle another newfound friend and ally of the “gender critical”. Very principled of the “feminists” in his piece to give him quotes attacking Momentum and comparing trans people to the Pedophile Information Exchange.
> 
> Women come last in Labour’s deranged victim hierarchy | The Spectator



And of course transphobes of both majority (conservative) and minority (TERF) sorts are sharing it around social media. Strange the friendships shared bigotry can encourage.


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

elbows said:


> A tad premature to claim that. We may assume that there were legal issues that prevented the announcement, but legal processes often involve debate themselves and thats a process that I would assume will take a while before we see exactly what possibilities are deemed legally acceptable.


The only reason the issue of what’s legally acceptable got raised is this fundraiser, far as I know.


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh cos the labour party has never been nasty to dissenters before. it's not like they expelled militant or got rid of councillors who refused to set a poll tax or anything. more than a hundred years of being nasty to dissenters but for you it's always something new.


Will you ever stop banging on about the poll tax old man?


----------



## Miranda Yardley (Jan 25, 2018)

comrade spurski said:


> But Miranda believes that they have "right" to use the word he to refer to someone who wishes to be known as she (and visaversa).
> Surely that it unnecessary, rude, arrogant and hurtful.
> Miranda is effectively doing what you are (rightly in my view) criticising.



Everyone has the right to describe males using masculine pronouns. Be thankful our society hasn't mandated that, yet.

And no, it's not rude or arrogant or hurtful. What is rude is men calling women 'TERF' because they disagree with women who know the penis is the male sex organ. What is arrogant is having a man occupy a women's political position because he thinks he knows what women's needs are. And What is hurtful, is men telling women what it is to be a woman, and then moving the goalposts expecting them to accommodate males into their spaces and culture.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 25, 2018)

oh just fuck off, you are disgusting.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> Will you ever stop banging on about the poll tax old man?


I will do when you get some decent politics. So it may be some time yet, bimble.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 25, 2018)

I see intersexuals have unicorn status again in this latest display of good essentialism.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 25, 2018)

(((mythical beings)))


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

Intersex people must be fucking exhausted from all the rhetorical work they're doing for everyone.


----------



## elbows (Jan 25, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I think you do misunderstand me. The point I was making is that I think the backlash will come from ordinary people. I specifically mentioned concerns over the way children are being transed.



Thanks for the further info. Issues involving children certainly have a lot of additional emotive power potential, and I'm sure I will harp on about backlash issues in future. I am particularly interested in past backlash fears (in general, not just around these issues) that thankfully didnt come to anything so far. It is easy to imagine that some may have been concerned that pressing on beyond same-sex civil partnerships to same-sex marriage was a backlash risk, and perhaps some people didnt think that was a risk worth taking.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 25, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Rod Liddle another newfound friend and ally of the “gender critical”. Very principled of the “feminists” in his piece to give him quotes attacking Momentum and comparing trans people to the Pedophile Information Exchange.
> 
> Women come last in Labour’s deranged victim hierarchy | The Spectator



Paedos. It's Scotland in the 70's/80's again.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> Intersex people must be fucking exhausted from all the rhetorical work they're doing for everyone.


I thought we were all about biological FACTS in this thread, my bad.


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> I thought we were all about biological FACTS in this thread, my bad.


You (not just you half the Internet) bring in intersex people only to make the point that there is no such thing as two sexes of humans. It’s not very strong tbh , as a point.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> You (not just you half the Internet) bring in intersex people only to make the point that there is no such thing as two sexes of humans. It’s not very strong tbh , as a point.


Erm.... It kind of is.


----------



## elbows (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> You (not just you half the Internet) bring in intersex people only to make the point that there is no such thing as two sexes of humans. It’s not very strong tbh , as a point.



Not because we know some intersex people, and/or care about their rights and not excluding them from the map of reality?

Keep digging bimble, you arse.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 25, 2018)

Bimble you made me think of this. Just cause


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

All the other mammals also not dimorphic then. Ok. Scientists better start from scratch.
HoratioCuthbert will listen when I can


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 25, 2018)

I don't know 100 per cent what you mean- but intersex=sexual ambiguity, not sexual dimorphism. It is rare, but it exists.


----------



## elbows (Jan 25, 2018)

Even with present relatively poor levels of understanding about the deep detail of many aspects, science already has a way of dealing with the simple fact that chromosomal, gonadal and somatic sex do not always agree in an individual. At least thats how branches of science that have split things into chromosomal, gonadal and somatic sex would talk about that stuff.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> You (not just you half the Internet) bring in intersex people only to make the point that there is no such thing as two sexes of humans. It’s not very strong tbh , as a point.


You didn't read my post about intersex did you?


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

The wikipedia recent edits on the page that's meant to explain the entry on "sex differences in humans" is fucking funny 
eg)


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> You didn't read my post about intersex did you?


I'm sorry I don't know what post you mean. If it was late on Monday night I appologise I've forgotten.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 25, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Everyone has the right to describe males using masculine pronouns. Be thankful our society hasn't mandated that, yet.
> 
> And no, it's not rude or arrogant or hurtful. What is rude is men calling women 'TERF' because they disagree with women who know the penis is the male sex organ. What is arrogant is having a man occupy a women's political position because he thinks he knows what women's needs are. And What is hurtful, is men telling women what it is to be a woman, and then moving the goalposts expecting them to accommodate males into their spaces and culture.



I have never referred to anyone as a TERF and disagreed with Nigel Irritable several times when he simply seemed to shout TERF at anyone he disagreed with.

Your response is arguing things I have not said and do not think  so I have no idea why you have raised them.

I have no idea if any of that is a reference to me but if it is you are mistaken as I have not said any thing that can be interpreted in that way.

My disagreement with you is your insistance on calling people she when they wish to be called he and visa versa.

You claiming it ain't rude, ignorant, hurtful or arrogant doesn't make it so.

You dismiss it by mocking them...your comparison with a person claiming to be an animal for example.

You claim that you have been using certain language for decades so why should you change now...like your age makes you correct.

We are not going to agree but I do not get why you object to people telling you what language you should use but do the very same thing...only you actually mock people for using pronouns you disagree with.

I can not understand that level of hypocrisy.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> Yeah, well I am then. The word sexism means something, and it still exists, it means discriminations by sex. As in keeping people with vaginas in their place. The scandal of the week with that men-only charity fundraising do with everyone groping the 'hostesses': Why didn't the people working there just identify as non binary unicorns they'd have been fine.



I wonder if it would have played out the same if the hostesses had been transgender.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 25, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I wonder if it would have played out the same if the hostesses had been transgender.


Please elaborate.


----------



## 19force8 (Jan 25, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Please elaborate.


No, please don't.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 25, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Please elaborate.



Actually it was presumptuous of me to think any of them weren’t. The agency’s shopping list of the ideal candidates to be put up for abuse was quite particular though.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 25, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Erm.... It kind of is.



Biology is purely a crude weapon to beat trans people with to the likes of bimble. It’s entirely unfair to point out that human biology is actually complex.


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Biology is purely a crude weapon to beat trans people with to the likes of bimble. It’s entirely unfair to point out that human biology is actually complex.


Oh you got me. I want to beat trans people with a crude weapon.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 25, 2018)

I interpret Bumble's posts now as her showing complete and utter contempt for all trans people, and there was I thinking we actually made a connection yesterday.


----------



## bimble (Jan 25, 2018)

Oh dear. I’ll sign off for tonight. I can’t defend myself against these charges of ‘complete and utter contempt for all trans people’ in a calm way.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 25, 2018)

Maybe stop taking the fucking piss? How else are people to feel?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 25, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I wonder if it would have played out the same if the hostesses had been transgender.



Well, maybe it should have made all the guests happy, since according to some on here it would have made the description of the event as ‘men only’ more accurate.


----------



## co-op (Jan 25, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Maybe stop taking the fucking piss? How else are people to feel?



You’ll confect outrage whatever. Who cares?


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 25, 2018)

The Vanguard of the left hath arrived. Persistently failing to deliver anything conducive to class solidarity.  That must be some fucking bushel guys.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 25, 2018)

co-op said:


> You’ll confect outrage whatever. Who cares?


I'll what? 

Conflect? Go on.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 25, 2018)

bimble said:


> Oh dear. I’ll sign off for tonight. I can’t defend myself against these charges of ‘complete and utter contempt for all trans people’ in a calm way.


Using terms like "non binary unicorns" as you did in this post 

*bimble said: ↑
"Yeah, well I am then. The word sexism means something, and it still exists, it means discriminations by sex. As in keeping people with vaginas in their place. The scandal of the week with that men-only charity fundraising do with everyone groping the 'hostesses': Why didn't the people working there just identify as non binary unicorns they'd have been fine."*

might be pissing people off/upsetting etc equally as much as "complete and utter contempt for all trans people" is doing to you.

I ain't trying to dig at you but it comes across as dismissive and like you are making fun of people.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 25, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> I think you do misunderstand me. The point I was making is that I think the backlash will come from ordinary people. I specifically mentioned concerns over the way children are being transed.



In 2016 there were just over 9.1 million children in the UK over 3 and under 16.  The number of people from that age group referred to the Tavistock was 819.  That's one in 12,000 children.  Of these 32 children under 15 received hormone blockers on the early intervention pathway.  I can't find the number for 15 year old but there were 254 referrals in this age group.  Even if we assume they were all given hormone blockers this puts the number of under 16s given hormones blockers at one in 35,000.  Most people will never meet a kid this has happened to.  A large secondary school could expect to see one  every 35 years.  Children are not being 'transed' by anyone, they are trans, like you are, and the evidence so far shows that social transition, hormone blockers and being supported in their acquired gender by their family has very positive outcomes.

These figures are way below even the most conservative estimate of the trans population amongst adults.  If there is a crisis it's that so many trans children are not being diagnosed or given any support.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 25, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Erm.... It kind of is.



The rare cases of intersex are quite instructive of the way sex in animals actually works.  

I don’t think denying reproductive biology is going to end anywhere good.  We already have really strange talk of female penises and male vaginas.  Also, if none of this stuff matters it would never make any sense that anyone would ever want to transition.

There are organisms that have a lot more than two sexes but humans aren’t one of them.

I’m not sure how saying this is hateful, reproductive biology has been used in the past as a stick to beat homosexuals with, but a lot of progress was achieved re: homophobia without having to “redefine” biology.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 25, 2018)

8ball said:


> The rare cases of intersex are quite instructive of the way sex in animals actually works.
> 
> I don’t think denying reproductive biology is going to end anywhere good.  We already have really strange talk of female penises and male vaginas.  Also, if none of this stuff matters it would never make any sense that anyone would ever want to transition.
> 
> ...


Who are you talking to?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 25, 2018)

comrade spurski said:


> Using terms like "non binary unicorns" as you did in this post
> 
> *bimble said: ↑
> "Yeah, well I am then. The word sexism means something, and it still exists, it means discriminations by sex. As in keeping people with vaginas in their place. The scandal of the week with that men-only charity fundraising do with everyone groping the 'hostesses': Why didn't the people working there just identify as non binary unicorns they'd have been fine."*
> ...



Openly admitting to taking the piss when challenged for posting a link to a random tumblr...

Why is anyone expected to ignore that?


----------



## elbows (Jan 25, 2018)

I was looking for something else entirely on this thread, from around the weekend, when I spotted a reference to gaslighting. Since I was accused of gaslighting earlier today, I paid close attention, and now I understand why the term was thrown my way. This is the post I found from days ago....



trashpony said:


> Telling people things that they know aren't true and keeping telling them that until they think their perception is wrong.
> So: telling a woman that a man in a dress is actually a woman and that she's mad and crazy and bigoted and wrong for believing that += gaslighting.



Well, no, and I could come out with the same stuff I said earlier about what a disgrace it is that people who care about rights and feminism and stopping abuses are willing to sacrifice the integrity of that term so readily. Especially when some of their other arguments are about how changes to language are undermining the rights of certain groups and their ability to discuss the injustices they face and press for change.

The reason gaslighting cannot be applied in this context is very simple and has nothing to do with the particular issues of this thread. The entire nature of debates involves people with beliefs arguing their point with others, disagreeing with others, trying to convince people that they have got something wrong, sowing seeds of doubt, disputing facts and evidence, and a hell of a lot of repetition. You cant have a proper debate without at least some of these things. And for all the similarities that may be spotted between that stuff and methods employed in gaslighting, the context is very different. And yes, people do scummy and manipulative things as part of debates at times, and some forms of gaslighting might involve a dishonest debate between two people in a relationship, where one of the participants manipulates things before or during the debate as part of the psychological abuse. Still doesnt mean this can magically be transferred to every other sort of debate.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 25, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Who are you talking to?



Who do you think?  Read back a bit.  Humans have two sexes for evolutionary reasons and I don’t think it is productive to deny this.

And the differential reproductive burden of the sexes has a relation to how women have often been oppressed.  Feminists recognise this, and denying it is part of what gets some of their backs up.

Homosexuals were often castigated as ‘unnatural’ due to their inability to reproduce sexually.  This was due to a confusion over ‘is’ and ‘ought’ combined with the assumption of the right of patriarchal society to control reproduction that we might hopefully be moving past now.  Denying these realities are part of why some feminists feel threatened in my view.  But they can and are speaking for themselves here - I hope we can keep it civil because we’re a bit fucked if we stop talking and go hide in our respective echo chambers.

There are lots of hardships involved with being transgender/transsexual, and acceptance is in short supply, but I can’t see it as helpful to deny biology in a way that cuts off potential allies, and I don’t think denial of basic realities ever leads anywhere good.

I like you and appreciate a lot of things you have said on this thread, and these are just my opinions.  I don’t completely understand where transgender/transsexuality ‘comes from’, but I don’t understand where homosexuality ‘comes from’ either, I don’t think anyone does completely, and it’s not homophobic to say that.

I think trying to make a claim on the terms ‘male’ and ‘female’ is likely to be a losing battle for a very small minority, as well as leading to formulations that fly in the face of facts.  Sperm become female gametes, eggs become male gametes, the basis of structural oppression fades away in a mist of vagueness.  Moving forward may require making new words but we need the old ones too.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jan 25, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Openly admitting to taking the piss when challenged for posting a link to a random tumblr...
> 
> Why is anyone expected to ignore that?



She's a nasty piece of work.


----------



## co-op (Jan 25, 2018)

Thimble Queen said:


> She's a nasty piece of work.



Get over yourself


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 25, 2018)

co-op said:


> Get over yourself



After you?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 25, 2018)

Miranda Yardley said:


> Everyone has the right to describe males using masculine pronouns. Be thankful our society hasn't mandated that, yet.



Would you refuse to accept the acquired gender of one of your employees?


----------



## co-op (Jan 25, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Would you refuse to accept the acquired gender of one of your employees?




Me, no as I think I’ve made clear.

 Do you demand that I or others accept the word “cis” applies to us even though we reject the ideology that it stands on?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 25, 2018)

co-op said:


> Me, no as I think I’ve made clear.
> 
> Do you demand that I or others accept the word “cis” applies to us even though we reject the ideology that it stands on?



i wasn't asking you and I've discussed that at length.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 25, 2018)

A couple of things on the xx, xy thing: Sex redefined and Between the (Gender) Lines: the Science of Transgender Identity - Science in the News - plenty more that makes interesting reading that you can access through the most simple of google searches, and no doubt with access to journal databases even more stuff.


----------



## co-op (Jan 25, 2018)

smokedout said:


> i wasn't asking you and I've discussed that at length.



You have? I’d forgotten. But a one word answer is too much work? Yes I have to accept it, no I can reject it?

Which?


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jan 25, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> A couple of things on the xx, xy thing: Sex redefined and Between the (Gender) Lines: the Science of Transgender Identity - Science in the News - plenty more that makes interesting reading that you can access through the most simple of google searches, and no doubt with access to journal databases even more stuff.



Thanks I've bookmarked those for reading later.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 25, 2018)

8ball said:


> Who do you think?  Read back a bit.  Humans have two sexes for evolutionary reasons and I don’t think it is productive to deny this.
> 
> And the differential reproductive burden of the sexes has a relation to how women have often been oppressed.  Feminists recognise this, and denying it is part of what gets some of their backs up.
> 
> ...



 Thanks for the good spirited reply  You might notice I am steadfastly avoiding going into some of what you mention yet, because I don't know where I stand. My feeling is it should be possible to allow transgender people to use their chosen pronoun without this infringing on womens rights and it should also be possible to acknowledge transmen have wombs-for example- whilst at the same time not tearing up decades of feminist thinking. But it is all so polarised isn't it? I have been sitting here today reading stuff on what marxist/socialist feminists have to say about transgender rights. If I can be any clearer on what I think I will come back to this!


----------



## 8ball (Jan 25, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> A couple of things on the xx, xy thing: Sex redefined and Between the (Gender) Lines: the Science of Transgender Identity - Science in the News - plenty more that makes interesting reading that you can access through the most simple of google searches, and no doubt with access to journal databases even more stuff.



The first link is largely a pretty fascinating account of chimaerism, and the second is a largely speculative account of where trans identity ‘comes from’.  

I think the first is biologically interesting, but it doesn’t say anything about human reproduction.  

The second is a bit reminiscent of a lot of talk a little over 20 years ago about homosexuality (you don’t see that much of it nowadays precisely becuase gay people are so much more accepted.  If you accept someone then the nuts and bolts become a lot less relevant.

This goes for some of the speculative implications of the first link too.  These are really the’exceptions which prove the rule’ in the same manner which looking at people with particular kinds of brain damage tell us interesting things about how the brain works.  

This is a long way from arguing that eggs can be male gametes and sperm 
female gametes depending on how someone chooses to identify.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 25, 2018)

From the first link:

"There is a second way in which a person can end up with cells of different chromosomal sexes. James's patient was a chimaera: a person who develops from a mixture of two fertilized eggs, usually owing to a merger between embryonic twins in the womb. This kind of chimaerism resulting in a DSD is extremely rare, representing about 1% of all DSD cases."


----------



## 8ball (Jan 25, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Thanks for the good spirited reply  You might notice I am steadfastly avoiding going into some of what you mention yet, because I don't know where I stand. My feeling is it should be possible to allow transgender people to use their chosen pronoun without this infringing on womens rights and it should also be possible to acknowledge transmen have wombs-for example- whilst at the same time not tearing up decades of feminist thinking. But it is all so polarised isn't it? I have been sitting here today reading stuff on what marxist/socialist feminists have to say about transgender rights. If I can be any clearer on what I think I will come back to this!



Cheers. 

I agree with the pronouns thing but that is probably the most basic level of consideration we should have for each other.  That we should accept everyone who doesn’t fit in with the expected binary is something I think should be self-evident too.

Look forward to hearing your thoughts if you wish to come back to this later.


----------



## elbows (Jan 25, 2018)

I loved the first article, and I do not recognise the idea that its implications can be safely contained via the conclusion that it just shows 'exceptions which prove the rule'.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 25, 2018)

Interesting thoughts on this article. Don't have time to comment just noo. 




> For the vast majority of people it is difficult to see the social influence on biological sex. But there is greater variety associated with sex characteristics than can be accommodated by* simply looking at genitalia,* and the decision to use that method to record sex on a birth certificate and then to insist that such a record defines someone for the rest of their life is certainly contestable.
> 
> One complicating factor is that external genitalia are not the only sex characteristics. There are chromosomes, hormones, internal reproductive organs and secondary sex characteristics. Do these attributes always tie up neatly into a gender binary? Fine warns against a simplistic approach to the effect of the genetic and hormonal components of sex on the reproductive system, “even _that_ developmental process [has been] described by one expert as a ‘balance’ rather than a binary system”.20 The article Fine refers to includes an account of a 70 year old man, the father of four children, having a routine hernia operation and discovering that he had a womb. Arthur Arnold, who studies sex differences at the University of California, Los Angeles says: “The main problem with a strong dichotomy [between male and female] is that there are intermediate cases that push the limits and ask us to figure out exactly where the dividing line is between males and females. And that is often a very difficult problem, because sex can be defined in a number of ways”.21
> Commenting on how sex should be defined when different characteristics clash, Eric Vilain, director of the Center for Gender-Based Biology at UCLA, says: “My feeling is that since there is not one biological parameter that takes over every other parameter…gender identity seems to be the most reasonable parameter.” In other words, concludes the author, if you want to know what gender someone is, just ask.22






> Her solution is to try to stop using the word gender. While I share Cameron’s desire to see a world in which gender is not a category of any importance, socialists must intervene in struggles as they concretely present themselves. In the context of the proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act it is important to recognise that gender identity can exist without equating it to socialised gender norms or to a sexed brain.






> .   The formula often used to describe the difference between sex and gender is “Sex is biological and gender is socially constructed”. This differentiation highlights the profound social influences on the accepted norms for masculine and feminine behaviours. However, this formulation rests on a false separation between the biological and the social. Marxist biologists Steven Rose, Richard Lewontin and Leon Kamin argued against this dichotomy over 30 years ago: “The relation between organism and environment is not simply one of interaction of internal and external factors, but a dialectical development of organism and milieu in response to each other… All human phenomena are simultaneously social and biological”.11




Marxism, feminism and transgender politics – International Socialism


----------



## 8ball (Jan 25, 2018)

elbows said:


> I loved the first article, and I do not recognise the idea that its implications can be safely contained via the conclusion that it just shows 'exceptions which prove the rule'.



I would disagree there.  Firstly due to the rarity of such cases, and if you take any of these cases, let’s say the case of the man who had fathered several children before they found he also had a womb, that does not change the fact of the functioning part of his reproductive anatomy.  He was identified as a man, lived as a man, fathered children as a man.  The genetics of his cells and how this happens when embryos fuse is really interesting, but I think it’s “biology geek” interesting as opposed to saying
much about social relations.

So I don’t think fascinating (and rare) cases such as this are really challenging the idea of biological sex, especially in terms of reproduction (which is a very important point in terms of feminism), as being a ‘spectrum’.

But if you think I am missing something important, I’m listening.

Accepting people who don’t fit the usual pattern of things doesn’t need to mean denying there is a usual pattern to things.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 25, 2018)

Sorry, SWP I ken! And with that jobbie left on the threads, I bid y'all a good night!


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 26, 2018)

bimble said:


> krek this is not the thread for you then.


.


----------



## bimble (Jan 26, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Openly admitting to taking the piss when challenged for posting a link to a random tumblr...
> 
> Why is anyone expected to ignore that?



Of course i was taking the piss out of that list of 732 gender identities. Why is it not ok to do that are they sacred or something?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2018)

bimble said:


> Of course i was taking the piss out of that list of 732 gender identities. Why is it not ok to do that are they sacred or something?


You're really shit at taking the piss out of things: where you should be class you're crass instead


----------



## bimble (Jan 26, 2018)

smokedout said:


> In 2016 there were just over 9.1 million children in the UK over 3 and under 16.  The number of people from that age group referred to the Tavistock was 819.  That's one in 12,000 children.  Of these 32 children under 15 received hormone blockers on the early intervention pathway.  I can't find the number for 15 year old but there were 254 referrals in this age group.  Even if we assume they were all given hormone blockers this puts the number of under 16s given hormones blockers at one in 35,000.  Most people will never meet a kid this has happened to.  A large secondary school could expect to see one  every 35 years.  Children are not being 'transed' by anyone, they are trans, like you are, and the evidence so far shows that social transition, hormone blockers and being supported in their acquired gender by their family has very positive outcomes.
> 
> These figures are way below even the most conservative estimate of the trans population amongst adults.  If there is a crisis it's that so many trans children are not being diagnosed or given any support.



You might find this interesting, some different figures from California:
When kids come in saying they are transgender (or no gender), these doctors try to help

The leading clinic there is run by the man who you quoted earlier, who used the twin study. He advocates age 14 as the cutoff point, says you should have made your mind up by then which gender you are, so hormone blockers should start long before than to give you time.

And whilst that list on tumblr might look silly its disingenuous to suggest those ideas are not changing the whole field, especially where young people are concerned.

Says the article:
 "The type of services being requested has also changed. Clinicians say they are no longer taken aback by youths seeking some kind of boutique treatment — often “just a touch of testosterone” for an androgynous, nonbinary identity.

“It’s the children who are now leading us,” said Diane Ehrensaft, the director of mental health for the clinic. “They’re coming in and telling us, ‘I’m no gender.’ Or they’re saying, ‘I identify as gender nonbinary.’ Or ‘I’m a little bit of this and a little bit of that. I’m a unique gender, I’m transgender. I’m a rainbow kid, I’m boy-girl, I’m everything.’ In fact, the entire medical field is playing catch-up.."


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 26, 2018)

bimble said:


> Things are changing fast,* kids are going on tumblr and identifying as trans for reasons totally different from what might have motivated folks years ago*, I hope its ok to acknowledge this.



What reasons were people giving years ago, and what is changing do you think?



Miranda Yardley said:


> I think you do misunderstand me. The point I was making is that I think the backlash will come from* ordinary people*. I specifically mentioned concerns over the way children are being transed.



_Ordinary people?_ Are we here not ordinary people? What other kinds of people are there then? _Special people? _Who are they?



Miranda Yardley said:


> Like I said, I've been doing this for decades, so no *I'm not changing my language for you or anyone else*.



So you wouldn't mind people saying poofter, nigger, bitch, all those words we now consider taboo and / or offensive for very good reasons? Who else _doesn't have to change their language_ for anyone else's politics?



Nigel Irritable said:


> Rod Liddle another newfound friend and ally of the “gender critical”. Very principled of the “feminists” in his piece to give him quotes attacking Momentum and comparing trans people to the Pedophile Information Exchange.
> Women come last in Labour’s deranged victim hierarchy | The Spectator



Great line from that article: _''And there’s a certain pleasure to be gained from seeing the likes of Linda Bellos and Germaine Greer comprehensively outvictimed.'' _- what a super feminist ally Rod Liddle is, eh?


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 26, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> _Ordinary people?_ Are we here not ordinary people? What other kinds of people are there then? _Special people? _Who are they?



People who can now get away with saying "_trannies, trannies, trannies_", it would appear.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 26, 2018)

krtek a houby said:


> People who can now get away with saying "_trannies, trannies, trannies_", it would appear.



I thought it was acceptable for minority groups to reclaim words used against them?


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 26, 2018)

Is it though? Acceptable, I mean? Or is it _understandable_, but still not really that acceptable really? Not all people represented by that kind of stuff agree with it or appreciate it.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 26, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I thought it was acceptable for minority groups to reclaim words used against them?



Hm. Not sure. I remember reading Richard Pryor's autobiography in which he completely regretted his use of the n-word. His visits to Africa led him to an epiphany of sorts

Richard Pryor On Why He Stopped Using The N-Word


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 26, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> Is it though? Acceptable, I mean? Or is it _understandable_, but still not really that acceptable really? Not all people represented by that kind of stuff agree with it or appreciate it.



So people referring to themselves as queer is unacceptable, in your view?


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 26, 2018)

_Queer _has developed new connotations more recently though, hasn't it? Nowadays _Queer _doesn't only mean homosexual, it pretty much means anyone whose sexuality deviates from some notional cis/het/missionary norm. So it's a term almost anyone can claim if they want, or can be used on almost anyone, and it's probably losing its power.

William S Burroughs used it as the title of a book so as to shock, was he also looking for solidarity? I don't know but I doubt it from the tone of the book. I think he _was _looking for condemnation. I mention this because it's a famous and permanently-etched cultural use of the word. I don't like it much, maybe I'm old enough to feel the scorn in it. So yes, I personally would rather there were another word to use without the negative history and connotations.

Luckily there are other words to use without that negativity attached and I myself would tend to use them.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 26, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> _Queer _has developed new connotations more recently though, hasn't it? Nowadays _Queer _doesn't only mean homosexual, it pretty much means anyone whose sexuality deviates from some notional cis/het/missionary norm. So it's a term almost anyone can claim if they want, or can be used on almost anyone, and it's probably losing its power.
> 
> William S Burroughs used it as the title of a book so as to shock, was he also looking for solidarity? I don't know but I doubt it from the tone of the book. I think he _was _looking for condemnation. I mention this because it's a famous and permanently-etched cultural use of the word. I don't like it much, maybe I'm old enough to feel the scorn in it. So yes, I personally would rather there were another word to use without the negative history and connotations.
> 
> Luckily there are other words to use without that negativity attached and I myself would tend to use them.



But you don’t condemn those who do?


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 26, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> So people referring to themselves as queer is unacceptable, in your view?



Personally, I had enough of people calling me just that over the years, so no, it's not acceptable in *my* book. Others will disagree, of course.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 26, 2018)

*queer (adj.)*

c. 1500, "strange, peculiar, eccentric," from Scottish, perhaps from Low German (Brunswick dialect) queer "oblique, off-center," related to German quer "oblique, perverse, odd," from Old High German twerh "oblique," from PIE root *terkw- "to twist."

What I regret is that this original meaning has been buried under generations of poison. It was a great word with a long and venerable history and it's been poisoned in a few generations by ignorant scumbags.



Magnus McGinty said:


> But you don’t condemn those who do?



Condemn to what? I'm not sure what form condemnation would take and what that would even mean. I don't like people using terms that have hateful connotations, even in jest, in irony or in some misguided sense of solidarity, so no, I don't like _Queer_, just as I don't like _Nigger _or _Bitch _or _Chav_, whoever uses it or why. Ugly words, used for ugly reasons, and no amount of re-appropriation takes the stench out of words like those.

For better or worse though, I'm not in charge of humanity.


----------



## bimble (Jan 26, 2018)

You seem to be  missing the point that this is what people reclaiming words used against them is all about?


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 26, 2018)

bimble said:


> You seem to be  missing the point that this is what people reclaiming words used against them is all about?



I'm not missing the point. I understand why people do it. I don't like it and I don't do it, though there are a number of gendered and racialised and class insults that have been used against me over the years. I don't personally think it's an OK thing to do, I think it's just perpetuates the harm of the term, I don't believe it's any kind of antidote.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 26, 2018)

could this get any more boring?


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 26, 2018)

Since you're here though, bimble,



bimble said:


> Things are changing fast, *kids are going on tumblr and identifying as trans for reasons totally different from what might have motivated folks years ago*, I hope its ok to acknowledge this.





mojo pixy said:


> What reasons were people giving years ago, and what is changing do you think?


----------



## bimble (Jan 26, 2018)

mojo pixy did you read the article I posted a link to just above , from California’s leading gender clinic, where kids are going to the doctors saying they are all kinds of non binary and want just a touch of testosterone etc? I mean that sort of thing is new.
here it is again When kids come in saying they are transgender (or no gender), these doctors try to help


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 26, 2018)

California's leading gender clinic. I see. That must be a fairly exclusive clientele then, so is it that rich californians are representative of something, or are they just the most indulged and pampered (and medicated) humans on the entire planet?

It is new though, the relentless march of scientific progress and cultural change together will ensure that novelty continues to be the case. Railing against it is one way of dealing with it. If we're swapping deep insights


----------



## bimble (Jan 26, 2018)

You asked me why i said that something different is going on now than it was decades ago. I've tried to explain. If you don't think those kids are 'really trans' that's another conversation isn't it.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 26, 2018)

whats inherently wrong about wanting a touch of something cus one feels andro?? why is that a problem??

asking for a friend


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 26, 2018)

what does 'really trans' mean?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 26, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> whats inherently wrong about wanting a touch of something cus one feels andro?? why is that a problem??
> 
> asking for a friend



I guess if these things just worked for a day and had no major health downsides, then fine.

When it's kids who are below the age where they are not even considered able to legally consent to sex with people their own age, though, and where these things *don't* just change things for a short time with no downsides, I think there is a duty of care to consider.

I think it takes a very market-led healthcare system to consider it appropriate to allow the children to 'lead' on this.


----------



## bimble (Jan 26, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> what does 'really trans' mean?


Ye i don't know, that's why I put it in ' 's.
Mojo pixy was suggesting that maybe those kids in California getting treatment are just a bunch of 'overly indulged pampered and over-medicated' people, that's why i asked.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 26, 2018)

8ball said:


> I guess if these things just worked for a day and had no major health downsides, then fine.
> 
> When it's kids who are below the age where they are not even considered able to legally consent to sex with people their own age, though, and where these things *don't* just change things for a short time with no downsides, I think there is a duty of care to consider.
> 
> I think it takes a very market-led healthcare system to consider it appropriate to allow the children to 'lead' on this.




is a very touchy subject init


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 26, 2018)

bimble said:


> Ye i don't know, that's why I put it in ' 's.
> Mojo pixy was suggesting that maybe those kids in California getting treatment are just a bunch of 'overly indulged pampered and over-medicated' people, that's why i asked.




I dunno, but I reckon you gotta take any stats from america with a pinch of salt just cus their healthcare system is so radically different


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 26, 2018)

the whole kids thing is hard tho cus if this shit was all over back in the day I'd not have gone to the dr and asked for stuff and got laughed at, probably woulda jumped at it, i gotta go to work me lifts here


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2018)

bimble said:


> mojo pixy did you read the article I posted a link to just above , from California’s leading gender clinic, where kids are going to the doctors saying they are all kinds of non binary and want just a touch of testosterone etc? I mean that sort of thing is new.
> here it is again When kids come in saying they are transgender (or no gender), these doctors try to help





mojo pixy said:


> What reasons were people giving years ago, and what is changing do you think?


----------



## co-op (Jan 26, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> could this get any more boring?



Has it ever occurred to you that other posters might not have entertaining you as their top priority?


----------



## co-op (Jan 26, 2018)

8ball said:


> I think it takes a very market-led healthcare system to consider it appropriate to allow the children to 'lead' on this.



Anything which demands large amounts of surgery over several years and then follow-up multi-meds for the rest of someone's life is a hugely lucrative opportunity for a private healthcare system. When the likes of Cosmo or Vogue embrace transgender - as they have, with great enthusiasm - it sure ain't for political reasons revolving around personal liberation, that's obvious.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 26, 2018)

Oh. Wow. You actually believe that do you? That's as mad as any conspiracy theory I've ever heard. Don't extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

I've not had any surgery (like many trans people) and no one is exactly going out of their way to offer it to me, and the drugs I take are existing drugs, that have been around for years, that are pretty much cheap as chips.

Also you know that a fraction of 1% of people transition, whether that be socially or medically, or whatever. Hardly a major market opportunity.


----------



## elbows (Jan 26, 2018)

co-op said:


> Anything which demands large amounts of surgery over several years and then follow-up multi-meds for the rest of someone's life is a hugely lucrative opportunity for a private healthcare system. When the likes of Cosmo or Vogue embrace transgender - as they have, with great enthusiasm - it sure ain't for political reasons revolving around personal liberation, that's obvious.



Vogue etc have various reasons for wanting to be seen to be moving with the times. Transphobic dinosaur is not this years look.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2018)

co-op said:


> Has it ever occurred to you that other posters might not have entertaining you as their top priority?


It's up in the top ten


----------



## co-op (Jan 26, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Oh. Wow. You actually believe that do you? That's as mad as any conspiracy theory I've ever heard. Don't extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?
> 
> I've not had any surgery (like many trans people) and no one is exactly going out of their way to offer it to me, and the drugs I take are existing drugs, that have been around for years, that are pretty much cheap as chips.
> 
> Also you know that a fraction of 1% of people transition, whether that be socially or medically, or whatever. Hardly a major market opportunity.



It’s not mad, it’s a statement of the obvious. A profit-seeking medical system is going to exploit whatever’s out there. The right 1% can generate plenty of money. What’s controversial about this?


----------



## co-op (Jan 26, 2018)

elbows said:


> Vogue etc have various reasons for wanting to be seen to be moving with the times. Transphobic dinosaur is not this years look.



I’m sure you’re right that this kind of branding/image stuff is far more important.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2018)

co-op said:


> It’s not mad, it’s a statement of the obvious. A profit-seeking medical system is going to exploit whatever’s out there. The right 1% can generate plenty of money. What’s controversial about this?


The links you're making in putting this crock of shit together 

Name me one trans billionaire


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 26, 2018)

co-op said:


> It’s not mad, it’s a statement of the obvious. A profit-seeking medical system is going to exploit whatever’s out there. The right 1% can generate plenty of money. What’s controversial about this?


Flat earthers say that a flat earth is a statement of the obvious. You need to evidence claims not just speculate wildly based on nothing.

I reckon if the medical industry wanted to exploit trans people, then therapy for life and the corresponding medication would make them more money.


----------



## crossthebreeze (Jan 26, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> The links you're making in putting this crock of shit together
> 
> Name me one trans billionaire


Martine Rothblatt


----------



## crossthebreeze (Jan 26, 2018)

crossthebreeze said:


> Martine Rothblatt


actually maybe multi millionaire not billionaire - valued at $340 million last year apparently


----------



## co-op (Jan 26, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Flat earthers say that a flat earth is a statement of the obvious. You need to evidence claims not just speculate wildly based on nothing.
> 
> I reckon if the medical industry wanted to exploit trans people, then therapy for life and the corresponding medication would make them more money.



I don’t need evidence to state that a for-profit medical system will seek to exploit a profit opportunity; its axiomatic. To be honest I don’t get your reaction to this - you’re talking about lifelong medication in your post here.


----------



## crossthebreeze (Jan 26, 2018)

Jennifer Pritzker - $1.79 billion (who according to Pink News "amassed her money form private wealth management" ie inherited it)


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 26, 2018)

People who have transplants and need medication for the rest of their lives are totes just victims of Big Pharma and shouldn't give in and should just die cuz that'll show 'em.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 26, 2018)

To be honest, the ethics of modern medicine and the implications of Big Pharma are complex and milt-faceted and do not merit being boiled down into the simplistic soundbites both parties are employing here.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 26, 2018)

co-op said:


> I don’t need evidence to state that a for-profit medical system will seek to exploit a profit opportunity; its axiomatic. To be honest I don’t get your reaction to this - you’re talking about lifelong medication in your post here.


Well if that was all you said then I'm not even sure why you felt the need to say it.
This is what you actually said, or have you decided to retract your previous statement!


co-op said:


> Anything which demands large amounts of surgery over several years and then follow-up multi-meds for the rest of someone's life is a hugely lucrative opportunity for a private healthcare system. When the likes of Cosmo or Vogue embrace transgender - as they have, with great enthusiasm - it sure ain't for political reasons revolving around personal liberation, that's obvious.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 26, 2018)

kabbes said:


> To be honest, the ethics of modern medicine and the implications of Big Pharma are complex and milt-faceted and do not merit being boiled down into the simplistic soundbites both parties are employing here.


Both parties? I'm trying to get her to show her working on this. So not both parties.


----------



## co-op (Jan 26, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Well if that was all you said then I'm not even sure why you felt the need to say it.
> This is what you actually said, or have you decided to retract your previous statement!



I was responding to a post which quoted doctors in the US talking about how their treatment was in effect being led by the demands or desires of their youthful patients and pointing out that there’s money to be made in indulging those desires and demands so there’s no motive at all to question them and obvious motives for not doing so.

It’s clearly not a suggestion that every gender-related medical need is fraudulent but I’m getting used to this sort of response.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 26, 2018)

co-op said:


> I was responding to a post which quoted doctors in the US talking about how their treatment was in effect being led by the demands or desires of their youthful patients and pointing out that there’s money to be made in indulging those desires and demands so there’s no motive at all to question them and obvious motives for not doing so.
> 
> It’s clearly not a suggestion that every gender-related medical need is fraudulent but I’m getting used to this sort of response.



What? Asking for evidence when someone makes a bullshit claim? Sorry but that's what usually happens on Urban.


----------



## co-op (Jan 26, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> What? Asking for evidence when someone makes a bullshit claim? Sorry but that's what usually happens on Urban.



I think we must be at cross purposes because I don’t know what you’re on about.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 26, 2018)

kabbes said:


> To be honest, the ethics of modern medicine and the implications of Big Pharma are complex and milt-faceted and do not merit being boiled down into the simplistic soundbites both parties are employing here.



The point being it's an absurd distractionary argument being fielded that has absolutely no bearing on anything else we're talking about, and why on earth we should be debating whether medical companies make money from trans people or not, it's utterly banal unless we're going to start bringing up every industry that makes money off people full stop.


----------



## co-op (Jan 26, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> The point being it's an absurd distractionary argument being fielded that has absolutely no bearing on anything else we're talking about, and why on earth we should be debating whether medical companies make money from trans people or not, it's utterly banal unless we're going to start bringing up every industry that makes money off people full stop.



It came up on another posters post, not mine. There’s a profit motive involved, whys that so irrelevant? Why can’t I comment? I’m really not understanding this reaction.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 26, 2018)

Cuz it's boring. It's not going to change that trans people exist and that some want to transition medically in some way. It's not going to make the nasty people go away.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 26, 2018)

co-op said:


> It came up on another posters post, not mine. There’s a profit motive involved, whys that so irrelevant? Why can’t I comment? I’m really not understanding this reaction.


It's a distraction because it's not about trans it's about big pharma, but it does appear to be a suggestion that people are being encouraged to become trans by big pharma so they can make a profit. I see no evidence for this, so have you got some?


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 26, 2018)

And my point that the drugs, which are cheap, which big pharma will not be making a huge profit from,  and that far from huge amounts of surgery being necessary, many, maybe even most, trans people don't have surgery at all. And what is on offer is often facial surgery. Not just trans people have facial surgery.

You ignored all that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> And my point that the drugs, which are cheap, which big pharma will not be making a huge profit them, and that far from huge amounts of surgery being necessary, many, maybe even most, trans people don't have surgery at all. And what is on offer is often facial surgery. Not just trans people have facial surgery.


Indeed not, as a survey of the contents pages of jama facial plastic surgery confirms


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 26, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> Cuz it's boring. .


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 26, 2018)

told you it was fucking boring.


----------



## elbows (Jan 26, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> told you it was fucking boring.



The medical industry could make a lot of money selling pills to people who are bored by this thread.

I probably need a nice holiday from this thread. Earlier I was reading in the news about how Howard the griffon vulture surprised everyone by laying an egg, and this thread has been so chocked full of wibble that I thought of it and some of the egg-related boundaries that have been on offer here.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 26, 2018)

We Need To Talk, the TERF speaking tour, have a statement out insisting that they are going to go ahead with a meeting in Dublin. The letter telling them to fuck off now has somewhere over 1,200 signatories from the Irish feminist movement. My guess is it won’t go ahead and that they are simply trolling the natives. If they do try to go ahead there will be one hell of a row and no doubt they will blame “trans activists” for the consequences of them aggravating the entire feminist movement in the next country over.


----------



## KevBoring (Jan 26, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> segregate yerselves from life



Speaking of which, aren't you supposed to be dying or somethin, Pongalong?

Takin your bleedin time, aren't you?


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 26, 2018)

Classy. 

Post reported.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jan 26, 2018)

KevBoring said:


> Speaking of which, aren't you supposed to be dying or somethin, Pongalong?
> 
> Takin your bleedin time, aren't you?



Wow. That's rude af.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 27, 2018)

KevBoring said:


> Speaking of which, aren't you supposed to be dying or somethin, Pongalong?
> 
> Takin your bleedin time, aren't you?


Who is this then? I wonder whether this is your first post on this thread


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jan 27, 2018)

I think I should say that what led me here was the reaction to/subsequent treatment of Helen Steele during/after the anarchist bookfair.
I don't know how we progress at all, once you/one make enemies of people like her.
​


mojo pixy said:


> Since you're here though, bimble,





> bimble said: ↑
> Things are changing fast, kids are going on tumblr and identifying as trans for reasons totally different from what might have motivated folks years ago, I hope its ok to acknowledge this.





mojo pixy said:


> What reasons were people giving years ago, and what is changing do you think?



I can tell you my worries, if that's helpful?
My daughter is 12. She has friends who are *just* being 12 but she also has quite a number who're constantly switching what they feel comfortable with in terms of their 'gender identity' - whatever that means to them.

The very obvious change is *the internet* - whether it leads you to the right place, or just the place that's right *right now* has got to be factored in, doesn't it?
Honestly, I _am_ worried.


----------



## Raheem (Jan 27, 2018)

sheothebudworths said:


> she also has quite a number who're constantly switching what they feel comfortable with in terms of their 'gender identity' - whatever that means to them.



If you don't know what it means to them, doesn't that make this a story about nothing?


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jan 27, 2018)

Raheem said:


> If you don't know what it means to them, doesn't that make this a story about nothing?



You can take it to mean that if you like, I know the children. I don't have anything more sensible to say than that.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 27, 2018)

sheothebudworths said:


> I think I should say that what led me here was the reaction to/subsequent treatment of Helen Steele during/after the anarchist bookfair.
> I don't know how we progress at all, once you/one make enemies of people like her.
> ​
> 
> ...



It just sounds like your daughter is probably clever, thoughtful, and as such has found favour with others in her school who are similar- the geeks always find each other. In my day it was sexuality we were going WHATEVER GOES with. And we also liked what we called "gender bending" too, but we paid lip service to that really, it was just about painting our male friend's nails then. This is what young people do. 

When I was 12 though, it was cider us council estate kids were into, and smoking though I didn't like that so much. I did the gender bending a bit later. Latter probably healthier


----------



## bimble (Jan 27, 2018)

Raheem said:


> If you don't know what it means to them, doesn't that make this a story about nothing?


If you don't agree with Scientology does that mean the ideology that scientologists ascribe to doesn't exist?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 27, 2018)

bimble said:


> If you don't agree with Scientology does that mean the ideology that scientologists ascribe to doesn't exist?


You don't know what ascribe means


----------



## bimble (Jan 27, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> You don't know what ascribe means


oops. I meant subscribe didn't it. Haven't had coffee yet.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jan 27, 2018)

sheothebudworths said:


> I think I should say that what led me here was the reaction to/subsequent treatment of Helen Steele during/after the anarchist bookfair.
> I don't know how we progress at all, once you/one make enemies of people like her.​I can tell you my worries, if that's helpful?
> My daughter is 12. She has friends who are *just* being 12 but she also has quite a number who're constantly switching what they feel comfortable with in terms of their 'gender identity' - whatever that means to them.
> 
> ...



Sheo what is it that worries you? Isn't it fairly normal for young people to experiment with sexuality and identity. 12 does seem young but kids are growing up a lot faster these days. Is there any behaviour that you see from your daughter's friends that you see as destructive or unhealthy?


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 27, 2018)

sheothebudworths said:


> I can tell you my worries, if that's helpful?​My daughter is 12. She has friends who are *just* being 12 but she also has quite a number who're constantly switching what they feel comfortable with in terms of their 'gender identity' - whatever that means to them.
> 
> The very obvious change is *the internet* - whether it leads you to the right place, or just the place that's right *right now* has got to be factored in, doesn't it?
> Honestly, I _am_ worried.



To an extent I see what you mean, and I don't want to sound flippant, but what exactly are you worried _about?_ That the kids won't understand the world you're familiar with, or that they're in the process of making a world you don't understand / feel comfortable with?

It's been said on this thread before but I agree, I think there's quite a lot of generation gap stuff going on with worries like these .. which I may in ways even share, but on reflection I can't help feeling my worries about the kids are my problem, not theirs.

That's a gut reaction though, not a fully-examined rational position.


----------



## bimble (Jan 27, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Also you know that a fraction of 1% of people transition, whether that be socially or medically, or whatever. Hardly a major market opportunity.



I think its probably a good idea to acknowledge that nobody knows the stats on this, for now. 
According to this for example, the percentage of young people in America identifying as trans is somewhere between 1.3 and 3.2% . As it says ' clearly more research is needed in this area'.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 27, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> I think there's quite a lot of generation gap stuff going on with worries like these .. which I may in ways even share, but on reflection I can't help feeling my worries about the kids are my problem, not theirs.


Leaving aside the issue of transgender for a minute, I think it’s worth noting that just because things evolve, this doesn’t mean all societies are morally neutrally equivalent or just as good as each other.  It doesn’t mean that there isn’t some accumulated wisdom that is worth hanging onto as well as the hang-ups that need discarding.  Humans are incredibly adaptable and plastic in their brain structure but that doesn’t mean there aren’t fundamentals that will always lead to wellbeing on the one hand or anxiety on the other.  

The fact is that levels of anxiety in the Anglosphere in particular are rising at epidemic speeds and _something_ is causing that.  It’s not fuddy-duddy to try to investigate the root causes and draw conclusions based on sound psychological research.  The evidence so far is that the tenets of consumerism create psychological tensions that are extremely problematic.  This doesn’t exist in isolation, it’s a whole social context.  To the extent that the youth are lured into chasing a shiny consumerist individualist prize, it is thus somewhat incumbent on older, wiser heads to pull them back from the cliff edge.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 27, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> It just sounds like your daughter is probably clever, thoughtful, and as such has found favour with others in her school who are similar- the geeks always find each other. In my day it was sexuality we were going WHATEVER GOES with. And we also liked what we called "gender bending" too, but we paid lip service to that really, it was just about painting our male friend's nails then. This is what young people do.
> 
> When I was 12 though, it was cider us council estate kids were into, and smoking though I didn't like that so much. I did the gender bending a bit later. Latter probably healthier


i was always too scared to even go there in case i was outed. I was really paranoid about people finding out that i was - didn't have a word for it then - but what i now know is trans. 
I had a friend - my best friend for a couple of years (just recently got back in touch and he's out as gay now and looking rather butch these days  )  - and he used to feminise his look plenty under the guise of being a new romantic. We used to go to Topshop looking at blouses, but i would never dare to show any interest for myself. When i was 17 i went round to my neighbour's house - there was him and a mate and two girls in there, drinking, having a bit of a party, planning to go to a club in town. One of the girls told me she wanted to take me upstairs and dress me up and put make up on me. I was absolutely terrified of doing that so i said no. Madness really, i could probably have come out in that situation, but unfortunately i'd been made to think i was a complete freak and that i just had to purge all that from my mind.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 27, 2018)

bimble said:


> I think its probably a good idea to acknowledge that nobody knows the stats on this, for now.
> According to this for example, the percentage of young people in America identifying as trans is somewhere between 1.3 and 3.2% . As it says ' clearly more research is needed in this area'.


That's not completely true. There has been a lot of research - results vary among different surveys due to different definitions but if you're talking about binary transgender people - people most likely to change gender and want surgery it comes out fairly consistently as between 0.6% in countries where there's low acceptance and up to 1.3% in countries where there is high acceptance. If you add in non-binary and other trans identities then, yeah, it will be higher.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 27, 2018)

bimble said:


> If you don't agree with Scientology does that mean the ideology that scientologists ascribe to doesn't exist?


Bimble, mate. Just stick your fingers in your ears and sing a song, would have same effect but wouldn't be winding us up so much


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 27, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Leaving aside the issue of transgender for a minute, I think it’s worth noting that just because things evolve, this doesn’t mean all societies are morally neutrally equivalent or just as good as each other.  It doesn’t mean that there isn’t some accumulated wisdom that is worth hanging onto as well as the hang-ups that need discarding.  Humans are incredibly adaptable and plastic in their brain structure but that doesn’t mean there aren’t fundamentals that will always lead to wellbeing on the one hand or anxiety on the other.
> 
> The fact is that levels of anxiety in the Anglosphere in particular are rising at epidemic speeds and _something_ is causing that.  It’s not fuddy-duddy to try to investigate the root causes and draw conclusions based on sound psychological research.  The evidence so far is that the tenets of consumerism create psychological tensions that are extremely problematic.  This doesn’t exist in isolation, it’s a whole social context.  To the extent that the youth are lured into chasing a shiny consumerist individualist prize, it is thus somewhat incumbent on older, wiser heads to pull them back from the cliff edge.



I'm not sure _cliff edge_ is a fair characterisation of where 'we' (society in general) are. Loading this trans phenomenon down with all the negative baggage it seems to be getting is completely understandable, something similar happens with every new generation, but looking back over the last hundred years or so, is this necessarily more shocking or troubling than other new phenomena that have taken place and also been condemned widely at the time as the decline of youth and society? Women with short hair and men's clothing (1920s), Nazism (1930s), rock n roll (50s), hippies (60s), punk (70s), E culture (80s+) etc?

I'm really not sure.

EtA all these are not morally equivalent of course, but what they all are is examples of huge social change. Some ended up bad, some not so bad, but till trans people are rounding up cis people and killing them I'm not convinced this particular social change is the disaster yet that some apparently want it to be.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 27, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Leaving aside the issue of transgender for a minute, I think it’s worth noting that just because things evolve, this doesn’t mean all societies are morally neutrally equivalent or just as good as each other.  It doesn’t mean that there isn’t some accumulated wisdom that is worth hanging onto as well as the hang-ups that need discarding.  Humans are incredibly adaptable and plastic in their brain structure but that doesn’t mean there aren’t fundamentals that will always lead to wellbeing on the one hand or anxiety on the other.
> 
> The fact is that levels of anxiety in the Anglosphere in particular are rising at epidemic speeds and _something_ is causing that.  It’s not fuddy-duddy to try to investigate the root causes and draw conclusions based on sound psychological research.  The evidence so far is that the tenets of consumerism create psychological tensions that are extremely problematic.  This doesn’t exist in isolation, it’s a whole social context.  To the extent that the youth are lured into chasing a shiny consumerist individualist prize, it is thus somewhat incumbent on older, wiser heads to pull them back from the cliff edge.



I remember experimenting with sexuality etc as being a relatively anxiety-free time once I found people on my wavelength. Just wondering how you think this would tie in with younger kids today taking it that bit further ? Not that i am disagreeing with anything you have written, I worry about that too. I prescribe among other things lots of fresh air and tackling munroes when my son is a bit older. And certainly steering him away from social media but that will probably prove to be difficult. Some nasty stuff flying around in there, bullying etc. I hear about what goes on with kids at the academy where I stay and it sounds far worse than anything I had to go through, I also wonder how much this ties in with management in our workplaces moving towards a more bullying style from the 90's onwards, whether that is having an effect on the kids too at school. The pressure to meet targets being passed down .  I know it's a problem in social care anyway, don't know so much about schools.

Digressing loads there 


Not to mention incoherent, time to hit the pool i think.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 27, 2018)

co-op said:


> It came up on another posters post, not mine. There’s a profit motive involved, whys that so irrelevant? Why can’t I comment? I’m really not understanding this reaction.



If you mean my post, then there was an element of implication that there could be some exploration of potential market opportunities involved in the way these children are being treated - though I wasn’t thinking in term of major transitioning or surgery so much as responding to the prior comments regarding stuff like, for example ‘a touch of testosterone for an “andro look”’ - I could imagine an opportunity for consultancy services to the rich and pampered here - as with things like botox, it’s the services rather than than the drugs that create the profit margins.

My main point, though, was about the kind of healthcare system that puts a “customer is king” and consumer choice ethos above the care of potentially vulnerable minors, rather than the broadbrush “Big Medicine Making Profit From People With Particular Condition” issue, which as kabbes said, is a much bigger topic, and as others have said, probably a distraction on this thead (while perhaps worthy of discussion elsewhere).

Hope that clears things up a little.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 27, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> I'm not sure _cliff edge_ is a fair characterisation of where 'we' (society in general) are. Loading this trans phenomenon down with all the negative baggage it seems to be getting is completely understandable, something similar happens with every new generation, but looking back over the last hundred years or so, is this necessarily more shocking or troubling than other new phenomena that have taken place and also been condemned widely at the time as the decline of youth and society? Women with short hair and men's clothing (1920s), Nazism (1930s), rock n roll (50s), hippies (60s), punk (70s), E culture (80s+) etc?
> 
> I'm really not sure.
> 
> EtA all these are not morally equivalent of course, but what they all are is examples of huge social change. Some ended up bad, some not so bad, but till trans people are rounding up cis people and killing them I'm not convinced this particular social change is the disaster yet that some apparently want it to be.


Not sure nazism a huge social change in 1930s uk


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 27, 2018)

No OK, not huge specifically in the UK but it and fascism more generally were big in some places and did gain a certain following both here and in the US. We could add communism too, another movement that has inspired plenty of pearl clutching as the years passed. The world still hasn't ended and I don't think the blossoming of trans people is a sign of end days either. Men and women and everyone else will survive and hopefully thrive.

EtA
FWIW I actually think this will all lead to somewhere positive in the end. I believe this trans phenomenon is in part a by-product of increasing sexual equality, and I believe sexual equality will continue to grow and improve because of all this, not fail.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 27, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> but till trans people are rounding up cis people and killing them....



Who have you been speaking to... that's not supposed to be public yet 


Did I hear someone mention Nazis? 
How the Nazis derailed the medical advances around sexual reassignment surgery


----------



## smokedout (Jan 27, 2018)

8ball said:


> My main point, though, was about the kind of healthcare system that puts a “customer is king” and consumer choice ethos above the care of potentially vulnerable minors,



I'm not sure this is what's going on, or at least not to a greater extent that it is with other treatments within privatised healthcare.  Everything I've read suggests these protocols have come about because of such high rates of suicide attempts and depression/anxiety amongst trans kids.  Early evidence (and anecdotal reports from both patients and doctors} suggests a supportive transition, with hormone blockers, has positive outcomes whilst attempts at reparative therapy have shown to have tragic results.



> *METHODS: *
> A total of 55 young transgender adults (22 transwomen and 33 transmen) who had received puberty suppression during adolescence were assessed 3 times: before the start of puberty suppression (mean age, 13.6 years), when cross-sex hormones were introduced (mean age, 16.7 years), and at least 1 year after gender reassignment surgery (mean age, 20.7 years). Psychological functioning (GD, body image, global functioning, depression, anxiety, emotional and behavioral problems) and objective (social and educational/professional functioning) and subjective (quality of life, satisfaction with life and happiness) well-being were investigated.
> 
> *RESULTS: *
> ...



Young adult psychological outcome after puberty suppression and gender reassignment.  - PubMed - NCBI



> *RESULTS: *
> At baseline, GD adolescents showed poor functioning with a CGAS mean score of 57.7 ± 12.3. GD adolescents' global functioning improved significantly after 6 months of psychological support (CGAS mean score: 60.7 ± 12.5; P < 0.001). Moreover, GD adolescents receiving also puberty suppression had significantly better psychosocial functioning after 12 months of GnRHa (67.4 ± 13.9) compared with when they had received only psychological support (60.9 ± 12.2, P = 0.001).
> 
> *CONCLUSION: *
> Psychological support and puberty suppression were both associated with an improved global psychosocial functioning in GD adolescents. Both these interventions may be considered effective in the clinical management of psychosocial functioning difficulties in GD adolescents.



Psychological Support, Puberty Suppression, and Psychosocial Functioning in Adolescents with Gender Dysphoria.  - PubMed - NCBI



> *RESULTS: *
> Behavioral and emotional problems and depressive symptoms decreased, while general functioning improved significantly during puberty suppression. Feelings of anxiety and anger did not change between T0 and T1. While changes over time were equal for both sexes, compared with natal males, natal females were older when they started puberty suppression and showed more problem behavior at both T0 and T1. Gender dysphoria and body satisfaction did not change between T0 and T1. No adolescent withdrew from puberty suppression, and all started cross-sex hormone treatment, the first step of actual gender reassignment.
> 
> *CONCLUSION: *
> Puberty suppression may be considered a valuable contribution in the clinical management of gender dysphoria in adolescents.



Puberty suppression in adolescents with gender identity disorder: a prospective follow-up study.  - PubMed - NCBI

Given how sparingly this treatment is used would it be ethical to both ignore the above and the feelings of patients due to some ideological objection?


----------



## bimble (Jan 27, 2018)

mojo pixy eh what now? Young people being trans is a bit like being into rock n roll or being a hippie or a nazi? I thought you were of the opinion there's nothing ideological going on here at all really.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 27, 2018)

smokedout said:


> I'm not sure this is what's going on, or at least not to a greater extent that it is with other treatments within privatised healthcare.



Thanks for the considered post - I’ll def be taking a closer look at these links later.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 27, 2018)

bimble said:


> mojo pixy eh what now? Young people being trans is a bit like being into rock n roll or being a hippie or a nazi? I thought you were of the opinion there's nothing ideological going on here at all really.



Well I'm not sure I've stated that. Plus what's ideological about rock n roll? Cultural change is what I'm on about, cultural change roundly condemned by older generations. The decline of youth and society, disaster around the corner etc.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 27, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Who have you been speaking to... that's not supposed to be public yet
> 
> 
> Did I hear someone mention Nazis?
> How the Nazis derailed the medical advances around sexual reassignment surgery


It took 265 pages to bring up Nazis! Mind you we did get likened to fash earlier on.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 27, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Who have you been speaking to... that's not supposed to be public yet
> 
> 
> Did I hear someone mention Nazis?
> How the Nazis derailed the medical advances around sexual reassignment surgery



Not content with trampling over MLK day you decide to make Holocaust Memorial day all about how the Nazis affected trans too. At least the author of the piece had more sense.
FFS


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 27, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Not content with trampling over MLK day you decide to make Holocaust Memorial day all about how the Nazis affected trans too. At least the author of the piece had more sense.
> FFS


Be still, jerking knee.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 27, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Not content with trampling over MLK day you decide to make Holocaust Memorial day all about how the Nazis affected trans too. At least the author of the piece had more sense.
> FFS


Actually explain your logic here, is it a cross thread beef?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 27, 2018)

Yeah, how dare the day be used to remember the victims of the Nazis. 

Jesus, this fucking thread.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 27, 2018)

Searched holocaust memorial day and it does appear Sea Star used the piece(written by an author with sense) as a response to Mojo Pixi's  mention of Nazis and nowhere else today.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 27, 2018)

It's almost like mochasoul doesn't respond to things in this thread in good faith.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 27, 2018)

I'm pretty sure homosexual and transgender people were also hated and killed by Nazis anyway. Holocaust remembrance day belongs to them too.


----------



## bimble (Jan 27, 2018)

Plenty of holocaust memorial day to go round. Please let’s not fight about this.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 27, 2018)

So not sorry, VP. Other people are talking about Bosnia and Rwanda. People who actually died. It's hard to be aware of how people got experimented on by the Nazis and then hearing moaning about they didn't choose to do those for the benefit of another group of people.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 27, 2018)

Quotes would help, I was sure I only had one rum


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 27, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Not content with trampling over MLK day you decide to make Holocaust Memorial day all about how the Nazis affected trans too. At least the author of the piece had more sense.
> FFS


I've no idea what you're talking about 

Aside: I didn't even know today was Holocaust memorial Day. That's not why I posted. What the fuck has MLK got to do with this I have no idea, I never mentioned him, or his day.

I posted it because there seems to be a lot of talk about trans being some new thing. Plus I thought people might be interested.

But hey, if there's a stick to hit me with, however tenuous, why not, eh? Lucky I'm no longer giving any shits. I just think it's fucking hilarious now.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 27, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> I've no idea what you're talking about



Oh when do you ever?


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 27, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> So not sorry, VP. Other people are talking about Bosnia and Rwanda. People who actually died. It's hard to be aware of how people got experimented on by the Nazis and then hearing moaning about they didn't choose to do those for the benefit of another group of people.


So you're ok with LGBT people being murdered by the Nazis. Just so I know.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 27, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Oh when do you ever?


Jesus


----------



## elbows (Jan 27, 2018)

I found the article interesting and I have no idea why anyone would take issue with a story about nazis burning research.

Actually I do have some ideas why but its almost obsolete to go there at this point.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 27, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Not content with trampling over MLK day you decide to make Holocaust Memorial day all about how the Nazis affected trans too. At least the author of the piece had more sense.
> FFS


Is mlk day a uk thing now?


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 27, 2018)

Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust - Wikipedia

Trans people were murdered alongside gay people by the way.



> On November 11, 1933, the Hamburg City Administration asked the Head of Police to “pay special attention to transvestites” and to “deliver them to the concentration camps.”. In 1938 the _Institute of Forensic Medicine_ recommended that the “phenomena of transvestism” be “exterminated from public life.” The Institute went on to state, “draconian measures by the government against stubborn and hard-headed transvestites are … adequate.” However, for the most part Nazis made little distinction between trans people and cis queer men and women



https://www.quora.com/What-were-the-views-of-the-nazis-on-transgender-people-and-transsexual-people


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 27, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Is mlk day a uk thing now?


Funnily enough, I take days like these in a supranational way. I remember MLK because the struggles he helped advance are mine and they should be yours too. But yeh... maybe not.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 27, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust - Wikipedia
> 
> Trans people were murdered alongside gay people by the way.



Oh did they? I had no idea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## 19force8 (Jan 27, 2018)

elbows said:


> I found the article interesting and I have no idea why anyone would take issue with a story about nazis burning research.
> 
> Actually I do have some ideas why but its almost obsolete to go there at this point.


Apart from being two years out on Hitler's taking power, it's an interesting sketch of a little discussed aspect of the Weimar Republic.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 27, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Oh did they? I had no idea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



What the fuck do you think you are achieving with this?


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 27, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Oh did they? I had no idea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


just fuck off please


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 27, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Funnily enough, I take days like these in a supranational way. I remember MLK because the struggles he helped advance are mine and they should be yours too. But yeh... maybe not.


Yeh. I wonder how much advancing there'd have been if it hadn't been for malcolm x. But curious why some third mon in jan and not the anniversary of his murder, 4 april, which is when I think of yer man's legacy.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 27, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> just fuck off please



What because you say so? I've lived with a narcissist. I know the tricks.




Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. I wonder how much advancing there'd have been if it hadn't been for malcolm x. But curious why some third mon in jan and not the anniversary of his murder, 4 april, which is when I think of yer man's legacy.



I'm well aware of what is celebrated about MLK (and what's not) and why Malcolm X is not and why Paul Robeson's legacy has virtually been reduced to songs.  By all means open a thread if you're that interested


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 27, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> I'm well aware of what is celebrated about MLK (and what's not) and why Malcolm X is not and why Paul Robeson's legacy has virtually been reduced to songs.  By all means open a thread if you're that interested


I like your avoiding of the 15/1 / 4/4 issue

What other federal holidays do you observe?


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 27, 2018)

Lets have something more cheery. I confess I do not know much about this crowd but like what I hear so far. 




> Thurman is proud to say the Birmingham chapter is “racially mixed; most of these kids are poor. There’s lesbian, queer, gay, trans … and they’re looking for ways to fight.”
> 
> When I express surprise to Thurman that a 66-year-old white guy who lives in Meridianville, Ala., is so caught up with progressive politics like transgender rights, he’s only mildly offended.
> 
> “The ones that I know, older guys, people are welcoming it,” Thurman says. “That’s a part of the country, a part of right now. [Transgender people are] oppressed, discriminated against and this is a way for them to voice their opinions.” The only people he says he’s heard disparaging transgender people are “Trump supporters, ‘Trumpeters,’ — hell, they just don’t like polite people.”




Opinion | Resurrecting the alliance of black revolutionaries and Southern whites, decades after a government crackdown


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 27, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> What because you say so? I've lived with a narcissist. I know the tricks.


Never mind that I was in an abusive relationship for years with someone with NPD and still suffering the mental health issues from that till this day. You just go and accuse anyone you like of being abusive why don't you? Just stamp over anyone you disagree with and make accusations with no foundation what so ever. 

You really are the most disgusting human being on these boards.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 27, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Never mind that I was in an abusive relationship for years with someone with NPD and still suffering the mental health issues from that till this day. You just go and accuse anyone you like of being abusive why don't you? Just stamp over anyone you disagree with and make accusations with no foundation what so ever.
> 
> You really are the most disgusting human being on these boards.


Stanley Edwards will be disappointed to hear that. Not to mention Gromit. Both have long vied for that honour.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 27, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Stanley Edwards will be disappointed to hear that


He needs to try harder


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 27, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> He needs to try harder


Oh he will, have no fear


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 27, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> I like your avoiding of the 15/1 / 4/4 issue
> 
> What other federal holidays do you observe?



Before I got into politics I already thought it was odd that Christmas seemed more keenly celebrated than Easter. It helped me get away from gods. "Observing" is too pompous a word for what I do with what I choose to remember.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 27, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Never mind that I was in an abusive relationship for years with someone with NPD and still suffering the mental health issues from that till this day. You just go and accuse anyone you like of being abusive why don't you? Just stamp over anyone you disagree with and make accusations with no foundation what so ever.
> 
> You really are the most disgusting human being on these boards.



Thank you. I'd like to thank blah, blah, blah


----------



## bimble (Jan 27, 2018)

This thread is so depressing. Since it came up, the point of holocaust remembrance is probably to try to remember that what happened started with a way of thinking where us and them became so polarised that people no longer saw eachother as humans. I don't want to give up trying to communicate across the divide but does seem hopeless sometimes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 27, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Before I got into politics I already thought it was odd that Christmas seemed more keenly celebrated than Easter. It helped me get away from gods. "Observing" is too pompous a word for what I do with what I choose to remember.


Which is a strange thing for you to say because you've been exceeding pompous over the entire mlk/holocaust day thing.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 27, 2018)

bimble said:


> This thread is so depressing. Since it came up, the point of holocaust remembrance is probably to try to remember that what happened started with a way of thinking where us and them became so polarised that people no longer saw eachother as humans. I don't want to give up trying to communicate across the divide but does seem hopeless sometimes.



Holocaust Memorial is also about how people stood by while others were persecuted not just for who they were but *for the views they held*. A point missed by those who insist on remaining silent when points about freedom of speech and association, to give two glaring examples, are raised here.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 27, 2018)

So it's fine for people to accuse me of being an abuser and no one cares? Jeez, this place!!!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 27, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Holocaust Memorial is also about how people stood by while others were persecuted not just for who they were but *for the views they held*. A point missed by those who insist on remaining silent when points about freedom of speech and association, to give two glaring examples, are raised here.


You've shown how up for fos you are by trying to close down SS for saying things you dislike on hmd
E2A if you disagree argue the point, don't say you can't say that on this arbitrary government appointed day


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 27, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Which is a strange thing for you to say because you've been exceeding pompous over the entire mlk/holocaust day thing.



I reserve my right to be my fully human... contradiction and all. So I'm pompous in your eyes. That's your business, not mine.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 27, 2018)

A further search on MLK posted by Sea Star reveals one post, today, in response to MochaSoul.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 27, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> So it's fine for people to accuse me of being an abuser and no one cares? Jeez, this place!!!



Your routine accusations of transphobia (which you refuse to back up or retract), as well as your very serious claims againt certain posters, certainly are abusive.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 27, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Holocaust Memorial is also about how people stood by while others were persecuted not just for who they were but *for the views they held*. A point missed by those who insist on remaining silent when points about freedom of speech and association, to give two glaring examples, are raised here.



You can say what you want. And you can be taken to task over it if people don't agree. That's the part you and others who argue from your position tend to dislike though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 27, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> I reserve my right to be my fully human... contradiction and all. So I'm pompous in your eyes. That's your business, not mine.


have a gold star for evasion


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 27, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> So it's fine for people to accuse me of being an abuser and no one cares? Jeez, this place!!!



That might be because no one accused you of being an abuser.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 27, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> have a gold star for evasion


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 27, 2018)

It's interesting how similar anti-trans and alt-right people sound sometimes.


----------



## bimble (Jan 27, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> So it's fine for people to accuse me of being an abuser and no one cares? Jeez, this place!!!


You accused me the other day of "complete and utter contempt for all trans people". That's not remotely true, and i think you know it, but no one cares. Its not this place its the wider context in which this conversation is trying to happen.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 27, 2018)

I saw an anti-trans feminist using Guido Fawkes positively as a reference earlier because it was useful to their argument. They're an inch away from writing an article for Breitbart, I swear.


----------



## bimble (Jan 27, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> I saw an anti-trans feminist using Guido Fawkes positively as a reference earlier because it was useful to their argument. They're an inch away from writing an article for Breitbart, I swear.


Yes, this is really shit. I notice the same, my enemy's enemy etc.


----------



## Athos (Jan 27, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> So it's fine for people to accuse me of being an abuser and no one cares? Jeez, this place!!!



First, they didn't accuse you of being an abuser.  And, secondly, you're regularly abusive to other posters here!


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 27, 2018)

bimble said:


> Yes, this is really shit. I notice the same, my enemy's enemy etc.



That they see trans people as their enemies in the first place is the biggest concern.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 27, 2018)

This thread is a mod nightmare. It generates a load of reports, justified or not, and seems likely to do so indefinitely.

One more report and it gets closed, and any similar thread will be summarily closed. Yes, that means that anyone who wants to close it can just report a post on it. If anyone wants to avoid that, try avoiding personal attacks, gaslighting, posting bollocks, all the usual things which wind other people up.


----------



## bimble (Jan 27, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> That they see trans people as their enemies in the first place is the biggest concern.


I don't see trans people as my enemy. I do have massive issues with the ideology of Gender Identity as innate.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 27, 2018)

HEY HEY HEY


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 27, 2018)

bimble said:


> I don't see trans people as my enemy. I do have massive issues with the idea of gender identity, the whole edifice of it and its imposition on everybody, trans and not trans.



I suggest you take that up with the head of Gender Identity (office hours subject to change) rather than laying it solely at the feet of trans people.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 27, 2018)

FridgeMagnet said:


> This thread is a mod nightmare. It generates a load of reports, justified or not, and seems likely to do so indefinitely.
> 
> One more report and it gets closed, and any similar thread will be summarily closed. Yes, that means that anyone who wants to close it can just report a post on it. If anyone wants to avoid that, try avoiding personal attacks, gaslighting, posting bollocks, all the usual things which wind other people up.


Gaslighting actually  a domestic abuse thing. Actually making someone doubt their own sanity as opposed to bullshitting on a forum. Not a great term to just chuck around.


----------



## bimble (Jan 27, 2018)

it looks like this conversation is going to be shut down in a moment anyway, which kind of makes sense, symptom of the wider context.
(I've not reported a post on this website ever i don't think, apart from that nonce weirdo with the coats and children's plimsolls)


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 27, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Gaslighting actually  a domestic abuse thing. Actually making someone doubt their own sanity as opposed to bullshitting on a forum. Not a great term to just chuck around.


Maybe a term that's been used on reports rather than one I decided to come up with ta.


----------



## bimble (Jan 27, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> I suggest you take that up with the head of Gender Identity (office hours subject to change) rather than laying it solely at the feet of trans people.


What do you suggest then, seriously, not talking about it at all?
I'm not addressing my posts here only to trans people am i.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 27, 2018)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Maybe a term that's been used on reports rather than one I decided to come up with ta.


Cool, it was bugging me since the first time someone brought it up. If that is going on reports, it's a bit worrying.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 27, 2018)

It would be annoying if it was to be shut down as most of it was interesting.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 27, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> I saw an anti-trans feminist using Guido Fawkes positively as a reference earlier because it was useful to their argument. They're an inch away from writing an article for Breitbart, I swear.



They are also speaking to The Times and even Rod Liddle FFS. It's what happens when all other avenues close to them (not that all feminists are left wing - when they talk of porn and prostitution as "sex work" I start having doubts, but that's me) and people are suspended from political parties or attempts to get them sacked from their jobs for saying "Women don't have dicks" as per this:


This is solely about being able to debate and giving everyone the right to argue against others.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 27, 2018)

bimble said:


> it looks like this conversation is going to be shut down in a moment anyway, which kind of makes sense, symptom of the wider context.
> (I've not reported a post on this website ever i don't think, apart from that nonce weirdo with the coats and children's plimsolls)


me neither.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 27, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> I saw an anti-trans feminist using Guido Fawkes positively as a reference earlier because it was useful to their argument. They're an inch away from writing an article for Breitbart, I swear.



Would writing for Breitbart be any worse than comparing trans people to the Paedophile Information Exchange while talking to Rod Liddle for a Spectator piece?


----------



## bimble (Jan 27, 2018)

One more reported post and the thread gets shut down seems symptomatic of what is going on, with disagreement being framed as personal attacks.
I get that there are only a few mods doing this here out of the goodness of their hearts and don't blame them for being sick of it but seriously, how many posts on this thread have actually warranted reporting to the teachers?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 27, 2018)

FridgeMagnet said:


> This thread is a mod nightmare. It generates a load of reports, justified or not, and seems likely to do so indefinitely.
> 
> One more report and it gets closed, and any similar thread will be summarily closed.



I appreciate the difficulties but surely you're not suggesting that any discussion  on trans rights or trans activists could be banned from these boards just because someone makes a complaint about this thread?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 27, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> I suggest you take that up with the head of Gender Identity (office hours subject to change) rather than laying it solely at the feet of trans people.





bimble said:


> What do you suggest then, seriously, not talking about it at all? I'm not addressing my posts here only to trans people am i.



See, your reply doesn't follow in good faith from mine. While my post was made with a lighthearted tone to it, the message ultimately was that an awful lot of widespread uneasiness with gender as a concept at all is laid solely at the feet of trans people, who are being expected to do all the heavy lifting, all the personal sacrifice, and a lot of the shutting up. You're not only talking to trans people, but it's all about trans identities. And the wider discussion, beyond just you bimble, is framed by how trans people are simultaneously and solely responsible for ruining the idea of what a woman is and reinforcing the idea of what a woman is. It's all on trans people. They're the bad people. It's all their fault.

Your reply was "oh, so I'm not allowed to talk about it at all, am I? You might as well be a daily mail reader saying "we're not even allowed to talk about immigration anymore" when all the daily mail talks about is immigration.

My post wasn't intended to suggest you shouldn't talk about this, but rather perhaps reconsider approaching your problems with gender from a position that doesn't suppose it to be the fault of only one group of people who happen to feel they have a gender.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 27, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> They are also speaking to The Times and even Rod Liddle FFS. It's what happens when all other avenues close to them (not that all feminists are left wing - when they talk of porn and prostitution as "sex work" I start having doubts, but that's me) and people are suspended from political parties or attempts to get them sacked from their jobs for saying "Women don't have dicks" as per this:
> 
> 
> This is solely about being able to debate and giving everyone the right to argue against others.



Nah, it's like all those people saying we should ban the illiterate frm democracy. You would never come to that position if you were left. Anyway screw the left, mon the working class.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 27, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> They are also speaking to The Times and even Rod Liddle FFS. It's what happens when all other avenues close to them (not that all feminists are left wing - when they talk of porn and prostitution as "sex work" I start having doubts, but that's me) and people are suspended from political parties or attempts to get them sacked from their jobs for saying "Women don't have dicks" as per this:
> 
> 
> This is solely about being able to debate and giving everyone the right to argue against others.




Doesn't matter who didn't want to publish me, I wouldn't turn to the right because I'm not an arsehole. Who people choose as their friends is often quite telling.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 27, 2018)

smokedout said:


> I appreciate the difficulties but surely you're not suggesting that any discussion  on trans rights or trans activists could be banned from these boards just because someone makes a complaint about this thread?


I don't think this thread is in any way a valid discussion of trans rights or trans activists. I think it's bullshit, I've always thought that from the moment it started, just look at the title, and the last million pages have confirmed that. So no, not necessarily, but if it gets closed and someone tries to start basically the same thread again I'll close that one too.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 27, 2018)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I don't think this thread is in any way a valid discussion of trans rights or trans activists. I think it's bullshit, I've always thought that from the moment it started, just look at the title, and the last million pages have confirmed that. So no, not necessarily, but if it gets closed and someone tries to start basically the same thread again I'll close that one too.


That's unfair, there have been some fantastic posts on this thread.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 27, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Would writing for Breitbart be any worse than comparing trans people to the Paedophile Information Exchange while talking to Rod Liddle for a Spectator piece?



Yes and no.

If you think of the mythological middle ground, the mainstream, the imagined centre (none of which is immutable, none of which is neutral, all of which is as ideological a position as anything else), the Spectator still holds a place within that. By that I don't mean its politics are moderate, centre, etc, but rather that it is part of an established narrative. Breitbart falls outside of that, and carries with it certain connotations. Additionally, while there are a few unquestionably extreme voices at outfits like the Spectator, somewhere like Breitbart makes that its bread and butter. It's written by the alt-right, for the alt-right. The Spectator would still, if it were to have any sense of this, have a sense of being broadly for gender equality, against sexism, etc, although the ideology it supports of course is one grounded firmly in continuing to reproduce patriarchy. Breitbart no such thing. 

So it's a question of degrees. Breitbart is full on red pill, MRA, MGTOW, anti-feminist, women-hating bile. While saying those things to Liddle in the Spectator is unspeakably vile, to 'cross over' if you will to a publication that is diametrically opposed to your very existence in very public and nasty ways says an awful lot about the supposed feminism of supposed feminists.

But, this is moot because to my knowledge none of them have done this. Quoting Staines as an ally in their anti-trans 'feminism' is really rather questionable though. (And yes, I'm aware, 'not all anti-trans feminists'.)


----------



## elbows (Jan 27, 2018)

Given the wide range of subtopics discussed within this thread, the concept of 'basically the same thread' is rather problematic. Especially since a lot of the falling out and ill will is hardly limited to just one of the subtopics.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 27, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> Doesn't matter who didn't want to publish me, I wouldn't turn to the right because I'm not an arsehole. Who people choose as their friends is often quite telling.



It's funny because complaints to Labour HQ about lies and data protection breaches of people on this side of the fence (sometimes about women who are not even members of the LP and which have been simply reported to the police) go ignored and not investigated, with the people feeling the brunt of those then not having the right to speak out for fear of looking an arsehole. For days, no comment on the crowd funding initiative was made to the likes of The Sun or the Daily Mail, for example. The result being that the only people reporting and wholly misrepresenting them was Prick News. But women are the arseholes.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 27, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> It's funny because complaints to Labour HQ about lies and data protection breaches of people on this side of the fence (sometimes about women who are not even members of the LP and which have been simply reported to the police) go ignored and not investigated, with the people feeling the brunt of those then not having the right to speak out for fear of looking an arsehole. For days, no comment on the crowd funding initiative was made to the likes of The Sun or the Daily Mail, for example. The result being that the only people reporting and wholly misrepresenting them was Prick News. But women are the arseholes.



People who turn to the right in order to somehow pursue their 'feminism' are arseholes, yes.


----------



## bimble (Jan 27, 2018)

smokedout said:


> I appreciate the difficulties but surely you're not suggesting that any discussion  on trans rights or trans activists could be banned from these boards just because someone makes a complaint about this thread?



Its symptomatic, why should these boards be any different, a conversation is impossible when disagreement is framed as personal attack, which must be what's going on when people are reporting posts.


----------



## elbows (Jan 27, 2018)

bimble said:


> Its symptomatic, why should these boards be any different, a conversation is impossible when disagreement is framed as personal attack, which must be what's going on when people are reporting posts.



Forum moderators the world over may as well give up now if the ridiculous misuse of the term gaslighting, which I already moaned about plenty yesterday, is allowed to become in any way accepted. The death of debate.


----------



## bimble (Jan 27, 2018)

i've never really understood what gaslighting means tbh, but i think it involves more than a post on a forum that you don't agree with. 
oh shit maybe i just did gaslighting.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 27, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> People who turn to the right in order to somehow pursue their 'feminism' are arseholes, yes.



Maybe they are. They must be past caring being perceived as arseholes when getting them out of their jobs become the way to attack their views. I may not agree with their actions but I can totally understand them.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 27, 2018)

bimble said:


> i've never really understood what gaslighting means tbh, but i think it involves more than a post on a forum that you don't agree with.
> oh shit maybe i just did gaslighting.


Basically watch the film Gaslight starring Ingrid Bergman.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 27, 2018)

I haven’t reported any posts on this thread (I suspect a few of my own have been reported by transphobes). I agree though that this thread is largely poisonous. Not because people are rude to each other, but because much of the tone has been set by a small group of anti-trans ideologues who are entirely unrepresentative of wider social debates about trans issues.


----------



## bimble (Jan 27, 2018)

Nigel I'll miss you when our chats get shut down. I would bet you a pint, and actually sit down next to you whilst you drink it, that none of the reports were from 'transphobes' though. I may be wrong of course, which you will never be.


----------



## elbows (Jan 27, 2018)

bimble said:


> i've never really understood what gaslighting means tbh, but i think it involves more than a post on a forum that you don't agree with.
> oh shit maybe i just did gaslighting.



I wont try to give the proper description of it because I already covered much of it in a rant the other day.

But I will say that for an equivalent of the most extreme forms of gaslighting to actually happen on a forum, it would involve stuff like posts being edited in a deliberate campaign to undermine someones faith in their own sanity, memory of events, etc.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 27, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Maybe they are. They must be past caring being perceived as arseholes when getting them out of their jobs become the way to attack their views. I may not agree with their actions but I can totally understand them.



Has anyone actually been fired for “feminist” transphobia? I suspect not or we’d never have heard the end of it.

By the way, this thread’s TERFs responded angrily when, much earlier in the discussion, I argued that the TERFs were going to end up deliberately putting themselves at the service of the conservative media as they became entirely unwelcome in the broader left.  Now here you are not only echoing that argument but justifying that approach.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 27, 2018)

elbows said:


> Forum moderators the world over may as well give up now if the ridiculous misuse of the term gaslighting, which I already moaned about plenty yesterday, is allowed to become in any way accepted. The death of debate.


Calling me a narcissist was the death of this debate. Get fucked!!


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 27, 2018)

bimble said:


> i've never really understood what gaslighting means tbh, but i think it involves more than a post on a forum that you don't agree with.
> oh shit maybe i just did gaslighting.


Gaslighting - Wikipedia


----------



## elbows (Jan 27, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Calling me a narcissist was the death of this debate. Get fucked!!



I have no idea why you have made that comment in response to me. I was no part of the recent bit of the thread where someone called you a narcissist.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 27, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Gaslighting actually  a domestic abuse thing. Actually making someone doubt their own sanity as opposed to bullshitting on a forum. Not a great term to just chuck around.


I've been gaslighted in domestic abuse thank you. I know what it means


----------



## bimble (Jan 27, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Calling me a narcissist was the death of this debate. Get fucked!!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 27, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> I've been gaslighted in domestic abuse thank you. I know what it means


Gaslit


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 27, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Calling me a narcissist was the death of this debate.



Totally non-narcisssist post this.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 27, 2018)

bimble said:


> Nigel I'll miss you when our chats get shut down. I would bet you a pint, and actually sit down next to you whilst you drink it, that none of the reports were from 'transphobes' though. I may be wrong of course, which you will never be.



Can we settle on "people who want the trans to just go away"  



elbows said:


> I wont try to give the proper description of it because I already covered much of it in a rant the other day.
> 
> But I will say that for an equivalent of the most extreme forms of gaslighting to actually happen on a forum, it would involve stuff like posts being edited in a deliberate campaign to undermine someones faith in their own sanity, memory of events, etc.


I don't doubt it happens in politics and debate and that but would need to be seriously sustained and relentless to warrant that label.


----------



## bimble (Jan 27, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I haven’t reported any posts on this thread (I suspect a few of my own have been reported by transphobes). I agree though that this thread is largely poisonous. Not because people are rude to each other, but because much of the tone has been set by a small group of anti-trans ideologues *who are entirely unrepresentative of wider social debates about trans issues.*


What are these 'wider social debates about trans issues'?


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 27, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Has anyone actually been fired for “feminist” transphobia? I suspect not or we’d never have heard the end of it.
> 
> By the way, this thread’s TERFs responded angrily when, much earlier in the discussion, I argued that the TERFs were going to end up deliberately putting themselves at the service of the conservative media as they became entirely unwelcome in the broader left.  Now here you are not only echoing that argument but justifying that approach.



In your mind understanding a behaviour is the same as condoning it. In mine, it isn't, but what you say needs too many and too copious amounts of salt to be taken seriously.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 27, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> I've been gaslighted in domestic abuse thank you. I know what it means


My post wasn't in response to yours. What are you getting at?


----------



## bimble (Jan 27, 2018)

Sea Star said ages ago that the thread should be closed so, here we are.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 27, 2018)

I think drink has been teen, I know I have. Can we resume this tomorrow?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 27, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> In your mind understanding a behaviour is the same as condoning it. In mine, it isn't, but what you say needs too many and too copious amounts of salt to be taken seriously.



So you don't condone the courting of right-wing publications and commentators by anti-trans feminists? That's good to know.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 27, 2018)

bimble said:


> What are these 'wider social debates about trans issues'?



The conflict between anti-trans social conservatism and pro trans rights left and progressive sentiment. As you are aware, the “gender critical” case against trans rights is a fringe position, heavily over represented in the discussion here but only of wider relevance as a source of some of the transphobic shock stories in the conservative press.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 27, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> So you don't condone the courting of right-wing publications and commentators by anti-trans feminists? That's good to know.


Yes, I don't think right wing newspapers should be allowed to pretend to be our voices (lest they use them for their own purposes). That's talking my kind of feminism. Not the Guardian kind. When talking accusations of spreading hate against one group of people and taking into account newspapers with a wide readership pick up and report on them while at the same time those individuals are being subject to persecution for their views in a political party that says itself to be such a broad church that blairites remain in there.... Those individuals absolutely have a right to reply to what they are being accused of and putting their point across regardless of newspaper.

Besides, witchhunts should not go unreported even in a far from perfect democracy whichever the newspaper.


----------



## bimble (Jan 27, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The conflict between anti-trans social conservatism and pro trans rights left and progressive sentiment. As you are aware, the “gender critical” case against trans rights is a fringe position, heavily over represented in the discussion here but only of wider relevance as a source of some of the transphobic shock stories in the conservative press.


So basically you are saying that the people talking here are not representative of social conservatism and that therefore they are irrelevant?
So there is no place in your world for a 'left' criticism of the ideology that says 'gender identity' is innate ?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 27, 2018)

bimble said:


> So basically you are saying that the people here are not representative of social conservatism and that therefore they are irrelevant?
> So there is no place in your world for a 'left' criticism of the ideology that says gender identity is innate ?



You have a knack for trying to reframe someone's argument so as to continually shift the goalposts and ensure a talking point can never be fully discussed.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 27, 2018)

Athos said:


> First, they didn't accuse you of being an abuser.  And, secondly, you're regularly abusive to other posters



Words like narcissist and gaslighting are thrown around by femimists, at feminists because the connotations are mutually understood- in that they can relate to domestic abuse . The narc abuser etc. that most of us don't know what the fuck is going on doesn't change the fact that MS probably knew what she was saying and SS heard her loud and clear. I have seen this toxic shite too often, it ought to go in the bin.


----------



## bimble (Jan 27, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> You have a knack for trying to reframe someone's argument so as to continually shift the goalposts and ensure a talking point can never be fully discussed.


Thats the opposite of what i want! I've got a half-written reply to your two pages ago post. Why would I want to ensure that a talking point can't properly be discussed? that would be a proper waste of time.
Nigel just said that the reason this thread is pointless is because it does not represent 'the wider debate' . Then when asked he said the wider debate is about social conservatives v the 'pro trans rights left'. So if I and others here am not a social conservative i'm irrelevant, to the wider debate, is his position and always has been.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 27, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> You have a knack for trying to reframe someone's argument so as to continually shift the goalposts and ensure a talking point can never be fully discussed.



That’s not entirely fair. “A knack” implies that she’s good at it.


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 27, 2018)

Basically, no. You have to take "their" word that you have a gender identity even if you don't "feel" it. It used to be conservatives I used to argue about this with. Now I have to argue our "friends" on the left about it too.


----------



## bimble (Jan 27, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I agree though that this thread is largely poisonous. Not because people are rude to each other, but because much of the tone has been set by *a small group of anti-trans ideologues who are entirely unrepresentative of wider social debates about trans issues*.



Asked to explain what he means by 'the wider debate':



Nigel Irritable said:


> *The conflict between anti-trans social conservatism and pro trans rights left and progressive sentiment*. As you are aware, *the “gender critical” case against trans rights is a fringe position, heavily over represented in the discussion here *but only of wider relevance as a source of some of the transphobic shock stories in the conservative press.



That's it. Gender critical feminists basically do not exist. Or if they do exist they should shut up or deserve to be ignored because they are small, compared to the conservative right.

How is that 'trying to reframe someone's argument to avoid properly discussing something'? It is not me who is trying to avoid discussing things.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 27, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> DP


Only nobody on this thread has gotten all up in your shit on that particular point though. Quotes please if I missed it.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 27, 2018)

I was going to reply, mochasoul, before you deleted, that if you don't have a gender identity, I fully support you in that. Just as I fully support those who do feel they have one, and who know what that is.

I take issue with the idea that while we all have a deeply complex debate about the nature of gender (which isn't something we can hope to have a definitive answer on currently, or maybe ever), trans people are being asked to stop existing until we get it all sorted out. The rub being of course that we won't sort it out. So, if they can just sort of stop existing full stop that'd be great. But cis women can continue to exist. The ones who do think they have a gender, the ones who aren't anti-trans, the ones who aren't 'gender critical' in the sense that they don't believe chromosomes or genitalia are the sum of their being, they're still allowed to call themselves women, even if they're doing it erroneously in some people's view. But not trans women. No. They've got to stop it right now.

(edit: and your re-edit seems to be largely in keeping with your original message, so my post stands)


----------



## bimble (Jan 27, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> the ones who aren't 'gender critical' in the sense that they don't believe chromosomes or genitalia are the sum of their being


seriously?


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 27, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> (edit: and your re-edit seems to be largely in keeping with your original message, so my post stands)


Sorry, that post appeared twice on my screen so I thought I had double posted.


----------



## bimble (Jan 27, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The conflict between anti-trans social conservatism and pro trans rights left and progressive sentiment. As you are aware, the “gender critical” case against trans rights is a fringe position, heavily over represented in the discussion here


How are people that i like and respect 'liking' this post ? The idea that because a 'left' / feminist view is 'fringe' its poisenous and irrelevant and that the only real important thing is what the conservative right thinks? Jesus.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 27, 2018)

bimble said:


> So basically you are saying that the people talking here are not representative of social conservatism and that therefore they are irrelevant?



I’m saying that the bulk of the anti-trans positions argued here do not represent the opinions of any substantial section of society, reflecting as they do the ideological framework of a subset of the radfem subset of the feminist movement. Transphobia is quite widespread but almost all of it is motivated by social conservatism. The “gender critical” position only has two relatively minor impacts on the wider world - (1) some personal nastiness to trans people and (2) the provision of anti trans shock stories and a few apparently “progressive” arguments to the socially conservative media.




			
				bimble said:
			
		

> So there is no place in your world for a 'left' criticism of the ideology that says 'gender identity' is innate ?



You are amusingly persistent when it comes to inserting the arguments you wish your opponents were making into their mouths. The issue with TERFery is not that it says gender identity is not innate but that it seeks to deny trans people their right to live as their preferred gender socially, legally and politically. As for whether there’s room for that on the left, much of the loud whining about how TERFs are being victimized here indicates that they are well aware that factually there is no place for their views and behavior on the left.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 27, 2018)

bimble said:


> How are people that i like and respect 'liking' this post? The idea that because its 'fringe' its poisenous and irrelevant and that the only real important thing is what the conservative right thinks? Jesus.


No Jesus is away to the pub n aw


----------



## trashpony (Jan 27, 2018)

Such a tiny, tiny subset of people that over 1000 people have contributed nearly £21k to Jennifer James' legal challenge fund


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 27, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Such a tiny, tiny subset of people that over 1000 people have contributed nearly £21k to Jennifer James' legal challenge fund


That's all of them like


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 27, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Such a tiny, tiny subset of people that over 1000 people have contributed nearly £21k to Jennifer James' legal challenge fund


Don't believe me, I cite Belle and Sebastian getting that Brit Award. Or Boaty McBoatface.


----------



## bimble (Jan 27, 2018)

Fuck it. If 'the majority' thinks a certain way then the majority must be right. And anyone left out (of either full commitment to Genderology or the conservative right) should just give up and shut up.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 27, 2018)

Oh and here's some terrible, terrible transphobic media reporting:
Transgender woman in male prison ‘nightmare’ on hunger strike

What the Guardian failed to mention is that Marie Dean is actually a prolific sex offender who broke into teenage girls' homes and filmed himself wanking in their underwear. 
Cross-dressing Burnley burglar jailed indefinitely

There is no way this person should be housed in the female estate.


----------



## bimble (Jan 27, 2018)

"prison officials refused to give hair straighteners, epilator or any makeup”.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 27, 2018)

bimble said:


> Fuck it. If 'the majority' thinks a certain way then the majority must be right. And anyone left out (of either full commitment to Genderology or the conservative right) should just give up and shut up.



You're misrepresenting the spirit (and content) of Nigel's reply and I'm going to be generous and suggest it's perhaps because you haven't fully understood what he's saying and are talking past him.


----------



## bimble (Jan 27, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> You're misrepresenting the spirit (and content) of Nigel's reply and I'm going to be generous and suggest it's perhaps because you haven't fully understood what he's saying and are talking past him.


No go on, please.  I'm irate but I am listening. What have I missed? He said this thread was poisonous because it did not reflect the wider debate. Then explained what he thinks the wider debate consists of. I've taken the time to quote both posts of his, before and after I asked him to clarify. He thinks the wider debate does not have space for anyone who is not the conservative right.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 27, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> You're misrepresenting the spirit (and content) of Nigel's reply and I'm going to be generous and suggest it's perhaps because you haven't fully understood what he's saying and are talking past him.


I think that's fair, I started reading her posts that way a while back


----------



## trashpony (Jan 27, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> That's all of them like


Who knows? It's a lot more than the people that contributed to the similar fund that Lily Madigan and mates set up


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 27, 2018)

bimble said:


> No go on, please.  I'm irate but I am listening. What have I missed? He said this thread was poisonous because it did not reflect the wider debate. Then explained what he thinks the wider debate consists of.


He said that the majority of resistance to trans rights is informed by the conservative right and rad fems are a fringe element here. He hasn't said he rejects what they say based on the fact they are a minority. He rejects what they say based on like, what they say. Is that clear?


----------



## bimble (Jan 27, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> He said that the majority of resistance to trans rights is informed by the conservative right and rad fems are a fringe element here. He hasn't said he rejects what they say based on the fact they are a minority. He rejects what they say based on like, what they say. Is that clear?


Nope. He has never addressed what 'they' say. He has never engaged with what they say at all. He has just dismissed them for being small in number.



HoratioCuthbert said:


> I think that's fair, I started reading her posts that way a while back


That's cool, I've been reading your posts as if you're a quite friendly drunk person I just met who is leaning a bit too far forward into my ear.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 27, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Who knows? It's a lot more than the people that contributed to the similar fund that Lily Madigan and mates set up


do you not think we should all just join hands and fight the state thegether? 

I am rum. It's now socialist politics diluted. Come on trashpony, I loved your cunts black tie dinner post. Point the gun at the enemy


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 27, 2018)

bimble said:


> That's cool, I've been reading your posts as if you're a quite friendly drunk person I just met who is leaning a bit too far forward into my ear.


Thaaaaanks!


----------



## 19force8 (Jan 27, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Oh and here's some terrible, terrible transphobic media reporting:
> Transgender woman in male prison ‘nightmare’ on hunger strike
> 
> What the Guardian failed to mention is that Marie Dean is actually a prolific sex offender who broke into teenage girls' homes and filmed himself wanking in their underwear.
> ...


I suspect the estate that once housed Rose West and Myra Hindley would cope somehow.


----------



## bimble (Jan 27, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> You're misrepresenting the spirit (and content) of Nigel's reply and I'm going to be generous and suggest it's perhaps because you haven't fully understood what he's saying and are talking past him.


Please come back to this, as you accused me of wanting to avoid a proper conversation which i do feel as a hurtful accusation. 
What have i missed in Nigel's point? 
I truly believe that he is saying that the only conversation that matters is the conservative right versus trans rights and that anyone else, all gender critical feminists, are irrelevant, apart from in whether or not they help the conservative right.
If you think there's something I haven't fully understood what is it?


----------



## trashpony (Jan 27, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> do you not think we should all just join hands and fight the state thegether?
> 
> I am rum. It's now socialist politics diluted. Come on trashpony, I loved your cunts black tie dinner post. Point the gun at the enemy


I have the gun pointed at the enemy. And it isn't women


----------



## elbows (Jan 27, 2018)

trashpony said:


> Oh and here's some terrible, terrible transphobic media reporting:
> Transgender woman in male prison ‘nightmare’ on hunger strike
> 
> What the Guardian failed to mention is that Marie Dean is actually a prolific sex offender who broke into teenage girls' homes and filmed himself wanking in their underwear.
> ...



There were details in that second story that really should have been mentioned in the Guardian article, such as the sex acts, sex offenders register and indeterminate sentence.

However, I should still point out that the Guardian article does contain a link to that Lancashire Telegraph story.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 27, 2018)

bimble said:


> Nope. He has never addressed what 'they' say. He has never engaged with what they say has just dismissed them for being small in number.



Here's a time Nigel was addressing what 'they' say:

"The issue with TERFery is not that it says gender identity is not innate but that it seeks to deny trans people their right to live as their preferred gender socially, legally and politically."


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 27, 2018)

trashpony said:


> I have the gun pointed at the enemy. And it isn't women


I've often had my gun pointed at my female sociopathic boss, tbf.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 27, 2018)

trashpony said:


> I have the gun pointed at the enemy. And it isn't women



The enemy isn't men. The enemy isn't trans women. The enemy isn't trans men.

The enemy is capitalism and patriarchy.


----------



## elbows (Jan 27, 2018)

Insert nerf gun terf gun pun here


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 27, 2018)

elbows said:


> Insert nerf gun terf gun pun here


You won't beat DotCommunists "cis terfs are doing it for themselves"


----------



## trashpony (Jan 27, 2018)

elbows said:


> There were details in that second story that really should have been mentioned in the Guardian article, such as the sex acts, sex offenders register and indeterminate sentence.
> 
> However, I should still point out that the Guardian article does contain a link to that Lancashire Telegraph story.


It has been changed to add that after people tweeted the Guardian and the hack. It wasn't in the original story at all. 

Male estate: 85k ish
Female estate: 4k ish

The number of women serving custodial sentences for sex offences is very small - about 100 vs over 12,000 men. Moving any man who decided to identify as a woman once incarcerated like Ian Huntley and a number of other sex offenders have, would have an enormous impact on women's prisons.


----------



## campanula (Jan 27, 2018)

Soz @VintagePaw - this is a response to you but forgot to do quotes

Not really, to be fair, Nigel has frequently repeated himself endlessly, veering between 'you terfs are not even worth talking to (including an eye-watering amount of ad-hominems and insults)...and an evasive hiding behind opaque politico-speak or claiming terfs are seeking to deny transpeople their rights to live according to their preferred gender politically etc etc...but this is just an assumption  and a claim he has made with no evidence apart from his  say-so. This is NOT what anyone has been saying ever.  The sheer polarity of opinions and lack of nuance has left me flummoxed since we appear to be at cross purposes, over and over. First of all, the glaring assumption that one theory fits all sizes when I, for one, am still not clear about the most basic terms being used. There is not one single trans experience...and there certainly are many flavours of feminism (not some simple rad-fem fringe but a huge swathe of people with (fancy that) opinions (and experiences which are on a spectrum...and have evolved over some time...and will (hopefully) continue to do so...And finally, the yawning gap between theory and real world experience. I have no experience of gender issues but I can attest to the amazingly fluid and often cyclical arguments (to support a political and social agenda) which has characterised so many, many dissident positions, from sexuality to theories of addiction...where ultimately, accommodation has been painfully arrived at over literally decades of debate. So, I dunno, it might be better if we were a little kinder to each other as we flail around in an effort to understand.
I have already stated some of my positions...but I am more than open (in fact I expect them) to change...and I admit to being on board with taking a bit more time before leaping into legislative traps since checks and balances including risk assessments and multi-agency decisions, however hesitant, are doing case by case analysis (as in all cases of safeguarding  for instance)


----------



## MochaSoul (Jan 27, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> I was going to reply, mochasoul, before you deleted, that if you don't have a gender identity, I fully support you in that. Just as I fully support those who do feel they have one, and who know what that is.
> 
> I take issue with the idea that while we all have a deeply complex debate about the nature of gender (which isn't something we can hope to have a definitive answer on currently, or maybe ever), trans people are being asked to stop existing until we get it all sorted out. The rub being of course that we won't sort it out. So, if they can just sort of stop existing full stop that'd be great. But cis women can continue to exist. The ones who do think they have a gender, the ones who aren't anti-trans, the ones who aren't 'gender critical' in the sense that they don't believe chromosomes or genitalia are the sum of their being, they're still allowed to call themselves women, even if they're doing it erroneously in some people's view. But not trans women. No. They've got to stop it right now.



Sorry had to absent myself for a while, I'm stretching myself a bit but didn't want to go without replying.

I've said all I had to say on the subject on  debate about the word "cisgender" which it assumes I have a gender identity regardless of what I have to say about it.
There's two levels of *identity* I recognise. My inner self, is not woman, is not black, is not sister or mother. It doesn't even have a name. If I refer to any of those things when I say, "I am" is simply because humans are not telephatic and those things, some of which inoquous, others expressing a range of experiences due to society structures, help me express myself with the rather inadequate tool that is language. I wholly reject the word cis on those grounds. Not that people won't refer to me as such even when they know nothing about me.

I have never said trans don't exist. I've never said they don't have a right to exist. I've never said they shouldn't exist. As far as I'm concerned they should absolutely exist (as I said before in the thread - they are, by merely existing, the biggest spanner in the gender works - gender the axis of oppression argh we now have to define things as we go along because all of the meanings have been eroded). I reject the claims they make because they apply to me too (cisgender = I too have a gender identity). How that is not a bonanza for the ultra sexist right which still seeks to put women in their places I have no idea. Furthermore, the more I look into what other feminists have been saying about this while I gently slept not imagining how the rights of any group of people, least of all transgender people, may be made to be pit against women's rights, the more things I find that sit very uncomfortably with me and my own idea that the only things that matter are that people are people and they should express themselves the way they want; repecurssions that could go far and wide in disabling women, in particular, but other people too from combating systemic oppressions. I don't have time tonight but the twitter thread below, puts a lot of what I have been thinking in much better words than I have, and has given me more to chew on. I'm angry though that these things aren't being discussed freely because we're TERFs and should be no platformed, vilified and persecuted as we try to work out and discuss these matters, even when it's exclusively on the level of how women may be affected and how feminists should approach these newer manifestations of structural sexism. I probably won't be returning to the thread tonight but I'll read any response to this some time tomorrow.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 27, 2018)

bimble said:


> No go on, please.  I'm irate but I am listening. What have I missed? He said this thread was poisonous because it did not reflect the wider debate. Then explained what he thinks the wider debate consists of. I've taken the time to quote both posts of his, before and after I asked him to clarify. He thinks the wider debate does not have space for anyone who is not the conservative right.



This thread is poisonous because poisonous views were allowed to set the tone for much of it. Those views are fringe views as well as being poisonous but they are not poisonous because they are fringe.

It’s a matter of fact that the main lines of division over trans rights map onto left / right or more particularly socially progressive / socially conservative divisions. Anti-trans positions on the left are very much a fringe phenomenon.

This is even clearer if you take an international view. Britain is an anomaly in that such positions, while ultimately still marginal, are held by a small media milieu and enough of an activist layer to make a certain amount of noise. Everywhere else, it’s something you’d have to go looking for to find. Why Britain has ended up unique in this regard is something I tried to explain much earlier in the thread. But even in Britain, what happens to trans rights will be decided by the battle between left and socially liberal pro trans rights stances and the forces of social conservatism. TERFs do not have the social weight to play a significant role themselves, which is precisely why they have sought to make themselves of use to the force that does have that weight, social conservatism.

Noting that an ideological position is extremely marginal doesn’t in itself mean anything in particular about the intrinsic merit of that position. But it says quite a lot about whether or not there’s any practical need for its opponents to engage with it, particularly given that most adherents of very unpopular marginal ideologies have a tireless dedication to endlessly repeating the same points. Trans people and supporters of trans rights may be interested enough to engage with TERF arguments or they might not be, but either way it doesn’t really matter. Social conservatism is the opposing force that matters.

As for whether there’s space for TERF views on the left, it’s quite clear that there isn’t. That’s not something I’ve decided, it’s a result of a wider process of ideological sorting. The bulk of the left (and of the feminist and lgbt movements) have come to classify transphobia with racism etc as an unacceptable bigotry and now responds to it with a similar hostility. Much of the latter part of this thread has been taken up by complaints about that process.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 27, 2018)

Sexual Assault and the LGBTQ Community | Human Rights Campaign


----------



## bimble (Jan 27, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> This thread is poisonous because poisonous views were allowed to set the tone for much of it. Those views are fringe views as well as being poisonous but they are not poisonous because they are fringe.
> 
> It’s a matter of fact that the main lines of division over trans rights map onto left / right or more particularly socially progressive / socially conservative divisions. Anti-trans positions on the left are very much a fringe phenomenon.
> 
> ...



Thats a really long version of 'you are irrelavant because you are small' .

You say 'Noting that an ideological position is extremely marginal doesn’t in itself mean anything in particular about the intrinsic merit of that position'.

All you are saying is that its small so right or wrong lets ignore it. Why did you call this thread poisonous?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 27, 2018)

campanula said:


> claiming terfs are seeking to deny transpeople their rights to live according to their preferred gender politically etc etc...but this is just an assumption  and a claim he has made with no evidence apart from his  say-so. This is NOT what anyone has been saying ever.



The primary political objective of the TERFs in Britain, and the central focus of their political agitation, has been to prevent trans people from gaining the right to legal recognition of their gender by self declaration. Their most recent activity other than that has been to try to deny self-ID trans women access to All Women Shortlists. It’s frankly bizarre to describe this as a claim I’ve made without evidence.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 27, 2018)

bimble said:


> Thats a really long version of 'you are irrelavant because you are small'


.

You keep repeating that as if there’s something controversial about noting that a marginal outlook, held by a small ideological fringe, is largely irrelevant to a major social struggle.




			
				bimble said:
			
		

> You say 'Noting that an ideological position is extremely marginal doesn’t in itself mean anything in particular about the intrinsic merit of that position'. Have you got a view on that by any chance?



Did you not understand what the word poisonous means?


----------



## elbows (Jan 27, 2018)

trashpony said:


> It has been changed to add that after people tweeted the Guardian and the hack. It wasn't in the original story at all.



Ah that explains why none of that stuff was mentioned in the daily mail online version of the story, which was probably 'inspired' by the original version of the observer one, with a snippet or two of added detail not related to the offences that the mail writer may have bothered to obtain for themselves.


----------



## bimble (Jan 27, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> .
> 
> You keep repeating that as if there’s something controversial about noting that a marginal outlook, held by a small ideological fringe, is largely irrelevant to a major social struggle.
> 
> ...


I do understand what it means though i find it really hard to spell.
Why is criticism of the ideology of Genderology (which says that everyone has a gender identity which is innate) poisonous?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 27, 2018)

bimble said:


> I do understand what it means though i find it really hard to spell.
> Why is criticism of the ideology of Genderology (which says that everyone has a gender identity which is innate) poisonous?


I don't know, why is criticism of the ideology of Genderology (which says etc.) poisonous?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 27, 2018)

bimble said:


> I do understand what it means though i find it really hard to spell.
> Why is criticism of the ideology of Genderology (which says that everyone has a gender identity which is innate) poisonous?



"The issue with TERFery is not that it says gender identity is not innate but that it seeks to deny trans people their right to live as their preferred gender socially, legally and politically."

That’s now been said to you three times in about a page and a half. You really do have a remarkable enthusiasm for putting arguments you would prefer to argue against into your opponents mouth.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 27, 2018)

trashpony said:


> It has been changed to add that after people tweeted the Guardian and the hack. It wasn't in the original story at all.
> 
> Male estate: 85k ish
> Female estate: 4k ish
> ...


Correct me if I am wrong but wouldn't Ian Huntley still be assessed as a danger to others in that event, and be treated accordingly?


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 27, 2018)

does anyone think the 44% stat on the article i linked is solely down to trans women or 'men in dresses' ?

'44 percent of lesbians and 61 percent of bisexual women experience rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner'

are all the intimate partners 'male'?

one does wonder.

you shouldnt throw stones from a glass house.


----------



## bimble (Jan 27, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> "The issue with TERFery is not that it says gender identity is not innate but that it seeks to deny trans people their right to live as their preferred gender socially, legally and politically."
> 
> That’s now been said to you three times in about a page and a half. You really do have a remarkable enthusiasm for putting arguments you would prefer to argue against into your opponents mouth.



oh the irony. You have refused completely to engage with what people like me are saying , we do not agree that gender is innate.

But ok. Do you think that for trans people to "live as their preferred gender socially, legally and politically" the definition of the word woman has to change? Is that a thing that we agree on? It no longer means adult human female right?


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 27, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> does anyone think the 44% stat on the article i linked is solely down to trans women or 'men in dresses' ?
> 
> '44 percent of lesbians and 61 percent of bisexual women experience rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner'
> 
> ...


Wow. I didn't know that, I suspect our loose bi morals make it easier for people to justify harsh treatment.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 27, 2018)

well it needs addressing really because it appears theres a problem that no ones talking about


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 27, 2018)

bimble said:


> oh the irony. You have refused completely to engage with what people like me are saying , we do not agree that gender is innate.
> 
> But ok. Do you think that for trans people to "live as their preferred gender socially, legally and politically" the definition of the word woman has to change? Is that a thing that we agree on? It no longer means adult human female right?


I never had you down as speciesist


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 27, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> I never had you down as speciesist



I read that as 'specialist' and LOL'd


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 27, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> I read that as 'specialist' and LOL'd


Niche perhaps but not specialist


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 27, 2018)

'44 percent of lesbians experience rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner'

'26 percent of gay men experience rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner'

bit of a contrast init


----------



## bimble (Jan 27, 2018)

Women are basically bad, especially gay women, unless they are trans women, in which case they are good.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 27, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> well it needs addressing really because it appears theres a problem


Power, rather than patriarchy. It is still legal to assault kids. Focusing on biology as a means of protecting the vulnerable is incredibly shortsighted. As a single mother of a small boy, this really hits home.

Eta: I mentioned kids as another example rather than an explanation for the first point

Eta 2: Patriarchy a problem too. We need to be able to hold more than one thought in wur heads at the same time.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 27, 2018)

flippancy will get you nowhere


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 27, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> '44 percent of lesbians experience rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner'
> 
> '26 percent of gay men experience rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner'
> 
> bit of a contrast init


I would think gay men are less likely to report rape, though I have no idea to what extent that would alter the stats.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 27, 2018)

bimble said:


> Women are basically bad, especially gay women, unless they are trans women, in which case they are good.


Is this the auld definition of woman or your new one? Precision essential to avoid confusion


----------



## bimble (Jan 27, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Is this the auld definition of woman or your new one? Precision essential to avoid confusion


i have no fucking idea what the word women means.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 27, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> I would think gay men are less likely to report rape, though I have no idea to what extent that would alter the stats.



iyt's from a National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey i dunno how they source the data tho

so wouldnt be necessarily reported assaults


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 27, 2018)

bimble said:


> Women are basically bad, especially gay women, unless they are trans women, in which case they are good.



I'm no longer going to take anything you say in this thread in good faith.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 27, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> I'm no longer going to take anything you say in this thread in good faith.


Not just in this thread I hope


----------



## bimble (Jan 27, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> I'm no longer going to take anything you say in this thread in good faith.


Fine. After this piece of sincerity


Vintage Paw said:


> the ones who aren't 'gender critical' in the sense that they don't believe chromosomes or genitalia are the sum of their being


What was that? Anyone critical of the ideology that gender is innate is saying that  their genitals are the sum of their being? Is that said 'in good faith'?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 27, 2018)

bimble said:


> i have no fucking idea what the word women means.


Best  to stop now then


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 27, 2018)

"in the sense that" was a qualifier. You tend to ignore those, though.


----------



## bimble (Jan 27, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> "in the sense that" was a qualifier. You tend to ignore those, though.


I don't understand.
you said "*the ones who aren't 'gender critical' in the sense that they don't believe chromosomes or genitalia are the sum of their being"*.

how does the meaning work with out the 'qualifer'?

I honestly don't get it.
Which gender critical people think that their genitalia are the sum of their being? name me one.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 27, 2018)

bimble said:


> I don't understand.
> you said "the ones who aren't 'gender critical' in the sense that they don't believe chromosomes or genitalia are the sum of their being".
> how does the meaning work with out the 'qualifer'?


Will you just stop digging?


----------



## bimble (Jan 27, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Will you just stop digging?


no. Bugger off.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 27, 2018)

bimble said:


> no. Bugger off.


Yeh. That's your best post on the thread thus far.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 27, 2018)

bimble said:


> Women are basically bad, especially gay women, unless they are trans women, in which case they are good.



you need to stop doing this. Again and again and again you post up shit others haven't said as if they had said it.   stop it.


----------



## bimble (Jan 27, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> you need to stop doing this. Again and again and again you post up shit others haven't said as if they had said it.   stop it.


I was taking this piss out of pengaleng ’s new angle. If they need your help they’ll call for it.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 27, 2018)

oh it aint an angle, it's just pointing out something that might be a bit uncomfortable for the militant complainers.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 28, 2018)

As much as Bimble might think I am a drunk with no coherent opinions, I don't mind her being here. The folks driving by to troll who must be also reporting our posts are more of a worry. I am happy to keep arguing with her, I think in some way she means well. Just my gut I guess. It's real like my gender identity haha


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 28, 2018)

Those guys have been trolling, getting a reaction, reporting it. Nasty! I believe Bungle when she says she hasn't that.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 28, 2018)

bintle is just confused and acting out


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 28, 2018)

I might order a pizza


----------



## bimble (Jan 28, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> I might order a pizza


At this time of night it needs pineapple.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 28, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> I might order a pizza


I had fish paaaae


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 28, 2018)

fuckin done, wish i got a super, couldnt change it cus i had like 5 mins to do me order before the cut off


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 28, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> fuckin done, wish i got a super, couldnt change it cus i had like 5 mins to do me order before the cut off


What toppings?


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 28, 2018)

errrrr, no cheese, pepperoni, hot dog, peppers, onions, mushrooms, it'll have pepper and truffle salt put on it when it comes as well


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 28, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> errrrr, no cheese, pepperoni, hot dog, peppers, onions, mushrooms, it'll have pepper and truffle salt put on it when it comes as well


No cheese!?!! Lactose issue or preference


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 28, 2018)

both tbh, gonna go smoke and wait for it


----------



## elbows (Jan 28, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Those guys have been trolling, getting a reaction, reporting it. Nasty! I believe Bungle when she says she hasn't that.



I dont want to make too many assumptions about the scale and nature of this.

eg I dont want to forget that a whole bunch of reported posts on this thread relate to the completely undisputed trolls of this thread such as the one who was banned from the thread, and the one who was banned from u75. And both of those examples were in recent times, I dont remember how much no-brainer report-worthy shit there was much earlier in the thread.

Obviously the whole gaslighting accusations thing already got ranted about by me multiple times before we even got the clue that it had been mentioned during some post reporting too, so I've already more than said my piece on that. And there aint much more to get my teeth into without too much more speculation for my tastes right now.

Also if I were a mod that was annoyed at the high-maintenance and shitty nature of a fair chunk of a thread, and was trying to get people to behave a bit differently, I might well have cause to be talking generally about not just the accusations and complaints received via post reporting tools, but also the complaints and accusations we openly hurl at each other in various posts.


----------



## elbows (Jan 28, 2018)

And I dont want to end up complaining that people have been complaining about the way I've been complaining about them complaining and accusing me of complaining about their ideological complaints and the underhanded way complaints are used to silence complaints.

Glad to clear things up.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 28, 2018)

.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 28, 2018)

.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 28, 2018)

my pizza is so sick


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 28, 2018)

Athos said:


> First, they didn't accuse you of being an abuser.  And, secondly, you're regularly abusive to other posters here!


Lies


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 28, 2018)

lies lies from tiny steak pie eyes


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 28, 2018)

binkle needs to be careful as well, she might start getting called bindle, well unfortunate


----------



## elbows (Jan 28, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> But I only intended to support those who said they didn't we will never know the culprit.



Yeah I wasnt meaning to reflect on your motives etc and I dont mind what anyone else does (unless it kills the thread, which matters to me especially because this isnt just a debate, its also a source of info about evolving campaigns & associated news.)

It was just you mentioning it caused me to spout my own thoughts on that sort of thing. All the way through my participation in this thread I have to pick and choose what areas to go on about, there is so much I neglect, and when that happens its often not reflection of my priorities, but just what I think I can communicate at that moment. Which as we've seen are often somewhat tedious points (eg this very post), sometimes involves being very rude to a few people, sometimes bad puns etc.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 28, 2018)

we love rudeness and puns, classic urbans


----------



## elbows (Jan 28, 2018)

I'll be happy to be far less rude to people if it helps save the thread. The puns are not on the negotiating table


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 28, 2018)

Elbows you are sound. I am avoiding stuff too, it's a difficult subject . Night all


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 28, 2018)

elbows said:


> I'll be happy to be far less rude to people if it helps save the thread. The puns are not on the negotiating table


You aren't rude at all, I often feel like a blunt instrument when you comment haha. You are good, stay with us!


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 28, 2018)

think you'll find that i am the bluntest instrument in the kit

smoking fatties rollin blunts who got the blunts we got the blunts


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 28, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> think you'll find that i am the bluntest instrument in the kit


Indeed you are !!!!!


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 28, 2018)

see this is where the threads well chill before the skeksis wake up in the morning init


----------



## elbows (Jan 28, 2018)

Cheers and all that good stuff, fraid I aint much good at responding to compliments and nice things!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 28, 2018)

bimble said:


> I was taking this piss out of pengaleng ’s new angle. If they need your help they’ll call for it.


This isn't about others. It's about you and how you post. It's fucking irritating and tiresome to have to constantly reply to this cap.  Try sticking to what people actually say.


----------



## scifisam (Jan 28, 2018)

Edited: this was a post disagreeing with a link posted on the last couple of pages (misrepresentation of sexual assault rates), but actually no, I don't have the energy for it.


----------



## Athos (Jan 28, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Lies



Both things are demonstrably true, just on the face of this thread. You're a fantasist.


----------



## bimble (Jan 28, 2018)

Athos said:


> Both things are demonstrably true, just on the face of this thread. You're a fantasist.


Thread ends.


----------



## Athos (Jan 28, 2018)

bimble said:


> Thread ends.



It ended when those who've been pushing to shut it down were handed the power to do so with a single reported post.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 28, 2018)

bimble said:


> At this time of night it needs pineapple.


Chilli and pineapple, the pizza of champions


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 28, 2018)

Athos said:


> you're regularly abusive to other posters here!





Athos said:


> You're a fantasist.





Athos said:


> It ended when those who've been pushing to shut it down were handed the power to do so with a single reported post.



Is that the aim with the insults then? Provoke that one more report so the thread gets shut?


----------



## Athos (Jan 28, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> Is that the aim with the insults then? Provoke that one more report so the thread gets shut?


 It's dead in the water, now, anyway. They don't need me as a pretext.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 28, 2018)

Keep going, you'll make it in the end


----------



## crossthebreeze (Jan 28, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> does anyone think the 44% stat on the article i linked is solely down to trans women or 'men in dresses' ?
> 
> '44 percent of lesbians and 61 percent of bisexual women experience rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner'
> 
> ...





pengaleng said:


> '44 percent of lesbians experience rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner'
> 
> '26 percent of gay men experience rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner'
> 
> bit of a contrast init


scifisam doesn't have the energy to take this on, maybe i have.  This a misrepresentation of the stats.  You seem to be using stats that show how lesbians and bisexual woman are more likely to be the victims of violence to say that lesbians are more likely to perpetrate violence.  Because this thread has had enough anger in it, I am just going to assume you just did not understand the statistics.

The statistics from the CDC report that you have quoted are for lifetime prevalence.  Lots of lesbian women have male partners before they come out as lesbian, and many (or even most) bisexual women have also had male partners at some point in their life.  In that report, while around two thirds (67.4%) of the lesbians who reported experiencing intimate partner violence did only have female perpetrator/s, 89.5% of the bisexual women who reported experiencing intimate partner violence had only male perpetrator.

The statistics in that report for lifetime prevalence of rape and other sexual violence show that the majority of women of all sexualities who experienced rape or sexual violence had only male perpetrators.  98.3% of the bisexual women who reported that they experienced rape in their lifetime and 87.5% of bisexual women who reported that they experienced sexual violence other than rape had only male perpetrators, for example.

Part of the problem with the report is that the sample size of LGBTQ people is so small.  From Psychology Today:
One important fact to know in understanding the CDC data are the very low rates of people who reported anything but "straight" in answer to the sexual identity question:

"The sexual orientation of the sample included 96.5% females identified as heterosexual, 2.2% bisexual, and 1.3% lesbian. For males, 96.8% identified as heterosexual, 1.2% bisexual, and 2.0% gay." (p 6.).

The CDC sample is HUGE by the standards of most psychology research—16,507 people!  However, these low rates still means that only 130 women identified as lesbian, for example.
That's already getting kind of low even for comparing victimization rates for all lesbians to victimization rates for other women.  It's one reason why the rates are not statistically different.

To get at differences in the gender of perpetrators means slicing and dicing those 130 women into even smaller categories.  First, as you said, 43.8% of them reported a victimization.  That's 43.8% of 130 so now we are down to 57 self-identified lesbians who have experienced domestic violence.

Then, slicing and dicing again, 67.4% of those 57 victimized lesbians said they had only had female perpetrators—so 38 women.  The rest of that group of 57, 19 women, reported at least one male IPV perpetrator."​If you look at the full CDC report, there's quite a few times where statistics aren't given for one group - percentage sex of perpetrator of rape for lesbian woman and gay and bisexual men, for example - because the numbers are too small to provide reliable statistics or estimates.

Getting reliable statistics on intimate partner violence amongst LGBTQ people does seem to be a problem [that article does give a good overview of LBTQ women's experience of intimate partner violence] - and lots of the studies either study lesbians but not bisexual women (or straight women who may have experienced violence from women), or define sexual or intimate partner violence in different ways so are not comparable.

Intimate partner violence is a problem in LGBQ relationships (including in relationships between women) and for LGBTQ people - and the statistics in that report for bisexual women are horrendous .  But any attempt to paint lesbians or bisexual women as more sexually violent from that report is at best deeply flawed and at worst both homophobic and victim blaming.


----------



## elbows (Jan 28, 2018)

Athos said:


> It ended when those who've been pushing to shut it down were handed the power to do so with a single reported post.



There may be a difference between warnings, even ones containing explicit detail about how the thread will be killed if there are further reports, and what will actually happen. As such, rumours of the death of this thread are understandable but are not certainties.


----------



## scifisam (Jan 28, 2018)

Thanks, crossthebreeze. And yeah, I'm sure leaving out the "lifetime" part to try to falsely imply that lesbian women are more violent than men was a _total_ accident because that'd be a pretty shitty homophobic and sexist thing to do on purpose.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 28, 2018)

crossthebreeze said:


> scifisam doesn't have the energy to take this on, maybe i have.  This a misrepresentation of the stats.  You seem to be using stats that show how lesbians and bisexual woman are more likely to be the victims of violence to say that lesbians are more likely to perpetrate violence.  Because this thread has had enough anger in it, I am just going to assume you just did not understand the statistics.
> 
> The statistics from the CDC report that you have quoted are for lifetime prevalence.  Lots of lesbian women have male partners before they come out as lesbian, and many (or even most) bisexual women have also had male partners at some point in their life.  In that report, while around two thirds (67.4%) of the lesbians who reported experiencing intimate partner violence did only have female perpetrator/s, 89.5% of the bisexual women who reported experiencing intimate partner violence had only male perpetrator.
> 
> ...


Is that what was being painted, ooops that flew over my head at that time in the morning I just saw victims. I know women can be shit if they have power over you- I have always had female bosses and the current one is a flat out bully. Don't recall having a good boss really.


----------



## elbows (Jan 28, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Is that what was being painted, ooops that flew over my head at that time in the morning I just saw victims. I know women can be shit if they have power over you- I have always had female bosses and the current one is a flat out bully. Don't recall having a good boss really.



The cruel and corrupting influence of power knows no boundaries. At least some of the perceived differences between the sexes on this front are more about who has tended to be granted a little nugget of power, rather than who has the greatest potential to misuse it.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 28, 2018)

elbows said:


> The cruel and corrupting influence of power knows no boundaries. At least some of the perceived differences between the sexes on this front are more about who has tended to be granted a little nugget of power, rather than who has the greatest potential to misuse it.


Yup! I was going to follow up and kept deleting as everything I wrote looked too open to interpretation! Where a power imbalance exists, such a problem can occur.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 28, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> Doesn't matter who didn't want to publish me, I wouldn't turn to the right because I'm not an arsehole. Who people choose as their friends is often quite telling.



Who are in govt at the moment who are being used to push through the GRA btw?


----------



## elbows (Jan 28, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Yup! I was going to follow up and kept deleting as everything I wrote looked too open to interpretation! Where a power imbalance exists, such a problem can occur.



Yeah. Although I should say that I am saying this in the broad context of power, I have no issue with men being presented as the primary wielders of physical power, sexual violence etc.


----------



## 19force8 (Jan 28, 2018)

scifisam said:


> Thanks, crossthebreeze. And yeah, I'm sure leaving out the "lifetime" part to try to falsely imply that lesbian women are more violent than men was a _total_ accident because that'd be a pretty shitty homophobic and sexist thing to do on purpose.


You're right, it would have been if that was the intent. If, however the intent was to make people think differently about their prejudices* then it might have served another purpose. Why don't you just ask the op what their intentions were?

* there have been people on this thread who have asserted that men are responsible for all sexual violence and therefore transwomen should be denied the use of women's toilets, changing rooms, shelters, etc and should be incarcerated in men's prisons.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 28, 2018)

elbows said:


> Yeah. Although I should say that I am saying this in the broad context of power, I have no issue with men being presented as the primary wielders of physical power, sexual violence etc.


cis men


----------



## scifisam (Jan 28, 2018)

19force8 said:


> You're right, it would have been if that was the intent. If, however the intent was to make people think differently about their prejudices* then it might have served another purpose. Why don't you just ask the op what their intentions were?
> 
> * there have been people on this thread who have asserted that men are responsible for all sexual violence and therefore transwomen should be denied the use of women's toilets, changing rooms, shelters, etc and should be incarcerated in men's prisons.



Making people think about their prejudices by lying? Defending trans people by attacking lesbians? That'd be pretty fucking homophobic, too. You don't get a free pass for homophobia just because you're trans. You seem to think that's fine (and you're lying about what people on this thread have said, too), but I don't. I'd rather pretend to myself that it was an honest mistake.

THIS is why I didn't have the emotional energy for this thread.


----------



## elbows (Jan 28, 2018)

19force8 was just on about possible intent, I dont see judgements within it regarding how accurately the information was portrayed.


----------



## 19force8 (Jan 28, 2018)

scifisam said:


> Making people think about their prejudices by lying? Defending trans people by attacking lesbians? That'd be pretty fucking homophobic, too. You don't get a free pass for homophobia just because you're trans. You seem to think that's fine (and you're lying about what people on this thread have said, too), but I don't. I'd rather pretend to myself that it was an honest mistake.
> 
> THIS is why I didn't have the emotional energy for this thread.


Interesting, which part of what I said was a lie?


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 28, 2018)

scifisam said:


> Making people think about their prejudices by lying? Defending trans people by attacking lesbians? That'd be pretty fucking homophobic, too. You don't get a free pass for homophobia just because you're trans. You seem to think that's fine (and you're lying about what people on this thread have said, too), but I don't. I'd rather pretend to myself that it was an honest mistake.
> 
> THIS is why I didn't have the emotional energy for this thread.


We were pizza pie high by that time, I would wait for pengaleng to clarify


----------



## scifisam (Jan 28, 2018)

Most of what you said, essentially, 19force8.



HoratioCuthbert said:


> We were pizza pie high by that time, I would wait for pengaleng to clarify



No need. I've already said I'll just act as if it was a mistake. 19force8 is the one saying it wasn't and that that's OK.



elbows said:


> 19force8 was just on about possible intent, I dont see judgements within it regarding how accurately the information was portrayed.



I'm not sure how you think my post wasn't also talking about possible intent. If the possible intent was really what he claims then it would still be homophobic. Trying to get people to "think" doesn't mean portraying lesbians as violent rapists is OK.

I am out of this thread. It is not a safe space for lesbians. Well done, people.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 28, 2018)

scifisam said:


> Most of what you said, essentially, 19force8.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh dear.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 28, 2018)

btw everyone I cant be fucked to read essays, if you cant put your pwnage in a couple of sentences to make yer point I aint gonna read it.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 28, 2018)

scifisam said:


> Thanks, crossthebreeze. And yeah, I'm sure leaving out the "lifetime" part to try to falsely imply that lesbian women are more violent than men was a _total_ accident because that'd be a pretty shitty homophobic and sexist thing to do on purpose.




uh huh, whatever all I see is people putting words in my homophobic mouth and all anyone can do is go mnerrrrrr the stats are wrong, so how come all the trans syats are right?? I cant be fucked to get into this with you.


----------



## elbows (Jan 28, 2018)

scifisam said:


> Trying to get people to "think" doesn't mean portraying lesbians as violent rapists is OK.
> 
> I am out of this thread. It is not a safe space for lesbians. Well done, people.



Well then if the intent was to get people to think about how misuse of stats can unfairly portray trans people as violent rapists, and the associated fallout from that sort of thing, then mission accomplished.

I'm not sure that was the intent, but its the direction things seem to have gone.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 28, 2018)

mnerrrrrr but the stats are wrong tho the right people never answered the survey



bet I'm just homophobic inherently cus of who i am and I'm a traitor to siisterhood


and alllllll the stats about trans being violent are never wrong are they 


get fucked.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 28, 2018)

scifisam said:


> Thanks, crossthebreeze. And yeah, I'm sure leaving out the "lifetime" part to try to falsely imply that lesbian women are more violent than men was a _total_ accident because that'd be a pretty shitty homophobic and sexist thing to do on purpose.




FUCK YOU. and your  sarcastic implication.


----------



## crossthebreeze (Jan 28, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> uh huh, whatever all I see is people putting words in my homophobic mouth and all anyone can do is go mnerrrrrr the stats are wrong, so how come all the trans syats are right?? I cant be fucked to get into this with you.





pengaleng said:


> mnerrrrrr but the stats are wrong tho the right people never answered the survey
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The stats aren't (necessarily) wrong, your interpretation of the stats is wrong.  And - considering both me and scifisam have given you the benefit of the doubt about your motive - and you can't be bothered reading  my explanation for where you've gone wrong with the stats, and you haven't shown where either of us has said that stats about trans people being violent - or transphobic interpretations of stats - are right - stop claiming you are being victimised.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 28, 2018)

scifisam said:


> Making people think about their prejudices by lying? Defending trans people by attacking lesbians? That'd be pretty fucking homophobic, too. You don't get a free pass for homophobia just because you're trans. You seem to think that's fine (and you're lying about what people on this thread have said, too), but I don't. I'd rather pretend to myself that it was an honest mistake.
> 
> THIS is why I didn't have the emotional energy for this thread.




FUCK YOURSELF YOU LITTLE SKANK


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 28, 2018)

crossthebreeze said:


> The stats aren't (necessarily) wrong, your interpretation of the stats is wrong.  And - considering both me and scifisam have given you the benefit of the doubt about your motive - and you can't be bothered reading  my explanation for where you've gone wrong with the stats, and you haven't shown where either of us has said that stats about trans people being violent - or transphobic interpretations of stats - are right - stop claiming you are being victimised.




couldnt give a toss anymore really, they can burn. I am going out, yours days can be ruined by this shit cus mine fucking well aint. enjoy.

and nice to see a little thing there about me being a 'victim' I'm the least fucking victim on this fucking website ffs.


----------



## scifisam (Jan 28, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> mnerrrrrr but the stats are wrong tho the right people never answered the survey
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Talk about putting words into people's mouths. I never said you were homophobic "because of who you are." Nice way to accuse me of transphobia - what a surprise.

Apart from that one post I would never have thought of you as homophobic at all to be honest. Leaving out the word "lifetime" made all the difference to the interpretation of the stats. 

I'm sure some (at least) of the trans stats are wrong too but that doesn't make lying about lesbians also OK. It's a shitty divide and conquer technique. 

I really am off now though. Wish I'd never posted at all.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 28, 2018)

crossthebreeze said:


> The stats aren't (necessarily) wrong, your interpretation of the stats is wrong.  And - considering both me and scifisam have given you the benefit of the doubt about your motive - and you can't be bothered reading  my explanation for where you've gone wrong with the stats, and you haven't shown where either of us has said that stats about trans people being violent - or transphobic interpretations of stats - are right - stop claiming you are being victimised.


But then scifisam said it wasn't a safe space for lesbians. Safe as houses, this space!


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 28, 2018)

scifisam said:


> Talk about putting words into people's mouths. I never said you were homophobic "because of who you are." Nice way to accuse me of transphobia - what a surprise.
> 
> Apart from that one post I would never have thought of you as homophobic at all to be honest. Leaving out the word "lifetime" made all the difference to the interpretation of the stats.
> 
> ...




fuck off basically.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 28, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> couldnt give a toss anymore really, they can burn. I am going out, yours days can be ruined by this shit cus mine fucking well aint. enjoy.
> 
> and nice to see a little thing there about me being a 'victim' I'm the least fucking victim on this fucking website ffs.


Chill. Time for more of your fucked up cheeseless pizza


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 28, 2018)

oh I am suuuuuuch a LIÅR

god this website is such a waste.


----------



## 19force8 (Jan 28, 2018)

scifisam said:


> Most of what you said, essentially, 19force8.


So which part of "people on this thread have asserted that men are responsible for all sexual violence and therefore transwomen should be denied the use of women's toilets, changing rooms, shelters, etc and should be incarcerated in men's prisons." was true then?



scifisam said:


> I'm not sure how you think my post wasn't also talking about possible intent. If the possible intent was really what he claims then it would still be homophobic. Trying to get people to "think" doesn't mean portraying lesbians as violent rapists is OK.
> 
> I am out of this thread. It is not a safe space for lesbians. Well done, people.


Okay, I wasn't clear on this point. Imo the way pengaleng presented the stats does not lead to the inference you drew. When they ask if it was "all men or transwomen" they are quite clearly making the point that only a proportion of the violence against lesbians is from women. Which is pretty much what the report says.

But you're out of this thread. Ho hum.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 28, 2018)

they twisted me fuckin words mnerrrrr you must be homophobic

that whole safe space for lesbians is another sly fucking dig as well, got your number 118


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 28, 2018)

19force8 said:


> You're right, it would have been if that was the intent. If, however the intent was to make people think differently about their prejudices* then it might have served another purpose. Why don't you just ask the op what their intentions were?
> 
> * there have been people on this thread who have asserted that men are responsible for all sexual violence and therefore transwomen should be denied the use of women's toilets, changing rooms, shelters, etc and should be incarcerated in men's prisons.


there have been people on this thread that have claimed that trans women are men and/or that trans women commit violent and sexual crimes at the same level as cis men. All the evidence says otherwise - and I've been here before so don't have to go into it any deeper here.

So for every trans woman (or crossdressing male for that matter) who commits a violent and/or sexual crime and it is splashed all over the media, who is putting it into the context of similar crimes being perpetrated by cis women? If trans women are seen to have a pattern of crime - and the nature of that crime is - similar to cis women, then i guess that pulls the rug from under a lot of reasons being put up for why trans women should be treated as if we're men - not just men - but highly suspect men, likely to be perverts and child abusers apparently (and please don't show me the disrepect to tell me that this isn't exactly what is being implied, even by some on here).


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 28, 2018)

scifisam said:


> You don't get a free pass for homophobia just because you're trans. .



FFS - trans people face homophobia too. The portion of the population of trans people who are LGB is much, much higher than cis people who are LGB. Can all the cis people arguing on here please stop dumping on trans people?


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 28, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> But then scifisam said it wasn't a safe space for lesbians. Safe as houses, this space!


who is it safe for? - I'm struggling here as it is.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 28, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> mnerrrrrr but the stats are wrong tho the right people never answered the survey
> 
> 
> 
> ...



(((((peng)))))


----------



## smokedout (Jan 28, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Correct me if I am wrong but wouldn't Ian Huntley still be assessed as a danger to others in that event, and be treated accordingly?



Perhaps worth noting this story came from anonymous ex lags speaking to The Sun and Daily Star and a year after the story broke there has been no indication yet from a credible source that Huntley is seeking a gender change.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 28, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Perhaps worth noting this story came from anonymous ex lags speaking to The Sun and Daily Star and a year after the story broke there has been no indication yet from a credible source that Huntley is seeking a gender change.


I do remember drunkenly looking for a reliable source last night, but whether it's true or not it seems somewhat moot!


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 28, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> I do remember drunkenly looking for a reliable source last night, but whether it's true or not it seems somewhat moot!


It's a diversion. And it serves the purpose that any trans women taking this issue on will end up accused of defending child killers and rapists no matter what we say. Which is why I'm not engaging directly with those that want a fight over this, or those who want a sound bite out of me. I've been quoted out of context in the fucking New statesman so I learned the hard way to stay away from the anti trans fanatics.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 28, 2018)

in future i am just gonna make all of my stats up because if you post sources you get accused of all kinds of shit, is just easier to lie about it.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 28, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> in future i am just gonna make all of my stats up because if you post sources you get accused of shit, is just easier to lie about it.


Anti trans campaigners only ever lie about stats


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 28, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> It's a diversion. And it serves the purpose that any trans women taking this issue on will end up accused of defending child killers and rapists no matter what we say. Which is why I'm not engaging directly with those that want a fight over this, or those who want a sound bite out of me. I've been quoted out of context in the fucking New statesman so I learned the hard way to stay away from the anti trans fanatics.



Oh god not that shit rag.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 28, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Oh god not that shit rag.


They called me a "trans activist" and a "minor politician"  hilarious.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 28, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Anti trans campaigners only ever lie about stats


I think you'll find they can lie about other things too


----------



## smokedout (Jan 28, 2018)

scifisam said:


> Making people think about their prejudices by lying? Defending trans people by attacking lesbians? That'd be pretty fucking homophobic, too. You don't get a free pass for homophobia just because you're trans. You seem to think that's fine (and you're lying about what people on this thread have said, too), but I don't. I'd rather pretend to myself that it was an honest mistake.
> 
> THIS is why I didn't have the emotional energy for this thread.



It is frustrating, but perhaps it will help people empathise with the countless example of misrepresented studies and dodgy tabloid scare stories that have been used on this thread to demonise trans people.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 28, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> FUCK YOURSELF YOU LITTLE SKANK



Seriously? 

scifisam I hadn't seen the subsequent conversation, I probably wouldn't have bothered with my last post if I had, sorry if it felt like a pile on.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 28, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> who is it safe for? - I'm struggling here as it is.



It's pretty safe for cis men, since they're the only group whose gender and/or gender identity isn't being debated as existing or not.

The misogynists amongst them must be laughing their fucking arses off at all of this.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 28, 2018)

It is safe unless you suffer from high BP I doot


----------



## JimW (Jan 28, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> It's pretty safe for cis men, since they're the only group whose gender and/or gender identity isn't being debated as existing or not.
> ...


Seriously don't get this, gender's a system and if you're questioning one part you're questioning all of it surely? That's leaving aside the people who've posted rejecting the notion of cis which I haven't thought through but aren't particularly bothered about myself at first blush.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 28, 2018)

JimW said:


> Seriously don't get this, gender's a system and if you're questioning one part you're questioning all of it surely? That's leaving aside the people who've posted rejecting the notion of cis which I haven't thought through but aren't particularly bothered about myself at first blush.



I was being flippant. I've made the point previously about systems and all that, and about men, women, cis, trans, all being subject to the bullshit of patriarchy.


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 28, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Seriously?
> 
> scifisam I hadn't seen the subsequent conversation, I probably wouldn't have bothered with my last post if I had, sorry if it felt like a pile on.



am probably sorry about that one actually

the safe space for lesbians thing just comes across as 'we were right about these people' no need for that shit


----------



## Jonti (Jan 28, 2018)

I've learned a fair old bit from this thread.  Still feel that if natal women want to have penis free zones that's no-ones business but their own.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 28, 2018)

Okay, there have been more reports since yesterday even just about new posts. After discussion I’m going to close the thread for a week.


----------



## elbows (Feb 12, 2018)

Hello everyone. What news have we missed during the thread pause?

I havent been paying much attention, though I do have two stories to share:

Womens Aid starting a review process to see about self-IDing trans women should be allowed to work in their refuges:

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/02/0...rn-ban-on-self-identifying-transgender-staff/

UK government service manual on gender and sex has been updated. I'm not sure what the wording of the old version was but this one says avoid using pronouns or using titles to guess gender.

Gender or sex - Service Manual - GOV.UK


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 12, 2018)

elbows said:


> Hello everyone. What news have we missed during the thread pause?
> 
> I havent been paying much attention, though I do have two stories to share:
> 
> ...


‘Transgender women are welcome in the Ladies’ Pond,’ say Hampstead Heath swimmers


----------



## weepiper (Feb 12, 2018)

A Transgender Woman Has Exclusively Breastfed Her Baby, & It's A Dream Come True

Not so much a dream come true for the poor infant being selfishly used as a human guinea pig fed drugs specifically contra-indicated in breastfeeding women. Or the actual mother, who is almost completely invisible in this article.


----------



## ska invita (Feb 12, 2018)

elbows said:


> Hello everyone. What news have we missed during the thread pause?


If anyone has news of a Labour ruling on the dispute in Hastings (?) CLP, or any other Labour clarification on position of what constitutes transphobia could they post it please (and tag me - I cant keep up with this thread). Id appreciate it.


----------



## elbows (Feb 12, 2018)

weepiper said:


> A Transgender Woman Has Exclusively Breastfed Her Baby, & It's A Dream Come True
> 
> Not so much a dream come true for the poor infant being selfishly used as a human guinea pig fed drugs specifically contra-indicated in breastfeeding women. Or the actual mother, who is almost completely invisible in this article.



The mother being invisible is an automatic consequence of the article being solely based on medical research papers, the human aspect doesnt tend to feature in such things. edited to add - because of their narrow focus and the need to anonymise patient-specific info.

As for being contra-indicted in breastfeeding women, if you are talking about Domperidone, it is unlicensed for such purposes but has been used by women in general who are trying to increase milk production.

eg:

http://www.colchesterhospital.nhs.uk/patient_information/maternity/763n4 Domperidone.pdf



> Indications for use
> 
> Domperidone can be used for women who are breastfeeding but are experiencing a temporary reduction in milk supply. Several studies have indicated that it may be beneficial for women who are temporarily unable to provide adequate milk to supply the daily nutritional intake of their baby. Please note that this is an unlicensed use for this medication and therefore GP's may need to review the literature available before prescribing.



If you were referring to a different drug, please give its name so I can research, cheers.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 12, 2018)

elbows said:


> The mother being invisible is an automatic consequence of the article being solely based on medical research papers, the human aspect doesnt tend to feature in such things. edited to add - because of their narrow focus and the need to anonymise patient-specific info.
> 
> As for being contra-indicted in breastfeeding women, if you are talking about Domperidone, it is unlicensed for such purposes but has been used by women in general who are trying to increase milk production.
> 
> ...


Contra-indicated in the US, pardon me, merely 'unlicensed' in the UK. Even when it is prescribed in the UK it's for a maximum of two weeks; this baby ingested it for six months.
FDA Talk Paper: FDA Warns Against Women Using Unapproved Drug, Domperidone, to Increase Milk Production


----------



## elbows (Feb 12, 2018)

weepiper said:


> Contra-indicated in the US, pardon me, merely 'unlicensed' in the UK. Even when it is prescribed in the UK it's for a maximum of two weeks; this baby ingested it for six months.
> FDA Talk Paper: FDA Warns Against Women Using Unapproved Drug, Domperidone, to Increase Milk Production



Again, I'm just trying to establish how much of an unknown experiment this was. I continue to find your descriptions of the situation as it has applied to women for years to be incorrect. There is no 2 week maximum in the uk. The article I already linked to contains evidence of this, which does also demonstrate that they try to reduce the dose, but there is no 2 week limit:



> Reducing the medication
> 
> Once an increase in milk supply has been established, the medication may be reduced, this should be in stages to assess the impact on milk production, and the following is a guide:
> 
> ...


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 12, 2018)

elbows said:


> Again, I'm just trying to establish how much of an unknown experiment this was. I continue to find your descriptions of the situation as it has applied to women for years to be incorrect. There is no 2 week maximum in the uk. The article I already linked to contains evidence of this, which does also demonstrate that they try to reduce the dose, but there is no 2 week limit:


Thanks, I was just going to say the same. There hasn't been a mention of risks to the baby other than in cases where the baby may have a heart condition. There must be numerous instances of babies "being made to injest" medication breastfeeding mothers are taking where judgements are made based on likely risks, such a finger pointing attitude kind of has implications for all of us if we are going down that road.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 12, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Thanks, I was just going to say the same. There hasn't been a mention of risks to the baby other than in cases where the baby may have a heart condition. There must be numerous instances of babies "being made to injest" medication breastfeeding mothers are taking where judgements are made based on likely risks, such a finger pointing attitude kind of has implications for all of us if we are going down that road.


ingest: there is nothing humorous about it


----------



## weepiper (Feb 12, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Thanks, I was just going to say the same. There hasn't been a mention of risks to the baby other than in cases where the baby may have a heart condition. There must be numerous instances of babies "being made to injest" medication breastfeeding mothers are taking where judgements are made based on likely risks, such a finger pointing attitude kind of has implications for all of us if we are going down that road.


I am well aware of the finger pointing attitude you talk about, having breastfed three babies for various lengths of time you can't take so much as a Lemsip because of the risk of transferring to the baby through the milk. When breastfeeding mothers have to take drugs for their own medical needs sometimes decisions are taken based on risks to the baby versus risks to the mother going untreated, and sometimes those risks end in the mother having to stop breastfeeding. There is no risk in this case. It's pure selfishness.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 12, 2018)

weepiper said:


> I am well aware of the finger pointing attitude you talk about, having breastfed three babies for various lengths of time you can't take so much as a Lemsip because of the risk of transferring to the baby through the milk. When breastfeeding mothers have to take drugs for their own medical needs sometimes decisions are taken based on risks to the baby versus risks to the mother going untreated, and sometimes those risks end in the mother having to stop breastfeeding. There is no risk in this case. It's pure selfishness.


*does the I have breastfed I am a mum too dance* ahem, now that's over with, you don't think the benefits of skin to skin contact, being breastfed, bonding with the babies mother (who is trans whether you like it or not) outweigh the risks here- as has been stated there is no 2 week limit in the UK and "natal women" use the drug too. There is no risk in any case as you say but you only seem to have an issue with a trans woman doing it. Or should no one be using it?


----------



## Jonti (Feb 12, 2018)

There's no need to be rude, nor for the quotes round _natal women_.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 12, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> *does the I have breastfed I am a mum too dance* ahem, now that's over with, you don't think the benefits of skin to skin contact, being breastfed, bonding with the babies mother (who is trans whether you like it or not) outweigh the risks here- as has been stated there is no 2 week limit in the UK and "natal women" use the drug too-level where is no risk as you say but you only seem to have an issue with a trans woman doing it. Or should no one be using it?


Well whoopy do for you, have a cookie. The baby's mother that gave birth to it can do all that without pumping herself full of hormones and nausea suppressors, and she's the only one in the relationship that can make colostrum, which is the most important breast milk with huge benefits for the baby, because colostrum is produced in pregnancy. Why is it better for the father (it is the baby's father we're talking about in this instance) to go through all those hoops to produce milk which isn't as good as the mother's? How about she gets to bond with her own baby?


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 12, 2018)

weepiper said:


> Well whoopy do for you, have a cookie. The baby's mother that gave birth to it can do all that without pumping herself full of hormones and nausea suppressors, and she's the only one in the relationship that can make colostrum, which is the most important breast milk with huge benefits for the baby, because colostrum is produced in pregnancy. Why is it better for the father (it is the baby's father we're talking about in this instance) to go through all those hoops to produce milk which isn't as good as the mother's? How about she gets to bond with her own baby?


Isn't that between them, and none of you business?


----------



## elbows (Feb 12, 2018)

I was a bit concerned that my info about Domperidone in the UK might be out of date due to a European review of the heart issues in 2014.

However, the NHS stance does not seem to have changed much, and the breastfeeding network's info sheet on Domperidone contains info about the European review and updated UK advice.

http://www.breastfeedingnetwork.org...tatement on domperidone as a galactogogue.pdf


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 12, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Isn't that between them, and none of you business?



Is this your attitude towards child abuse generally?


----------



## elbows (Feb 12, 2018)

Also galactagogue is a great word.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 12, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Isn't that between them, and none of you business?


Don't think a UK health visitor would see it that way.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 12, 2018)

elbows said:


> Also galactagogue is a great word.



Sounds like a word describing Elon Musk's long-term political aspirations.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 12, 2018)

weepiper said:


> Don't think a UK health visitor would see it that way.


That would entirely depend on the health visitor, but as long as the child was healthy, happy and thriving they would not have a valid reason to intervene. 


Magnus McGinty said:


> Is this your attitude towards child abuse generally?


Ok so all women who use this drug are child abusers?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 12, 2018)

this *is* going well


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 12, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Ok so all women who use this drug are child abusers?



Exposing infants to potential harm based on the desires of the parent could be argued as such in this context.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 12, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Exposing infants to potential harm based on the desires of the parent could be argued as such in this context.


Read what the NHS has to say and come back to me on that one .


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 12, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Exposing infants to potential harm based on the desires of the parent could be argued as such in this context.


go on then


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 12, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Read what the NHS has to say and come back to me on that one .



Are the NHS prescribing it to transwomen then, to save me looking?


----------



## elbows (Feb 12, 2018)

weepiper said:


> Well whoopy do for you, have a cookie. The baby's mother that gave birth to it can do all that without pumping herself full of hormones and nausea suppressors, and she's the only one in the relationship that can make colostrum, which is the most important breast milk with huge benefits for the baby, because colostrum is produced in pregnancy. Why is it better for the father (it is the baby's father we're talking about in this instance) to go through all those hoops to produce milk which isn't as good as the mother's? How about she gets to bond with her own baby?



Is Colostrum the early stuff that does various important things but is only produced in the first days after birth?


----------



## Jonti (Feb 12, 2018)

I read in the conclusion


> Domperidone is a relatively safe drug, but it would be unethical and unprofessional to expose a mother and baby to a drug they do not need ...


----------



## elbows (Feb 12, 2018)

Jonti said:


> I read in the conclusion



Indeed. I would be most interested to know how much it is used for this purpose in the uk. In part because I find that general advice within medical settings about not giving people drugs they do not need is the first thing to go out the window at the slightest provocation. Much more likely to give more drugs to deal with side-effect of drugs than not hand drugs out like candy in the first place.


----------



## maomao (Feb 12, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> you don't think the benefits of skin to skin contact, being breastfed, bonding with the babies mother (who is trans whether you like it or not) outweigh the risks here-



I've done two out of three of them with both my kids as a cis father.


----------



## bimble (Feb 12, 2018)

weepiper said:


> it is the baby's father we're talking about in this instance


Omg transphobia.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 12, 2018)

OMG shitstirrer.


----------



## elbows (Feb 12, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> We Need To Talk, the TERF speaking tour, have a statement out insisting that they are going to go ahead with a meeting in Dublin. The letter telling them to fuck off now has somewhere over 1,200 signatories from the Irish feminist movement. My guess is it won’t go ahead and that they are simply trolling the natives. If they do try to go ahead there will be one hell of a row and no doubt they will blame “trans activists” for the consequences of them aggravating the entire feminist movement in the next country over.



Indeed I just checked and the Dublin event was in a Feb 8th tweet described as being 'postponed'.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 12, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Are the NHS prescribing it to transwomen then, to save me looking?


Please continue, argue the case that the trans woman is guilty of child abuse without implicating other mothers who use the drug needlessly since they have the option of bottle feeding. Give it a go.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 12, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Please continue, argue the case that the trans woman is guilty of child abuse without implicating other mothers who use the drug needlessly since they have the option of bottle feeding. Give it a go.



So they aren’t being prescribed it then? I didn’t expect so.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 12, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> So they aren’t being prescribed it then? I didn’t expect so.


have another try


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 12, 2018)

Jonti said:


> There's no need to be rude, nor for the quotes round _natal women_.


I put quotes around it because it is in use in this thread but I don't use the myself though I am one of the women to which it would apply. Why are you talking to me as if I have said something offensive?


----------



## elbows (Feb 12, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> So they aren’t being prescribed it then? I didn’t expect so.



I doubt blanket statements one way or the other are terribly useful in this case. We've already seen how the unlicensed use of the drug is handled for women on a per-patient basis, eg left to GPs discretion, and I would not like to rule out the possibility that this has happened with one or more trans women too.

Certainly I dont see any NHS national policy guidelines about the issue, although perhaps they do exist and I just havent found them.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 12, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> have another try



Is there nothing that trans rights doesn’t trump?


----------



## Jonti (Feb 12, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> I put quotes around it because it is in use in this thread but I don't use the myself though I am one of the women to which it would apply. Why are you talking to me as if I have said something offensive?


It's just unnecessary jargon when _natal_ is readily understood in this context.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 12, 2018)

Jonti said:


> It's just unnecessary jargon when _natal_ is readily understood in this context.


 Stop adding unnecessary italics then man.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 12, 2018)

elbows said:


> Is Colostrum the early stuff that does various important things but is only produced in the first days after birth?


Yes.
Colostrum benefits for baby


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 12, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Is there nothing that trans rights doesn’t trump?


I thought you were a socialist, but you are doing an excellent job of coming across as a radical feminist. Oppression top trumps.


----------



## elbows (Feb 12, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Is there nothing that trans rights doesn’t trump?



Yes I'm soooo jealous, if only we had the privilege of being subjected to eternal rounds of emotive bingo like they are. For a full house, ickle babies being poisoned by the nasty man.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 12, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> I thought you were a socialist, but you are doing an excellent job of coming across as a radical feminist. Oppression top trumps.



People are playing that but it certainly isn’t me.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 12, 2018)

You need to argue convincingly that taking the drug Doperamide whilst breastfeeding is child abuse, and you need to make sure you are not implicating all women in the process. One more try, come on Magnus!


----------



## 8ball (Feb 12, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> You need to argue convincingly that taking the drug Doperamide whilst breastfeeding is child abuse, and you need to make sure you are not implicating all women in the process. One more try, come on Magnus!



Domperidone.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 12, 2018)

elbows said:


> Yes I'm soooo jealous, if only we had the privilege of being subjected to eternal rounds of emotive bingo like they are. For a full house, ickle babies being poisoned by the nasty man.


You're not very pleasant, I don't think I'll bother engaging with you anymore.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 12, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> You need to argue convincingly that taking the drug Doperamide whilst breastfeeding is child abuse, and you need to make sure you are not implicating all women in the process. One more try, come on Magnus!



Surely it’s obvious? If they’re not being prescribed it then they’re sourcing it online and self medicating. Which means they’re putting their own wants before the needs of their child. I’d condemn anyone doing that.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 12, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> You need to argue convincingly that taking the drug Doperamide whilst breastfeeding is child abuse, and you need to make sure you are not implicating all women in the process. One more try, come on Magnus!


It's not 'taking domperidone while breastfeeding'. It's taking domperidone, progesterone and estrogen to induce lactation in someone who would never otherwise be able to produce milk. It's not a valid comparison.


----------



## elbows (Feb 12, 2018)

weepiper said:


> You're not very pleasant, I don't think I'll bother engaging with you anymore.



Whatever. I'd like to thank you, and a couple of others on this thread whose attitudes towards all things trans have inspired me to donate a fair proportion of my future earning to trans causes and fighting the small fringe of radical feminists who've gone to the darkside over such matters.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 12, 2018)

8ball said:


> Domperidone.


AYE THAT N AW


----------



## smokedout (Feb 12, 2018)

weepiper said:


> A Transgender Woman Has Exclusively Breastfed Her Baby, & It's A Dream Come True
> 
> Not so much a dream come true for the poor infant being selfishly used as a human guinea pig fed drugs specifically contra-indicated in breastfeeding women. Or the actual mother, who is almost completely invisible in this article.



It seems to be a drug that is used all over the world to stimulate lactation and is recommended by breastfeeding groups: https://www.breastfeedingnetwork.or...tatement on domperidone as a galactogogue.pdf
https://www.breastfeedingnetwork.or...tatement on domperidone as a galactogogue.pdf
But let's not let that get in the way of trying to smear a trans woman as a child abuser.


----------



## elbows (Feb 12, 2018)

In relation to my last post, I need some tips as to where to direct my energies. I've got no money at all for about 6 months, but I have a lot of spare time to give to the cause in the meantime. Although to be fair, due to various nerdular limitations on my part, this time resource mostly takes the form of sitting in front of a computer. Even so, any tips appreciated, including groups to avoid that might have some weird history I dont know about.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 12, 2018)

smokedout said:


> It seems to be a drug that is used all over the world to stimulate lactation and is recommended by breastfeeding groups: https://www.breastfeedingnetwork.org.uk/wp-content/dibm/BfN statement on domperidone as a galactogogue.pdf
> But let's not let that get in the way of trying to smear a trans woman as a child abuser.



I gather it is recommended for short-term use only due to a fear (and from what I gather it really is just a fear based on pharmacological reasoning) that it could cause lifelong heart issues (in terms of negative structural changes) if used for long periods of time in infants.  So the length of use is an important thing to factor in.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 12, 2018)

8ball said:


> I gather it is recommended for short-term use only due to a fear (and from what I gather it really is just a fear based on pharmacological reasoning) that it could cause lifelong heart issues (in terms of negative structural changes) if used for long periods of time in infants.  So the length of use is an important thing to factor in.



No it’s fine; the urban experts have said so. Any disagreement is just smearing.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 12, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> No it’s fine; the urban experts have said so. Any disagreement is just smearing.



My non-medically-trained hunch is that it *almost certainly* _is_ fine.

Here's a link where some current advice can be found:
Domperidone for gastro-oesophageal reflux | Medicines for Children

Here's a link to the (archived) MHRA press release, which is much more general in scope:
Press releases : MHRA

It's a pretty theoretical balancing of risks against benefits, so a lot will come down to evaluation of benefit in my view.
Also, data suggests the amounts of domperidone making it into breast milk are very small.

smokedout's link is also very clear on some of the contraindications re: heart and electrolyte levels that should be observed when using this drug.


----------



## elbows (Feb 12, 2018)

I've been very clear about various details when it comes to Domperidone. I do not support simplified versions of this story where the drug is simply deemed safe or nothing to ever think about. That doesnt mean I'm going to avoid correcting inaccurate statements about its use in the UK, or avoid questioning the motives of those who choose to discuss this topic as it applies to trans people with very different language and implications compared to what would be said when discussing women using it.


----------



## elbows (Feb 12, 2018)

IPSOS survey of global attitudes toward transgender people. I cant decide how interesting the results are due to limitations of what stuff is mentioned in that article.

Global Attitudes Toward Transgender People

Anyone know if the full dataset is available? Is it something that costs money to get our hands on?


----------



## 8ball (Feb 12, 2018)

elbows said:


> I've been very clear about various details when it comes to Domperidone. I do not support simplified versions of this story where the drug is simply deemed safe or nothing to ever think about. That doesnt mean I'm going to avoid correcting inaccurate statements about its use in the UK, or avoid questioning the motives of those who choose to discuss this topic as it applies to trans people with very different language and implications compared to what would be said when discussing women using it.



Although, as weepiper has said, there could be a few extra variables to consider than just the domperidone as compared with a more typical case of a mother with low milk production.  Hard to say what they would be if the hormones involved closely end up matching a new mother, I suppose (I'm totally in ignorant-speculation-land on this one).

It's that old thing of balancing known benefits against the precautionary principle.


----------



## maomao (Feb 12, 2018)

8ball said:


> Although, as weepiper has said, there could be a few extra variables to consider than just the domperidone as compared with a more typical case of a mother with low milk production.  Hard to say what they would be if the hormones involved closely end up matching a new mother, I suppose (I'm totally in ignorant-speculation-land on this one).
> 
> It's that old thing of balancing known benefits against the precautionary principle.



And proving it one way or another is generally considered ethically unsound. Except when it's beautiful.


----------



## bimble (Feb 12, 2018)

I think maybe that story as reported is not quite true you know, it only appears in that one obscure website called 'romper' far as i can see and reads as publicity for the clinic in NY where the doctors have taken the credit for this claimed first ever in the world result. If this really was achieved (baby fed entirely this way for months) I'd expect it to be, or become, of wider interest to scientists (and journalists).


----------



## 8ball (Feb 12, 2018)

bimble said:


> I think maybe that story as reported is not quite true you know, it only appears in that one obscure website called 'romper' far as i can see and reads as publicity for the clinic in NY where the doctors have taken the credit for this claimed first ever in the world result. If this really was achieved (baby fed entirely this way for months) I'd expect it to be, or become, of wider interest to scientists (and journalists).



I get the feeling some of this is about publicising the practice and bringing it medically 'in house', since some transgender people have been using drug regimens similar to this for a while now (anyway, this is how it seems to me, from reading around the margins a little).

Edit:  After reading a bit more I'm pretty certain this is the case: ie. its not a matter of a "first" in terms of the practice, but a first in the case of a published case report in a (admittedly obscure) medical journal.  This can only be a good thing.


----------



## smokedout (Feb 12, 2018)

weepiper said:


> Well whoopy do for you, have a cookie. The baby's mother that gave birth to it can do all that without pumping herself full of hormones and nausea suppressors, and she's the only one in the relationship that can make colostrum, which is the most important breast milk with huge benefits for the baby, because colostrum is produced in pregnancy. Why is it better for the father (it is the baby's father we're talking about in this instance) to go through all those hoops to produce milk which isn't as good as the mother's? How about she gets to bond with her own baby?



Would you feel the same if this was a non-trans lesbian family and the natal mother chose not to breastfeed (or was unable to)?


----------



## Sea Star (Feb 12, 2018)

elbows said:


> That doesnt mean I'm going to avoid correcting inaccurate statements about its use in the UK, or avoid questioning the motives of those who choose to discuss this topic as it applies to trans people with very different language and implications compared to what would be said when discussing women using it.


I don't suppose you meant to imply that trans women aren't women there, but that's exactly what you did. If you had used "cisgender women" then that little faux pas would never have happened.


----------



## elbows (Feb 12, 2018)

8ball said:


> Although, as weepiper has said, there could be a few extra variables to consider than just the domperidone as compared with a more typical case of a mother with low milk production.  Hard to say what they would be if the hormones involved closely end up matching a new mother, I suppose (I'm totally in ignorant-speculation-land on this one).
> 
> It's that old thing of balancing known benefits against the precautionary principle.



Not an easy balancing act at the best of times, let alone when approaching 'new frontiers'.

I only considered Domperidone so far because I asked whether they were referring to other drugs with their original point and they were apparently not. But the other stuff was then mentioned in a later post so I will have a look at that at some point.


----------



## elbows (Feb 12, 2018)

bimble said:


> I think maybe that story as reported is not quite true you know, it only appears in that one obscure website called 'romper' far as i can see and reads as publicity for the clinic in NY where the doctors have taken the credit for this claimed first ever in the world result. If this really was achieved (baby fed entirely this way for months) I'd expect it to be, or become, of wider interest to scientists (and journalists).



That article links to the report. I have not dug any deeper than this yet:

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie (link works despite bad title)


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 12, 2018)

8ball said:


> Although, as weepiper has said, there could be a few extra variables to consider than just the domperidone as compared with a more typical case of a mother with low milk production.  Hard to say what they would be if the hormones involved closely end up matching a new mother, I suppose (I'm totally in ignorant-speculation-land on this one).
> 
> It's that old thing of balancing known benefits against the precautionary principle.


Similarly ignorantly, the function of other hormones here is to tell the body to do something - lactate- basically by mimicking the hormonal changes that happens during pregnancy . If successful I can't see why the milk itself would be harmful as the fact that the hormones are artificial shouldn't affect the process itself, isn't it kinda binary in that sense, "do this" "Stop doing this"

But I only did a basic course in pharmacology so ... It's very interesting . I find the idea of dudes lactating really cool


----------



## bimble (Feb 12, 2018)

elbows Yeah i read that, but its just them (the docs at the NY clinic) self-publishing. I guess in time more research will be done & peer reviewed etc. Not saying it didn't happen, how would i know,  just that its weird only that one website is interested, and they corresponded with the clinic leaders etc.


----------



## Sea Star (Feb 12, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> But I only did a basic course in pharmacology so ... It's very interesting . I find the idea of dudes lactating really cool


This case isn't a "dude" - she's a woman.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Feb 12, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Would you feel the same if this was a non-trans lesbian family and the natal mother chose not to breastfeed (or was unable to)?



There are an awful lot of assumptions in weepiper's arguments. We can make some of our own: that the mother who gave birth had a say in this and that the couple decided between them that this was what they wanted for their family.

Unfortunately there are also some other implications for weepiper's argument as well: namely that breastfeeding is the be all and end all, which is the kind of thing that is incredibly unhelpful to mothers who are unable to breastfeed for various reasons (which is why there has been so much campaigning and training around not making mothers feel like complete failures if they can't or won't).


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 12, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> This case isn't a "dude" - she's a woman.


I know, I meant in a general sense that it can be achieved. I think I have made it pretty clear what my thoughts are on this subject generally !


----------



## weepiper (Feb 12, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> There are an awful lot of assumptions in weepiper's arguments. We can make some of our own: that the mother who gave birth had a say in this and that the couple decided between them that this was what they wanted for their family.
> 
> Unfortunately there are also some other implications for weepiper's argument as well: namely that breastfeeding is the be all and end all, which is the kind of thing that is incredibly unhelpful to mothers who are unable to breastfeed for various reasons (which is why there has been so much campaigning and training around not making mothers feel like complete failures if they can't or won't).


That's not what I'm saying at all. I really struggled to get my first to feed due to birth complications and gave up when she was about ten days old because it was so upsetting and stressful that it was spoiling my time with her. Then I beat myself up for months for having failed her (despite her thriving on the bottle). Please don't put words in my mouth.


----------



## Athos (Feb 12, 2018)

We just don't know enough to comment sensibly. If the whole family decided that this was what was best for the child, after weighing the risks of doing it versus the disbenefits of the alternative(s), that's one thing. If the biological father bullied the biological mother into running this risk to the child's health, solely to validate their own belief that they're a woman, by aping an essentially female trait, that's quite another.  I could well believe either (or something else/inbetween). But we shouldn't assume a selfish motivation for a trans person using that drug where we wouldn't for a woman who isn't trans.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 12, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> I don't suppose you meant to imply that trans women aren't women there, but that's exactly what you did. If you had used "cisgender women" then that little faux pas would never have happened.


That's unfair.


----------



## Sea Star (Feb 12, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> That's unfair.


is it? Really? Why can't I ask that at least those people on here who aren't out and out transphobes please try to be careful about how they phrase things. I didn;t accuse him of saying it on purpose. I said "i don't suppose you meant to..." etc. So I think I was fair.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 12, 2018)

It clearly wasn’t meant that way, but I don’t think it was so unfair to point it out.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 12, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> is it? Really? Why can't I ask that at least those people on here who aren't out and out transphobes please try to be careful about how they phrase things. I didn;t accuse him of saying it on purpose. I said "i don't suppose you meant to..." etc. So I think I was fair.


Ok, fair enough. I am always kinda anti-pedantry if it's clear what is being communicated, it's one of my knee jerk things as in other cases it can just derail whole threads ken.


----------



## elbows (Feb 12, 2018)

I have no complaint about any flaws in my language being pointed out. Especially as I do not claim to have got everything right on this front yet. For a number of reasons, including wanting to understand the implications of certain uses of language before I fully adopted the terms. I will hold my hands up and admit that up till now, in this thread in particular, I avoided certain terminology most of the time because I wanted sure if it was adding to the polarisation in ways that could be counterproductive. From what I have seen since, there is apparently nothing to be gained from err-ing on that side of caution, and I will now start to use terms like cis.


----------



## elbows (Feb 12, 2018)

And yes, please be as blunt and rude to me as you like if/when I mess up.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 12, 2018)

elbows said:


> And yes, please be as blunt and rude to me as you like if/when I mess up.


that shows a good spirit


----------



## elbows (Feb 12, 2018)

I'm taking a new approach to coping with this thread if it gets me down or warps the sense of perspective. I go and read something mainstream and remind myself how far we've come, and how out of whack some stances are.

Today for example I have resorted to the publication 'Fair care for trans patients', 'An RCN guide for nursing and health care professionals, second edition'.

Fair care for trans people | Royal College of Nursing


----------



## elbows (Feb 12, 2018)

Not that I should ever get too carried away with 'see how far we've come' since guides like that one were produced in the first place because of the extent to which NHS services were seen to be flawed too often on these fronts.

I can still use such things to remind myself how far out of step some of the terf stuff is though, I doubt they could even read that guide without finding at least a couple of red lines in it as far as they are concerned.


----------



## smokedout (Feb 12, 2018)

Interesting admission from fairplay4women in this factsheet.


> https://fairplayforwomen.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/FPFW_womenonlyspaces_guide.pdf
> Reform of the GRA2004 will not affect the use of single-sex exemptions
> 
> These exemptions also apply even if a transgender male has been granted a Gender Recognition
> ...



So, as I've argued on this thread, the government seems to have confirmed that self-identification will have no impact on trans women's access to women only spaces.  So if that was the concern then surely Fairplay 4 Women and the Women's Place Tour should be embarking on a cautious wind down.  They've won after all.

But they aren't winding down, they are escalating.  Sheila Jeffries, who believes in criminalising trans healthcare, is headlining the next meeting.  It's almost as if they never really gave a shit about trans women accessing women's services or the GRA reforms and were just using them as wedge issues to generate hatred towards a group they want to morally mandate out of existence.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 12, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Interesting admission from fairplay4women in this factsheet.
> 
> 
> So, as I've argued on this thread, the government seems to have confirmed that self-identification will have no impact on trans women's access to women only spaces.  So if that was the concern then surely Fairplay 4 Women and the Women's Place Tour should be embarking on a cautious wind down.  They've won after all.
> ...


I can't cut and paste but the paragraph about women's aid appears to suddenly switch from transgender women working at a refuge to transgender women accessing the service without much clarification. Am I picking this up  wrong or are they saying women's aid are no longer allowed to assess transgender women escaping abuse on a case by case basis? I can't think of anyone who would be better placed to make that decision, it is what they are trained for and have to deal with every day surely.


----------



## Athos (Feb 12, 2018)

smokedout said:


> So, as I've argued on this thread, the government seems to have confirmed that self-identification will have no impact on trans women's access to women only spaces.



Where has the government done so?


----------



## smokedout (Feb 12, 2018)

Athos said:


> Where has the government done so?



Presumably in one of the cosy meetings rad fems have been having with Tory MPs.  Strikes me as unlikely this is something they would invent.


----------



## Athos (Feb 12, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Presumably in one of the cosy meetings rad fems have been having with Tory MPs.  Strikes me as unlikely this is something they would invent.



So no actual evidence, then?


----------



## smokedout (Feb 12, 2018)

Athos said:


> So no actual evidence, then?



Are you saying the main trans critical campaign against GRA reform is not a legitimate source? That there legal fact sheets should not be trusted?


----------



## pengaleng (Feb 12, 2018)

lol shit thread.


----------



## Sea Star (Feb 12, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Ok, fair enough. I am always kinda anti-pedantry if it's clear what is being communicated, it's one of my knee jerk things as in other cases it can just derail whole threads ken.


Ok. I don't see this as pedantry though. The way language is used around these issues is very often literally the only way I can tell if I should trust someone or not as an ally, or a potential ally. And their reaction when the issue is politely pointed out is a bit of an indicator too. Anyway. I'm happy with the responses there .


----------



## BackStabbath (Feb 13, 2018)

Can't be bothered to read 277 pages so apologies if this has been previously answered.
Please consider this a question of how to behave with modern manners rather than a slight on anyone involved, because the old manners I was taught had no precedent.
I manage very small company (<10 staff) with 2 trans ladies.
They've both decided to use the ladies loo, but the (3) girls I also employ are refusing to let them, citing "they're blokes"...and threatening me for not protecting them from sexual harm.
Is there a stock answer to this??


----------



## elbows (Feb 13, 2018)

BackStabbath said:


> Can't be bothered to read 277 pages so apologies if this has been previously answered.
> Please consider this a question of how to behave with modern manners rather than a slight on anyone involved, because the old manners I was taught had no precedent.
> I manage very small company (<10 staff) with 2 trans ladies.
> They've both decided to use the ladies loo, but the (3) girls I also employ are refusing to let them, citing "they're blokes"...and threatening me for not protecting them from sexual harm.
> Is there a stock answer to this??





> A transgender employee must be able to use the toilet or changing room of their expressed gender identity without fear of harassment.



Taken from

An Employer's Guide to Transgender Employees in the Workplace


----------



## BackStabbath (Feb 13, 2018)

Thanks. 

So the (non trans) women are wrong to insist on their own toilet facilities?

Even though the trans ladies have only declared themselves as female "verbally"?

Bloody hell. That's a hornets nest.


----------



## editor (Feb 13, 2018)

BackStabbath said:


> Thanks.
> 
> So the (non trans) women are wrong to insist on their own toilet facilities?
> 
> ...


I don't believe a word of this so I'm banning you from this thread. Feel free to start your own thread.


----------



## Athos (Feb 13, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Are you saying the main trans critical campaign against GRA reform is not a legitimate source? That there legal fact sheets should not be trusted?



I'm asking whether there's any evidence that this claim is true. They've not offered any. And, seemingly, you can't, either. 

As it happens, I don't consider them to be a reliable source of information, and wouldn't accept what they say without corroboration. Nor, I suspect would you, except where it suits you to cherry-pick.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 13, 2018)

Athos said:


> I'm asking whether there's any evidence that this claim is true. They've not offered any. And, seemingly, you can't, either.
> 
> As it happens, I don't consider them to be a reliable source of information, and wouldn't accept what they say without corroboration. Nor, I suspect would you, except where it suits you to cherry-pick.


Yeah I would go with that, I think reading that page there's unreliable info and also that they don't seem too bright, after making that claim they then draw the conclusion that "biological sex matters. The law agrees" What law? Nothing has been passed yet.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 13, 2018)

Unless they mean Justice Herself haha


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Unless they mean Justice Herself haha


----------



## MochaSoul (Feb 13, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Nothing has been passed yet.





HoratioCuthbert said:


> Unless they mean Justice Herself haha



Why exactly do you think sex and sexual orientation are protected characteristics in the Equality Act?


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 13, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Why exactly do you think sex and sexual orientation are protected characteristics in the Equality Act?


Not doing this. Go back and read smokedout's post onwards, my post was part of an ongoing conversation not a standalone essay on the law as it stands.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 13, 2018)

Social acceptance of trans people springs from our relationship with society – and that works both ways


----------



## MochaSoul (Feb 13, 2018)

Look at your own post.


HoratioCuthbert said:


> after making that claim they then draw the conclusion that "biological sex matters. The law agrees"


Do women imagine their pregnancies now as well as their "gender identities"?



HoratioCuthbert said:


> What law?





MochaSoul said:


> Why exactly do you think sex and sexual orientation are protected characteristics in the Equality Act?


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 13, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Look at your own post.
> 
> Do women imagine their pregnancies now as well as their "gender identities"?


Yes


----------



## MochaSoul (Feb 13, 2018)

Thought so.


----------



## elbows (Feb 13, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Social acceptance of trans people springs from our relationship with society – and that works both ways



Despite the way I clash with those holding a particular position here, my interest and concerns regarding themes in that article are intact. 

From the article:



> Women who were once enthusiastic allies of trans people are now more suspicious.



If I actually got to talk to more women from this category it would help. Because most of what we see on that front here in this thread is hardly from people who could reasonably be described as having previously been 'enthusiastic allies of trans people'. That doesnt mean I am questioning whether they exist, more along the lines of it being too easy for them to be overshadowed by those who have never been enthusiastic allies.

Anyway I'm all for consulting widely and carefully, even though I expect the end results of that to be complex and messy in places.

There is another line in the article that I would like to know more about, is there a detailed account of what this is referring to somewhere?



> Women’s voices were overlooked by the women and equalities committee.


----------



## smokedout (Feb 13, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Yeah I would go with that, I think reading that page there's unreliable info and also that they don't seem too bright, after making that claim they then draw the conclusion that "biological sex matters. The law agrees" What law? Nothing has been passed yet.



Seems on this occasion they were right, Amber Rudd confirmed the exemption within the the Equalities Act is not going to be touched on the Andrew Marr show last week (right at the end).


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 13, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Seems on this occasion they were right, Amber Rudd confirmed the exemption within the the Equalities Act is not going to be touched on the Andrew Marr show last week (right at the end).


Good find, I couldn't see it mentioned anywhere.


----------



## Athos (Feb 13, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Seems on this occasion they were right, Amber Rudd confirmed the exemption within the the Equalities Act is not going to be touched on the Andrew Marr show last week (right at the end).



I'm not sure they've thought through how that will work, if, for example, gender identity (rather than reassignment) is made a protected characteristic.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 13, 2018)

Athos said:


> I'm not sure they've thought through how that will work, if, for example, gender identity (rather than reassignment) is made a protected characteristic.


No, it would lead to very confusing law. It seems far too early to say how this will eventually look if reforms are passed.


----------



## MochaSoul (Feb 13, 2018)

Athos said:


> I'm not sure they've thought through how that will work, if, for example, gender identity (rather than reassignment) is made a protected characteristic.


Which is why this and this and this.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Which is why this and this and this.




i doubt he is as wholly neutral or disinterested as he declares.


----------



## smokedout (Feb 13, 2018)

Athos said:


> I'm not sure they've thought through how that will work, if, for example, gender identity (rather than reassignment) is made a protected characteristic.



It's not going to be.  The consultation is on the GRA, not the Equalities Act.  But carry on being wrong about this as well.


----------



## Athos (Feb 13, 2018)

smokedout said:


> It's not going to be.  The consultation is on the GRA, not the Equalities Act.  But carry on being wrong about this as well.



You're either being disingenous (again), or how these consultations work is another thing you don't understand.  The GRA doesn't exist in a vacuum.  It's quite possible that the result of the consultation on the GRA will be that it's not possible to amend that piece of legislation without considering the impact on others.


----------



## MochaSoul (Feb 13, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 127316
> 
> i doubt he is as wholly neutral or disinterested as he declares.



Do you have anything to say about the content of the article? 'Cos the fact it's in **The Spectator** alone (regardless of what the author is, says about himself or is said about) already told me it wasn't being published without ulterior motives.

Better than that... Disregard those articles what do you have to say about what the four times Olympic champion woman athlete has to say about trans inclusion in women's sports at the end of this?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Do you have anything to say about the content of the article? 'Cos the fact it's in **The Spectator** alone (regardless of what the author is, says about himself or is said about) already told me it wasn't being published without ulterior motives.
> 
> Better than that... Disregard those articles what do you have to say about what the four times Olympic champion woman athlete has to say about trans inclusion in women's sports at the end of this?


at least one of them's a blog on the spectator website rather than an article in the magazine: rather different to being 'in the spectator'. and no one publishes stuff without some sort of motive.

what do i have to say about her comments? that you seem to wish them to have a wider currency than the context in which she said them.


----------



## Horus Snacks (Feb 13, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Do you have anything to say about the content of the article? 'Cos the fact it's in **The Spectator** alone (regardless of what the author is, says about himself or is said about) already told me it wasn't being published without ulterior motives.
> 
> Better than that... Disregard those articles what do you have to say about what the four times Olympic champion woman athlete has to say about trans inclusion in women's sports at the end of this?


i don't see any way we could put her performance down to have a 'manly physique' or not.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 13, 2018)

smokedout said:


> It's not going to be.  The consultation is on the GRA, not the Equalities Act.  But carry on being wrong about this as well.


But isn't "becoming a transsexual person" a protected characteristic in the equalities act? Not arguing, still trying to understand how streamlining the process would lead to bad law if it isn't already a problem. I can't see how it would alter the sex based protections as they already seem to be separate anyway. Must keep reading.


----------



## smokedout (Feb 13, 2018)

elbows said:


> There is another line in the article that I would like to know more about, is there a detailed account of what this is referring to somewhere?



Some trans critical rad fems are angry that no women's groups were called to give evidence in person to the enquiry, although the views of providers of women's services were referenced in the final report.  From Rudd's interview it now seems like they are going to follow the lead of the review being carried out by Women's Aid into their own employment practices and which looks like recommending women's service providers move to self-identification.  This is their policy in Scotland and one shared by Scotland Rape Crisis who have both been fully trans inclusive for some time without any reported issue.

So it might be more correct for that piece to say that some women's voices are being overlooked, but the voices of women who actually work and live in women only services now seem to be at the heart of the government's policy plans.

I think it's important to recognise that the protests over Top Shop toilets and now Hampstead Women's Pool shows that some trans critical feminists are not concerned with preserving the right to biologically born female spaces, but are demanding all women's spaces be trans exclusive regardless of what those women actually think themselves.  This really continues an agenda which has been going on since the 70s when feminist music collective Olivia Records started getting hate mail and threats of violence for having a trans sound engineer.  Given that trans critical feminism has repeatedly attacked women's groups for choosing to be trans inclusive I'm not sure their claim to be the voice of women is particularly justified.


----------



## smokedout (Feb 13, 2018)

Athos said:


> You're either being disingenous (again), or how these consultations work is another thing you don't understand.  The GRA doesn't exist in a vacuum.  It's quite possible that the result of the consultation on the GRA will be that it's not possible to amend that piece of legislation without considering the impact on others.



And this is what you went on and on about when it comes to the exemption, which had already been rejected just like the move to gender identity has been.  You were wrong about that and you're wrong about this.  But who cares, why not bang on and on about this now.  I won't be joining in this time though.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 13, 2018)

Horus Snacks said:


> i don't see any way we could put her performance down to have a 'manly physique' or not.


That doesn't really work. The reason biological men have a higher top limit of physical performance than biological women is very precisely because they have a manly physique and a manly physiology. There is an obvious problem when mtf trans athletes switch from men's competitions to women's competitions. (It's the reason why sports are exempted from many of the provisions of the current gender recognition act here in the UK.)


----------



## smokedout (Feb 13, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> But isn't "becoming a transsexual person" a protected characteristic in the equalities act? Not arguing, still trying to understand how streamlining the process would lead to bad law if it isn't already a problem. I can't see how it would alter the sex based protections as they already seem to be separate anyway. Must keep reading.



It wouldn't, even the trans critical rad fems seem to have conceded that, hence their legal advice leaflets.


----------



## Athos (Feb 13, 2018)

smokedout said:


> And this is what you went on and on about when it comes to the exemption, which had already been rejected just like the move to gender identity has been.  You were wrong about that and you're wrong about this.  But who cares, why not bang on and on about this now.  I won't be joining in this time though.



I'm sorry, but you're wrong; you don't understand how law making works. Nothing has been rejected; it's all up for grabs. And all legitimate for women to discuss, despite what you and others would prefer.


----------



## MochaSoul (Feb 13, 2018)

Horus Snacks said:


> i don't see any way we could put her performance down to have a 'manly physique' or not.



She benefited from naturally occurring testosterone levels growing up that had women and girls disqualified at those ages. One year of low testosterone is not enough to lose the muscle and bone masses and lung and cardiac capacities developed during that time in order to become the athlete equivalent of women.

Why do you think volley nets in men's competitions are set higher than women's?


----------



## smokedout (Feb 13, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> She benefited from naturally occurring testosterone levels growing up that had women and girls disqualified at those ages. One year of low testosterone is not enough to lose the muscle and bone masses and lung and cardiac capacities developed during that time in order to become the athlete equivalent of women.
> 
> Why do you think volley nets in men's competitions are set higher than women's?



Where do you get a year from?  Says here she began transition in 2012.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 13, 2018)

smokedout said:


> It wouldn't, even the trans critical rad fems seem to have conceded that, hence their legal advice leaflets.


Yeah that's how it looks to me. The equalities act would need to be amended to say "transgender" rather than "transexual" to be compatible  as far as I can tell, but that wouldn't leave us in much of a different situation, the only change is transgender people don't have to wait two years to start going by their preferred identity.

ETA: obviously all of section 7 would have to be amended. 

Equality Act 2010


----------



## Athos (Feb 13, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> ... the only change is transgender people don't have to wait two years to start going by their preferred identity.



That's clearly not the only change. Another change would be to expand the group of people who could get a GRC i.e. to any male who (for whatever purpose) claims to be a woman, but who wouldn't meet the current criteria.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2018)

Athos said:


> That's clearly not the only change. Another change would be to expand the group of people who could get a GRC i.e. to any male who (for whatever purpose) claims to be a woman, but who wouldn't meet the current criteria.


i.e.? not e.g.? so you envisage the expansion being monopolised by natal men and not natal women. strange.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 13, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Where do you get a year from?  Says here she began transition in 2012.


It's still a problem. She's 194cm tall, for starters. No doubt she has teammates who are also that tall without having grown up with male hormones, but you can't deny the influence those hormones had on her that left permanent traces. 

I don't see a good solution to this problem. Due to the new hormones in her body, she cannot now compete with men, but she does maintain a physical legacy from when she was a man that makes it far from simple for her to switch to playing against women. And her interests are not the only ones to be considered.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 13, 2018)

Athos said:


> That's clearly not the only change. Another change would be to expand the group of people who could get a GRC i.e. to any make who (for whatever purpose) claims to be a woman, but who wouldn't meet the current criteria.


I amended my post to say the whole of section 7 would need to be altered. But it still wouldn't make much difference to how things are now(it wouldn't alter sex based protections as they currently stand)


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> She benefited from naturally occurring testosterone levels growing up that had women and girls disqualified at those ages. One year of low testosterone is not enough to lose the muscle and bone masses and lung and cardiac capacities developed during that time in order to become the athlete equivalent of women.
> 
> Why do you think volley nets in men's competitions are set higher than women's?


perhaps you should read the daily mail 

Brazilian transgender player debuts in top volleyball... | Daily Mail Online


----------



## smokedout (Feb 13, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Yeah that's how it looks to me. The equalities act would need to be amended to say "transgender" rather than "transexual" to be compatible  as far as I can tell, but that wouldn't leave us in much of a different situation, the only change is transgender people don't have to wait two years to start going by their preferred identity.
> 
> ETA: obviously all of section 7 would have to be amended.
> 
> Equality Act 2010



It can stay as it is, a GRC would be evidence of gender transition, but the exemption, which permits discrimination in some circumstances, would remain.  So in most cases someone could not be discriminated against at work or in provision of services, if they had a gender recognition certificate unless those services felt discrimination was necessary to meet a 'proportionate aim', such as a women only refuge.


----------



## Horus Snacks (Feb 13, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> She benefited from naturally occurring testosterone levels growing up that had women and girls disqualified at those ages. One year of low testosterone is not enough to lose the muscle and bone masses and lung and cardiac capacities developed during that time in order to become the athlete equivalent of women.
> 
> Why do you think volley nets in men's competitions are set higher than women's?


I have no idea what the heights of volley nets are, never been something i've had an interested in I'm afraid.

So the argument would be that those testosterone levels are exclusive to men (ie people born as biological males).

I don't pretend to understand it all.


----------



## Athos (Feb 13, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> i.e.? not e.g.? so you envisage the expansion being monopolised by natal men and not natal women. strange.



Expand to, not replace.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2018)




----------



## Horus Snacks (Feb 13, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That doesn't really work. The reason biological men have a higher top limit of physical performance than biological women is very precisely because they have a manly physique and a manly physiology. There is an obvious problem when mtf trans athletes switch from men's competitions to women's competitions. (It's the reason why sports are exempted from many of the provisions of the current gender recognition act here in the UK.)


I thought the whole sexual dimorphism thing was more or less bollocks that differences were negligible


----------



## MochaSoul (Feb 13, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Where do you get a year from?  Says here she began transition in 2012.



My point was not about the athlete in question. My point was about the IOC rules which do state low level testosterone for one year. Henkel wrote an open letter to the IOC about it. Sorry it's in Portuguese and I can't find a translation nor do I have the time to do it myself. She exposes the whole fraudulent scheme and how she feels the rsponsibility of speaking out knowing current players won't dare to raise it themselves.
Subsequent questions of hers have been where and when do women become men and men become women to answer Pick's earlier question.
All very good TERFy questions by someone who hadn't given a fig about feminism until a bunch of MRAs messed with her passion.

Plenty of women rising around the world which, bearing the abuse they get for it, should tell anyone something's up. But nooooo.... men are women now when they choose and the women who claim to be men are even more invisible than the rest of us.
I mean... in a country like Britain, women themselves proclaiming in public that others are wrong and biology doesn't matter at the same time as other women try to raise issues like period poverty rising in the same country. It has to take a heavy dosage of men centered feminism to read that "children **trade** sex" with adult "humanitarians" in disastrous zones and say, not much about it either.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That doesn't really work. The reason biological men have a higher top limit of physical performance than biological women is very precisely because they have a manly physique and a manly physiology. There is an obvious problem when mtf trans athletes switch from men's competitions to women's competitions. (It's the reason why sports are exempted from many of the provisions of the current gender recognition act here in the UK.)


so what you're saying is the reason 'biological men' have a higher top limit of physical performance is because they are men. nice teleology.


----------



## pengaleng (Feb 13, 2018)

dont yous ever get bored of discussing other people?


----------



## bimble (Feb 13, 2018)

Horus Snacks said:


> I thought the whole sexual dimorphism thing was more or less bollocks that differences were negligible


Yes, that's right, women are just lazy that's why we run 10-20% slower than men whether its sprint or long distance


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> My point was not about the athlete in question. My point was about the IOC rules which do state low level testosterone for one year.<snip>


this would be why you've highlighted the ioc rules as opposed to this particular athlete.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> dont yous ever get bored of discussing other people?


not really, no


----------



## pengaleng (Feb 13, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> not really, no




all carry on with yer virtue signalling then


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> all carry on with yer virtue signalling then


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 13, 2018)

Athos said:


> That's clearly not the only change. Another change would be to expand the group of people who could get a GRC i.e. to any male who (for whatever purpose) claims to be a woman, but who wouldn't meet the current criteria.


So what we have are fears that there will be a fuck ton of applications after the reforms.


smokedout said:


> It can stay as it is, a GRC would be evidence of gender transition, but the exemption, which permits discrimination in some circumstances, would remain.  So in most cases someone could not be discriminated against at work or in provision of services, if they had a gender recognition certificate unless those services felt discrimination was necessary to meet a 'proportionate aim', such as a women only refuge.



I think they *should* change it though when the reforms come in so they both say the same thing -I think Miranda was talking sense there, because in a court room they are pedantic as fuck right?


----------



## MochaSoul (Feb 13, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> this would be why you've highlighted the ioc rules as opposed to this particular athlete.


.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 13, 2018)

But aye, with the women's aid stuff that's obviously down to them to work out what their policy is and reforms not really relevant. It sounds like I am arguing because I am not succinct


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> .





MochaSoul said:


> My point was not about the athlete in question. My point was about the IOC rules


this is your only mention of the ioc ever. you seem to me to be bringing it up now as something of a figleaf. if your point really was about the ioc you yould have said it before.


----------



## MochaSoul (Feb 13, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> you seem to me to be bringing it up now as something of a figleaf.


.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> .


ah the cut and thrust of debate on urban


----------



## MochaSoul (Feb 13, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> ah the cut and thrust of debate on urban


.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 13, 2018)

..-. ..-


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Do you have anything to say about the content of the article? 'Cos the fact it's in **The Spectator** alone (regardless of what the author is, says about himself or is said about) already told me it wasn't being published without ulterior motives.
> 
> Better than that... Disregard those articles what do you have to say about what the four times Olympic champion woman athlete has to say about trans inclusion in women's sports at the end of this?


this is where you should have mentioned the ioc

but you didn't. so you can see why i don't believe your point really about the ioc rules, being as they're not even referenced in the article.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 13, 2018)

Horus Snacks said:


> I thought the whole sexual dimorphism thing was more or less bollocks that differences were negligible


Very obviously not bollocks. 

In this case, the athlete concerned said:



> “I say to other transgender athletes that they need to work hard because as long as their harmonization is correct, the rules are on their side,” said Abreu. “They have the right to be happy, too.”



But this isn't about happiness. That seems to miss the point. It's about sporting fairness.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 13, 2018)

I didn't realise we were on athletes now. IF YOU ARE NOT ANGRY ABOUT TRANSGENDER ATHLETES THEN YOU HAVEN'T BEEN PAYING ATTENTION!


----------



## MochaSoul (Feb 13, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> this is where you should have mentioned the ioc
> 
> but you didn't. so you can see why i don't believe your point really about the ioc rules, being as they're not even referenced in the article.


Henkel herself did


MochaSoul said:


> at the end of this?





> "We have already applauded the ***IOC*** and its policies for pure sport without fraud, now women who have long adhered to the same anti-doping rules that have come clean from countless tests since they were 16, 17, help a biological man break their records. "


You're just picking for sport. I don't have to go along with you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Henkel herself did


.




> You're just picking for sport. I don't have to go along with you.


no indeed.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 13, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> I didn't realise we were on athletes now. IF YOU ARE NOT ANGRY ABOUT TRANSGENDER ATHLETES THEN YOU HAVEN'T BEEN PAYING ATTENTION!


It's not a question of being angry, is it? I think it's a very unfortunate situation that doesn't necessarily have a good answer. One answer that doesn't really work is to say there's no problem.


----------



## MochaSoul (Feb 13, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> .
> 
> no indeed.




... and which part of "what do you think of what SHE had to say about it" do you have trouble with? Did I reference any other part of the article?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> ... and which part of "what do you think what SHE had to say about it" do you have trouble with? Did I reference any other part of the article?


'what do you think what SHE had to say about it' is a word short of a question.


----------



## smokedout (Feb 13, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's not a question of being angry, is it? I think it's a very unfortunate situation that doesn't necessarily have a good answer. One answer that doesn't really work is to say there's no problem.



Looking at the evidence such as it is might be a good starting point:



> The NCAA instituted somewhat less stringent guidelines in 2011. They do not require surgery, and they require only one year on testosterone suppression for male-to-female transgender athletes. The conclusions of the consulting medical experts on the NCAA policy were unambiguous:
> 
> It is also important to know that any strength and endurance advantages a transgender woman arguably may have as a result of her prior testosterone levels dissipate after about one year of estrogen or testosterone-suppression therapy. According to medical experts on this issue, the assumption that a transgender woman competing on a women’s team would have a competitive advantage outside the range of performance and competitive advantage or disadvantage that already exists among female athletes is not supported by evidence.
> 
> ...


----------



## MochaSoul (Feb 13, 2018)

LOL


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 13, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's not a question of being angry, is it? I think it's a very unfortunate situation that doesn't necessarily have a good answer. One answer that doesn't really work is to say there's no problem.


This is a near 300 page thread where certain posters keep turning up with the most sensationalist bit of news they can find to prove their point - not entirely sure what it is other than TRANS PEOPLE R MAKING ME SO UPSET RIGHT NOW.If even just one of them would respectfully engage in the debate and not just sit on the thread until they can find yet another thing to wind up trans posters with, maybe you could take them seriously. Even the educated feminist as fuck weepiper dropped in with some tabloid nonsense about Ian Huntley having a sex change 
 It's nuts, so no I don't much feel like shedding a tear over this "very unfortunate situation"


----------



## Horus Snacks (Feb 13, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Very obviously not bollocks.
> 
> In this case, the athlete concerned said:
> 
> ...


what is the stupid little face for? Can't you people ever just respond without the attitude? I made a point in good faith, and yet hwere we go again. FFS. EIther respond or don't, leave the shitty patronising bollocks at home.


----------



## maomao (Feb 13, 2018)

Horus Snacks said:


> EIther respond or don't,


It would be really wise if _everyone_ didn't btw. This is Awesome Wells / Biscuitician /etc. etc.  and he feeds on dragging threads into really nasty hateful places. Hopefully he'll be banned again soon.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2018)

Horus Snacks said:


> what is the stupid little face for? Can't you people ever just respond without the attitude? I made a point in good faith, and yet hwere we go again. FFS. EIther respond or don't, leave the shitty patronising bollocks at home.


all you have is shitty patronising bollocks.


----------



## Horus Snacks (Feb 13, 2018)

maomao said:


> It would be really wise if _everyone_ didn't btw. This is Awesome Wells / Biscuitician /etc. etc.  and he feeds on dragging threads into really nasty hateful places. Hopefully he'll be banned again soon.


Unlike this pathetic attempt at well poisoning by making appalling accusations without evidence of course.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 13, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Looking at the evidence such as it is might be a good starting point:



There appears to be very little consensus here, but if this article is right on this bit:



> not only can testosterone levels give trans women an advantage over their CIS female competitors, after transitioning a trans woman's muscle mass, lung capacity and muscle memory all remain the same as when they were CIS male



then there may well be certain permanent legacies from growing up (and training as) male that are nothing to do with your current testosterone levels.

Your article and mine appear to contradict one another in certain places.


----------



## Omaplata (Feb 13, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's not a question of being angry, is it? I think it's a very unfortunate situation that doesn't necessarily have a good answer. One answer that doesn't really work is to say there's no problem.



This issue probably has even more importance in combat sports, Fallon Fox in MMA springs to mind Fallon Fox - Wikipedia

There have also been issues within the UK Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu community albeit on a less publicised scale due to the nature of the sport, a trans lady named Chloe Moore guested on the Raspberry Ape podcast a while ago, IIRC she discussed some of the testosterone limits she has to observe but I would have to listen again to remember details.  I do remember it being worth a listen though! 



I include her name and the link as it is obviously already freely available on the internet, I will of course delete if she happens to frequent here and doesn't want to be dragged in.


----------



## smokedout (Feb 13, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There appears to be very little consensus here, but if this article is right on this bit:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That seems to be based on the opinions of just one person, who doesn't offer any evidence beyond the study which contradicts her claim.  There's another study referenced here:


> The same data were extracted from all research articles reviewed (Table 1). Below, we provide the most prominent findings in relation to competitive sport participation from each of these articles. Six research articles were concerned with competitive sport participation within this systematic review [23, 25–29]. The only experimental study was by Gooren and Bunck [23] who aimed to explore whether transgender people taking cross-sex hormone treatment can fairly compete in sport. The authors measured transgender people’s muscle mass (via magnetic resonance imaging) and hormone levels (via urine and blood analyses) before and 1 year after cross-sex hormone treatment. They found that 1 year after transgender male individuals had been administered cross-sex hormone treatment, testosterone levels significantly increased and these levels were within a cisgender male range. They also found that 1 year after cross-sex hormone treatment, transgender male individuals’ muscle mass had increased and was within the same range as transgender female individuals (assigned male at birth) who had not been prescribed cross-sex hormone treatment. In relation to transgender female individuals, Gooren and Bunck found testosterone levels had significantly reduced to castration levels after 1 year of cross-sex hormone treatment. Muscle mass had also reduced after 1 year of cross-sex hormone treatment. However, muscle mass remained significantly greater than in transgender male individuals (assigned female at birth) who had not been prescribed cross-sex hormone treatment.



Castration level means they would have less testosterone than non-trans women, so if it is all about that as your source suggests then over time this may be a disadvantage for trans women.


----------



## bimble (Feb 13, 2018)

I'm not particularly interested in competitive sports but it'll obviously lead to ongoing discussion because people in general aren't ready to unquestioningly agree that differences between biological men and women don't really exist. Eg the controversy about this weightlifter doesn't go away just because the law says she's got every right to compete as a woman. 
Human Rights Commission NZ backs transgender weightlifter Laurel Hubbard for Commonwealth Games
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/11/2...es-for-womens-category-at-commonwealth-games/


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 13, 2018)

smokedout said:


> That seems to be based on the opinions of just one person, who doesn't offer any evidence beyond the study which contradicts her claim.  There's another study referenced here:
> 
> 
> Castration level means they would have less testosterone than non-trans women, so if it is all about that as your source suggests then over time this may be a disadvantage for trans women.


Then there are issues such as bone shape and angles, lung capacity and heart size:



> the science does show when a male to female transgender properly uses hormone therapy there is significant drops in testosterone (main component in muscle gain and retention), bone density, thinning of skin, and redistribution of body fat. All of the previous conditions lead to a decline in physical ability for any athlete. However hormone therapy does not change the bone shape or angles, lung capacity, or heart size.
> 
> Men and women have different angles between the quadriceps and knee. The ability for men to have better patellar tracking in athletic movements doesn’t diminish during hormonal therapy. In fact women are at greater risk for valgus knee positioning, increasing the risk of injury and a decrease of power generation. More physical advantages a man and a transgender male to female person will have are increased lung capacity, larger airways compared to height-matched women. Scientific findings suggest that gas exchange and ventilation will limit women’s ability during exercise. Regardless of hormone therapy a male will retain some of these advantages that can’t just be thrown aside because of legal differentiation.



Transgender, what is fair? - Tabata Times

There are physical legacies from the years of being and training as a male. At the very least, this stuff is tricky to disentangle in terms of fairness. At worst, it risks being blatantly unfair on cis women. Some frame this as a human rights issue to do with trans people's right to compete, but it's really not that straightforward.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 13, 2018)

There are psychological advantages that late-transitioning trans women have over female athletes too: they were brought up as boys, so they had all the male socialisation that says boys are strong and good at running and years of practice at ball throwing and catching and all that stuff that doesn't generally happen to girls. The phrase 'you throw like a girl' didn't come from nowhere. It's not just about testosterone.


----------



## Sea Star (Feb 13, 2018)

Athos said:


> That's clearly not the only change. Another change would be to expand the group of people who could get a GRC i.e. to any male who (for whatever purpose) claims to be a woman, but who wouldn't meet the current criteria.


And still you insist you're not a transphobe. Wow. Keep misrepresenting things and using transphobic language to do it why don't you?


----------



## weepiper (Feb 13, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> This is a near 300 page thread where certain posters keep turning up with the most sensationalist bit of news they can find to prove their point - not entirely sure what it is other than TRANS PEOPLE R MAKING ME SO UPSET RIGHT NOW.If even just one of them would respectfully engage in the debate and not just sit on the thread until they can find yet another thing to wind up trans posters with, maybe you could take them seriously. Even the educated feminist as fuck weepiper dropped in with some tabloid nonsense about Ian Huntley having a sex change
> It's nuts, so no I don't much feel like shedding a tear over this "very unfortunate situation"


Would you like to quote the post where I 'dropped in with some tabloid nonsense about Ian Huntley having a sex change', because I don't recall that?


----------



## editor (Feb 13, 2018)

Horus Snacks said:


> what is the stupid little face for? Can't you people ever just respond without the attitude? I made a point in good faith, and yet hwere we go again. FFS. EIther respond or don't, leave the shitty patronising bollocks at home.


You're now banned from this thread.


----------



## smokedout (Feb 13, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Then there are issues such as bone shape and angles, lung capacity and heart size:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That just seems to be some random on a two bit athletics website.  I'd hope the IOC have access to better medical advice than that and they seem satisfied, that on the evidence, trans women with testosterone below 10nmol/L do not have a competitive advantage.


----------



## smokedout (Feb 13, 2018)

weepiper said:


> There are psychological advantages that late-transitioning trans women have over female athletes too: they were brought up as boys, so they had all the male socialisation that says boys are strong and good at running and years of practice at ball throwing and catching and all that stuff that doesn't generally happen to girls. The phrase 'you throw like a girl' didn't come from nowhere. It's not just about testosterone.



You could also speculate that the sudden loss of strength could lead to psychological trauma in an athlete and a heightened risk of injury.  Not sure speculation really helps here though.


----------



## agricola (Feb 13, 2018)

weepiper said:


> There are psychological advantages that late-transitioning trans women have over female athletes too: they were brought up as boys, so they had all the male socialisation that says boys are strong and good at running and years of practice at ball throwing and catching and all that stuff that doesn't generally happen to girls. The phrase 'you throw like a girl' didn't come from nowhere. It's not just about testosterone.



That is true, though of course a lot of that could be remedied by improving the level of and availability of training for girls in many sports - certainly in sports like football and cricket.  

However I do think the biggest psychological advantage that a late transitioning trans woman has with respect to the competition is the fact that they have transitioned, or more specifically the struggle that is required to do that; loads of athletes and sportspeople (of any gender or sport) who reach the very top level of their profession have had to fight hard against something (be it trauma, bereavement, racism, rejection or physical problems) in order to get there, indeed there are so many of them its almost a cliche.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 13, 2018)

smokedout said:


> You could also speculate that the sudden loss of strength could lead to psychological trauma in an athlete and a heightened risk of injury.  Not sure speculation really helps here though.


No amount of you insisting that trans women are identical to born women in every way is going to convince me of the truth of it. We are different, because of our different experiences. What is so wrong with saying that? Why is it hateful?


----------



## maomao (Feb 13, 2018)

weepiper said:


> Would you like to quote the post where I 'dropped in with some tabloid nonsense about Ian Huntley having a sex change', because I don't recall that?


HoratioCuthbert clearly has you mixed up with trashpony not that it was an accurate precis of what Trashpony said either.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 13, 2018)

smokedout said:


> That just seems to be some random on a two bit athletics website.  I'd hope the IOC have access to better medical advice than that and they seem satisfied, that on the evidence, trans women with testosterone below 10nmol/L do not have a competitive advantage.


The controversy surrounding intersex athletes is relevant wrt that 10 unit limit rule (which is well above the normal range for women and has been chosen pretty arbitrarily - I wouldn't overestimate the IOC's wisdom on this stuff). It's also a doper's charter - women can dope themselves up to that limit and not get done for it.  

Here's another article, quoting a doctor about the potential legacy of your previous life:



> Whether male to female or vice versa, a trans person's bone structure is unlikely to change in a significant way. If you were born female, you're still more likely to be shorter, smaller, and have less dense bones after transition; if you're born male, you're more likely to be taller, bigger, and have denser bones. And therein lies the controversy.
> 
> "A FTM trans person will end up somewhat disadvantaged because they have a smaller frame," Beil says. "But MTF trans people tend to be bigger, and may have certain strengths from before they started using estrogen."
> 
> It's these particular advantages that are raising tough questions for athletic organizations around the the world. "I think for high school or local athletic organizations, it's a small enough difference that people should largely ignore it," he says. "It's a harder question when you're talking about elite athletes."


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 13, 2018)

maomao said:


> HoratioCuthbert clearly has you mixed up with trashpony not that it was an accurate precis of what Trashpony said either.


This is correct, the story has been shared a few times in the thread (hence "dropped in with tabloid nonsense" as that  is what it was ) but I must be remembering weepiper as liking all the posts mentioning it which seems an odd thing to do when normally coming across as pretty educated.


----------



## elbows (Feb 13, 2018)

Issues of level playing field and competitive advantage are a complete mess at the upper level of competitive sports. We've seem glimpses of this for a long time with performance enhancing drugs, and more recently with stuff concerning paralympic classification, which has become very nasty in places. I guess this is what happens when everyone is encouraged to compete to the max on every front and push all the limits all the time. Given these general issues, I have very little hope that trans issues can be dealt with to everyones satisfaction on the sports front.

An example of the paralympic stuff: Sophie Hahn: Classification claims heartbreaking - Paralympic athlete


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 13, 2018)

weepiper said:


> No amount of you insisting that trans women are identical to born women in every way is going to convince me of the truth of it. We are different, because of our different experiences. What is so wrong with saying that? Why is it hateful?


Born women don't all have the same experiences either, and as soon as you start listing things born women all share like fertility for example, it becomes problematic.


----------



## smokedout (Feb 13, 2018)

weepiper said:


> No amount of you insisting that trans women are identical to born women in every way is going to convince me of the truth of it. We are different, because of our different experiences. What is so wrong with saying that? Why is it hateful?



I don't think it is hateful to say that and I don't think I've ever insisted that trans women are identical to non trans women in every way.  I dont think I've ever heard anyone argue that.  The question I think is for legal and social purposes do the commonalities outweigh the differences. I'm less interested in the ideology than I am in pragmatic solutions, and I think those solutions should be as best they can be based on some evidence.  My main concern on this thread has been to counter propaganda from some radical feminists who oppose the existence of trans people and have used the proposed changes to the GRA to stir up hatred and misinformation.


----------



## Athos (Feb 13, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> And still you insist you're not a transphobe. Wow. Keep misrepresenting things and using transphobic language to do it why don't you?



What's transphobic about that? That's simply a fact, isn't it? Which bit is untrue?


----------



## cantsin (Feb 13, 2018)

weepiper said:


> No amount of you insisting that trans women are identical to born women in every way is going to convince me of the truth of it. We are different, because of our different experiences. What is so wrong with saying that? Why is it hateful?



doesn't seem a "hateful" thing to say, but it's a line of argument that seems v rarely to be pushed by anyone who isn't hateful tbh...

If there is a good faith debate to be had around these issues, feels like nasty Terfism is poisoning the discourse beyond repair


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 13, 2018)

elbows said:


> Issues of level playing field and competitive advantage are a complete mess at the upper level of competitive sports. We've seem glimpses of this for a long time with performance enhancing drugs, and more recently with stuff concerning paralympic classification, which has become very nasty in places. I guess this is what happens when everyone is encouraged to compete to the max on every front and push all the limits all the time. Given these general issues, I have very little hope that trans issues can be dealt with to everyones satisfaction on the sports front.
> 
> An example of the paralympic stuff: Sophie Hahn: Classification claims heartbreaking - Paralympic athlete


It is a mess, I agree, and the comparison to paralympic classification seems a good one. Men's sports are essentially open events - there's no need for restrictions and tests as top-level male competitors will mostly be so much better than top-level female athletes. Women's events exist precisely because women cannot compete with men in most top-level sports, so the only meaningful competition women can enter is one against other women - and restrictions and tests then become necessary, as they are in paralympic events. But as intersex athletes also show, we don't all fit neatly into one of the two boxes provided for us as competitors.

Ultimately, there is no completely satisfactory answer regarding what to do with those who slip between the boxes. The evidence regarding post-treatment performance doesn't alter the fact of various physical legacies from pre-treatment life. The example given of volleyball illustrates that simply enough: Height is a big advantage in volleyball and most top players are very tall. Trans women who transitioned in adulthood have male average height, not female average height; all other things being equal, you would expect to see trans women disproportionately represented at the top level of women's volleyball for this reason alone.


----------



## elbows (Feb 13, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Some trans critical rad fems are angry that no women's groups were called to give evidence in person to the enquiry, although the views of providers of women's services were referenced in the final report.  From Rudd's interview it now seems like they are going to follow the lead of the review being carried out by Women's Aid into their own employment practices and which looks like recommending women's service providers move to self-identification.  This is their policy in Scotland and one shared by Scotland Rape Crisis who have both been fully trans inclusive for some time without any reported issue.
> 
> So it might be more correct for that piece to say that some women's voices are being overlooked, but the voices of women who actually work and live in women only services now seem to be at the heart of the government's policy plans.
> 
> I think it's important to recognise that the protests over Top Shop toilets and now Hampstead Women's Pool shows that some trans critical feminists are not concerned with preserving the right to biologically born female spaces, but are demanding all women's spaces be trans exclusive regardless of what those women actually think themselves.  This really continues an agenda which has been going on since the 70s when feminist music collective Olivia Records started getting hate mail and threats of violence for having a trans sound engineer.  Given that trans critical feminism has repeatedly attacked women's groups for choosing to be trans inclusive I'm not sure their claim to be the voice of women is particularly justified.



Thanks. I asked because I was actually hoping the answer might not be the usual suspects. But I had forgotten to check what other articles the author I quoted wrote. It was Debbie Hayton so I'm pretty sure we would already have spoken here about an article she first had published in the Times near the end of November. And I dont want to rehash a discussion about that one again, although it does contain a bit that brings me back to the 'fear of backlash' theme yet again.

We transgender women cannot self identify our sex



> The same piece of legislation defends women’s rights. Some women have perceived a conflict and they are asking hard questions. If anyone can self-identify as a woman, what does the word woman even mean? My dictionary tells me that a woman is an adult human female, but that does not fit well with the claim that “transgender women are women”. This is painful territory for transgender people, and it is tempting to shut down debate and dismiss concerns as transphobia. But concerns don’t go away, they fester, and we risk transgender-acceptance being replaced by transgender-suspicion.



I think I already made one reference today to having concerns trying to identify people who are being pushed by the present agenda from transgender-acceptance to transgender-suspicion, as opposed to not coming from a place many would really recognise as transgender-acceptance to start with. Probably because a good many of them struggle to speak in glowing terms about trans people on any level, or at the very least making it hard through their use of language for me to detect a reasonable baseline of trans-acceptance in their starting point.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 13, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> This is correct, the story has been shared a few times in the thread (hence "dropped in with tabloid nonsense" as that  is what it was ) but I must be remembering weepiper as liking all the posts mentioning it which seems an odd thing to do when normally coming across as pretty educated.



What do you mean when you say ‘educated’?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 13, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Born women don't all have the same experiences either, and as soon as you start listing things born women all share like fertility for example, it becomes problematic.



So if men and women are physiologically identical, why transition?


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 13, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> What do you mean when you say ‘educated’?


Now I am stumped, what are my options?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 13, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Now I am stumped, what are my options?



Well it could be a sneer, it’s hard to tell.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 13, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> So if men and women are physiologically identical, why transition?


Debate that one with yourself, not sure why you dragged me into it.


----------



## agricola (Feb 13, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Men's sports are essentially open events - there's no need for restrictions and tests as top-level male competitors will mostly be so much better than top-level female athletes. Women's events exist precisely because women cannot compete with men in most top-level sports, so the only meaningful competition women can enter is one against other women - and restrictions and tests then become necessary, as they are in paralympic events.



TBH there is very little evidence to say that women cannot compete with men in "most" top-level sports - athletics might be one of them, but not for that many team sports where training, innate ability and conditioning are far more important than physical attributes (and where there is often a considerable gap in physical attributes between members of a given team).   For instance, a girl with the same innate talent as Messi has would probably be the same player as Messi if she had the same training, conditioning, the same team-mates and played at a similar standard of football.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 13, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Well it could be a sneer, it’s hard to tell.


A sneer! You of course are above such things!


----------



## weepiper (Feb 13, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> What do you mean when you say ‘educated’?


She thinks I'm stupid because I disagree with her, basically.


----------



## elbows (Feb 13, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Men's sports are essentially open events



Dont forget sports such as many forms of competitive fighting where there are an array of different weight divisions. With associated issues, eg in MMA there are often health issues with weight-cutting and failing to make weight because 'everyone' is in the wrong weight division for their normal, natural weight, or there is a large difference between what they weigh in at compared to what they actually weigh when they enter the ring/cage.  And 'everyone' does it to stay competitive because 'everyone' else is doing it.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 13, 2018)

weepiper said:


> She thinks I'm stupid because I disagree with her, basically.


You are evidently not stupid.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 13, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> A sneer! You of course are above such things!



Sneering based on social class, no less.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 13, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Sneering based on social class, no less.


come again?


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 13, 2018)

agricola said:


> TBH there is very little evidence to say that women cannot compete with men in "most" top-level sports - athletics might be one of them, but not for that many team sports where training, innate ability and conditioning are far more important than physical attributes (and where there is often a considerable gap in physical attributes between members of a given team).   For instance, a girl with the same innate talent as Messi has would probably be the same player as Messi if she had the same training, conditioning, the same team-mates and played at a similar standard of football.



Sorry, I'm not having this.

Football is a contact sport.  I used to do a lot of football coaching and there would be little difference between boys and girls up to puberty.  At that stage the physicality of the boys became the difference.  Girls would be able to match the boys in every department except speed and strength both of which are important attributes in football.  It doesn't matter how good you are with the ball if you can't get it or keep it.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 13, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Sneering based on social class, no less.


Are you suggesting working class women such as myself are not educated?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 13, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Are you suggesting working class women such as myself are not educated?



A pop at education tends to be a class-based sneer.


----------



## agricola (Feb 13, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> Sorry, I'm not having this.
> 
> Football is a contact sport.  I used to do a lot of football coaching and there would be little difference between boys and girls up to puberty.  At that stage the physicality of the boys became the difference.  Girls would be able to match the boys in every department except speed and strength both of which are important attributes in football.  It doesn't matter how good you are with the ball if you can't get it or keep it.



That is true, but what did the girls do when that difference became apparent?


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 13, 2018)

agricola said:


> That is true, but what did the girls do when that difference became apparent?



Mostly got splatted onto the floor or pulled out of tackles for self-preservation.

ETA: If you're going to make a 'they would have developed their game to suit had they not been separated' argument you're barking up the wrong tree completely.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 13, 2018)

agricola said:


> TBH there is very little evidence to say that women cannot compete with men in "most" top-level sports - athletics might be one of them, but not for that many team sports where training, innate ability and conditioning are far more important than physical attributes (and where there is often a considerable gap in physical attributes between members of a given team).   For instance, a girl with the same innate talent as Messi has would probably be the same player as Messi if she had the same training, conditioning, the same team-mates and played at a similar standard of football.


I'm also not having this at all. Training and conditioning have different effects on men and women, for all the reasons outlined in the various posts about trans women competitors. As teaboy says, wherever speed or strength are a factor, the top women cannot compete with the top men. And that's most sports. Maybe not darts or snooker, perhaps not bowls. But certainly most team sports I can think of: cricket, football, rugby, hockey, ice hockey, US football, Aussie rules football, baseball, basketball. And individual sports: tennis, squash, golf, table tennis...


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 13, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> A pop at education tends to be a class-based sneer.


If it was a class based sneer I would have been punching up not down. But I didn't assume social class, only that her posts sound like she is intelligent(and also educated to a certain level-they don't go hand in hand true) yet she is endorsing-with likes-tabloid nonsense. Maybe I should have said intelligent but you'd have found some way to make a point about class there, you usually do. 
To clear this up-again -  I grew up poor and I am still relatively so, on working tax credits and am a single mother. So stop patronising me re  class. Cheers.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 13, 2018)

.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 13, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> If it was a class based sneer I would have been punching up not down. But I didn't assume social class, only that her posts sound like she is intelligent(and also educated to a certain level-they don't go hand in hand true) yet she is endorsing-with likes-tabloid nonsense. Maybe I should have said intelligent but you'd have found some way to make a point about class there, you usually do.
> To clear this up-again -  I grew up poor and I am still relatively so, on working tax credits and am a single mother. So stop patronising me re  class. Cheers.



But you went to university?


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 13, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> But you went to university?


Dropped out 3 times. I am Scottish, they do pay our fees here, did you not know?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 13, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Dropped out 3 times. I am Scottish, they do pay our fees here, did you not know?



They used to here too. Regardless of class I could still argue you’re using social capital to sneer, but I’m sure you’re as bored with this tangent as I.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 13, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> They used to here too. Regardless of class I could still argue you’re using social capital to sneer, but I’m sure you’re as bored with this tangent as I.


I don't think you'd get very far.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 13, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> They used to here too. Regardless of class I could still argue you’re using social capital to sneer, but I’m sure you’re as bored with this tangent as I.


Well, I graduated, so Horatio still out-trumps me on the privilege wheel (just). Although I worked part-time all the way through to pay  my rent and was dependent on housing benefit until very recently despite my essentially useless arts degree. We're in the same socioeconomic class by the sound of things. Let's move on. We have different opinions, it doesn't make either of us stupid or uneducated.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 13, 2018)

I don’t think someone linking to a Sun story, or even being a regular reader, is an effective litmus test for intelligence/education either.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 13, 2018)

weepiper said:


> Well, I graduated, so Horatio still out-trumps me on the privilege wheel (just). Although I worked part-time all the way through to pay  my rent and was dependent on housing benefit until very recently despite my essentially useless arts degree. We're in the same socioeconomic class by the sound of things. Let's move on. We have different opinions, it doesn't make either of us stupid or uneducated.


I didn't want to play this game!!!!


----------



## agricola (Feb 13, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> Mostly got splatted onto the floor or pulled out of tackles for self-preservation.
> 
> ETA: If you're going to make a 'they would have developed their game had they not been separated' argument you're barking up the wrong tree completely.



No - I was going to say that they probably didn't do what a smaller boy would have been encouraged to do, which is work on his physical strength and speed in order to get to a point where they could compete against stronger, faster boys if they wanted to keep playing.  Girls can keep playing by switching to the women's game - though of course there is much less incentive to succeed, there is less of an organized structure and the training is worse.

My point is that football is not a sport that is exclusively populated or dominated by six-foot plus, lightning quick grocks.  There are considerable physical differences between professional footballers as it is and it is not impossible that a woman who had the ability, the training and the physical conditioning to compete could play top flight mens football; the only reason we have not established whether they can is because no-one has ever tried.  That is the evidence that littlebabyjesus is citing as to why they cannot play most top level sports, but it isn't really evidence is it?


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 13, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I don’t think someone linking to a Sun story, or even being a regular reader, is an effective litmus test for intelligence/education either.


Context. I mentioned somewhere else that people read tabloids as shite to park the brain. It was used in this thread as evidence of..... Well I don't even know anymore. The GRA will be the end of days or something.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 13, 2018)

I think all my family read red tops.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 13, 2018)

agricola said:


> No - I was going to say that they probably didn't do what a smaller boy would have been encouraged to do, which is work on his physical strength and speed in order to get to a point where they could compete against stronger, faster boys if they wanted to keep playing.  Girls can keep playing by switching to the women's game - though of course there is much less incentive to succeed, there is less of an organized structure and the training is worse.
> 
> My point is that football is not a sport that is exclusively populated or dominated by six-foot plus, lightning quick grocks.  There are considerable physical differences between professional footballers as it is and it is not impossible that a woman who had the ability, the training and the physical conditioning to compete could play top flight mens football; the only reason we have not established whether they can is because no-one has ever tried.  That is the evidence that littlebabyjesus is citing as to why they cannot play most top level sports, but it isn't really evidence is it?


You missed a very important part of what I said: give a talented boy and a talented girl the same training, and their skills may develop at a similar rate, but the speed and strength training will not produce the same results at all. 

In professional football, you see skillful male players who don't make the grade because they can't compete physically and just get knocked off the ball. Probably the most talented female player ever, Marta, certainly has ball skills to match those of men, but she doesn't have the physicality to survive in the men's game, and that's after years of professional training and conditioning.


----------



## agricola (Feb 13, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You missed a very important part of what I said: give a talented boy and a talented girl the same training, and their skills may develop at a similar rate, but the speed and strength training will not produce the same results at all.
> 
> In professional football, you see skillful male players who don't make the grade because they can't compete physically and just get knocked off the ball. Probably the most talented female player ever, Marta, certainly has ball skills to match those of men, but she doesn't have the physicality to survive in the men's game, and that's after years of professional training and conditioning.



Marta was discovered at 14, according to her wikipedia page, and has spent her entire career in various women's teams.  

Messi was playing for a club at four, for a professional club at six, and was at Barcelona by 13.  The development of the two of them is in no way comparable, nor is the amount of money spent on that development, so to ascribe "physical differences" as the reason why Marta (for example) cannot play mens' football doesn't really hold water.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 13, 2018)

agricola said:


> No - I was going to say that they probably didn't do what a smaller boy would have been encouraged to do, which is work on his physical strength and speed in order to get to a point where they could compete against stronger, faster boys if they wanted to keep playing.  Girls can keep playing by switching to the women's game - though of course there is much less incentive to succeed, there is less of an organized structure and the training is worse.



No this is quite wrong.  When coaching football (and indeed many sports) to kids and then teens you focus primarily on skills and knowledge, comparatively very little of the training is building strength.  There will be some stamina work sure but strength and stamina come naturally with balanced training.  Its hard to explain but the difference when a boy reaches puberty in the power that goes through the tackle, the speed over 5 or 6 yards.  Girls just cannot compete with that, they get brushed off the ball easily.



> My point is that football is not a sport that is exclusively populated or dominated by six-foot plus, lightning quick grocks.  There are considerable physical differences between professional footballers as it is and it is not impossible that a woman who had the ability, the training and the physical conditioning to compete could play top flight mens football; the only reason we have not established whether they can is because no-one has ever tried.  That is the evidence that littlebabyjesus is citing as to why they cannot play most top level sports, but it isn't really evidence is it?



One of things they said about Ian Rush was that he was rubbish over 100 yards, not very fast at all but over 8 yards no one could touch him. You're right that football doesn't need the height (certain positions you do but not all) or vast strength but it is still a contact sport which relies on speed and strength to an extent and this is why it is not an level playing field once children pass puberty.


----------



## bimble (Feb 13, 2018)

Can’t believe people are seriously trying to have this argument.
Why don’t we just have everyone both sexes compete together in running then, from the 100m upwards, if they train hard enough and women pull their socks up it’ll be fine.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 13, 2018)

I tell you what guys, when my old Trotskyist male comrade insisted that only me and him went to pick up this fucking washing machine and  carry it up 3 flights of stairs because " women can do anything men can" I was pure raging. But alas had to leave it aside until after the revolution.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 13, 2018)

bimble said:


> Can’t believe people are seriously trying to have this argument.
> Why don’t we just have everyone both sexes compete together in running then, from the 100m upwards, if they train hard enough and women pull their socks up it’ll be fine.



We’re physiologically identical, but there’s a male brain and a female brain. Seems pretty contradictory.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 13, 2018)

agricola said:


> Marta was discovered at 14, according to her wikipedia page, and has spent her entire career in various women's teams.
> 
> Messi was playing for a club at four, for a professional club at six, and was at Barcelona by 13.  The development of the two of them is in no way comparable, nor is the amount of money spent on that development, so to ascribe "physical differences" as the reason why Marta (for example) cannot play mens' football doesn't really hold water.



Sorry but I'm beginning to think everything you know about football has come from the TV and web.  I've seen it 1st hand, in some cases overnight change of the game is played - the speed and strength.  The change in a girls body to condition them up the basic physical level would impact upon every other aspect of their game. 

Games like this were invented by men for men.  Now clearly its fantastic that women are now playing these sports as well but the idea that they could compete on level terms if there was just a change in training, conditioning and attitude is complete garbage.


----------



## agricola (Feb 13, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> Now clearly its fantastic that women are now playing these sports as well but the idea that they could compete on level terms if there was just a change in training, conditioning and attitude is complete garbage.



It isn't, though.  Does a girl with the same level of innate talent go through the same training, the same structured development, have the same coaching, get the same rewards, are motivated the same way and play against the same standard of opposition as a similarly talented boy does when they are developing as footballers?   

Since the answer is no, what this belief (that women cannot compete in most major sports) boils down to is an observation at or around puberty that because the boys get a boost in terms of physical development, women will never make it up.  That belief has never been tested, at least as far as I am aware, so I am at a loss as to how people can insist that it is true.


----------



## smokedout (Feb 13, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> Sorry but I'm beginning to think everything you know about football has come from the TV and web.  I've seen it 1st hand, in some cases overnight change of the game is played - the speed and strength.  The change in a girls body to condition them up the basic physical level would impact upon every other aspect of their game.
> 
> Games like this were invented by men for men.  Now clearly its fantastic that women are now playing these sports as well but the idea that they could compete on level terms if there was just a change in training, conditioning and attitude is complete garbage.



What if they took testosterone?


----------



## 8ball (Feb 13, 2018)

smokedout said:


> What if they took testosterone?



Plus a bit of genetic engineering and the right drug regimen.  It’s a bit silly when you think about it that individuals with special genetic gifts are allowed to dominate the top level of sports when CRISPR is just around the corner.

Although part of me thinks that professional sports are extremely silly bread-and-circuses stuff designed to keep the masses docile, so you need athletes people can relate to, and a goalkeeper who has been specially designed to be a 24 by 8 foot slab of human meat is going to be even harder to relate to on a human level than the current England squad.


----------



## bimble (Feb 13, 2018)

agricola said:


> what this belief (that women cannot compete in most major sports) boils down to is an observation at or around puberty that because the boys get a boost in terms of physical development, women will never make it up. *That belief has never been tested*, at least as far as I am aware, so I am at a loss as to how people can insist that it is true.



This is nuts. Just look at the figures for the fastest times for elite athletes men and women in marathons over the years. The difference is huge. Biology exists.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 13, 2018)

agricola said:


> Marta was discovered at 14, according to her wikipedia page, and has spent her entire career in various women's teams.
> 
> Messi was playing for a club at four, for a professional club at six, and was at Barcelona by 13.  The development of the two of them is in no way comparable, nor is the amount of money spent on that development, so to ascribe "physical differences" as the reason why Marta (for example) cannot play mens' football doesn't really hold water.


I wasn't just saying 'be as good as Messi'. I'm saying that she wouldn't make it as a professional at all in the men's game, as many skillful but slight men don't. 

Surely the truth is rather the opposite of what you claim. Given the physical differences, for talented sportswomen to thrive and fulfil their potential it is important for them where appropriate  to play in women-only competitions.


----------



## hipipol (Feb 13, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Dropped out 3 times. I am Scottish, they do pay our fees here, did you not know?


That's a Third in my eyes!!!!!
Respect!!!!


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 13, 2018)

hipipol said:


> That's a Third in my eyes!!!!!
> Respect!!!!


I am such a fucking disaster but I really did nail that one


----------



## MochaSoul (Feb 13, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Henkel wrote an open letter to the IOC about it. Sorry it's in Portuguese and I can't find a translation nor do I have the time to do it myself.


Done.


> This is an open letter to the leadership of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), extended to the leaderships of the Brazilian Olympic Committee (BOC), the International Federation of Volleyball (IFV) and the Brazilian Confederation of Volleyball (BCV) in defense of professional women's sports.
> 
> Dear Sirs,
> 
> ...



translated by me from here


----------



## Sea Star (Feb 13, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> We’re physiologically identical, but there’s a male brain and a female brain. Seems pretty contradictory.


This is not part of any argument ever made by a trans person. Just pointing this out because of that implication wasn't implicit then why was this even posted? 

And it's clear from shit like this that any attempt to be honest, open and factual by trans people is pointless, because you'll all repeatr just what you have learned from the media and the anti trans campaigners, and fail to listen to a word we say, and not attempt to even slightly understand who we are, and what trans is. Almost as if you all think we're just making it up to be awkward.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 13, 2018)

The primary victims of sports gender policing have always been and will continue to be for the foreseeable future people with intersex conditions who were assigned female at birth. Many of them won’t even have known they had intersex conditions before being victimized.

That letter above, written by an idiot who thinks that the Olympics represent “what is best and most noble in us all”, glories in the indignities imposed on women suspected of having intersex conditions. I’m not surprised though that transphobes here are keen on the views of a Trump supporting prominent social conservative. Who, incidentally, despises feminism. But what’s the importance of things like that when she’s on the right side of the only issue that really matters, making life more unpleasant for trans people.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 13, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Done.
> 
> 
> translated by me from here


I can't believe she hijacked MLK day to write that


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 13, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> This is not part of any argument ever made by a trans person. Just pointing this out because of that implication wasn't implicit then why was this even posted?
> 
> And it's clear from shit like this that any attempt to be honest, open and factual by trans people is pointless, because you'll all repeatr just what you have learned from the media and the anti trans campaigners, and fail to listen to a word we say, and not attempt to even slightly understand who we are, and what trans is. Almost as if you all think we're just making it up to be awkward.



I was being sarcastic... so fair point.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 13, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I was being sarcastic... so fair point.


 Are you drunk? You dropped the pokey stick!


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 13, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Are you drunk? You dropped the pokey stick!



The point I was getting at is that it often seems like contradictory positions appear to be being argued simultaneously. When it comes to sport men and women are apparently the same. Yet we’re not, hence transitioning.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 13, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> My point was not about the athlete in question. My point was about the IOC rules which do state low level testosterone for one year. Henkel wrote an open letter to the IOC about it. Sorry it's in Portuguese and I can't find a translation nor do I have the time to do it myself. She exposes the whole fraudulent scheme and how she feels the rsponsibility of speaking out knowing current players won't dare to raise it themselves.
> Subsequent questions of hers have been where and when do women become men and men become women to answer Pick's earlier question.
> All very good TERFy questions by someone who hadn't given a fig about feminism until a bunch of MRAs messed with her passion.



For those who don’t know who Henkel is, she is a prominent Brazilian social conservative, Trump supporter, anti-feminist and supporter of the judicial coup by the Brazilian right. That’s who Mocha Soul is applauding and representing as some poor athlete upset with “MRAs” (ie trans people) “messing with her passion”.

These are the allies the TERFs are making and this is the level of honesty with which they debate.


----------



## smokedout (Feb 13, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> The point I was getting at is that it often seems like contradictory positions appear to be being argued simultaneously. When it comes to sport men and women are apparently the same. Yet we’re not, hence transitioning.



What was being argued was that transitioning, as in taking hormones, takes away the competitive benefits of having a biologically male body.  So hormonally transitioned trans women are the same as cis women when it comes to sport, not men and women.  You can agree or disagree with that but it's not contradictory with the need to transition and it's not a fair representation of the discussion to say that it is.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 13, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> For those who don’t know who Henkel is, she is a prominent Brazilian social conservative, Trump supporter, anti-feminist and supporter of the judicial coup by the Brazilian right. That’s who Mocha Soul is applauding and representing as some poor athlete upset with “MRAs” (ie trans people) “messing with her passion”.
> 
> These are the allies the TERFs are making and this is the level of honesty with which they debate.



You do realise that it’s possible to hold similar positions to political opponents for entirely different reasons?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 13, 2018)

smokedout said:


> What was being argued was that transitioning, as in taking hormones, takes away the competitive benefits of having a biologically male body.  So hormonally transitioned trans women are the same as cis women when it comes to sport, not men and women.  You can agree or disagree with that but it's not contradictory with the need to transition and it's not a fair representation of the discussion to say that it is.



I don’t agree with this but admit ignorance on any research into the matter.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 13, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> You do realise that it’s possible to hold similar positions to political opponents for entirely different reasons?



And whitewashing the politics of reactionaries, presenting one of them as apolitical or as someone who wasnt interested in feminist issues until some evil trans people messed with her sport, that’s the sort of thing that just happens sometimes right?


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 13, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> You do realise that it’s possible to hold similar positions to political opponents for entirely different reasons?


Yes, me and Nigel Farage are pro Brexit . You don't see me translating his letters in to Gaidhlig.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 13, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Yes, me and Nigel Farage are pro Brexit . You don't see me translating his letters in to Gaidhlig.



 perfect example!


----------



## smokedout (Feb 13, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I don’t agree with this but admit ignorance on any research into the matter.



This sadly seems to be a common position in lots of areas when it comes to trans people.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 13, 2018)

smokedout said:


> This sadly seems to be a common position in lots of areas when it comes to trans people.



I’ve admitted ignorance. However, I don’t see much evidence of transmen competing at the highest levels of male dominated sport which would be the case if it was simply about testosterone or lack of?


----------



## MochaSoul (Feb 13, 2018)

Funnily enough, Nigel,
1. I had already noticed she was rw I even mentioned she never gave a fig about feminism not long after I posted her link;
2. Another funny thing is that one of her latest blog posts is called "Biology is neither lw nor rw." - I haven't yet read it but you're a good reason why I don't have to wonder why she wrote it;
3rd funny thing is that you continue to think and act as if hurling labels were enough to challenge others arguments;
4. I never said trans people messed with her sport. I said MRAs had and I was quite deliberate about that. Funny how you missed that too - misrepresentation is a great thing for you isn't it?

Funny how funny you are!


----------



## Sea Star (Feb 13, 2018)

Gosh, whoever said it was just about testosterone? 

Consider how few trans people there are I can't see us dominating sport any time soon, or ever.

As it happens there have been a fair few trans men competing in top level men's sport, as there have been a few trans women doing well in women's sport. But to say that trans men or women are dominating sport, or ever could be, is just ludicrous.


----------



## Athos (Feb 13, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Gosh, whoever said it was just about testosterone?
> 
> Consider how few trans people there are I can't see us dominating sport any time soon, or ever.
> 
> As it happens there have been a fair few trans men competing in top level men's sport, as there have been a few trans women doing well in women's sport. But to say that trans men or women are dominating sport, or ever could be, is just ludicrous.



Can you give details of these fair few trans men competing in top level men's sport, please?


----------



## MochaSoul (Feb 13, 2018)

Name of one trans man in top level sport please, Sea Star.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 13, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Gosh, whoever said it was just about testosterone?



Smokedout said the lack of testosterone in transwomen levelled the playing field with ciswomen. I just wondered then if that was the case then the reverse must be true.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 13, 2018)

I think that’s more frightening than the authoritarianism tbh, facts being invented on the hoof.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 13, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Funnily enough, Nigel,
> 1. I had already noticed she was rw I even mentioned she never gave a fig about feminism not long after I posted her link;
> 2. Another funny thing is that one of her latest blog posts is called "Biology is neither lw nor rw." - I haven't yet read it but you're a good reason why I don't have to wonder why she wrote it;
> 3rd funny thing is that you continue to think and act as if hurling labels were enough to challenge others arguments;
> ...



You deliberately misrepresented her as an apolitical athlete who wasn’t even interested in feminism until “MRAs”, by which you meant trans people or trans rights supporters, “messed with her passion”. In fact, as you were well aware, she has a long term interest in feminism in that she hates it. And far from being just some random athlete, her continued prominence after her athletic career is due to her role as a right wing social conservative activist. Her intervention is right wing culture wars shit and you are doing your best to amplify it.

It’s not surprising that you approve of her views. Social conservatives are the people your movement hopes will do the heavy lifting in their bigoted crusade and you misrepresented who she is because you are deeply dishonest. That you approved firstly of her letter, which talks about the unique glories of “Western civilization” and boasts about the invasive methods used to persecute women with intersex conditions out of athletic competition and then later of her claims that this issue is neither left nor right just makes your nasty agenda clearer. You will cheer on any arsehole as long as they express anti trans views and you will lie to make them seem less noxious when it suits you.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Feb 13, 2018)

Anti-trans feminists use MRA as a slur towards trans people and those who support them all the time. 'Handmaiden' is another that gets thrown around.


----------



## MochaSoul (Feb 13, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> You deliberately misrepresented her as an apolitical athlete who wasn’t even interested in feminism until “MRAs”, by which you meant trans people or trans rights supporters, “messed with her passion”. In fact, as you were well aware, she has a long term interest in feminism in that she hates it. And far from being just some random athlete, her continued prominence after her athletic career is due to her role as a right wing social conservative activist.
> 
> You approve of her views because social conservatives are the people you hope will do the heavy lifting in your bigoted crusade and you misrepresented who she is because you are deeply dishonest. That you approved firstly of her letter, which talks about the unique glories of “Western civilization” and approves of the invasive methods used to persecute women with intersex conditions out of athletic competition and then later of her claims that this issue is neither left nor right just makes your nasty agenda clearer. You will cheer on any arsehole as long as they express anti trans bigotry and you will lie to make them seem less noxious when it suits you.



There is a big difference between trans people, TRAs and MRAs do you know or care?

Do you have an argument against her position on transwomen in women's sports?


----------



## MochaSoul (Feb 13, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> Anti-trans feminists use MRA as a slur towards trans people and those who support them all the time. 'Handmaiden' is another that gets thrown around.



Of course we do. I did that to myself until only this December.


----------



## Sea Star (Feb 13, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> Anti-trans feminists use MRA as a slur towards trans people and those who support them all the time. 'Handmaiden' is another that gets thrown around.


And being told I'm a misogynist (and all the rest, homophobe, fantasist, pervert, etc) off the bat, before I've even managed to say anything. I did try, for ages, to have the discussion they claim they want to have but after months of that shit I had to close myself to it. Then they say we refuse to talk about it. Yeah, wonder why.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 13, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> There is a big difference between trans people, TRAs and MRAs do you know or care?
> 
> Do you have an argument against her position on transwomen in women's sports?



Like most other people in this thread I am well aware that TERFs use “MRA” as an insult for trans women and their supporters, which is exactly what you were doing. Further displays of obvious dishonesty in an exchange where you were just caught lying don’t do your bigoted cause much good you know.

I’m not at all interested in the culture wars polemics of Brazilian conservatives, nor in their bigotry. She’s just another example of the kind of allies TERFs are looking to make and your attempts to hide her wider views are just another example of the dishonesty they habitually engage in. That you are willing to endorse a letter supporting the ongoing persecution of women athletes with intersex conditions is not in itself a surprise.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 13, 2018)

There’s no such thing in a simple sense as a female or male brain.  There is such a thing in a fairly simple sense as a male or female body.

If that wasn’t so there would be no sense to the word ‘trans’, or to the concept of ‘transitioning’.

Surely we agree on that, at least.


----------



## elbows (Feb 13, 2018)

8ball said:


> There is such a thing in a fairly simple sense as a male or female body.



There are simple views of it that work some of the time for some people, but like everything else, sufficient attention reveals a more nuanced picture.

I dont remember what exactly I was reading when something along these lines came up in the thread about three weeks ago, or even what I was responding to, but I did say the following then.



elbows said:


> Even with present relatively poor levels of understanding about the deep detail of many aspects, science already has a way of dealing with the simple fact that chromosomal, gonadal and somatic sex do not always agree in an individual. At least thats how branches of science that have split things into chromosomal, gonadal and somatic sex would talk about that stuff.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 14, 2018)

By the way, a number of trans men have competed at a high level in men’s sports. There’s one on the Harvard collegiate men’s swim team and another on the US national duathlon team for example. Endurance sports are the ones where male athletes have the smallest typical advantage (and the more extreme the endurance required the less the advantage), so it’s not that surprising that trans men would be more likely to feature in such events.

It’s also worth noting that requiring trans men to compete in women’s events is itself enormously problematic even ignoring issues of social justice and focusing only on performance differentials. The Texas state girls high school wrestling champion last year was a trans man who campaigned to be allowed to compete in the boys championship instead. They made him compete in the girls division where his hormones gave him a much bigger advantage than a trans woman would likely have.


----------



## xenon (Feb 14, 2018)

Can we not say there are women.  And within that there are trans-women and natal women.   And  within that different  issues pertane.


----------



## Sea Star (Feb 14, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It’s also worth noting that requiring trans men to compete in women’s events is itself enormously problematic even ignoring issues of social justice and focusing only on performance differentials. The Texas state girls high school wrestling champion last year was a trans man who campaigned to be allowed to compete in the boys championship instead. They made him compete in the girls division where his hormones gave him a much bigger advantage than a trans woman would likely have.



That was funny - the number of US conservatives who tweeted that at me, mistakenly believing that the man involved was actually a trans woman was unbelievable. An inevitable consequence of the TERFs campaign of deliberately confusing people by referring to trans women as "transgender men" and the media not having a fucking clue. They were using an example that actually undermined their argument and they didn't even know it


----------



## Sea Star (Feb 14, 2018)

xenon said:


> Can we not say there are women.  And within that there are trans-women and natal women.   And  within that different  issues pertane.


The opposite of trans is cis though. If instead of natal you use cis then that's what trans people have been doing for decades.


----------



## Sea Star (Feb 14, 2018)

Oh, might as well mention, one of the higher profile TERFs on Twitter last week was complaining that a man tried to stop her using the ladies toilet because she looks a bit boyish 

Karma, or something!!!


----------



## xenon (Feb 14, 2018)

elbows said:


> There are simple views of it that work some of the time for some people, but like everything else, sufficient attention reveals a more nuanced picture.
> 
> I dont remember what exactly I was reading when something along these lines came up in the thread about three weeks ago, or even what I was responding to, but I did say the following then.



 Sorry, this is just waffle. On average  natel women and  men are biologically different.  This isn’t necessary to argue against to accept,  recognise if you will,  trans-women are women.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It’s also worth noting that requiring trans men to compete in women’s events is itself enormously problematic even ignoring issues of social justice and focusing only on performance differentials. The Texas state girls high school wrestling champion last year was a trans man who campaigned to be allowed to compete in the boys championship instead. They made him compete in the girls division where his hormones gave him a much bigger advantage than a trans woman would likely have.


There is a very strong case for requiring trans men to compete in men's competitions. They are likely to be taking various things that would have them thrown out of women's competitions as drugs cheats. 

That case doesn't extend to trans women, though.


----------



## xenon (Feb 14, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> The opposite of trans is cis though. If instead of natal you use cis then that's what trans people have been doing for decades.



 Yeah sure. I think I said on the other thread. I don’t have a problem with being referred to as a cis male.  I think other people do because it confers upon them they are  experience a comfortableness with their gender,  which they do not subscribe to.

 I’m not entirely sure I am human no joke by the way. But I am personally happy with cis  meaning I am not trans-. I just have issues beyond the realm of gender. ..


----------



## Sea Star (Feb 14, 2018)

xenon said:


> Yeah sure. I think I said on the other thread. I don’t have a problem with being referred to as a cis nale.  I think other people do because it confers upon them are comfortablebess with their gender,  which they do not subscribe to.
> ..



Well, they're wrong if they think it does that. It means not trans. That's all it means. If you can't use "cis" then please use "not trans" even if it does sound incredibly clumsy.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 14, 2018)

elbows said:


> There are simple views of it that work some of the time for some people, but like everything else, sufficient attention reveals a more nuanced picture.



There are simple views that work *almost all of the time*.


----------



## elbows (Feb 14, 2018)

xenon said:


> Sorry, this is just waffle. On average  natel women and  men are biologically different.  This isn’t necessary to argue against to accept,  recognise if you will,  trans-women are women.



I will accept a general charge of being a waffler overall in my posts. But I do not take kindly to matters that are of relevance to, for example, scientific understanding in relation to intersex stuff, being dismissed as waffle, outliers, an irrelevant awkward detail. Far from it.


----------



## Sea Star (Feb 14, 2018)

xenon said:


> Can we not say there are women.  And within that there are trans-women and natal women.   And  within that different  issues pertane.


Also, missed the other bit of your post. Some differences, lots of similarities. Same with any group individuals. Trans women, as we are women, and most of us are feminists, and proud to be women, will work to further the cause of all women regardless whether trans or cis. So the idea that the tiny number of us who happen to be trans should be forced to identify as men and be excluded from women's spaces and women's politics is both self defeating and bizarre. Also, serves no purpose other than that of furthering hatred and othering of trans women.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 14, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There is a very strong case for requiring trans men to compete in men's competitions. They are likely to be taking various things that would have them thrown out of women's competitions as drugs cheats.
> 
> That case doesn't extend to trans women, though.



You can’t reasonably discuss trans women in elite sport without first taking into account the bigger issue of attempts to police sex in sports in ways that victimize women with intersex conditions. Elite sport is to a very large extent the preserve of people with advantages from unusual physiologies. For essentially cultural reasons, sports bodies have on the one hand celebrated many women whose performances are aided by unusual physical attributes and on the other humiliated and persecuted women whose performances are aided by unusual physical attributes that are associated with various intersex conditions. Elite sport is the arena where attempts to impose a neat binary onto biological sex most obviously and quickly collide with a messier reality and the results to date have been cruel in the extreme.


----------



## xenon (Feb 14, 2018)

elbows said:


> I will accept a general charge of being a waffler overall in my posts. But I do not take kindly to matters that are of relevance to, for example, scientific understanding in relation to intersex stuff, being dismissed as waffle, outliers, an irrelevant awkward detail. Far from it.



 Intersex people are a rarity.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 14, 2018)

xenon said:


> Intersex people are a rarity.



Less rare than trans people.


----------



## Sea Star (Feb 14, 2018)

xenon said:


> Intersex people are a rarity.


Trans people are a rarity


----------



## elbows (Feb 14, 2018)

Without even beginning to attempt to do the whole subject justice, I have an additional interest in scientific and medical areas related to intersex conditions because it does sound like we have reached a point where some of the previous generation of relatively crude genetic understanding is being replaced with something more nuanced as capabilities improve. eg going from the old, basic XY chromosomal stuff, to individual gene expression. And probably some more sophisticated developments on other fronts which I know even less about. I will be quite surprised if, after several more decades of discovery on these fronts, the picture ends up as simple, and I will also be surprised if there turn out to be no implications at all for how 'the masses' think of themselves in terms of sex.

I was just searching the web for random papers to see if I could find whatever it was I was reading weeks ago and I could not, but I found something about changes to intersex classification systems that seemed quite interesting and raised a number of points that I might be able to tie in to this thread.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research



> In this article, I investigate how sex chromosome variations have been defined differently at different times. I focus on their inclusion in or exclusion from classifications of intersex and the practical implications for individuals with these variations. Turner syndrome was first described in 1938 and Klinefelter’s syndrome in 1942. Initially, these syndromes were descriptions of an association of symptoms in an individual body. As karyotype possibilities beyond XX or XY were described in the late 1950s and early 1960s, and as human medical genetics was being transformed ‘from a medical backwater to an appealing medical research frontier between 1955 and 1975’ (Lindee, 2005: 1), these syndromes became genetic ‘sex-reversals’ with doubt also cast upon gender and sexuality. While current conventional understandings of genetics are likely to focus at a smaller level than the chromosome (the recent DSD classification system goes beyond karyotype to consider the role of individual genes), during this historical period the karyotype was synonymous with ‘genetic sex’.





> As Mol (2002: 5) argues, bodies, scientific knowledges, technologies and classifications are always multiple, coming into being or ‘enacted’, along with the practices with which they are described. Mol prefers ‘enact’ over the perhaps more familiar metaphor of performance, to avoid associations with ideas of a ‘real reality’ somewhere ‘backstage’, as well as ideas of a difficult accomplishment, or associations with performative effects beyond the moment (p. 32). Enacting ‘suggests that activities take place – but leaves the actors vague’, and it is possible to say that ‘in the act, and only then and there, something _is_ – being enacted’ (p. 33, emphasis in original). Objects (including bodies and classification systems) are enacted in specific local practices, and thus become ‘heavy with meaning’, a _meaning_ that has been attributed. Such attributions have a history, and they are culturally specific, opening them up for historical and social scientific investigation’ (p. 10).





> I do not wish to argue that there is a ‘truth’ of either Turner or Klinefelter’s syndromes that different classification systems approach, but rather that classification systems are historically and culturally situated, enact sex chromosomes and bodies in different ways, and are thus open to critical investigation. I follow Roberts’s (2007) work on ‘sex hormones’ to offer an analysis of the sexed body through the history of sex chromosome variations, as part of the reconstructive work of feminist technoscience studies. As she argues, this is one of the key ‘roles’ of feminist work – to critically analyse biological and scientific frameworks but also to develop and construct new concepts and frameworks for understanding the biological and the social (Roberts, 2007: 23).



I want to know more about these feminist technoscience studies.


----------



## xenon (Feb 14, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Also, missed the other bit of your post. Some differences, lots of similarities. Same with any group individuals. Trans women, as we are women, and most of us are feminists, and proud to be women, will work to further the cause of all women regardless whether trans or cis. So the idea that the tiny number of us who happen to be trans should be forced to identify as men and be excluded from women's spaces and women's politics is both self defeating and bizarre. Also, serves no purpose other than that of furthering hatred and othering of trans women.




 Sure, I don’t have an argument with that.   But there are, will be tensions at the edge cases.  As in refuges, sport. Toilets okay let’s have  cubicles, unisex,   Toilets  for everyone. We do at work. It is not a problem.


----------



## Sea Star (Feb 14, 2018)

Also, I'll point out here, there are intersex people who also identity as trans. Too often I see people seeing intersex people is against trans people but there is a significant overlap between the two


xenon said:


> Sure, I don’t have an argument with that.   But there are, will be tensions at the edge cases.  As in refuges, sport. Toilets okay let’s have  cubicles, unisex,   Toilets  for everyone. We do at work. It is not a problem.


I've never had any problem in toilets. I know trans women that have been in refuges, one that works in one. There's no problem apart from a few outside agitators

I'm not getting involved in the sports argument though as I know nothing about sport, and don't even like it, but I have seen a lot of scare mongering about it, and yet women's sport seems oddly bereft of hordes of trans women winning everything.

And also I know quite a few trans women who take part in sport and are completely supported by the women they compete with so I think the problems are largely over blown. Wonder why?


----------



## elbows (Feb 14, 2018)

Theres quite a lot of stuff in that article about how badly the new classification system went down with some intersex activists, and it sounds like the author wanted to do the issues related to this stuff justice. But it is late and its a rather heavy academic piece so I will probably take another look at it tomorrow and try to find some lighter sources of info on that topic.


----------



## xenon (Feb 14, 2018)

If  for argument sake,  A group of sis women, natil  Women,   Want to organise a meeting to discuss issues  around abuse, misogyny, things they have experienced. And exclude  trans-women and sis man.  I think that is okay. That is my bottom line I suppose.  Not that I would do it but if I organise the meeting for visually impaired people, blind people to talk about shit. We should be allowed to say sighted people can’t attend. 

 That is a niche thing sure. Not something to build wider solidarity around of course. But certain issues to pertain to those who have directly experienced them.  Sometimes that is necessary.  Anyway just thinking aloud, I should go back to lurking.


----------



## MochaSoul (Feb 14, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> The opposite of trans is cis though. If instead of natal you use cis then that's what trans people have been doing for decades.


Oh yes, I can well imagine in 3 decades or so you calling me "cisrace" too when some decide white is not quite "me" either. It's only a matter of time after all.
Central Delaware NAACP opposed to Regulation 225 - Delaware State News


----------



## Vintage Paw (Feb 14, 2018)

xenon said:


> If  for argument sake,  A group of sis women, natil  Women,   Want to organise a meeting to discuss issues  around abuse, misogyny, things they have experienced. And exclude  trans-women and sis man.  I think that is okay. That is my bottom line I suppose.  Not that I would do it but if I organise the meeting for visually impaired people, blind people to talk about shit. We should be allowed to say sighted people can’t attend.
> 
> That is a niche thing sure. Not something to build wider solidarity around of course. But certain issues to pertain to those who have directly experienced them.  Sometimes that is necessary.  Anyway just thinking aloud, I should go back to lurking.



Trans women experience domestic abuse and misogyny as well. You'd perhaps be surprised by the stats, but there are sadly high rates of domestic abuse and rape, for example, of trans women. Not to mention murder. Some of those things are exacerbated by their trans status, some are just part and parcel of being a woman. I find it very difficult to accept a situation where trans women are routinely excluded from groups and services dedicated to helping in those areas.


----------



## Athos (Feb 14, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> The opposite of trans is cis though. If instead of natal you use cis then that's what trans people have been doing for decades.



If 'trans' means that gender identity and sex are not aligned, and if 'cis' means 'not trans', then it follows that 'cis' means that gender identity and sex are aligned. But, there's lots of people who don't consider themselves to have a gender identity (this thing that exists independently of sex or socialisation).  As such they do not identify as 'cis'.  It's arrogant and hypocritical of you to insist on labelling them as 'cis'.  Why should people refer to you in your preferred terms when you don't extend that courtesy to others?


----------



## 19force8 (Feb 14, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Oh yes, I can well imagine in 3 decades or so you calling me "cisrace" too when some decide white is not quite "me" either. It's only a matter of time after all.


Didn't we go over the whole transrace thing on another thread? Or was it this one? Maybe we should just stick with the Latin.


----------



## bimble (Feb 14, 2018)

Tomorrow.. a call for uncritical support (particularly from biological women) outside the court where the incident at beginning of this thread is going to be heard. Rally round to defend the person accused of assault from the violence of the terfs..Is this really a good idea?


----------



## Sea Star (Feb 14, 2018)

xenon said:


> If  for argument sake,  A group of sis women, natil  Women,   Want to organise a meeting to discuss issues  around abuse, misogyny, things they have experienced. And exclude  trans-women and sis man.  I think that is okay. That is my bottom line I suppose.  Not that I would do it but if I organise the meeting for visually impaired people, blind people to talk about shit. We should be allowed to say sighted people can’t attend.
> 
> That is a niche thing sure. Not something to build wider solidarity around of course. But certain issues to pertain to those who have directly experienced them.  Sometimes that is necessary.  Anyway just thinking aloud, I should go back to lurking.


What makes you think trans women don't experience the same abuse and misogyny that cis women experience?


----------



## JimW (Feb 14, 2018)

The British judiciary traditionally delighted to have masked up crowds of citizens outside the court.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 14, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> What makes you think trans women don't experience the same abuse and misogyny that cis women experience?


I'd have thought it would be different


----------



## 19force8 (Feb 14, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> I'd have thought it would be different


But then isn't everybody's?


----------



## Athos (Feb 14, 2018)

Vintage Paw said:


> Trans women experience domestic abuse and misogyny as well. You'd perhaps be surprised by the stats, but there are sadly high rates of domestic abuse and rape, for example, of trans women. Not to mention murder. Some of those things are exacerbated by their trans status, some are just part and parcel of being a woman. I find it very difficult to accept a situation where trans women are routinely excluded from groups and services dedicated to helping in those areas.



Two points: 

First, by that logic, why exclude men (trans and non-trans) from 'women's' shelters, given they experience domestic and sexual abuse? 

Secondly, a related point. Personally, I favour trans inclusion into e.g. shelters, on pragmatic grounds; the alternative would be to deny trans women much needed support. But that's a slightly different question to the one of principle. What if there were sufficient shelters for all people to receive the support they need, without being housed together? If non-trans men could be supported away from trans women, and non-trans women could be supported away from all natal males? Would you favour separation?  Or (presumably only in the case of trans and non-trans women) would you still favour mixing, notwithstanding any distress it might cause non- trans women who've been the victims of male abuse.  Because, in that instance, inclusion would not be  based upon trans women's right to support as victims of abuse, but upon a prioritisation of trans women's desire to have their belief about their gender validated over the distress of vulnerable non-trans women.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 14, 2018)

19force8 said:


> But then isn't everybody's?


Yeh I doubt I get the same abuse you or sea star might


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 14, 2018)

bimble said:


> Tomorrow.. a call for uncritical support (particularly from biological women) outside the court where the incident at beginning of this thread is going to be heard. Rally round to defend the person accused of assault from the violence of the terfs..Is this really a good idea?
> View attachment 127400 View attachment 127401


Many years ago a mate was up at clerkenwell magistrates. He was very clear that anyone who turned up to support him look smart as to turn up unshaven or grufty could easily count against him. I wonder that this lot suggest turning up masked up might be a good idea, and a message I take from the leaflet is it would not be bad if you turned up ready to turn the transphobic scum over.


----------



## bimble (Feb 14, 2018)

Well yeah its basically a demo standing up for the right to punch terfs isn't it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 14, 2018)

bimble said:


> Well yeah its basically a demo standing up for the right to punch terfs isn't it.


And what a good idea to have it outside a magistrates court in the government security zone


----------



## Sea Star (Feb 14, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> I'd have thought it would be different


Can you explain why?

And then wouldn't that also be an argument for excluding women of colour and gay women, disabled women?

If not, why not?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 14, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Can you explain why?
> 
> And then wouldn't that also be an argument for excluding women of colour and gay women, disabled women?
> 
> If not, why not?


Yes, yes I can.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 14, 2018)

On transgender women competing in women's sports:

UCI reviews policy on transgender cyclists after Canadian athlete wins human rights case

Transgender cyclist is first female finisher at Arizona race

https://www.floelite.com/articles/5...ter-laurel-hubbard-sets-masters-world-records

Natalie van Gogh wins first stage


Transgender sprinter, born male, wins two girls state titles

It's not a minor issue.


----------



## MochaSoul (Feb 14, 2018)

19force8 said:


> Didn't we go over the whole transrace thing on another thread? Or was it this one? Maybe we should just stick with the Latin.


Oh I was there too. At the time I had no idea what "cis" was. I've read too much in the last few weeks. Still peaktransing. Genderology is one of the gifts that keeps on giving.


----------



## smokedout (Feb 14, 2018)

Athos said:


> Two points:
> 
> First, by that logic, why exclude men (trans and non-trans) from 'women's' shelters, given they experience domestic and sexual abuse?
> 
> Secondly, a related point. Personally, I favour trans inclusion into e.g. shelters, on pragmatic grounds; the alternative would be to deny trans women much needed support. But that's a slightly different question to the one of principle. What if there were sufficient shelters for all people to receive the support they need, without being housed together? If non-trans men could be supported away from trans women, and non-trans women could be supported away from all natal males? Would you favour separation?  Or (presumably only in the case of trans and non-trans women) would you still favour mixing, notwithstanding any distress it might cause non- trans women who've been the victims of male abuse.  Because, in that instance, inclusion would not be  based upon trans women's right to support as victims of abuse, but upon a prioritisation of trans women's desire to have their belief about their gender validated over the distress of vulnerable non-trans women.



To even suggest that someone so terrified of violence they would leave their homes and go live in a house full of strangers at a secret address would be in the slightest bit motivated by validating their gender identity once again reveals what underlies your pretend support for trans people.


----------



## MochaSoul (Feb 14, 2018)

bimble said:


> Tomorrow.. a call for uncritical support (particularly from biological women) outside the court where the incident at beginning of this thread is going to be heard. Rally round to defend the person accused of assault from the violence of the terfs..Is this really a good idea?
> View attachment 127400 View attachment 127401



They tried to find where the Bristol Woman's Place meeting was to intimidate women out of attending too. Failed but not sure how long they can keep on failing.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> You can’t reasonably discuss trans women in elite sport without first taking into account the bigger issue of attempts to police sex in sports in ways that victimize women with intersex conditions. Elite sport is to a very large extent the preserve of people with advantages from unusual physiologies. For essentially cultural reasons, sports bodies have on the one hand celebrated many women whose performances are aided by unusual physical attributes and on the other humiliated and persecuted women whose performances are aided by unusual physical attributes that are associated with various intersex conditions. Elite sport is the arena where attempts to impose a neat binary onto biological sex most obviously and quickly collide with a messier reality and the results to date have been cruel in the extreme.


I agree with you about the cruel treatment of intersex athletes, the fact of the intrusive medical procedures being made public being one of the worst of them. But it is also an arena in which there is a need to gender-police. For women's competition to be meaningful, there is a need for an agreed definition of a female athlete that goes beyond self-identification. I don't think we can pretend that there are easy solutions. There aren't.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 14, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Less rare than trans people.



Really?


----------



## MochaSoul (Feb 14, 2018)

smokedout said:


> To even suggest that someone so terrified of violence they would leave their homes and go live in a house full of strangers at a secret address would be in the slightest bit motivated by validating their gender identity once again reveals what underlies your pretend support for trans people.



I was sceptical of "validation" arguments until the AWS thing exploded. If it weren't about validation you'd try to get their own trans shortlists in the LP. It would add a non-sexist veneer to see trans men thought of. Looking at the whole phenomenon as a whole it's hard not to think of it as an invasion of all women's spaces and an undermining of women's representation as well as social studies re women's material realities which are heavily reliant on sex (not gender) stats.

As it is one has to wonder.


----------



## elbows (Feb 14, 2018)

8ball said:


> Really?



Just one of many starting points to exploring data on this:

How Common is Intersex? An Explanation of the Stats. – Intersex Campaign for Equality


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2018)

weepiper said:


> On transgender women competing in women's sports:
> 
> UCI reviews policy on transgender cyclists after Canadian athlete wins human rights case
> 
> ...


The case of Laurel Hubbard presents something of a problem, imo. Competing as a man until age 35 at national level, now transitioned and competing as a woman and winning medals at world level four years later, something she was not close to doing as a man. She's jumped in class regarding results post-transition. If someone who hadn't transitioned suddenly jumped in class late in their career, people would be strongly suspecting them of doping. 

I also find it odd how trans women are prevented from entering men's cycling competitions. Why not let any woman, trans or cis, enter men's cycling competitions if they want to?


----------



## 8ball (Feb 14, 2018)

elbows said:


> Just one of many starting points to exploring data on this:
> 
> How Common is Intersex? An Explanation of the Stats. – Intersex Campaign for Equality



Unless you include late onset adrenal hyperplasia (which I think would be spurious), I think the transgender estimate of 0.3% is an order of magnitude higher than intersex, at least.
That link includes plenty of things that wouldn't be considered intersex conditions too (non-binary somatic chromosomal dimorphism etc.).

Ropey stuff to include on a non-academic level.  

The corrective genital surgery figures quoted there are a better guide imo, and still that includes various developmental glitches.

If this attempt to remove the concept of biological sex is part of any pro trans rights agenda, it seems very misguided.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 14, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The case of Laurel Hubbard presents something of a problem, imo. Competing as a man until age 35 at national level, now transitioned and competing as a woman and winning medals at world level four years later, something she was not close to doing as a man. She's jumped in class regarding results post-transition. If someone who hadn't transitioned suddenly jumped in class late in their career, people would be strongly suspecting them of doping.



Well, one thing people dope with is testosterone...


----------



## 8ball (Feb 14, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I also find it odd how trans women are prevented from entering men's cycling competitions. Why not let any woman, trans or cis, enter men's cycling competitions if they want to?



Or vice versa.  Or just everyone have a race and see who’s fastest?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2018)

8ball said:


> Well, one thing people dope with is testosterone...


Even if her testosterone levels are now low, she spent 20+ years training and building her body with far higher levels, levels that would have seen her banned from women's competition for doping. Is that irrelevant to her performance today? Those who say that it's fine for her to compete in women's competitions say yes, it is irrelevant. I don't see how it can be in power events where competitors have bodies that have been built through many years of hard training. 

Conservative shitwomble as she might be, the Brazilian athlete Mocha Soul quoted makes a valid point regarding that imo. If an athlete is done for doping through tests done on samples from 5 or 10 years ago, she's banned, but a trans woman athlete didn't need to dope pre-transition - her body was doping her up naturally. She wasn't reborn when she transitioned - she brings with her the legacy of her pre-transition training. The idea that these years of training are not relevant just one year later is fanciful.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2018)

8ball said:


> Or vice versa.  Or just everyone have a race and see who’s fastest?


It doesn't work the other way round, clearly. 

Everyone race and see who's fastest means no women doing well in any top race ever. Hence the need for women-only competitions and the need for some set of rules to decide who qualifies for those races.


----------



## smokedout (Feb 14, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> I was sceptical of "validation" arguments until the AWS thing exploded. If it weren't about validation you'd try to get their own trans shortlists in the LP. It would add a non-sexist veneer to see trans men thought of. Looking at the whole phenomenon as a whole it's hard not to think of it as an invasion of all women's spaces and an undermining of women's representation as well as social studies re women's material realities which are heavily reliant on sex (not gender) stats.
> 
> As it is one has to wonder.



Firstly there's a big difference between a woman only shortlist and someone fleeing a violent partner.  Whilst I don't think anyone would go on a woman only shortlst to validate there gender either to suggest someone escaping from domestic violence might is really pretty nasty.

But realistically how many people would end up on a trans shortlist in the Labour Party?  Probably so few that just being trans would be enough to get someone selected.  To narrow a pool down to less than 1% of the population doesn't strike me as a great strategy for selecting parliamentry candidates.  And until women make up 50% of Labour MPs and candidates then wouldn't this just start a new row about trans shortlists being used in places where women's shortlists might have been used?  

This is just like the 'why not set up your own trans refuges like women did' argument.  Fine in theory, completely unworkable and in many cases impossble in practice.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 14, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It doesn't work the other way round, clearly.
> 
> Everyone race and see who's fastest means no women doing well in any top race ever. Hence the need for women-only competitions and the need for some set of rules to decide who qualifies for those races.



I honestly don't much care.  Have men only races, men with women who want to be there races, women only races, whatever.
Trying to make elite/professional sports make sense or be "fair" is a fools' errand imo.

The list of rules just gets longer and longer and more intricate and the main beneficiaries are armies of bureaucrats and the shareholders of private testing labs.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2018)

8ball said:


> I honestly don't much care.  Have men only races, men with women who want to be there races, women only races, whatever.
> Trying to make elite/professional sports make sense or be "fair" is a fools' errand imo.
> 
> The list of rules just gets longer and longer and more intricate and the main beneficiaries are armies of bureaucrats and the shareholders of private testing labs.


Is it a fool's errand to try to have women-only competitions, though? Surely it's essential in order to allow women a space to compete and excel in sports. That applies at all levels, not only at elite level, but it's at elite level that the issue of unfair advantage, and how to quantify it, becomes an urgent one.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 14, 2018)

'I honestly don't much care' is the history of men's reactions to women going 'hang on, that's not very fair' about any situation in which men have an advantage over women ever.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 14, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Is it a fool's errand to try to have women-only competitions, though? Surely it's essential in order to allow women a space to compete and excel in sports. That applies at all levels, not only at elite level, but it's at elite level that the issue of unfair advantage, and how to quantify it, becomes an urgent one.



I think there should be spaces for unfit, uncoordinated people to compete and excel in sports.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 14, 2018)

weepiper said:


> 'I honestly don't much care' is the history of men's reactions to women going 'hang on, that's not very fair' about any situation in which men have an advantage over women ever.



I feel cases of potential unfairness in sports are given a priority they are not really due, but then I don't think sports are really about logic.
No one has said that _men_ should be able to partake in women's competitions.

We have weight classes and separation of the sexes in, say, boxing, because sport doesn't fulfil its purpose of creating narratives without it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2018)

8ball said:


> I think there should be spaces for unfit, uncoordinated people to compete and excel in sports.



You don't give a shit about sport. Fine. But you didn't answer my question, and presumably you acknowledge that there are plenty of people who do give a shit about sport and want the opportunity to take part.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2018)

8ball said:


> We have weight classes and separation of the sexes in, say, boxing, because sport doesn't fulfil its purpose of creating narratives without it.


Is that sport's purpose? Maybe if you're talking about how elite sport is marketed, but at grass-roots level, those 'narratives' are actually an essential part of ensuring the widest possible inclusion.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 14, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You don't give a shit about sport. Fine. But you didn't answer my question, and presumably you acknowledge that there are plenty of people who do give a shit about sport and want the opportunity to take part.



Well, not so far as completely not giving a shit (I have a weakness for a couple of sports), but I think the fretting over 'purity' can go a bit far considering how dirty these industries seem to be.  The idea of letting anyone who identifies as a woman enter men's competitions seems pretty reasonable to me.

Is the proportion of trans women winning women's competitions quite high?  And is it substantially changing?


----------



## MochaSoul (Feb 14, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Firstly there's a big difference between a woman only shortlist and someone fleeing a violent partner.  Whilst I don't think anyone would go on a woman only shortlst to validate there gender either to suggest someone escaping from domestic violence might is really pretty nasty.
> 
> But realistically how many people would end up on a trans shortlist in the Labour Party?  Probably so few that just being trans would be enough to get someone selected.  To narrow a pool down to less than 1% of the population doesn't strike me as a great strategy for selecting parliamentry candidates.  And until women make up 50% of Labour MPs and candidates then wouldn't this just start a new row about trans shortlists being used in places where women's shortlists might have been used?
> 
> This is just like the 'why not set up your own trans refuges like women did' argument.  Fine in theory, completely unworkable and in many cases impossble in practice.



Firstly, I didn't say the difference was in the individual cases of TWs fleeing violence. It's been happening already and one of the reasons was that there was no bruhaha about it was that women's orgs have been able to do their own gatekeeping. It could change and no amount of arguing there is nothing to worry about while dismissing, misrepresenting and slandering those talking about is going to change that.
Second... Look at the Jo Cox programme, look at the percentage of women in the country compare it with the percentage of TWs and look at how the compare to the numbers in the school. Moreover, if the grapevine is right and Peto has been politically active for some time and had already stood for election as Warren then how many other girls/women without skills or experience in political activities could have attended instead? Can you wonder why we smell rats when resources may be wasted like this? Now tell me suspicions of highjacking resources and women's representation are wholly unfounded.

Third, trans refuges and such may well be inevitable anyway. Refuges can be as chaotic place as they come (I've been in one). Now imagine India Willoughby in one or even our Stella here. Totally different set of needs/challenges smack bang among already traumatised women now also at risk of being fingerpointed at with accusations of wrong-think.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 14, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Is that sport's purpose?



It feels like there's an increasing separation between the 'participation' sphere and the 'spectacle' sphere with sports, generally.  It's always been there, though.  You get sports equipment marketed at big sporting events, but you also get McDonald's.

And there is a problem with girls' take-up of sports and physical activity generally, though in the UK it doesn't seem like lack of role models is at the root of that.

BUT, in terms of the issues trans people face, and the intersections and differences with the issues women face generally, I think this is given too much emphasis, personally, and is often over-simplified as a case of men invading women's spaces.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2018)

8ball said:


> Is the proportion of trans women winning women's competitions quite high?


I don't think that's the right question, tbh. Closer to the right question would be to ask whether there are people who competed pre-transition as men who are now substantially more successful competing as women, because that is a telltale sign that all might not be right.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 14, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't think that's the right question, tbh. Closer to the right question would be to ask whether there are people who competed pre-transition as men who are now substantially more successful competing as women, because that is a telltale sign that all might not be right.



Hmmm.  Can you elaborate on why that specifically means "all might not be right"?


----------



## 8ball (Feb 14, 2018)

weepiper said:


> 'I honestly don't much care' is the history of men's reactions to women going 'hang on, that's not very fair' about any situation in which men have an advantage over women ever.



In every case I can think of, the history of men's reactions to such things is not to shrug indifferently; rather, it is to claim that really it *is* fair, usually followed up with a bunch of spurious reasons why (such as every reason given as to why it was not necessary for women to have a vote).

And then to go back to ignoring things as far as possible.


----------



## elbows (Feb 14, 2018)

8ball said:


> The corrective genital surgery figures quoted there are a better guide imo, and still that includes various developmental glitches.



But that would then excludes intersex conditions that dont manifest in obvious external genital ambiguities. Not on.


----------



## bimble (Feb 14, 2018)

8ball said:


> Hmmm.  Can you elaborate on why that specifically means "all might not be right"?


When Laurel Hubbard started competing in the women's weightlifting (after years of competing as a man) the previously strongest woman in that category "reportedly lost 17kgs 'to fit under the 90kg category because she knew she would have no chance against Hubbard in the 90kg+ category."
I don't particularly care about weightlifting but that seems a kind of obvious case of someone having to make room.  You might think thats fine but she didn't. Hubbard is now a gold medalist, they hadn't won any medals when competing as a man since they were in a junior division.


----------



## Athos (Feb 14, 2018)

smokedout said:


> To even suggest that someone so terrified of violence they would leave their homes and go live in a house full of strangers at a secret address would be in the slightest bit motivated by validating their gender identity once again reveals what underlies your pretend support for trans people.



The question isn't whether they'd do those things to validate their belief, but whether *the insistence that they be done in a way that doesn't acknowledge a difference between trans and non-trans women (or the latter's concerns) *is so motivated.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 14, 2018)

elbows said:


> But that would then excludes intersex conditions that dont manifest in obvious external genital ambiguities. Not on.



Not on in some cases, sure, and many of those should be included, but the definition offered includes into the "intersex" bracket things that would be better understood as enzymatic deficiency conditions (these skew the figures greatly, which was my main point) and also the kinds of cellular mosaicism conditions that have no effect whatsoever on someone's life besides showing up if you take enough DNA samples from various tissues (in which case for practical reasons we can just consider these people "male" or "female").

I'm not sure what the end of this argument is meant to be, really.  Is it a "biological sex does not exist, so the terms male, female, women, men become meaningless, so natal women's concerns about some trans issues are by necessity unjustified"?


----------



## 8ball (Feb 14, 2018)

bimble said:


> When Laurel Hubbard started competing in the women's weightlifting (after years of competing as a man) the previously strongest woman in that category "reportedly lost 17kgs 'to fit under the 90kg category because she knew she would have no chance against Hubbard in the 90kg+ category."
> I don't particularly care about weightlifting but that seems a kind of obvious case of someone having to make room.  You might think thats fine but she didn't. Hubbard is now a gold medalist, they hadn't won any medals when competing as a man since they were in a junior division.



I see what you mean about "making room", but I wasn't sure whether that was specifically what lbj meant in terms of "all might not be right".  There were a couple of other interpretations and I didn't want to make any uncharitable assumptions.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2018)

bimble said:


> When Laurel Hubbard started competing in the women's weightlifting (after years of competing as a man) the previously strongest woman in that category "reportedly lost 17kgs 'to fit under the 90kg category because she knew she would have no chance against Hubbard in the 90kg+ category."
> I don't particularly care about weightlifting but that seems a kind of obvious case of someone having to make room.  You might think thats fine but she didn't. Hubbard is now a gold medalist, they hadn't won any medals when competing as a man since they were in a junior division.


I've been trying to find detailed records of Hubbard's career as a man, but can't find anything beyond that they set a NZ junior record in 1998 in a newly established division (record since beaten by some distance). I can't find records of Hubbard's personal best as a man (beyond that Hubbard never held the senior men's NZ record), but her current NZ record as a woman is below the junior men's record of 1998. So she's not as good as a woman as she was as a man. Just as well, otherwise there'd be no contest at all - men's performance in weightlifting is as much as 50 % higher than women's performance at the same weight (various NZ national records here). But that doesn't mean it's a level playing field. And looking at those records, Hubbard is the oldest record-holder of all by more than four years: 39 is clearly not normally peak lifting age.


----------



## Athos (Feb 14, 2018)

smokedout said:


> This is just like the 'why not set up your own trans refuges like women did' argument.  Fine in theory, completely unworkable and in many cases impossble in practice.



Is it fine in theory? Because I suspect that, even if there were adequate facilities for trans women, many of them would still insist they should be allowed into non-trans women's spaces. Do you accept that non-trans women have the right to their own spaces if trans women's needs can be met elsewhere?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2018)

8ball said:


> I see what you mean about "making room", but I wasn't sure whether that was specifically what lbj meant in terms of "all might not be right".  There were a couple of other interpretations and I didn't want to make any uncharitable assumptions.


Simply to do with fairness, and whether or not there is an unfair advantage for trans women over cis women in women-only sports events.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 14, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Simply to do with fairness, and whether or not there is an unfair advantage for trans women over cis women in women-only sports events.



Thanks - that clarifies things.  I think there is going to be a pretty clear advantage too.
I suppose with a lot of transgender cases its (at least for now) a bit simpler than intersex cases, where each case can be really unique.

Though as more hormonal interventions are done with gender dysphoric children and teens, that's going to get way more complicated too.

The concept of "fairness" is nebulous enough even when none of these issues are present,


----------



## smokedout (Feb 14, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Firstly, I didn't say the difference was in the individual cases of TWs fleeing violence. It's been happening already and one of the reasons was that there was no bruhaha about it was that women's orgs have been able to do their own gatekeeping. It could change and no amount of arguing there is nothing to worry about while dismissing, misrepresenting and slandering those talking about is going to change that.
> Second... Look at the Jo Cox programme, look at the percentage of women in the country compare it with the percentage of TWs and look at how the compare to the numbers in the school. Moreover, if the grapevine is right and Peto has been politically active for some time and had already stood for election as Warren then how many other girls/women without skills or experience in political activities could have attended instead? Can you wonder why we smell rats when resources may be wasted like this? Now tell me suspicions of highjacking resources and women's representation are wholly unfounded.



According to mumsnet there have been three trans women on the Jo Cox leadership programme out of an intake of around 150 (I suspect it might be a bit higherthan that but can't find exact figures.  That is higher than the estimated number of trans women in the population, although possibly not by an amount that is statistically significant.  It may be representative of the percentage of Labour Party members who are trans though, it's impossible to say.  In any event given the under representation of trans people in leadership positions in the party, it seems to make pragmatic sense to allow them to access this rather than set up a whole new programme for three people.



> Third, trans refuges and such may well be inevitable anyway. Refuges can be as chaotic place as they come (I've been in one). Now imagine India Willoughby in one or even our Stella here. Totally different set of needs/challenges smack bang among already traumatised women now also at risk of being fingerpointed at with accusations of wrong-think.



They are not inevitable.  The chances of two trans women or more needing access to a refuge at the same time in smaller cities are tiny.  It might just about work somewhere like Birmingham or London but in general it's not practical.  And given the immense amount of funding pressure women's refuges are under then how long would half empty trans refuges be tolerated if they were seen as competing for funds?  Trans women can't win, they will be attacked by some trans critical feminists whatever they do.


----------



## elbows (Feb 14, 2018)

8ball said:


> Not on in some cases, sure, and many of those should be included, but the definition offered includes into the "intersex" bracket things that would be better understood as enzymatic deficiency conditions (these skew the figures greatly, which was my main point) and also the kinds of cellular mosaicism conditions that have no effect whatsoever on someone's life besides showing up if you take enough DNA samples from various tissues (in which case for practical reasons we can just consider these people "male" or "female").
> 
> I'm not sure what the end of this argument is meant to be, really.  Is it a "biological sex does not exist, so the terms male, female, women, men become meaningless, so natal women's concerns about some trans issues are by necessity unjustified"?



I dont really see a need to try to find some kind of end to the argument. The destination you mention there is certainly not the destination I seek on this one. I'm mostly just interested in accommodating nuances properly, and I understand that if certain nuances are being used to make an ideological point, people with opposing views are going to challenge them. But too often for my liking there is a race to dismiss very real examples of humans that are present in small but still notable numbers.

The erosion of certainties is one of the factors at work here, an issue humans have faced all along as our understanding of things deepen. Yes, it is possible to get too carried away with some of this stuff and there are examples of things being said that it is hard not to treat as somewhat absurd at times. A couple of recent comments about sports have been a bit odd.  So I understand that the timing of me mentioning this intersex stuff again may imply an attempt to shoehorn the beginnings of a greater scientific understanding on some particular fronts into other claims. Thats not my intent, but I am trying to keep things a fair bit looser and more flexible than some seem comfortable with.


----------



## elbows (Feb 14, 2018)

8ball said:


> I'm not sure what the end of this argument is meant to be, really.  Is it a "biological sex does not exist, so the terms male, female, women, men become meaningless, so natal women's concerns about some trans issues are by necessity unjustified"?



Sorry I'm having a second attempt at replying, from a slightly different angle.

Rather than trying to claim that biological sex does not exist, I'd be thinking more along the lines of people still being left with some sense of biological sex, but with nice, soft, flexible borders that can properly accommodate all humans. It ought to be possible, but I can appreciate why there are challenges here and why the red lines of different groups show up almost straight away. I do expect science to keep discovering details that could have an impact, but  I havent read anything myself yet that would cause me to push very far beyond the rather wishy-washy position I am taking now. And I know that whatever the underlying realities and future discoveries, perceptions form from many other ingredients too and some possibilities will remain largely unthinkable even if the science points in that direction.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2018)

8ball said:


> Thanks - that clarifies things.  I think there is going to be a pretty clear advantage too.
> I suppose with a lot of transgender cases its (at least for now) a bit simpler than intersex cases, where each case can be really unique.
> 
> Though as more hormonal interventions are done with gender dysphoric children and teens, that's going to get way more complicated too.
> ...


I guess things will get more complicated. 

But at the very least, imo the Hubbard case shows that the current rules aren't right. She hasn't broken any rules, yet after an average career as a male lifter, she's become a medal-winning, record-breaking female lifter at an age way beyond a lifter's usual physical peak - checking other medallists at the last World Championships, she was a full nine years older than any of the dozen or so that I randomly chose. 

I think this is difficult stuff, but my initial thought on it is that nobody who previously competed as a man ought to be allowed to compete later as a woman. There is no fair way for that to happen. This may be harsh on late-transitioning trans women, but giving up a previous competitive sports career may be a necessary price they have to pay for transitioning. Whatever decision is made on that, one thing I don't think is valid is to treat this as a human rights issue - the right of a trans woman who grew up as a man to compete must be balanced against the rights of those they will be competing against who did not grow up as men. Their past is relevant to their present in this particular case.


----------



## elbows (Feb 14, 2018)

It's also possible I might end up with a far more radical view on sex and gender than my recent copout posts, but the minimum requirement for that is for me to have way more of a bloody clue what the fuck I'm talking about before seriously setting up camp on such territory.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 14, 2018)

Maybe sports should be competed in weight/height classes rather than just two genders.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2018)

Crispy said:


> Maybe sports should be competed in weight/height classes rather than just two genders.


In weightlifting, there are lots of weight divisions to allow smaller people to compete. But men can lift way more than women of the same weight - between 30 and 50 per cent more.


----------



## pengaleng (Feb 14, 2018)

I hope yer all enjoying yer 'peaktransing' love in


----------



## pengaleng (Feb 14, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Oh, might as well mention, one of the higher profile TERFs on Twitter last week was complaining that a man tried to stop her using the ladies toilet because she looks a bit boyish
> 
> Karma, or something!!!




oh the fucking irony  thats actually hilarious, cheers stella

bit of lippie might sort that situation right out init, it's such a shame


----------



## MochaSoul (Feb 14, 2018)

smokedout said:


> According to mumsnet there have been three trans women on the Jo Cox leadership programme out of an intake of around 150 (I suspect it might be a bit higherthan that but can't find exact figures.  That is higher than the estimated number of trans women in the population, although possibly not by an amount that is statistically significant.  It may be representative of the percentage of Labour Party members who are trans though, it's impossible to say.  In any event given the under representation of trans people in leadership positions in the party, it seems to make pragmatic sense to allow them to access this rather than set up a whole new programme for three people.
> 
> They are not inevitable.  The chances of two trans women or more needing access to a refuge at the same time in smaller cities are tiny.  It might just about work somewhere like Birmingham or London but in general it's not practical.  And given the immense amount of funding pressure women's refuges are under then how long would half empty trans refuges be tolerated if they were seen as competing for funds?  Transwomen can't win, they will be attacked by some trans critical feminists whatever they do.



Stop skirting the matter. Self-id opens women's (and soon others too, if Young Labour's latest is a sign of what's to come) mechanisms to increase representation as well as other sex related mechanisms to redress the inequality they face such as scholarships and so on wide to abuse. If the idea is to dismantle them and/or render them useless then this is the best way to go about it. Three people? Why not open an LGBT programme so that trans men are included? Should they continue to be invisible while the born with penises get the opportunities at the expense of others born with vaginas? Think about it.

They will become inevitable if trans ideologues keep pushing for women to let go of their own boundaries. Self-id looks very much like abolishing women's power to set them... especially if sex based exemptions are not just kept but re-enforced.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Stop skirting the matter. Self-id opens women's (and soon others too, if Young Labour's latest is a sign of what's to come) mechanisms to increase representation as well as other sex related mechanisms to redress the inequality they face such as scholarships and so on wide to abuse. If the idea is to dismantle them and/or render them useless then this is the best way to go about it. Three people? Why not open an LGBT programme so that trans men are included? Should they continue to be invisible while the born with penises get the opportunities at the expense of others born with vaginas? Think about it.
> 
> They will become inevitable if trans ideologues keep pushing for women to let go of their own boundaries. Self-id looks very much like abolishing women's power to set them... especially is sex based exemptions are not just kept but re-enforced.


We shouldn't overstate this, though. How many women-only scholarships are there? In education, girls and women outperform men and boys in the UK today. It's a stretch to say that women-only places are needed to redress an imbalance in education in the UK today. What imbalance? 

With women-only shortlists, I'm a little surprised there isn't more criticism of them, tbh. They represent some of the worst centralising, top-down tendencies in Blair's New Labour Party in the way they are selected.


----------



## spanglechick (Feb 14, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> They will become inevitable if trans ideologues keep pushing for women to let go of their own boundaries. Self-id looks very much like abolishing women's power to set them... especially if sex based exemptions are not just kept but re-enforced.


Why should women be the only people involved in demarcating those boundaries?  

And what happens when assigned female at birth women disagree about those boundaries, as I do with you?


----------



## MochaSoul (Feb 14, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> Why should women be the only people involved



Women are not being involved at all. The consultation received several submissions from women's groups but none were invited.

When Jess Phillips who was part of the Committee realised the blunder back still in December she got so much abuse she never again spoke of it in public. Her tweets are still there and the responses.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 14, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> I hope yer all enjoying yer 'peaktransing' love in


Wonder what would happen if I started calling radical feminism "peak women"


----------



## spanglechick (Feb 14, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Women are not being involved at all. The consultation received several submissions from women's groups but none were invited.
> 
> When Jess Phillips who was part of the Committee realised the blunder back still in December she got so much abuse she never again spoke of it in public. Her tweets are still there and the responses.


No one on the committee is female?

Edit - which women's groups speak for all women?


----------



## MochaSoul (Feb 14, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> No one on the committee is female?
> 
> Edit - which women's groups speak for all women?



Is that all you can come with? 
You actually think the reason to listen to, if only just one women's group is that it would be supposed that group to be the voice of all women? You think all women's groups are composed of rad feminists? Do you know (or think it fair, or even care) that Muslim women's groups were denied a say in the matter even though they have reasons to oppose it that go to the core of their freedoms?


----------



## MochaSoul (Feb 14, 2018)

Who exactly here thinks they speak for all women?


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 14, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> that Muslim women's groups were denied a say in the matter even though they have reasons to oppose it that go to the core of their freedoms?


Which groups, what freedoms, and why? Genuinely interested, links appreciated.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 14, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> No one on the committee is female?


 I am interested in the answer to this question. MochaSoul Do you know?


----------



## MochaSoul (Feb 14, 2018)

Do you own research.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 14, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Do you own research.



Right. A cheery wave to you too.


----------



## MochaSoul (Feb 14, 2018)

And you too. There will be a meeting of Woman's Place in London on the 27th. Be there and learn.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 14, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Who exactly here thinks they speak for all women?


I've been accused of not listening to the concerns of women a few times. There's a lot of things being posted on here that bother me on a personal level (being LGBT), out of concern for the trans people I have spoken to on here and the ones I know(including the parent of my son's classmate)  as well as politically-the damage this stuff is doing for working class solidarity because funnily enough being Transgender isn't generally   a political stance so this can be a class issue too. Are these not also the concerns of women?


----------



## spanglechick (Feb 14, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Is that all you can come with?
> You actually think the reason to listen to, if only just one women's group is that it would be supposed that group to be the voice of all women? You think all women's groups are composed of rad feminists? Do you know (or think it fair, or even care) that Muslim women's groups were denied a say in the matter even though they have reasons to oppose it that go to the core of their freedoms?


Whoa!  I'm not trying to "come with" anything.   

As you seem to agree, "women's groups" tend to represent specific interests.  Therefore, once you start including them, it becomes critically important to ensure that all are represented and, furthermore that the balance of views in the gen pop is represented.  

Otherwise you run the risk of the groups shouting loudest being the ones who set the agenda.  I'd rather not be represented as a (not trans) woman at all, than for trans exclusionary women to have the power to speak for me (which regularly seems to happen in this debate).


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 14, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Right. A cheery wave to you too.


BE THERE AND LEARN DID YOU HEAR THAT


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 14, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> And you too. There will be a meeting of Woman's Place in London on the 27th. Be there and learn.



You know what, just don't speak to me like that. There's no fucking need.

This is being talked about as the biggest and most challenging feminist issue of the times and whilst I am taking an interest and trying to navigate the extreme bilge on both sides I simply will not be condescended to by you or anyone else. We've no need to interact again.


----------



## spanglechick (Feb 14, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> And you too. There will be a meeting of Woman's Place in London on the 27th. Be there and learn.


Well no.  I won't.  Because debating with trans exclusionary people frequently makes me very depressed and frustrated, so an event organised by them sounds like a nightmare.  

For the record, I also wouldn't choose to debate with the more idiotic factions of Reddit / twitter's trans activism.


----------



## Sea Star (Feb 14, 2018)

what a sensible article about the GRA actually looks like:


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 14, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> what a sensible article about the GRA actually looks like:View attachment 127454



He sounds like a pleasant man indeed! SEction 28- We were still in school ripping keep the clause posters down all over Inverness when that cunt Brian Souter got behind the campaign. Then Yes took a fucking donation from him and bragged about it!!! No one cares about us man.


----------



## MochaSoul (Feb 14, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> Whoa!  I'm not trying to "come with" anything.
> 
> As you seem to agree, "women's groups" tend to represent specific interests.  Therefore, once you start including them, it becomes critically important to ensure that all are represented and, furthermore that the balance of views in the gen pop is represented.
> 
> Otherwise you run the risk of the groups shouting loudest being the ones who set the agenda.  I'd rather not be represented as a (not trans) woman at all, than for trans exclusionary women to have the power to speak for me (which regularly seems to happen in this debate).



None were allowed a hearing. None.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 14, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Who exactly here thinks they speak for all women?



<starts raising hand tentatively>

<thinks better of it...>


----------



## smokedout (Feb 14, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> I am interested in the answer to this question. MochaSoul Do you know?



Nine women, two men when the inquiry took place.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 14, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Nine women, two men when the inquiry took place.


Yeah but the concerns of women


----------



## elbows (Feb 14, 2018)

Anyone got a link to, for example, a boring official website where I can learn some of the undisputed basics about that inquiry/whatever the proper name for it is?


----------



## Sea Star (Feb 14, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> He sounds like a pleasant man indeed! SEction 28- We were still in school ripping keep the clause posters down all over Inverness when that cunt Brian Souter got behind the campaign. Then Yes took a fucking donation from him and bragged about it!!! No one cares about us man.


I'm pre section 28 but I don't remember any discussion of sexuality at school at any point. As for trans, well, I didn't even know trans was a thing until the 1990s . I just thought I was a weirdo who should probably just keep the whole thing to themselves forever.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 14, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Nine women, two men when the inquiry took place.



Thanks. I can see why this answer didn't suit then.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> Do you know (or think it fair, or even care) that Muslim women's groups were denied a say in the matter even though they have reasons to oppose it that go to the core of their freedoms?


The 'core of their freedoms'? What does that mean?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 14, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> No one cares about us man.





HoratioCuthbert said:


> I ken!



You swing between Scot and Geordie! (Unless Scots say that too; I thought it was NE folk and hippies).


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 14, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> You swing between Scot and Geordie! (Unless Scots say that too; I thought it was NE folk and hippies).


 Scots and Geordie very very similar! I have the Scots from being in Orkney too long but in Inverness we don't have that at all! There's lots of different Scots dialect up here and North of England really more like another brand of Scots(don't say that to anyone that speaks it they will be raging) Then there's Gaelic, which I speak due to going to the very first Gaelic unit in the highlands in the 80's but that's mainly West coast and western isles. It seems to me like the Celts ploughed through from the West and the East and North coast and Newcastle are all speaking Scots. sort of. Academics argue about this


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 14, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> You swing between Scot and Geordie! (Unless Scots say that too; I thought it was NE folk and hippies).


Ohhhhh! You meant MAN!!!! Ooops, in Geordieland there is lots of words that Orcadian dialect have in common!

Man, we started saying that late 90's. Too much telly!


----------



## Vintage Paw (Feb 14, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> what a sensible article about the GRA actually looks like:View attachment 127454



That anyone could object to a single thing he said boggles the mind.


----------



## smokedout (Feb 14, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think this is difficult stuff, but my initial thought on it is that nobody who previously competed as a man ought to be allowed to compete later as a woman. There is no fair way for that to happen. This may be harsh on late-transitioning trans women, but giving up a previous competitive sports career may be a necessary price they have to pay for transitioning. Whatever decision is made on that, one thing I don't think is valid is to treat this as a human rights issue - the right of a trans woman who grew up as a man to compete must be balanced against the rights of those they will be competing against who did not grow up as men. Their past is relevant to their present in this particular case.



Is that really the best that can be done, effectively banning trans women from all competitive sports?  Surely an evidence led approach is preferable, one that looks at the needs of different sports and that is flexible enough to be able to respond if looks like things seem to be unfair.  The weightlifter could be an outlier for example, you'd expect a few, given the growing number of trans athletes.  If it happens again perhaps it's time to relook at the evidence surrounding weightlifting rather than ban trans women from all sports.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 14, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> You swing between Scot and Geordie! (Unless Scots say that too; I thought it was NE folk and hippies).


Inverness = mun! MUN! Orkney: Min 
So I guess we have that too. This is my last post on that.


----------



## smokedout (Feb 14, 2018)

elbows said:


> Anyone got a link to, for example, a boring official website where I can learn some of the undisputed basics about that inquiry/whatever the proper name for it is?



Everything's here: Transgender equality inquiry


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 14, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Ohhhhh! You meant MAN!!!! Ooops, in Geordieland there is lots of words that Orcadian dialect have in common!
> 
> Man, we started saying that late 90's. Too much telly!



Well NE folk don’t say ‘ken’!


----------



## elbows (Feb 14, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Everything's here: Transgender equality inquiry



Thanks very much. I am reading the report now. Clearly there is way too much in it for me to tackle, but already I find myself wanting to take note of some things mentioned in it to look at later.



> We also heard from various quarters the view that the UK government should adopt the overarching principles on trans equality embodied in two international declarations:21
> 
> 
> the Yogyakarta Principles on the Application of International Human Rights Law in relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, adopted by the International Commission of Jurists in 2007;22 and
> ...


----------



## smokedout (Feb 14, 2018)

MochaSoul said:


> None were allowed a hearing. None.



Several women's organisations were referenced in the report, they just weren't called to give evidence in person in what was a very broad inquiry.  And who would you invite?  Would you have been happy if Women's Aid Scotland had given evidence on the success of trans inclusion in refuges in Scotland?  Wpmen's Aid England and Wales did offer to appear, but since there policy was under review then I'm not sure what they'd have said, they made it quite clear they oppose any discrimination against trans women in their written evidence.

And now it looks like that Women's Aid review is likely to inform the government#'s position.  The biggest women's organisation is now at the heart of policy development so surely this concern has been addressed.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 14, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Well NE folk don’t say ‘ken’!


I ken I ken, I just went into Scots mode and didn't think haha! Mak, tak, doon, radgie etc though


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Is that really the best that can be done, effectively banning trans women from all competitive sports?  Surely an evidence led approach is preferable, one that looks at the needs of different sports and that is flexible enough to be able to respond if looks like things seem to be unfair.  The weightlifter could be an outlier for example, you'd expect a few, given the growing number of trans athletes.  If it happens again perhaps it's time to relook at the evidence surrounding weightlifting rather than ban trans women from all sports.



Trans woman athletes who transitioned in adulthood may be left in something of a nowhereland - no longer able to compete with men because of the effects of their treatment, but with a body shaped by years of being a man that may still confer advantages over women. Where that's the case, what do you do? I read testimony from numerous trans women athletes as to how their treatment has affected their performance, and it's clear that it does, but that on its own is not enough to be able to say that it's fair for them to compete with women. Really all that says is that they will now struggle to compete with men.

The weightlifter is perhaps an extreme example, given the big gap in performance levels in that discipline between men and women, but I'd need convincing that it's not generalisably true.

It's hard to find reliable sources on this, but this pdf considering martial arts looks pretty considered. Its focus is certainly not trans-exclusion but rather how to find the right way to include trans women in combat sports that is fair on everyone, and it makes a point that cis female fighters generally jump at the chance of a bout with a trans woman as a chance to test themselves: a lot of this problem disappears once you're only talking about sport for its own sake rather than to win things.

www.nicholasrizzo.com/ringsidemedicine/transgender.pdf

Its main conclusions are worth quoting in full:



> The following conclusions may be drawn from this discussion about MTF post-pubertal
> transitioned athletes.
>  Most physiologic and anatomic differences (muscle mass and development, testosterone
> levels, bone density, red blood cell levels, muscle-to-fat ratio) between men and women
> ...



Regarding the point about male/female skeletal shape and centre of gravity, this is something I'm very familiar with from training and teaching martial arts to both men and women. Women have to do many techniques substantially differently from men for this reason, and it's been a learning curve for me over the years to learn exactly what those differences are so that I can advise female students correctly.


----------



## smokedout (Feb 14, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Trans woman athletes who transitioned in adulthood may be left in something of a nowhereland - no longer able to compete with men because of the effects of their treatment, but with a body shaped by years of being a man that may still confer advantages over women. Where that's the case, what do you do? I read testimony from numerous trans women athletes as to how their treatment has affected their performance, and it's clear that it does, but that on its own is not enough to be able to say that it's fair for them to compete with women. Really all that says is that they will now struggle to compete with men.
> 
> The weightlifter is perhaps an extreme example, given the big gap in performance levels in that discipline between men and women, but I'd need convincing that it's not generalisably true.



Golf, motor sports, equestrian events, gymnastics, figure skating?  There's probably dozens of sports where there is no advantage and some where it might even be a disadvantage.  Surely a case by case approach based on evidence is better than a blanket ban.  And the evidence that does exist certainly makes a case for a significant loss in performance after a year or so on hormone treatment.

This is backed up by what's taking place in sport.  Only two trans women are rumoured to have ever made it to the Olympics, and presumably they didn't win anything.  The first (and possibly only) American trans person to ever represent the country at national level was a trans man.  With the exception of Hubbard and the volley ball player no trans women seems to have been hugely successful in professional sports.  I'm not aware of any trans women playing football at top flight status.  This might change, but nothing has to be set in stone.  It doesn't strike me as beyond the wit of sporting bodies to find a way for many or even most sports to become inclusive and fair without banning most trans women from competitive sport completely.


----------



## Sue (Feb 14, 2018)

Transgender first for Australian football


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 14, 2018)

8ball dealt with all this pages ago


----------



## elbows (Feb 15, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Several women's organisations were referenced in the report, they just weren't called to give evidence in person in what was a very broad inquiry.



I have just reached the part of the report where I can first see clear signs of this.



> 110. The Equality Act 2010 allows for the provision of separate-sex and single-sex services where this is “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim” (a form of words intended to require the application of an objective standard of justification). The Act also effectively permits service providers not to allow a trans person to access separate-sex or single-sex services—on a case-by-case basis, where exclusion is “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”.
> 
> 111. We heard a range of views on this difficult and sensitive issue. Some voices were raised in support of the law as it stands. Women Analysing Policy on Women told us:
> 
> ...



And then shortly thereafter the other things you recently mentioned also come up in the report, but I'm obviously not going to start quoting a very large amount of this stuff. Their conclusion to this section was interesting though, for reasons including them suspecting that the proportionate test in the existing Gender Recognition Act would not be met by many of the contentious instances anyway.



> 32. Significant concerns have been raised with us regarding the provisions of the Equality Act concerned with separate-sex and single-sex services and the genuine occupational requirement as these relate to trans people. These are sensitive areas, where there does need to be some limited ability to exercise discretion, if this is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. However, we are not persuaded that this discretion should apply where a trans person has been recognised as of their acquired gender “for all legal purposes” under the Gender Recognition Act. In many instances this is unlikely, in any case, to meet the proportionate test. We recommend that the Equality Act be amended so that the occupational requirements provision and / or the single-sex / separate services provision shall not apply in relation to discrimination against a person whose acquired gender has been recognised under the Gender Recognition Act 2004.



It's no surprise that legislators are pretty well tuned to judging things in terms of the current legislation. Including variations between the actual way the current legislation is used so far, the original spirit of the legislation and any other laws (and declarations, international or regional stuff) that the current legislation was supposed to be an implementation of or be compatible with. And whether specific bits of the legislation are actually working and whether any tests in them are really being used as tests and have had a chance to been illuminated further via court precedent. It doesnt surprise me that, when this is combined with some groups telling them that these safeguards need to stay, and others describing the various ways the current legislation is doing harm and not serving any of its intended purposes properly, they are more likely to come up with a preferred solution that involves hitting many of these targets in one go. In this case, even if they found the voice of groups who want to maintain the current position more compelling, they dont think many of the assumed existing safeguards are actually legally safe in terms of the proportionate test, and combined with other flaws and incompatibilities its no surprise they'd rather ditch it. 

Anyway I know that even by my standards this post has probably been especially tedious and full of unnecessarily wordy sentences and shit. Sorry. But I cannot help but compare a particular sentence from this aspect of the report to one of the things that certainly influences the accusations of bad faith that frequently erupt on this thread.



> These are sensitive areas, where there does need to be some limited ability to exercise discretion, if this is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.



I know all sides will seek to claim the legitimate, proportionate ground, but if I were a betting man I would look at the existing legislation and the spirit into which various things have been instigated this century, including the entire purpose and spirit of that inquiry, and I would certainly not be trusting the sums of a terf accountant. I know its hardly a revelation that their aims are not just to thwart the current proposals but to try to undo some of the past gains. But I suppose I've still been interested to see this specific example of both a past legislative flaw/largely untested ambiguity and rights that were nonetheless somewhat enshrined in spite of the flaws, hugely influencing future recommendations.


----------



## Sea Star (Feb 15, 2018)

The Express standing up for feminism - there's a first. Definitely legit! No agenda there, obvs. 

Corbyn's transgender NIGHTMARE: Mumsnet fires back at Labour leader over self ID policies


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 15, 2018)

elbows said:


> I have just reached the part of the report where I can first see clear signs of this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



TL;DR I’ll go along with the findings of the bourgeois court that slots neatly into a neo-liberal outlook and dismiss everything else.
Urban75, 2018.


----------



## elbows (Feb 15, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> TL;DR I’ll go along with the findings of the bourgeois court that slots neatly into a neo-liberal outlook and dismiss everything else.
> Urban75, 2018.



I do get a little bored with how often my attempts to observe and describe things are equated with wholeheartedly supporting the things I am observing.

In this instance there is an obvious overlap between many of their conclusions and my own personal opinion about things, and I will not bore anyone by attempting to pretend otherwise. And this is bound to affect my tone and yes it may be possible to detect less than subtle hints of me cheering certain things on and attempting to rub terfs noses in other aspects.

So yeah, feel free to enter this as part of the mix. But I would also like to submit to the mix things such as being able to wholeheartedly support same-sex marriage despite it being delivered by a range of flawed state & power actors, without being sneered at along 'friend of the bourgeois court' lines. I wonder why the difference in standards eh?


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 15, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> TL;DR I’ll go along with the findings of the bourgeois court that slots neatly into a neo-liberal outlook and dismiss everything else.
> Urban75, 2018.


Basically you are kind of right, the workers at women's aid are far more sensitive to the needs of those in their care than some arbitrary law, but Elbows is right in that if this stuff went to court it would be ambiguous as fuck, pieces of Lego and Stickle bricks.  None of which means feminists should be pouring all their energy into fighting the trans for their rights


----------



## elbows (Feb 15, 2018)

Personally, if we are still operating within the confines of a system of states, institutions and legislative assemblies, I would at least have an additional completely separate thing that was entirely dissimilar to the ways and preferences of the legislators that I was just discussing.  Because lets face it, without that then no matter how many appropriate groups are consulted, the complaint can just shift from one sort of not being listened to to another sort of not being listened to. Gloating was far from the only intent of my previous posts, I was genuinely also just observing how certain aspects of what has happened before legislatively carry great weight for subsequent inquiries and their conclusions. Even when it does not serve my own policy preference for some of these excluded voices to be heard properly, I'd rather they were. And since I have a reasonably low opinion of how much listening the establishment entities can muster, I would favour some radical additional parallel structure that was actually composed in such a way that the normal limitations of the elite consultation interface are overcome.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 15, 2018)

elbows said:


> Personally, if we are still operating within the confines of a system of states, institutions and legislative assemblies, I would at least have an additional completely separate thing that was entirely dissimilar to the ways and preferences of the legislators that I was just discussing.  Because lets face it, without that then no matter how many appropriate groups are consulted, the complaint can just shift from one sort of not being listened to to another sort of not being listened to. Gloating was far from the only intent of my previous posts, I was genuinely also just observing how certain aspects of what has happened before legislatively carry great weight for subsequent inquiries and their conclusions. Even when it does not serve my own policy preference for some of these excluded voices to be heard properly, I'd rather they were. And since I have a reasonably low opinion of how much listening the establishment entities can muster, I would favour some radical additional parallel structure that was actually composed in such a way that the normal limitations of the elite consultation interface are overcome.


 A kind of social affairs committee? 

If you're looking within the system, nobody is more accountable than an elected official. How would that parallel structure be constituted? It would have to be by some kind of vote/ballot system - its legitimacy can only come from those who appoint it. 

tbh the consultation process here in the UK that can leave us behind other places is not a bad thing. It is a bit of bureaucracy that I am glad is there. It is a chance of representation, however imperfect.


----------



## elbows (Feb 15, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> A kind of social affairs committee?
> 
> If you're looking within the system, nobody is more accountable than an elected official. How would that parallel structure be constituted? It would have to be by some kind of vote/ballot system - its legitimacy can only come from those who appoint it.
> 
> tbh the consultation process here in the UK that can leave us behind other places is not a bad thing. It is a bit of bureaucracy that I am glad is there. It is a chance of representation, however imperfect.



I wasnt intending to get derailed by any of the detail, I was just trying to indicate that there are myriad ways that these processes may be limited and may leave people feeling they have not been heard. And if I wanted that tackled properly, I'd favour having something of a pretty different nature so that all manner of real and perceived flaws with current setup are not present from the start. Yes even if this mythical new listening entity served its purpose well, there still needs to be an actual decision made one way or the other at some point and I've just shifted problems at that stage from being an internal committee matter to a clash between the existing committee and this magical parallel thing. Yes, problems, but I cant help but think that simply by carrying out its listening process in its different way, and being composed of different sorts of people, more people would at least be left with a genuine sense that they got to have their say and were listened to and, even if still patronised in some ways, at least in different ways to what they get when dealing with established formal UK PLC through all the usual channels. Even when still dealing with the confines of the state, representative democracy, accountability of elected officials, I think there is easily room to have bodies that are specifically geared towards the consultative aspects of policy work to be comprised less of the usual elite operatives and more of the broader range of humans from across society. For similar reasons to some of the problems public inquiries can face over their choice of establishment figures to chair the thing.

Anyway of all the different sorts of establishment documents that I end up reading, committee stuff is way easier to treat with a bit of respect than a lot of other shit. Its more likely to at least come across as balanced and fairly well thought out, although not without its flaws and limitations. I reached the NHS section of the report before running out of steam. It described a range of rather depressing things.


----------



## elbows (Feb 15, 2018)

So I guess I'm sort of saying, committees can produce some interesting stuff, some obvious flaws and boundaries, I would love some similar things but comprised of different people so we get different flaws and boundaries as well and so even more interesting food for thought.


----------



## elbows (Feb 15, 2018)

Although we already know from this thread the sort of thing that would ensue if an alt committee really tried to listen to certain sentiments and then felt unable to avoid conclusions such as 'some of this is transphobic shit that is to be loudly condemned'


----------



## elbows (Feb 15, 2018)

Oh dear:

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/02/1...urate-and-deeply-damaging-say-lgbt-activists/



> A recently released guide, targeted at schools about transgender children, has been slammed by LGBT groups, who say it perpetuates myths and could potentially harm young trans people.
> 
> Transgender Trend, a group which describes itself as parents “concerned about the current trend to diagnose ‘gender non-conforming’ children as transgender”, released the resource pack yesterday.
> 
> ...


----------



## 8ball (Feb 15, 2018)

elbows said:


> Oh dear...



I thought it was commonly accepted that a lot of gender non-conforming children grow up to be non-dysphoric gay adults, and a lot as non-dysphoric straight adults.
But saying they are trying to protect kids from ideology is more than a bit disingenuous.


----------



## bimble (Feb 15, 2018)

Instead of saying read it if you want but here's why we think its wrong and you should not follow the advice it gives, there's just a lot of this sort of thing instead. oh dear.


----------



## elbows (Feb 15, 2018)

8ball said:


> I thought it was commonly accepted that a lot of gender non-conforming children grow up to be non-dysphoric gay adults, and a lot as non-dysphoric straight adults.
> But saying they are trying to protect kids from ideology is more than a bit disingenuous.



Well this thread contains some reasonable demonstrations of what happens when even commonly accepted truths or partial truths are used as ammo in ideological battles.

I need to read the full guide before commenting further, and I dont think I will have time for that until tomorrow.


----------



## elbows (Feb 15, 2018)

Meanwhile, here is a terf video take on todays activity outside westminster court. Some audible comments and the direction the camera points at times is just further confirmation of the rancid nature of this overt transphobe.


----------



## bimble (Feb 15, 2018)

What is the point. "defend the she wolf" because punching terfs is the way forward. Why not also taunt your enemy with 'you hideous ugly terf'. Inspiring stuff.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 15, 2018)

bimble said:


> What is the point. "defend the she wolf" because punching terfs is the way forward. Why not also taunt your enemy with 'you hideous ugly terf'. Inspiring stuff.


Doing a great job of convincing me that I'm the bad feminist, with that chat.


----------



## bimble (Feb 15, 2018)

The she wolf pleaded not guilty apparently so there'll be a trial in a couple of months.


----------



## elbows (Feb 15, 2018)

bimble said:


> What is the point. "defend the she wolf" because punching terfs is the way forward. Why not also taunt your enemy with 'you hideous ugly terf'. Inspiring stuff.



Perhaps you were inspired more by 'the bulge' comments along with associated panning down of camera.


----------



## bimble (Feb 15, 2018)

Don't do that. I have been clear that i personally think dr rad is an idiot and not helping anyone.


----------



## elbows (Feb 15, 2018)

bimble said:


> Don't do that. I have been clear that i personally think dr rad is an idiot and not helping anyone.



OK, I genuinely apologise then because I was not aware that was your precise take on dr rad.

Obviously I did want to draw attention to that part of the video because I thought it was telling, but it is wrong of me to attempt to transplant related feelings to specific people on this thread.


----------



## bimble (Feb 15, 2018)

Something more hopeful: a thoughtful and almost optimistic thread covering the meeting yesterday (you have to click to read whole thing)


----------



## smokedout (Feb 15, 2018)

bimble said:


> Instead of saying read it if you want but here's why we think its wrong and you should not follow the advice it gives, there's just a lot of this sort of thing instead. oh dear.
> View attachment 127517



They are a very nasty group who spend much of their time trying to play down studies which show trans children are more likely to commit suicide jumping through so many hoops to do so that they end up claiming that 100% of young female to male trans men have suicidal thoughts but this proves there isn't really a high trans suicide rate because these are all lesbians really.

The high rates of depression, suicidal behaviour and anxiety trans kids face have been well documented throughout the world in numerous studies.  There is also growing evidence that socially and parentally supported transition brings the best outcomes.  You may not agree with that approach, but to distort evidence in advice to parents in a way that might endanger young people's mental health puts them in the same league as the worst kind of reparative therapy fundamentalists.


----------



## Sea Star (Feb 15, 2018)

This thread says it all... I consider that pamphlet to be hate literature, full of lies, probably illegal, and it will hurt a lot of children if not stopped in its tracks.


----------



## elbows (Feb 15, 2018)

bimble said:


> Don't do that. I have been clear that i personally think dr rad is an idiot and not helping anyone.



By the way, I can only face reading the output of dr radfem rather infrequently, so I might miss news about that documentary she claims to have done a deal to make. If you or anyone else come across any updates on that one, please let us know, it would be most appreciated. In part because I can barely read more than a sentence of dr radfems output, or see anything of her interacting hatefully on video, without my mind being totally boggled at how she will manage to produce something that can pass basic ofcom broadcast standards. To the extent I'm almost half expecting her to announce that the documentary partner is actually Louis Theroux, under which circumstances I somehow suspect the documentary will not exactly be what she envisaged


----------



## bimble (Feb 15, 2018)

It’ll probably be as divisive and sensationalist as possible if there’s a tv show about these issues who chose her for a starring role. It’s my impression that it’s getting easier to find sane articulate voices on all sides recently so not really any point them picking her unless it’s to maximise drama .


----------



## elbows (Feb 15, 2018)

weepiper said:


> Doing a great job of convincing me that I'm the bad feminist, with that chat.



There doesnt seem to be all that much convincing accomplished by either side when they take the high ground, so its no surprise that theres even less to be found when the low ground is sought by both sides. 

I am not well read in theories about fighting intolerance with intolerance, but there are other obvious examples where this seems to be an accepted, legit strategy, so I'm not surprised to see the same on these fronts.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 15, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> This thread says it all... I consider that pamphlet to be hate literature, full of lies, probably illegal, and it will hurt a lot of children if not stopped in its tracks.



Hurt is an understatement.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 15, 2018)

This this this. By the time I was in 6th year most of the group I hung out with were gay or bisexual. We still are! That we didn't have to hide for another 10 years WAS A GOOD THING.


----------



## smokedout (Feb 15, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> This this this. By the time I was in 6th year most of the group I hung out with were gay or bisexual. We still are! That we didn't have to hide for another 10 years WAS A GOOD THING.




But what if a child thought they were gay for a bit then realised they weren't?  Haven't you thought of that eh?


----------



## TopCat (Feb 15, 2018)

weepiper said:


> It's not 'taking domperidone while breastfeeding'. It's taking domperidone, progesterone and estrogen to induce lactation in someone who would never otherwise be able to produce milk. It's not a valid comparison.


This


----------



## TopCat (Feb 15, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> This case isn't a "dude" - she's a woman.


In what way?


----------



## elbows (Feb 15, 2018)

I note that the BBC have reported on the breastfeeding story, and have a small additional uk angle. I'm entirely unsurprised if there has been some uk cases already, as per my waffling on about per-GP/specialist basis to many decisions and not having seen anything published not being proof it hasnt already been done and just not shouted about.



> Dr Channa Jayasena, a senior lecturer at Imperial College who specialises in reproductive endocrinology, said the research was an "exciting development".
> 
> He said he had heard of a few cases in the UK of transgender women being helped to breastfeed, but until now no report has been published.
> 
> Dr Jayasena added: "What we really need to do is pool together these cases and share our knowledge, to find the best recipe for breastfeeding in these patients without exposing them to any health risks."



Transgender woman 'breastfeeds baby'


----------



## TopCat (Feb 15, 2018)

bimble said:


> Tomorrow.. a call for uncritical support (particularly from biological women) outside the court where the incident at beginning of this thread is going to be heard. Rally round to defend the person accused of assault from the violence of the terfs..Is this really a good idea?
> View attachment 127400 View attachment 127401


The accused is pretty fragile and surrounded by gleeful trans activists.


----------



## TopCat (Feb 15, 2018)

elbows said:


> Meanwhile, here is a terf video take on todays activity outside westminster court. Some audible comments and the direction the camera points at times is just further confirmation of the rancid nature of this overt transphobe.



They were all at it. Same tactics both sides.


----------



## Sea Star (Feb 15, 2018)

elbows said:


> I note that the BBC have reported on the breastfeeding story, and have a small additional uk angle. I'm entirely unsurprised if there has been some uk cases already, as per my waffling on about per-GP/specialist basis to many decisions and not having seen anything published not being proof it hasnt already been done and just not shouted about.
> 
> 
> 
> Transgender woman 'breastfeeds baby'


I know of at least one transgender mum who breast fed her baby several years ago. This is not news.


----------



## TopCat (Feb 15, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> I know of at least one transgender mum who breast fed her baby several years ago. This is not news.


It is news.


----------



## pengaleng (Feb 15, 2018)

wow yer all not aware people can lactate and it's old old news, we had this with the whole gay dads thing and the yoghurt weaving hippies < which is actually embarrassing considering this is urbans where they all hide out

also just because ones body produces fluid it does not mean you'll be able to feed anyone with it cus it might turn out they dont like you

no one mention gynaecomastia or the fact that men have nipples because all zygotes are female


----------



## 8ball (Feb 15, 2018)

TopCat said:


> It is news.



The confusion seems to be over the "news" bit.
It is the first_ properly documented_ case.

There seem to be fewer specific properly documented cases of bears shitting in woods than you might expect, too.


----------



## pengaleng (Feb 15, 2018)

who the fuck cares????

someone who aint you is producing milk to feed a child, what the fucks it got to do with anyone else??

and they say cis privilege is a load of shit...


----------



## 8ball (Feb 15, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> who the fuck cares????



The BBC.


----------



## pengaleng (Feb 15, 2018)

8ball said:


> The BBC.




yous still actively engage with the media? lol

everyone should be giving the bbc the finger imo for their freak of nature reporting.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 15, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> yous still actively engage with the media?



Well, I'm posting on here...


----------



## pengaleng (Feb 15, 2018)

ahhhh I'm only part time at best


----------



## 8ball (Feb 15, 2018)

pengaleng said:


> ahhhh I'm only part time at best



The BBC are notably shoddy when it comes to science journalism to be fair, but this is disappointing:

Transgender woman is first to be able to breastfeed her baby


----------



## pengaleng (Feb 15, 2018)

god that post about painfully pointing out the said individual was able to produce milk due to a load of drugs.... sit down for this one.... , did you know some people cant produce insulin without drugs?  (first one to whine about it keeping em alive and is necessary -20 liberal points)

I aint reading that cus the news is poison and it really aint news to me.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 15, 2018)

elbows said:


> Meanwhile, here is a terf video take on todays activity outside westminster court. Some audible comments and the direction the camera points at times is just further confirmation of the rancid nature of this overt transphobe.




It’s a good thing that the leaders of the TERF mini-movement are so completely unable to disguise their vicious bigotry. It’s worth reminding people over and over again that this is what the “just asking questions” routine is supposed to disguise.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 15, 2018)

It seems that the twitter/mumsnet TERFs have decided that Sisters Uncut are MRAs now (and of course they endlessly make the same bigoted joke that the name refers to trans women with penises).


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 15, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It seems that the twitter/mumsnet TERFs have decided that Sisters Uncut are MRAs now (and of course they endlessly make the same bigoted joke that the name refers to trans women with penises).



It’s amusing that it was Sisters Uncut who launched a physical attack on someone they accused of being a woman beater but are now supporting a woman beater on the basis that the assailant doesn’t identify as male.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 15, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> It’s amusing that it was Sisters Uncut who launched a physical attack on someone they accused of being a woman beater but are now supporting a woman beater on the basis that the assailant has transitioned.



Why are you assuming that anyone should have the same attitude to allegations of domestic violence as they do to a scuffle between political activists? That’s very weird of you.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 15, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Why are you assuming that anyone should have the same attitude to allegations of domestic violence as they do to a scuffle between political activists? That’s very weird of you.



So Sisters Uncut’s position is it’s ok to smack women about as long as you’re not co-habiting and have a political disagreement with them?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 15, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> So Sisters Uncut’s position is it’s ok to smack women about as long as you’re not co-habiting and have a political disagreement with them?



Why don't you simply ask them and stop this pathetic imagining and building a false argument dance?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 15, 2018)

Rutita1 said:


> Why don't you simply ask them and stop this pathetic imagining and building a false argument dance?



It isn’t a false argument. And it’s Nigel who is representing their position here so I’m happy asking him.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Feb 15, 2018)

'Scuffle' is such a nice word, isn't it?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 15, 2018)

sheothebudworths said:


> 'Scuffle' is such a nice word, isn't it?



Perhaps Nigel is their QC and is submitting it as a mitigating factor.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 15, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> It isn’t a false argument. And it’s Nigel who is representing their position here so I’m happy asking him.



If I thought that you actually believed that there’s something inconsistent about opposing domestic violence while not automatically applying the same view to every single incident involving violence, I would take the view that you are too stupid to be trusted with unsupervised access to scissors. But we both know that you are being disingenuous. I’m quite entertained by your claim that I’m “representing” the view of Sisters Uncut because I noted that TERF weirdos are now convinced that various feminist groups are “MRAs” though.


----------



## Sea Star (Feb 15, 2018)

TopCat said:


> It is news.


oh, if you say so then. Event that isn't even newsworthy and is being reported purely to feed the freak show mentality of most cis people in order to sell papers is technically news but it's not new, not newsworthy and nobody's fucking business but the people directly involved!


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 15, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> If I thought that you actually believed that there’s something inconsistent about opposing domestic violence while not automatically applying the same view to every single incident involving violence, I would take the view that you are too stupid to be trusted with unsupervised access to scissors. But we both know that you are being disingenuous. I’m quite entertained by your claim that I’m “representing” the view of Sisters Uncut because I noted that TERF weirdos are now convinced that various feminist groups are “MRAs” though.



Ignoring the amusement of you using a scissors analogy whilst talking about Sisters Uncut (geddit? ) I should remind you that 1) we’re talking about a supposed feminist organisation here and 2) one of the central points of the argument that has raged on for 200 pages is that Trans women should be granted access to women’s refuges because they’re victims of violence too!
And now here you are playing down violence along with Sisters Uncut.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Feb 15, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> If I thought that you actually believed that there’s something inconsistent about opposing domestic violence while not automatically applying the same view to every single incident involving violence...



It's not a _lack of opposition_ when it's either carrying out or supporting violence (better word, btw), is it? Of _course_ that's inconsistent.


----------



## Sea Star (Feb 15, 2018)

TopCat said:


> They were all at it. Same tactics both sides.


bollocks.


----------



## Sea Star (Feb 15, 2018)

TopCat said:


> In what way?


i don't understand your questions. She's a trans woman. A woman who's trans. Which means she's a woman. Stop asking stupid fucking questions?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 15, 2018)

sheothebudworths said:


> It's not a _lack of opposition_ when it's either carrying out or supporting violence (better word, btw), is it? Of _course_ that's inconsistent.



Only pacifists believe it’s inconsistent to take different attitudes to different types of violence in different contexts. As Magnus is accusing them of being violent towards someone accused of domestic violence I think we can take it for granted that they aren’t pacifists.


----------



## elbows (Feb 15, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> oh, if you say so then. Event that isn't even newsworthy and is being reported purely to feed the freak show mentality of most cis people in order to sell papers is technically news but it's not new, not newsworthy and nobody's fucking business but the people directly involved!



Well certainly the main reason I've talked about it on this thread a few times this week is because someone else first brought it up here, and surprise surprise it was brought up in a very negative context that I felt unable to avoid confronting.

However when speaking more broadly about the story being newsworthy or not, I do feel bound to point out that the reason this news exists is because of a report in Transgender Health journal. I would therefore hope to discover whether you feel specific criticisms should be directed their way. Although I understand feelings such as boredom, disgust and hate over all the ridiculous scrutiny trans people and aspects of their lives are subjected to, I'm afraid I dont really think anyone gets the right to never have to see any issue that affects their lives end up covered in a medical journal. And since some of these channels are also used to spread positive, informative and useful information that is helpful to causes at times, I would be vary of appeals to shut down these avenues in some ways.


----------



## elbows (Feb 15, 2018)

It is certainly possible to win the right not to have aspects of your life pathologised though.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 15, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Only pacifists believe it’s inconsistent to take different attitudes to different types of violence in different contexts. As Magnus is accusing them of being violent towards someone accused of domestic violence I think we can take it for granted that they aren’t pacifists.



So are we moving the militant response to fascism from that sphere towards other groups now? For the record, besides that time Sisters Uncut attacked anti-fascists and this occasion that they’re supporting someone who attacked feminists there’s no examples of them attacking actual fascists.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Feb 15, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Only pacifists believe it’s inconsistent to take different attitudes to different types of violence in different contexts. As Magnus is accusing them of being violent towards someone accused of domestic violence I think we can take it for granted that they aren’t pacifists.



Errrm.  Fucking hell, that's just _embarrassing!_


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 15, 2018)

Maybe we can explain away attacks on trans people as being political scuffles. Nigel has lost control of his faculties.


----------



## spanglechick (Feb 15, 2018)

Domestic violence *is* different to other violence.  It comes with a large helping of long term emotional abuse, control and a fundamental context that make it hard for the victim to escape.  DV is a particular kind of evil, and common enough - let's not diminish it by claiming any physical assault on a woman is dv.  It isn't. 

What happened - and exactly what happened is yet to be determined - but if you take a worst case scenario, what happened was bad enough in its own right.   It doesn't need hyperbole.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 15, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> Domestic violence *is* different to other violence.  It comes with a large helping of long term emotional abuse, control and a fundamental context that make it hard for the victim to escape.  DV is a particular kind of evil, and common enough - let's not diminish it by claiming any physical assault on a woman is dv.  It isn't.
> 
> What happened - and exactly what happened is yet to be determined - but if you take a worst case scenario, what happened was bad enough in its own right.   It doesn't need hyperbole.



They attacked anti-fascists on the basis of an allegation of domestic violence against one person; I’ve no idea at which point I’m supposed to have said domestic violence is comparable to other forms of violence.
Political violence is interesting though. Most liberals turn their noses up at working class lads smashing the shit out of fascists and condemn it with quips such as “you’re just as bad as they are!”
Yet it’s suddenly fine in this context. Why is that?


----------



## sheothebudworths (Feb 15, 2018)

Of course it is - but it doesn't diminish the fact that another act of violence, or support of another act of violence, is _still_ violence and that there _is_ an inconsistency there when those are carried out by a group opposing the first act.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 15, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> So are we moving the militant response to fascism from that sphere towards other groups now?



Who is this “we” you mention?


----------



## sheothebudworths (Feb 15, 2018)

I have *no idea* why pacifism (or it's opposite) has been mentioned. None.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 15, 2018)

sheothebudworths said:


> Of course it is - but it doesn't diminish the fact that another act of violence, or support of another act of violence, is _still_ violence and that there _is_ an inconsistency there when those are carried out by a group opposing the first act.



Are you really this stupid? I know that Magnus is only pretending to be because he thinks it helps him make a point, but I’m a little worried that you might sincerely think this.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 15, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Who is this “we” you mention?



Good point. I meant you.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 15, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Are you really this stupid? I know that Magnus is only pretending to be because he thinks it helps him make a point, but I’m a little worried that you might sincerely think this.



Yet you’re struggling to counter these points I’m pretending to make.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 15, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Good point. I meant you.



You are seriously asking me if I personally am extending the methods of militant anti fascism to other groups now?


----------



## elbows (Feb 15, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> Domestic violence *is* different to other violence.  It comes with a large helping of long term emotional abuse, control and a fundamental context that make it hard for the victim to escape.  DV is a particular kind of evil, and common enough - let's not diminish it by claiming any physical assault on a woman is dv.  It isn't.



The phrase 'abuse of intimacy' sprung to mind when I read that.



> What happened - and exactly what happened is yet to be determined - but if you take a worst case scenario, what happened was bad enough in its own right.   It doesn't need hyperbole.



Yes. It's not just issues of hyperbole here though, its what happens when this sort of thing is seen as political violence. I am not well read on political violence or whether there are any well-known theories about where boundaries often sit regarding things like attempts to justify the violence. All I know is there are some obvious and not terribly controversial examples where we would tend to find people celebrating the footsoldiers of certain specific political movements getting a good hiding. Away from these more obvious examples where plenty of people are prepared to assume that people will cheer, for examples, fascists who were looking for trouble finding it and losing, or violent resistance to state violence, I dont see all that much routine discussion about where people set the limits. I assume people must have earnest discussions about this when deciding whether their campaign/movement should distance itself from the violent incident and what support, if any, to provide those facing legal action over events. But I've never been privy to such a discussion myself, and am quite ignorant.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 15, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> You are seriously asking me if I personally am extending the methods of militant anti fascism to other groups now?



I don’t think you have ever been a militant anti fascist but you appear to be supporting the tactic of physical opposition moving out of that sphere.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Feb 15, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Are you really this stupid? I know that Magnus is only pretending to be because he thinks it helps him make a point, but I’m a little worried that you might sincerely think this.



I'm not even slightly arsed about what you think about me, so you can save your worry and keep shouting your angry, unhelpful, divisive arguments.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 15, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I don’t think you have ever been a militant anti fascist but you appear to be supporting the tactic of physical opposition moving out of that sphere.



Where did I express that, or any, view on the subject?

All I’ve said about Sisters Uncut is that: (a) it’s funny that the internet TERFs, as they isolate themselves further from the wider feminist movement, are now claiming other feminist groups are MRAs, (b) it’s depressingly predictable that these genitally obsessed weirdos would decide that an anti cuts groups called “Uncut” were referring to dicks and (c) there’s no inherent contradiction in treating domestic violence differently from some other violent incident. Every other opinion of mine that you are arguing with is one that you’ve invented yourself.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 15, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Where did I express that, or any, view on the subject?
> 
> All I’ve said about Sisters Uncut is that: (a) it’s funny that the internet TERFs, as they isolate themselves further from the wider feminist movement, are now claiming other feminist groups are MRAs, (b) it’s depressingly predictable that these genitally obsessed weirdos would decide that an anti cuts groups called “Uncut” were referring to dicks and (c) there’s no inherent contradiction in treating domestic violence differently from some other violent incident. Every other opinion of mine that you are arguing with is one that you’ve invented yourself.



I haven’t invented you not condemning the attack and supporting the supporters, have I?


----------



## sheothebudworths (Feb 15, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I haven’t invented you not condemning the attack and supporting the supporters, have I?



That simply equalling _not pacifism_.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 15, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I haven’t invented you not condemning the attack and supporting the supporters, have I?



As I haven’t expressed any view of the rights and wrongs of the incident, yes you’ve done exactly that.

For some reason you seem very keen to argue with Sisters Uncut about their views. Have you considered joining the TERF weirdos in trying to contact them directly on twitter?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 15, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> As I haven’t expressed any view of the rights and wrongs of the incident, yes you’ve done exactly that.
> 
> For some reason you seem very keen to argue with Sisters Uncut about their views. Have you considered joining the TERF weirdos in trying to contact them directly on twitter?



I see you like calling me a weirdo which I can live with given those qualities causes you to rapidly back-pedal to the point you’ll have to start whatever argument you were making all over again.
So what was it?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 15, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I see you like calling me a weirdo which I can live with given those qualities causes you to rapidly back-pedal to the point you’ll have to start whatever argument you were making all over again.
> So what was it?



Have you been drinking?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 15, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Have you been drinking?



Is this like dismissing opponents as mentally ill? Don’t you just love Leninists.
But to be clear, what is your position on political violence within what people consider to be ‘the left’?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 15, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> But to be clear, what is your position on political violence within what people consider to be ‘the left’?



I’m generally against it, but I’m sure there are some exceptions that could arise. I’m also against attacking TERFs, a group on their way out of the left. I don’t even agree with entirely non violent attempts to get venues to cancel bigots meetings.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 15, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I’m generally against it, but I’m sure there are some exceptions that could arise.



And the event we’re discussing. For it or against it?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 16, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> And the event we’re discussing. For it or against it?



The events are disputed and currently the subject of a court case. But as a broad principle I don’t think that transphobes, racists, sexists, homophobes etc should be dealt with by the same methods as actual fascists.


----------



## 19force8 (Feb 16, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The events are disputed and currently the subject of a court case. But as a broad principle I don’t think that transphobes, racists, sexists, homophobes etc should be dealt with by the same methods as actual fascists.


Of course not, but if a black person were to thump a racist in a minor scuffle who here would support their prosecution? Or even condemn their actions?

What about a woman and a sexist, or a lesbian and a homophobe?

I think you can see where I'm going with this.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 16, 2018)

19force8 said:


> Of course not, but if a black person were to thump a racist in a minor scuffle who here would support their prosecution? Or even condemn their actions?
> 
> What about a woman and a sexist, or a lesbian and a homophobe?
> 
> I think you can see where I'm going with this.



So it’s fine to thump a transphobe even though you can be branded one for merely disagreeing with a trans person?


----------



## 19force8 (Feb 16, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> So it’s fine to thump a transphobe even though you can be branded one for merely disagreeing with a trans person?


So which side are you on in the other cases above?


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2018)

19force8 said:


> So which side are you on in the other cases above?


To state the obvious, it really does depend on circumstance.  Being a racist does not make it open season for anybody to hit you.


----------



## 19force8 (Feb 16, 2018)

kabbes said:


> To state the obvious, it really does depend on circumstance.  Being a racist does not make it open season for anybody to hit you.


Obviously. I didn't say it did.


----------



## 19force8 (Feb 16, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> So it’s fine to thump a transphobe even though you can be branded one for merely disagreeing with a trans person?


And by the way, I like the way you reduce transphobia to "merely disagreeing with a trans person." So reminiscent of the attitude of entitled oppressors everywhere.

Clearly for you transphobia isn't a real thing like racism, sexism or homophobia.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 16, 2018)

[


19force8 said:


> So which side are you on in the other cases above?



I don’t believe for a second that you go around life thumping every racist and sexist you happen upon. If you do, it’s rare, isn’t it?



19force8 said:


> And by the way, I like the way you reduce transphobia to "merely disagreeing with a trans person." So reminiscent of the attitude of entitled oppressors everywhere.
> 
> Clearly for you transphobia isn't a real thing like racism, sexism or homophobia.



It isn’t me throwing transphobe/terf about with gay abandon as has happened on this very thread. Presumably all those who’ve been called it are fair game?


----------



## 19force8 (Feb 16, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I don’t believe for a second that you go around life thumping every racist and sexist you happen upon. If you do, it’s rare, isn’t it?


You haven't answered my question. This is typical of the little games you play on here - you want others to answer your set up questions, but you try to dodge any question asked of you.

So once again. If a black person [or a woman or a lesbian] thumps a racist [sexist or homophobe] in the course of a scuffle engendered by their racist [sexist or homophobic] behaviour would you support their prosecution?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 16, 2018)

19force8 said:


> You haven't answered my question. This is typical of the little games you play on here - you want others to answer your set up questions, but you try to dodge any question asked of you.
> 
> So once again. If a black person [or a woman or a lesbian] thumps a racist [sexist or homophobe] in the course of a scuffle engendered by their racist [sexist or homophobic] behaviour would you support their prosecution?



This isn’t even what happened, you’re being very dishonest here. What happened was a group of feminists organised an open debate which a group of trans activists got shut down. When the feminists met at a redirection point to go to a new venue they were attacked. At speakers corner of all places.
To justify the attack the trans activists labelled the women ‘fascists’ - completely redefining the meaning of the word. And now you’re trying to compare it with someone reacting to racist/sexist/homophobic abuse.


----------



## 19force8 (Feb 16, 2018)

So you would support the prosecution?


----------



## 19force8 (Feb 16, 2018)

I didn't draw the comparison with racist, sexist or homophobic abuse Nigel Irritable did. You liked his post so I sort of assumed you agreed with his point.


----------



## bimble (Feb 16, 2018)

Do you think that standing up for the right to punch terfs is going to help achieve something good? I think it will do the opposite of what folk like these below hope.


----------



## 19force8 (Feb 16, 2018)

bimble said:


> Do you think that standing up for the right to punch terfs is going to help achieve something good? I think it will do the opposite of what folk like these below hope.
> View attachment 127569


Same deal as Magnus McGinty 

You answer my question and then I'll answer yours.


----------



## bimble (Feb 16, 2018)

I think violence against actual fascists is useful and necessary. I support the prosecution in the case of "the she wolf".


----------



## 19force8 (Feb 16, 2018)

bimble said:


> I think violence against actual fascists is useful and necessary. I support the prosecution in the case of "the she wolf".


Of course you do. And if the same situation had arisen over racism, sexism or homophobia?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 16, 2018)

19force8 said:


> I didn't draw the comparison with racist, sexist or homophobic abuse Nigel Irritable did. You liked his post so I sort of assumed you agreed with his point.



I was addressing the points you made in post #8681


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 16, 2018)

19force8 said:


> Of course you do. And if the same situation had arisen over racism, sexism or homophobia?



Don’t forget that an upping of the ante isn’t one way traffic.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 16, 2018)

kabbes said:


> To state the obvious, it really does depend on circumstance.  Being a racist does not make it open season for anybody to hit you.



I actually think it does. If someone is spouting racist views, won't modify or back down or apologise, and when challenged verbally simply doubles down, I don't think it's unacceptable to resort to violence to shut them up or chase them away. I feel similar about homophobia and sexism. Transphobia is too new in my world to feel comfortable taking it that far, and I'd have trouble if the prejudiced person was female and the violence was threatened by someone male but equally, I don't think it's ok for any woman to get a _free prejudice pass_ just because violence against women is also bad. If you open your mouth to spout prejudice, whoever you are, you must accept that you may encounter physical resistance. It comes with that particular territory.


----------



## 19force8 (Feb 16, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I was addressing the points you made in post #8681


But failing to answer a simple question.



Magnus McGinty said:


> Don’t forget that an upping of the ante isn’t one way traffic.


You have to match the ante before you can raise the stakes.

You haven't done either.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 16, 2018)

So, to recap: it's ok to punch a woman if she says being a woman is more than just feeling 'like a woman'.


----------



## bimble (Feb 16, 2018)

Its sunny outside and i don't want to spend the whole day angry. If you want to support the she wolf's right to punch people who they suspect of harbouring thoughts that they disagree with go ahead, you can send money to the crowdfunder to help pay their fine if there is one.


----------



## 19force8 (Feb 16, 2018)

weepiper said:


> So, to recap: it's ok to punch a woman if she says being a woman is more than just feeling 'like a woman'.


Who said that?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 16, 2018)

weepiper said:


> So, to recap: it's ok to punch a woman if she says being a woman is more than just feeling 'like a woman'.



Yes because it’s as bad as sexism. The irony!


----------



## 19force8 (Feb 16, 2018)

bimble said:


> Its sunny outside and i don't want to spend the whole day angry. If you want to support the she wolf's right to punch people who they suspect of harbouring thoughts that they disagree with go ahead, you can send money to the crowdfunder to help pay their fine if there is one.


It does look like being a beautiful day, and there's absolutely no need for you to answer a simple question. Off you toddle,


----------



## 19force8 (Feb 16, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Yes because it’s as bad as sexism. The irony!


Lots of chatter, but still no answer.


----------



## bimble (Feb 16, 2018)

19force8 said:


> It does look like being a beautiful day, and there's absolutely no need for you to answer a simple question. Off you toddle,


You are drawing an equivalence which i think is risible. If you were willing to define what you mean by the word  transpohobe then we could have a conversation. And you've refused to answer my question, when you said you would.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 16, 2018)

19force8 said:


> Lots of chatter, but still no answer.



I don’t see why I should be drawn into a false comparison. And I provided an explanation.


----------



## Sea Star (Feb 16, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> oh, if you say so then. Event that isn't even newsworthy and is being reported purely to feed the freak show mentality of most cis people in order to sell papers is technically news but it's not new, not newsworthy and nobody's fucking business but the people directly involved!


Word


----------



## spanglechick (Feb 16, 2018)

weepiper said:


> So, to recap: it's ok to punch a woman if she says being a woman is more than just feeling 'like a woman'.


Is that what happened then?


----------



## 19force8 (Feb 16, 2018)

bimble said:


> You are drawing an equivalence which i think is risible. If you were willing to define what you mean by the word  transpohobe then we could have a conversation. And you've refused to answer my question, when you said you would.


I said I'd answer your question when you answered mine. You haven't, yet.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Feb 16, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> I actually think it does. If someone is spouting racist views, won't modify or back down or apologise, and when challenged verbally simply doubles down, I don't think it's unacceptable to resort to violence to shut them up or chase them away. I feel similar about homophobia and sexism. Transphobia is too new in my world to feel comfortable taking it that far, and I'd have trouble if the prejudiced person was female and the violence was threatened by someone male but equally, I don't think it's ok for any woman to get a _free prejudice pass_ just because violence against women is also bad. If you open your mouth to spout prejudice, whoever you are, you must accept that you may encounter physical resistance. It comes with that particular territory.



Depends how you define "spouting prejudice".

Would asking questions about what it means to be a woman be "spouting prejudice"?  and therefore deserving of a punch?


----------



## bimble (Feb 16, 2018)

19force8 said:


> I said I'd answer your question when you answered mine. You haven't, yet.


Er. Your question was do you support the prosecution of this case. Which i do. I asked you if you think standing up for the right to punch terfs would lead to something good, like for instance all terfs shutting up forever out of fear of getting punched.


----------



## 19force8 (Feb 16, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I don’t see why I should be drawn into a false comparison. And I provided an explanation.


No reason at all. And you didn't.


----------



## 19force8 (Feb 16, 2018)

bimble said:


> Er. Your question was do you support the prosecution of this case. Which i do. I asked you if you think standing up for the right to punch terfs would lead to something good, like for instance all terfs shutting up forever out of fear of getting punched.


No it wasn't. I can see now why PM gets so bloody irritated.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 16, 2018)

19force8 said:


> No reason at all. And you didn't.



You mustn’t have read post #8682 then.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 16, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Depends how you define "spouting prejudice".
> 
> Would asking questions about what it means to be a woman be "spouting prejudice"?  and therefore deserving of a punch?



That would depend on whether someone was actually asking questions or "just asking questions" in the way eg antisemites go about "just asking questions" about the holocaust etc.

And I personally wouldn't hit a woman under any circumstances. Just to clear that up.


----------



## 19force8 (Feb 16, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> You mustn’t have read post #8682 then.


And you mustn't have read #8684 then.


----------



## Sea Star (Feb 16, 2018)




----------



## bimble (Feb 16, 2018)

Ok sorry. Your question as put below 





19force8 said:


> If a black person [or a woman or a lesbian] thumps a racist [sexist or homophobe] in the course of a scuffle engendered by their racist [sexist or homophobic] behaviour would you support their prosecution?


Is so disingenuous as a comparison  ‘a scuffle engendered by their racist behaviour’ that I think it’s totally irrelevant to this case. But in a situation as you describe, where the racist caused the whole ruckus, I’d probably side with the puncher. That is not the case here. And again please define transphobe. If a transphobe is anyone who is not sincerely totally convinced that saying ‘I’m a woman’ makes it so with no further questions then there must be an awful lot of people need punching.


----------



## bimble (Feb 16, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> That would depend on whether someone was actually asking questions or "just asking questions" in the way eg antisemites go about "just asking questions" about the holocaust etc.
> 
> And I personally wouldn't hit a woman under any circumstances. Just to clear that up.


Questioning the ideology of gender identity is a bit like questioning whether the holocaust happened. Right.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Feb 16, 2018)

Sea Star said:


>




Do they support working class TERFs?


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 16, 2018)

bimble said:


> Questioning the ideology of gender identity is a bit like questioning whether the holocaust happened. Right.



It's the same "just asking questions". You know, the disingenuous stuff that has nothing to do with *actually* asking questions at all.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> It's the same "just asking questions". You know, the disingenuous stuff that has nothing to do with *actually* asking questions at all.


Asking questions as a rhetorical device to point out problems in an argument is a perfectly reasonable approach used by more people than just neo-nazis, you know.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 16, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The events are disputed and currently the subject of a court case. But as a broad principle I don’t think that transphobes, racists, sexists, homophobes etc should be dealt with by the same methods as actual fascists.



Yeah it was a bit strange at the beginning of the thread when they were having a go at anti-fascists for"opposing political violence". TERFS aren't fascists


----------



## bimble (Feb 16, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> It's the same "just asking questions".


Its really not. Unless you're happy to say that for instance Helen Steel is as bad as a holocaust denier. This is just silly.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 16, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Do they support working class TERFs?


Working class transphobes*, working class racists- working class people do like to challenge this stuff too y ken.

*amended to avoid ambiguity .


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 16, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> It's the same "just asking questions". You know, the disingenuous stuff that has nothing to do with *actually* asking questions at all.


I don't think that's fair. It assumes an agenda. Some of the 'terf' activists very definitely have an agenda, but they're not the only ones asking questions - lots of questions have been put on this thread by posters who don't have an agenda.


----------



## 19force8 (Feb 16, 2018)

Sorry for the delay. I nearly missed my train.


bimble said:


> Ok sorry. Your question as put below
> Is so disingenuous as a comparison  ‘a scuffle engendered by their racist behaviour’ that I think it’s totally irrelevant to this case. But in a situation as you describe, where the racist caused the whole ruckus, I’d probably side with the puncher. That is not the case here. And again please define transphobe. If a transphobe is anyone who is not sincerely totally convinced that saying ‘I’m a woman’ makes it so with no further questions then there must be an awful lot of people need punching.


Thank you. I'll assume then that your answer to the other two cases would be similar.

I notice you don't need definitions of racism, sexism or homophobia. Curious that.

I don't have a handy definition of transphobia. If you don't have time to google a definition can I suggest we just go with an analogue of the aforementioned prejudices, and ignore your insinuation that it's something as trivial as you describe.

I happen to believe that only a small number of the "terfs" we hear of are vicious and malicious bigots some of whom actually represent a real threat to trans people. Their willingness to get into bed with the worst elements of the Tory party and the MSM does immense damage already. The rest are perhaps not hostile to trans people and might even change their position over time if the imagined outcomes being touted fail to materialise.

This is much the same way that homophobia has declined over the last fifty years. Though it's still way too pervasive.

As to this particular case. I don't approve of "punching terfs" or more generally of any intra-left violence*. Nor do I support prosecuting the people responsible for anything short of ABH. And even then it will depend on  the circumstances.

As to the tweets you quoted. They're terrible aren't they? I'm sure you're aware that similar and worse things have been said by terfs. That doesn't justify rape threats, which are inexcusable.

However, on the subject of Twitter, I'd say two things. There are trolls. And some people seem to treat tweeting like a rant in the pub at eleven o'clock on a Saturday night - you say the first thing that comes into your head and next morning hope anybody who remembers will write it off as the booze talking.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 16, 2018)

bimble said:


> Ok sorry. Your question as put below
> Is so disingenuous as a comparison  ‘a scuffle engendered by their racist behaviour’ that I think it’s totally irrelevant to this case. But in a situation as you describe, where the racist caused the whole ruckus, I’d probably side with the puncher. That is not the case here. And again please define transphobe. If a transphobe is anyone who is not sincerely totally convinced that saying ‘I’m a woman’ makes it so with no further questions then there must be an awful lot of people need punching.


You'd probably side with the person smacking a racist? Would it depend, perhaps, on what they were wearing, that that might influence your decision? Shameful, bimble, utterly shameful.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 16, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Asking questions as a rhetorical device to point out problems in an argument is a perfectly reasonable approach used by more people than just neo-nazis, you know.



Yep, and "just asking questions" as a dog whistle technique is also used by more people than neo nazis. And neo nazis aren't the subject of this thread, are they?


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 16, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't think that's fair. It assumes an agenda. Some of the 'terf' activists very definitely have an agenda, but they're not the only ones asking questions - lots of questions have been put on this thread by posters who don't have an agenda.


I think lots is generous.


----------



## bimble (Feb 16, 2018)

19force8 said:


> Sorry for the delay. I nearly missed my train.
> 
> Thank you. I'll assume then that your answer to the other two cases would be similar.
> 
> ...


Thanks for acknowledging that not all terfs are 'vicious malicious bigots who represent a real threat to trans people'. That is appreciated.
Just on the twitter thing, you say ''I'm sure you're aware that similar and worse things have been said by terfs." I may have missed them but have never once seen a terf threaten or condone violence against trans people, whilst there are hundreds of posts like the few i picked out. I don't like the race to the bottom but this is imo just not true.


----------



## TopCat (Feb 16, 2018)

Sea Star said:


>



The decision by CW to offer unconditional support to the people who attacked Helen Steel at The Bookfair took such a short time that it begged questions as to the current size of the group and the decision making processes involved. 
Whatever the process however, it remains a dunderhead decision of particular note.


----------



## 19force8 (Feb 16, 2018)

bimble said:


> Thanks for acknowledging that not all terfs are 'vicious malicious bigots who represent a real threat to trans people'. That is appreciated.
> Just on the twitter thing, you say ''I'm sure you're aware that similar and worse things have been said by terfs." I may have missed them but have never once seen a terf threaten or condone violence against trans people, whilst there are hundreds of posts like the few i picked out. I don't like the race to the bottom but this is imo just not true.


Really?

In the first half of this thread there are accounts of plans to murder a trans-woman for getting on a stage.

Not hot air on Twitter, but actual and credible threats to murder.

You read those didn't you? You can't have because you've "never once seen a terf threaten or condone violence against trans people."

E2A And what do you think attempts to exclude transwomen from DV shelters amount to? Or to put them in men's prisons?


----------



## bimble (Feb 16, 2018)

I missed that murder plot and not about to scroll back to the first half of the thread. I’m not lying about never having seen terfs on Twitter condoning or threatening violence against trans people. Punch a trans person is not a meme.


----------



## 19force8 (Feb 16, 2018)

bimble said:


> I missed that murder plot and not about to scroll back to the first half of the thread. I’m not lying about never having seen terfs on Twitter condoning or threatening violence against trans people. Punch a trans person is not a meme.


Hmmm, selective reading much?

BTW, trains arriving now so no replies from me until after the pubs close tonight and then only if I can remember my passwords


----------



## Sea Star (Feb 16, 2018)

bimble said:


> I missed that murder plot and not about to scroll back to the first half of the thread. I’m not lying about never having seen terfs on Twitter condoning or threatening violence against trans people. Punch a trans person is not a meme.


No, but trying to induce suicide, outing to families, employers, etc. and petitioning to have trans women thrown out of shelters and hospitals very much is a thing.


----------



## Sea Star (Feb 16, 2018)

TopCat said:


> The decision by CW to offer unconditional support to the people who attacked Helen Steel at The Bookfair took such a short time that it begged questions as to the current size of the group and the decision making processes involved.
> Whatever the process however, it remains a dunderhead decision of particular note.


Wow, how much do you hate trans people, eh?


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 16, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Wow, how much do you hate trans people, eh?


Aye, the tweet literally just says we support WC trans people. As do all the others before and after it. Where is the bookfair even mentioned ?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 16, 2018)

TopCat said:


> The decision by CW to offer unconditional support to the people who attacked Helen Steel at The Bookfair took such a short time that it begged questions as to the current size of the group and the decision making processes involved.
> Whatever the process however, it remains a dunderhead decision of particular note.



My understanding is that one of the key trans activists in all this is involved with CW.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 16, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Aye, the tweet literally just says we support WC trans people. As do all the others before and after it. Where is the bookfair even mentioned ?



CW put a statement out very shortly after the bookfair.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 16, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> CW put a statement out very shortly after the bookfair.


Where is it can I see


----------



## TopCat (Feb 16, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Wow, how much do you hate trans people, eh?


Not at all.


----------



## TopCat (Feb 16, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Aye, the tweet literally just says we support WC trans people. As do all the others before and after it. Where is the bookfair even mentioned ?


They did a facebook pronoucement.


----------



## TopCat (Feb 16, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Where is it can I see


Facebook on their page or directly by Jane Nichol.


----------



## TopCat (Feb 16, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> My understanding is that one of the key trans activists in all this is involved with CW.


Dont make her right.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 16, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Where is it can I see



It’s been removed from their fb page. There is now no mention of the bookfair or the incident, but there was.


----------



## TopCat (Feb 16, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> It’s been removed from their fb page. There is now no mention of the bookfair or the incident, but there was.


Indeed.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 16, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> It’s been removed from their fb page. There is now no mention of the bookfair or the incident, but there was.


I see that. I was going to go on the page and start scrolling down for ages, now I needn't bother


----------



## TopCat (Feb 16, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> I see that. I was going to go on the page and start scrolling down for ages, now I needn't bother


It goes back to my point about processes and prouncements. Anarchists issuing statements on behalf of others with limited or no consultation. CW did it, the Anarchist aFederation did it. At least Freedom had a debate and openly described their position as a majority decision.


----------



## TopCat (Feb 16, 2018)

Essentially people in CW expressed support for the attack on Helen Steel at the bookfair. This despite the known lifelong efforts of Helen Steel for progressive anarchist politics. It was fucking shameful.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 16, 2018)

19force8 said:


> Really?
> 
> In the first half of this thread there are accounts of plans to murder a trans-woman for getting on a stage.
> 
> ...


----------



## smokedout (Feb 16, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> [
> It isn’t me throwing transphobe/terf about with gay abandon as has happened on this very thread. Presumably all those who’ve been called it are fair game?



Venice Allan organised that meeting and spoke.  If she can't be described as transphobic then who can?

Of course not everyone there might have similar views as hers, although Julie Long who also spoke certainly does.  But that could apply to any group of organised bigots.  

And I don't think what is reported to have happened was really the best way forward, I don't support it myself, but then I've knocked a camera out of someone's hands at a demo after having it stuck in my face repeatedly in a tense moment.  We don't know what happened outside of the tape we've seen, or what was being said to the trans-activists (and we probably shouldn't speculate until the case is concluded).  But this is certainly not as cut and dry as the mob of baying blokes violently assaults granny for wanting to go to a completely innocent meeting of reasonable women's voices line that is being pursued by some.


----------



## TopCat (Feb 16, 2018)

TopCat said:


> It goes back to my point about processes and prouncements. Anarchists issuing statements on behalf of others with limited or no consultation. CW did it, the Anarchist aFederation did it. At least Freedom had a debate and openly described their position as a majority decision.


They took the statement down as members of CW were furious about it and the actual incident and the cuntish banner burning etc.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 16, 2018)

It looked like people winding each other up followed by an inevitable scuffle, the person with the camera walked right up to the group with the camera in hand arms outstretched trying to get the camera right in their face which is obviously more of an antagonistic move than actually trying to get a clear picture.  I can't see how you can draw many conclusions watching it other than maybe the photographer should have tried using the zoom function. Twats vs twats.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 16, 2018)

I’m sorry but I’m not buying the both as bad as each other schtick. The trans activists had no business being at the redirection point. They went there with the expressed intent of stopping the event and using tactics normally reserved for fash mobilisations.
They were the aggressors.


----------



## TopCat (Feb 16, 2018)

Are no platform violence focused tactics acceptable in trans politics? 

I think not and I think some evilly motivated cunts have been stirring shit like crazy. Many connected with the Sisters Uncut group.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 16, 2018)

Well if that's your friendly picture taking technique don't ever come near me with a camera Magnus.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 16, 2018)

Not even drawing conclusions, as I wasn't there like!


----------



## elbows (Feb 16, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> It isn’t me throwing transphobe/terf about with gay abandon as has happened on this very thread. Presumably all those who’ve been called it are fair game?



I will never forget what started me throwing those terms around more freely on this thread. Disgusting, transphobic language that someone started throwing around, which encouraged a few others to temporarily drop their pretence of being anything other than transphobic. There were a number of people I was giving the benefit of the doubt to until that day, never again.


----------



## Sea Star (Feb 16, 2018)

.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 16, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Well if that's your friendly picture taking technique don't ever come near me with a camera Magnus.



Victim blaming.


----------



## bimble (Feb 16, 2018)

The person now awaiting trial is tara flik wood (aka the she wolf), isn't it - who allegedly said this prior to what happened ffs. And people here are trying to say it was the camera that caused this 'scuffle' 



Its just silly to think you have to defend/ support this if you want to help trans people or want self id or anything else.


----------



## Sea Star (Feb 16, 2018)

elbows said:


> I will never forget what started me throwing those terms around more freely on this thread. Disgusting, transphobic language that someone started throwing around, which encouraged a few others to temporarily drop their pretence of being anything other than transphobic. There were a number of people I was giving the benefit of the doubt to until that day, never again.


I know I started early on with use of the t word, but I've backed off a bit now. But I wasn't wrong
 I don't think anyone has overly acknowledged that a fair few of those people I called transphobes a couple of years ago have since very much shown their true colours now. You have to remember that trans people are very sensitised to certain phrasings and words. I've got very good at spotting those who only want to attack trans people.


----------



## elbows (Feb 16, 2018)

Sub judice and contempt of court issues bimble, please be more careful and dont encourage others to get into dangerous legal territory right now.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 16, 2018)

elbows said:


> Sub judice and contempt of court issues bimble, please be more careful and dont encourage others to get into dangerous legal territory right now.



Naming the person in court and displaying an (already much publicised) tweet?


----------



## elbows (Feb 16, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Naming the person in court and displaying an (already much publicised) tweet?



Well I'm not a lawyer but if I see anything even starting to approach unsafe as far as my guesstimates are concerned, I'm bound to get worried and nervous because posts invite responses, and even if the original post isnt over the line then some casual response very easily could be.

If I am miles off on this then I will be happy to learn otherwise, but I'm sure I cant be the only one who sees impending doom with this line of conversation?


----------



## bimble (Feb 16, 2018)

People have been speculating that it was a 'scuffle' caused by the way she held her camera. I don't think its out of place to post the tweet that the accused wrote before the event. Will insert the word allegedly.


----------



## spanglechick (Feb 16, 2018)

bimble said:


> The person now awaiting trial is tara flik wood (aka the she wolf), isn't it - who said this prior to what happened ffs. And people here are trying to say it was the camera that caused this 'scuffle'
> 
> View attachment 127588
> 
> Its just silly to think you have to defend/ support this if you want to help trans people or want self id or anything else.


Wanting to fuck people up at a demo is a sentiment you'll find on these boards. It's not one I share, generally, but it's not unheard of. 

You don't see trans exclusionary people as being as bad as say, the EDL - but other people do.


----------



## elbows (Feb 16, 2018)

bimble said:


> Will insert the word allegedly.



I'm not used to being the one making stern points about sub judice stuff. I'm not convinced you've got the right impression of the limits, but I might be full of shit, someone else please help on this!


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 16, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Victim blaming.


don't know, wasn't there


bimble said:


> People have been speculating that it was a 'scuffle' caused by the way she held her camera. I don't think its out of place to post the tweet that the accused wrote before the event. Will insert the word allegedly.


People meaning me. I said it looked like people winding each other up followed by an inevitable scuffle. The
I also said it was impossible to draw many conclusions from watching the video, and clearly people missing the more light hearted nature of my comments about cameras. It's all going a bit leftbook in here.


----------



## elbows (Feb 16, 2018)

Whatever the legal realities of sub judice stuff, I'm pretty sure that the perception that the word allegedly can make a meaningful difference is usually applied to issues of libel and slander, not issues relating to talking about court cases that have not yet concluded.


----------



## bimble (Feb 16, 2018)

Then nobody should have been allowed to discuss the incident at speakers corner at all until the trial in 2 months is concluded.  Don’t think it works that way.


----------



## TopCat (Feb 16, 2018)

Essentially this attack and the bookfair attack were shit actions worthy of condemnation. To do so is not inconsistant with supporting trans people.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 16, 2018)

elbows said:


> Sub judice and contempt of court issues bimble, please be more careful and dont encourage others to get into dangerous legal territory right now.


Don't be daft. If it was a genuine tweet by the actual person, that has been widely viewed already, there are no legal issues with posting it here.


----------



## elbows (Feb 16, 2018)

It may well turn out that I am wrong. But I dont think it is just daft to have the concerns I have, based on the following sort of story.

UK attorney general plans crackdown on 'trial by social media'



> The UK's Attorney General is pondering whether to tighten up contempt of court laws and target Facebook and Twitter users who comment about live criminal trials.
> 
> In a call for evidence made this morning, Jeremy Wright, QC, MP, asked for examples of court cases “in which social media has had an impact” to be forwarded to the Attorney General’s Office.
> 
> He is concerned that the Contempt of Court Act 1981 does not “protect against trials by social media”, mainly because very few of the general public know anything about the law.





> It is a contempt of court, punishable by a two-year prison sentence, to publish anything that causes a substantial risk of serious prejudice to court proceedings. This includes things such as the defendant’s previous crimes. The rough idea is that the defendant should be tried on the facts of the case rather than his or her personal history. The contempt risk is supposed to be judged on the likelihood of jurors (or potential jurors) being able to find information about a case that is not presented in court, though in the internet era courts take a harsh line about appearance of that information anywhere at all.



And yes I am aware that most of the examples given in those sorts of stories are a good deal more dramatic and obvious than the stuff I was going on about. But unless people can provide a nice clear guide as to where exactly the line sits, why is it daft to be concerned about this sort of thing? For example, if we dont know exactly what evidence will be presented in court, we dont know what stuff that is out there somewhere is actually safe to draw attention to, surely?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 16, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> Wanting to fuck people up at a demo is a sentiment you'll find on these boards. It's not one I share, generally, but it's not unheard of.
> 
> You don't see trans exclusionary people as being as bad as say, the EDL - but other people do.


Not all of the EDL are necessarily violent arseholes. There are always varying degrees of opposing opinion. There have been comparisons on this thread to challenging racists physically, but not all racists are as bad as each other so don't all deserve the same response. Should half a dozen old fart UKIP voters who are minding their own business in a pub be challenged as robustly as 100 pumped-up facists marching through Bradford shouting "pakis out"? Of course not.

So who gets to decide which women have genuine concerns and which ones deserve a punch in the face? Is a TERF simply any woman who questions the validity of some trans arguments (many, many, women) or one who violently opposes trans rights (not many women)? What about the ones in between?

Some here seem to be arguing that it's ok to offer violence to anyone who voices an opposing opinion regardless of the strength and nature of that opinion. This is of course, bollocks.


----------



## elbows (Feb 16, 2018)

Well I get 17 pages of result on u75 is I search for sub judice, and some of them are in contexts that are at least somewhat related to what I've been going on about. So I dont think this is something I've just dreamt up or something that has never been acknowledged on u75 before. Indeed I'm sure various people were openly taking care on this front in this very thread in the past without anyone questioning why they needed to.


----------



## TopCat (Feb 16, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Not all of the EDL are necessarily violent arseholes. There are always varying degrees of opposing opinion. There have been comparisons on this thread to challenging racists physically, but not all racists are as bad as each other so don't all deserve the same response. Should half a dozen old fart UKIP voters who are minding their own business in a pub be challenged as robustly as 100 pumped-up facists marching through Bradford shouting "pakis out"? Of course not.
> 
> So who gets to decide which women have genuine concerns and which ones deserve a punch in the face? Is a TERF simply any woman who questions the validity of some trans arguments (many, many, women) or one who violently opposes trans rights (not many women)? What about the ones in between?
> 
> Some here seem to be arguing that it's ok to offer violence to anyone who voices an opposing opinion regardless of the strength or nature of the opinion. This is of course, bollocks.


This. 
I think some of this has been due to hanging with people who historically have used political violence against the police and to a lesser extent facists. Even though CW for instance just piss about with banners and flares, the retoric remains and I think was/is an influencer at Hyde Park.


----------



## elbows (Feb 16, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Some here seem to be arguing that it's ok to offer violence to anyone who voices an opposing opinion regardless of the strength or nature of the opinion. This is of course, bollocks.



I cant say I've noticed that argument being made, which is not to say it has never been made but that other, far more nuanced, positions have been described of late.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 16, 2018)

Don't whether he meant me, I just said it is hard to see and hear everything that happened in that video and that sticking your camera right in someone's face is a pretty antagonistic thing to do. A lot of what happened between then and the fight is obscured by noise and people.


----------



## Sea Star (Feb 16, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Not all of the EDL are necessarily violent arseholes. There are always varying degrees of opposing opinion. There have been comparisons on this thread to challenging racists physically, but not all racists are as bad as each other so don't all deserve the same response. Should half a dozen old fart UKIP voters who are minding their own business in a pub be challenged as robustly as 100 pumped-up facists marching through Bradford shouting "pakis out"? Of course not.
> 
> So who gets to decide which women have genuine concerns and which ones deserve a punch in the face? Is a TERF simply any woman who questions the validity of some trans arguments (many, many, women) or one who violently opposes trans rights (not many women)? What about the ones in between?
> 
> Some here seem to be arguing that it's ok to offer violence to anyone who voices an opposing opinion regardless of the strength or nature of the opinion. This is of course, bollocks.


Easy answer: no one deserves a punch in the face. And no one is arguing that anyone does either.

This isn't just about women either. It seems to me that the TERF position is more likely to be held by men than women anway.

Not sure that many women have concerns tbh. More seem concerned about the way the TERFs have been behaving in my experience.

Women that have concerns and are willing to discuss them are already engaging with trans women. Those who hold transphobic positions are mostly unwilling to hear us. TERFs are probably only a few hundred people anyway. A tiny faction punching (no pun intended) way above their weight.

My view has always been, ignore the TERFs and engage with women who genuine wish to engage with us.


----------



## TopCat (Feb 16, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Easy answer: no one deserves a punch in the face. And no one is arguing that anyone does either.
> 
> This isn't just about women either. It seems to me that the TERF position is more likely to be held by men than women anway.
> 
> ...


People you label terf are on the whole women not men.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 16, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Easy answer: no one deserves a punch in the face. And no one is arguing that anyone does either.
> 
> This isn't just about women either. It seems to me that the TERF position is more likely to be held by men than women anway.
> 
> ...


Aren't all terfs necessarily women?


----------



## spanglechick (Feb 16, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Not all of the EDL are necessarily violent arseholes. There are always varying degrees of opposing opinion. There have been comparisons on this thread to challenging racists physically, but not all racists are as bad as each other so don't all deserve the same response. Should half a dozen old fart UKIP voters who are minding their own business in a pub be challenged as robustly as 100 pumped-up facists marching through Bradford shouting "pakis out"? Of course not.
> 
> So who gets to decide which women have genuine concerns and which ones deserve a punch in the face? Is a TERF simply any woman who questions the validity of some trans arguments (many, many, women) or one who violently opposes trans rights (not many women)? What about the ones in between?
> 
> Some here seem to be arguing that it's ok to offer violence to anyone who voices an opposing opinion regardless of the strength or nature of the opinion. This is of course, bollocks.


I'd agree, which is why the more I think about it, the more the EDL analogy works for me.  

And most trans-exclusionary people aren't radfems, which is why I've mostly long since stopped using the acronym.  Like the typical edl type, they are people suffering systemic oppression (patriarchal / class-based) who are concerned about the ways in which another oppressed group (trans women / Muslims) might make their oppression worse. 

 And in organising against this, they end up engaging with some utter cunts (suck my girl dick types / Islamist extremists) and tarring everyone with the same brush, while focusing on a small number of extreme issues (prison populations / hate preachers) which - while they need sorting, don't need some kind of mass movement that tends to demonise the whole group (trans people / Muslims), and at worst, is responsible for its own hate crime and scumbaggery.


----------



## elbows (Feb 16, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Women that have concerns and are willing to discuss them are already engaging with trans women. Those who hold transphobic positions are mostly unwilling to hear us. TERFs are probably only a few hundred people anyway. A tiny fraction punching (no pun intended) way above their weight.
> 
> My view has always been, ignore the TERFs and engage with women who genuine wish to engage with us.



Part of the reason I've been so focussed on them in the last couple of months is that I dont understand the scale and influence of them, and I was hoping to learn but Im still not really too sure at all.


----------



## TopCat (Feb 16, 2018)

....


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 16, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> I'd agree, which is why the more I think about it, the more the EDL analogy works for me.
> 
> And most trans-exclusionary people aren't radfems, which is why I've mostly long since stopped using the acronym.  Like the typical edl type, they are people suffering systemic oppression (patriarchal / class-based) who are concerned about the ways in which another oppressed group (trans women / Muslims) might make their oppression worse.
> 
> And in organising against this, they end up engaging with some utter cunts (suck my girl dick types / Islamist extremists) and tarring everyone with the same brush, while focusing on a small number of extreme issues (prison populations / hate preachers) which - while they need sorting, don't need some kind of mass movement that tends to demonise the whole group (trans people / Muslims), and at worst, is responsible for its own hate crime and scumbaggery.


Very well put, the same comparisons have occurred to me a few times.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 16, 2018)

TopCat said:


> ....


Yes, the post still makes sense. She meanm that's the only people TERFS are engaging with.


----------



## TopCat (Feb 16, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Yes, the post still makes sense. She meanm that's the only people TERFS are engaging with.


Yeah I get it.


----------



## spanglechick (Feb 16, 2018)

I don't know what your comment was, TC...?


----------



## TopCat (Feb 16, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> I don't know what your comment was, TC...?


I got the wrong end of the stick.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> Yep, and "just asking questions" as a dog whistle technique is also used by more people than neo nazis. And neo nazis aren't the subject of this thread, are they?


What are you going talking about.  YOU were the one bringing up neo-nazis!  My very point is that the debating tactics used by neo-nazis are irrelevant to this discussion.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 16, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> And in organising against this, they end up engaging with some utter cunts (suck my girl dick types / Islamist extremists) and tarring everyone with the same brush, while focusing on a small number of extreme issues (prison populations / hate preachers) which - while they need sorting, don't need some kind of mass movement that tends to demonise the whole group (trans people / Muslims), and at worst, is responsible for its own hate crime and scumbaggery.


And that works in reverse too so it seems reasonably clear that the twat who punched the bookfair woman should indeed be prosecuted and not supported.


----------



## spanglechick (Feb 16, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> And that works in reverse too so it seems reasonably clear that the twat who punched the bookfair woman should indeed be prosecuted.


You may be right.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 16, 2018)

kabbes said:


> What are you going talking about.  YOU were the one bringing up neo-nazis!  My very point is that the debating tactics used by neo-nazis are irrelevant to this discussion.


"Used by more people than Neo Nazis"


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 16, 2018)

TopCat said:


> Yeah I get it.


Somehow the edit appeared even in my reply before I seen it


----------



## TopCat (Feb 16, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> And that works in reverse too so it seems reasonably clear that the twat who punched the bookfair woman should indeed be prosecuted and not supported.


CW are supporting one of their own. Still don't make her right.


----------



## Sea Star (Feb 16, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Aren't all terfs necessarily women?


Depends if you think only women can be feminists. For me if someone holds mostly TERF opinions I treat them as a TERF. Which is to say I ignore them.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 16, 2018)

I don’t support the prosecution.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 16, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Depends if you think only women can be feminists. For me if someone holds mostly TERF opinions I treat them as a TERF. Which is to say I ignore them.



I’m not a feminist but if I was I wouldn’t be a 4th wave or liberal one.


----------



## Sea Star (Feb 16, 2018)

TopCat said:


> People you label terf are on the whole women not men.


Crap. How do you know who I label terf?


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 16, 2018)

kabbes said:


> What are you going talking about.  YOU were the one bringing up neo-nazis!  My very point is that the debating tactics used by neo-nazis are irrelevant to this discussion.



there is though a difference  between questioning to draw out anothers position and expose the flaws in it, and throwing questions out on the 'make the sonofabitch deny it' politicised usage. Alex Jones 'I'm just asking the questions here' sort of thing- you must be able to see that its not as simple as honest inquiry sometimes.


----------



## TopCat (Feb 16, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I’m not a feminist but if I was I wouldn’t be 4th wave or liberal one.


I'm a womans libber. Bit more interested in lives of working class women than concerned with equality of salary for female BBC producers and presenters and details of their skin care regimes.


----------



## TopCat (Feb 16, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Crap. How do you know who I label terf?


By reading your posts?


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> there is though a difference  between questioning to draw out anothers position and expose the flaws in it, and throwing questions out on the 'make the sonofabitch deny it' politicised usage. Alex Jones 'I'm just asking the questions here' sort of thing- you must be able to see that its not as simple as honest inquiry sometimes.


What’s that got to go with this thread?  Unless you’re saying that’s what people have been doing here?


----------



## TopCat (Feb 16, 2018)

kabbes said:


> What’s that got to go with this thread?  Unless you’re saying that’s what people have been doing here?


Nigel has been doing this. A practised party hack that one.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2018)

TopCat said:


> Nigel has been doing this. A practised party hack that one.


To be fair, that is true.  Although I suspect that isn’t who either mojo or dirty was referring to.


----------



## smokedout (Feb 16, 2018)

bimble said:


> Its sunny outside and i don't want to spend the whole day angry. If you want to support the she wolf's right to punch people who they suspect of harbouring thoughts that they disagree with go ahead, you can send money to the crowdfunder to help pay their fine if there is one.



Just as a technical point this post is in breach of sub judice rules. Anything which offers an opinion on the guilt or innocence of the defendent or on disputed facts could be seen as contempt of court.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 16, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Just as a technical point this post is in breach of sub judice rules. Anything which offers an opinion on the guilt or innocence of the defendent or on disputed facts could be seen as contempt of court.


Well that's these boards fucked then, on just about every major court case that's hit the news over the last couple of decades.


----------



## spanglechick (Feb 16, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Depends if you think only women can be feminists. For me if someone holds mostly TERF opinions I treat them as a TERF. Which is to say I ignore them.


Men can be feminists, but not Rad Fems.  It's one of the things that makes feminism radical: male exclusion.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 16, 2018)

kabbes said:


> What’s that got to go with this thread?  Unless you’re saying that’s what people have been doing here?


no, I was pointing it out that it can be used either way where it seemed to me that you were talking only of one, benevolent use of questioning. Apols if I got you wrong there. 


kabbes said:


> To be fair, that is true.  Although I suspect that isn’t who either mojo or dirty was referring to.




and now you've autocorrected me into 'dirty'. *sigh* it was ever my fate.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 16, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> and now you've autocorrected me into 'dirty'. *sigh* it was ever my fate.



I think it's going to stick.


----------



## Sea Star (Feb 16, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> Men can be feminists, but not Rad Fems.  It's one of the things that makes feminism radical: male exclusion.


But they can still hold the views which is where I was coming from on this.

ETA - I'm not sure it's as clear cut as you imply. There are lots of different opinions out there and I just don't have time to try to make sense of it all. 

Also I'm pretty sure that is not the reason why radical feminism is radical even though I do know men are often excluded from rad fem communities, it isn't always the case.


----------



## smokedout (Feb 16, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Well that's these boards fucked then on just about every major court case that's hit the news over the last couple of decades.



To be fair people often get pulled up on here for declaring someones guilt before a trial has even taken place. Although like playing sport and humane prisons, perhaps the right to a fair trial is just something trans women will have to forego to protect the rights of all real women.


----------



## spanglechick (Feb 16, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> But they can still hold the views which is where I was coming from on this.


They can be trans exclusionary- but so are lots of people who aren't even feminist.  It's nonsensical to call them all terfs.


----------



## TopCat (Feb 16, 2018)

smokedout said:


> To be fair people often get pulled up on here for declaring someones guilt before a trial has even taken place. Although like playing sport and humane prisons, perhaps the right to a fair trial is just something trans women will have to forego to protect the rights of all real women.


Nigel has been the biggest hack on this thread but you are a shining second.


----------



## Sea Star (Feb 16, 2018)

spanglechick said:


> They can be trans exclusionary- but so are lots of people who aren't even feminist.  It's nonsensical to call them all terfs.


They can also hold radical feminist views. And argue exactly as TERFs would. Sometimes it's impossible to tell if a person is male or female so I don't make the distinction. And in my experience there are way more men online holding TERF positions ( not just anti trans) than there are women. But hey! You don't have to believe me.

And it's also not about calling them TERFs which is pretty pointless, but about knowing who to engage with and who is probably a lost cause and likely to be a risk to me if I did engage.


----------



## Sea Star (Feb 16, 2018)

smokedout said:


> To be fair people often get pulled up on here for declaring someones guilt before a trial has even taken place. Although like playing sport and humane prisons, perhaps the right to a fair trial is just something trans women will have to forego to protect the rights of all real women.


Real women?


----------



## smokedout (Feb 16, 2018)

TopCat said:


> Nigel has been the biggest hack on this thread but you are a shining second.



Whilst you have been a fountain of wisdom and diplomacy.


----------



## smokedout (Feb 16, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Real women?



Parody, intended to show what might underlie these attitudes.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> I think it's going to stick.


Dirty commies.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 16, 2018)

smokedout said:


> To be fair people often get pulled up on here for declaring someones guilt before a trial has even taken place.


To be fair most such warnings are summarily ignored. Until someone actually gets prosecuted for a similar post on a bulletin board I think most people will risk being the one in several million to attract legal attention.


----------



## TopCat (Feb 16, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Whilst you have been a fountain of wisdom and diplomacy.


As always on these boards.


----------



## TopCat (Feb 16, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Real women?


He is creating straw man positions to support his trans activist absolutist views.


----------



## Athos (Feb 16, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Sometimes it's impossible to tell if a person is male or female...



No shit.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 16, 2018)

kabbes said:


> YOU were the one bringing up neo-nazis!



Where? I literally never mentioned the fuckers till you did. Quote me or back up.


----------



## Sea Star (Feb 16, 2018)

Athos said:


> No shit.


Fuck you. You really are an enormous fucking arsehole.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 16, 2018)

.


----------



## bimble (Feb 16, 2018)

smokedout said:


> To be fair people often get pulled up on here for declaring someones guilt before a trial has even taken place. Although like playing sport and humane prisons, perhaps the right to a fair trial is just something trans women will have to forego to protect the rights of all real women.



 So much drama and nonsense. As to no sports and no humane prisons etc, day before yesterday this happened, so its not all bad.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 16, 2018)

bimble said:


> So much drama and nonsense. As to no sports and no humane prisons etc, day before yesterday this happened, so its not all bad.



Are you trying to make a point about transgender people in general here or are you just sharing it as an example of bad things happening in the world


----------



## bimble (Feb 16, 2018)

Point was just that smokedout’s hyperbole is silly.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 16, 2018)

bimble said:


> Point was just that smokedout’s hyperbole is silly.


How unlike your own hyperbole


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 16, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> How unlike your own hyperbole



Stop needling bimble.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> Where? I literally never mentioned the fuckers till you did. Quote me or back up.


Nobody mentioned holocaust denial until you brought it up:


mojo pixy said:


> That would depend on whether someone was actually asking questions or "just asking questions" in the way eg antisemites go about "just asking questions" about the holocaust etc.





bimble said:


> Questioning the ideology of gender identity is a bit like questioning whether the holocaust happened. Right.





mojo pixy said:


> It's the same "just asking questions". You know, the disingenuous stuff that has nothing to do with *actually* asking questions at all.



It was that exact line of reasoning I was objecting to by saying that it's not only neo-nazis (or, alright, "holocaust deniers" if you really must) that use socratic questioning as a rhetorical device.


----------



## bimble (Feb 16, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Stop needling bimble.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 16, 2018)

kabbes said:


> It was that exact line of reasoning I was objecting to by saying that it's not only neo-nazis (or, alright, "holocaust deniers" if you really must) that use socratic questioning as a rhetorical device.



So you're saying you mis read my posts, mentioned neo nazis, then blamed me.

That's ok. I don't expect an apology. The admission is all I was after.

No more on this, if you please.


----------



## Nice one (Feb 16, 2018)

smokedout said:


> Just as a technical point this post is in breach of sub judice rules. Anything which offers an opinion on the guilt or innocence of the defendent or on disputed facts could be seen as contempt of court.



... _only_ if it creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced.


----------



## Sea Star (Feb 16, 2018)

bimble said:


> Point was just that smokedout’s hyperbole is silly.


I'm so glad that you think it's all so fucking funny. What are even here for if it's just to take the piss and keep telling us how silly trans women are!!


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 16, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Stop needling bimble.


How gentlemanly of you


----------



## bimble (Feb 16, 2018)

I don't find any of this funny at all tbh Sea Star. And I did not call trans women silly, did I, just said Smokedout's straw-manning hyperole was.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> So you're saying you mis read my posts, mentioned neo nazis, then blamed me.
> 
> That's ok. I don't expect an apology. The admission is all I was after.
> 
> No more on this, if you please.


Do you think anything I said changes whether or not you stick with "holocaust deniers" or "neo-nazis"?
This is Pickman-level pedantry for the sake of avoiding the point.


----------



## bimble (Feb 16, 2018)

Just on the 'asking questions' thing, can someone maybe post an example of a question that would be deemed simply a question and not a sign that the asker is a transphobe?


----------



## trashpony (Feb 16, 2018)

I don't think anyone's ever going to accuse you of being funny Sea Star - one thing you don't have to worry about.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 16, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> How gentlemanly of you



Your photographic memory forgets the context?


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 16, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Do you think anything I said changes whether or not you stick with "holocaust deniers" or "neo-nazis"?
> This is Pickman-level pedantry for the sake of avoiding the point.



Not all holocaust deniers are neo nazis. Not all dog whistlers are neo nazis. Ffs. There, I said it. Now can you stop this, it's pointless.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 16, 2018)

trashpony said:


> I don't think anyone's ever going to accuse you of being funny Sea Star - one thing you don't have to worry about.


Funny peculiar perhaps


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 16, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Do you think anything I said changes whether or not you stick with "holocaust deniers" or "neo-nazis"?
> This is Pickman-level pedantry for the sake of avoiding the point.


Pickman's


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> Not all holocaust deniers are neo nazis. Not all dog whistlers are neo nazis. Ffs. There, I said it. Now can you stop this, it's pointless.


Fine, stick with holocaust deniers if you can't cope with ambiguity.  Consider that argument stopped.

Let's start again.

"Asking questions as a rhetorical device to point out problems in an argument is a perfectly reasonable approach used by more people than just *holocaust deniers*, you know."


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 16, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> Not all holocaust deniers are neo nazis. Not all dog whistlers are neo nazis. Ffs. There, I said it. Now can you stop this, it's pointless.



True. Some call themselves ‘truthers’ and come out with identical anti-Semitic shite and operate in the same murky ponds as neo-Nazis.


----------



## Athos (Feb 16, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> I'm so glad that you think it's all so fucking funny. What are even here for if it's just to take the piss and keep telling us how silly trans women are!!



Nobody is doing that, except in your overactive imagination.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 16, 2018)

kabbes said:


> "Asking questions as a rhetorical device to point out problems in an argument is a perfectly reasonable approach used by more people than just *holocaust deniers*, you know."





mojo pixy said:


> Yep, and "just asking questions" as a dog whistle technique is also used by more people than holocaust deniers.



Is that it then, are we done?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 16, 2018)

smokedout said:


> To be fair people often get pulled up on here for declaring someones guilt before a trial has even taken place. Although like playing sport and humane prisons, perhaps the right to a fair trial is just something trans women will have to forego to protect the rights of all real women.


You belittle the idea that there may be any kind of problem here, so I'll patronise you a little in an attempt to explain. You may not care about issues to do with sport, but I do. 

Women are close to winning the long fight to gain acceptance in all sports that men do, showing that nothing should be off-limits, that they can thrive in women-only competitions in all of these sports, that the myths that masqueraded as science until scarily recently, such as that sport will affect women's fertility, have been put to bed.

It's a fight that's nearly been won here, in other parts of the world less so, and it's only being won very very recently. It was only in, irrc, 1972 that the FA lifted its absurd ban on women playing football at its grounds, a ban imposed as the men running the FA thought it was an inappropriate activity for women. Rugby, boxing, hammer-throwing, pole-vaulting and a host of other physical sports were considered too tough for women until much more recently. 

While I agree with Steven Rose that it's a bit of a fool's errand trying to separate off biological sex from socially constructed gender, I think one or other can be emphasised at various points here. The exclusion of women from many sports was done largely for reasons of gender stereotyping - not a ladylike thing to do - which was the real motivation behind the spurious, unproven assumptions to do with the supposed damage sport could do to women. The inclusion of women has come with the creation of a space for people of female biological sex, where they could demonstrate how women can thrive in sports where they compete against other women. 

The 'right' to play competitive sport against women born to the female biological sex where you have grown up as a biological man is not a given here. It cannot be a given. The idea that there is a simple way for trans women who transitioned as adults after years of sports training as biological men to integrate into women's sport, especially at the elite level, is frankly naive.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> Is that it then, are we done?


Not at all.  The fact that the set of people that use a device includes a subset of people that are distasteful doesn’t tell you anything about whether an employer of that device does or does not lie within the subset.

You are falling foul of a particular logical fallacy associated with the raven paradox


----------



## iona (Feb 16, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Pickman's



*Gives Pickman's a pedant point*

(I wasn't sure if you're allowed to award them to yourself and it doesn't seem fair for you to miss out)


----------



## Sea Star (Feb 16, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Funny peculiar perhaps


Cunt

I assume then that "peculiar" is a transphobic slur. Won't be the first time. Wont be the last. Doesn't mean I have to tolerate it.


----------



## Sea Star (Feb 16, 2018)

trashpony said:


> I don't think anyone's ever going to accuse you of being funny Sea Star - one thing you don't have to worry about.


You know nothing.

Aren't these personal attacks on me, because of my gender identity, just a little bit childish? Aren't you tired of all this by now?


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 16, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Not at all.  The fact that the set of people that use a device includes a subset of people that are distasteful doesn’t tell you anything about whether an employer of that device does or does not lie within the subset.
> 
> You are falling foul of a particular logical fallacy associated with the raven paradox



The raven paradox, right. 

I've seen what I consider _just asking questions_ employed on this thread. This is where you say_ link to some_ and I somehow trawl 300 pages so that I can, and there develops an infinite vortex of pedantry and defensiveness which achieves nothing. So put it down to differing interpretations of the written word and if I see any from this point on I'll be sure to mention it.


----------



## bimble (Feb 16, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> ..The 'right' to play competitive sport against women born to the female biological sex where you have grown up as a biological man is not a given here. It cannot be a given. The idea that there is a simple way for trans women who transitioned as adults after years of sports training as biological men to integrate into women's sport, especially at the elite level, is frankly naive.



If ‘trans women are women end of’ then there can’t really be any room for these sort of discussions though can there? If a person’s testosterone levels meet the rules of whatever sporting body and they identify as a woman then that’s it.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 16, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> You know nothing.
> 
> Aren't these personal attacks on me, because of my gender identity, just a little bit childish? Aren't you tired of all this by now?



I assumed she meant humorous. Nothing to do with transitioning.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> The raven paradox, right.
> 
> I've seen what I consider _just asking questions_ employed on this thread. This is where you say_ link to some_ and I somehow trawl 300 pages so that I can, and there develops an infinite vortex of pedantry and defensiveness which achieves nothing. So put it down to differing interpretations of the written word and if I see any from this point on I'll be sure to mention it.


I’m not saying link to anything.  Quite the opposite.  I’m saying that the rhetorical device of Socratic questioning is not, in itself, evidence of bigotry.  So it wouldn’t matter if you linked to an example of it.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 16, 2018)

It can be annoying though.


----------



## trashpony (Feb 16, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> You know nothing.
> 
> Aren't these personal attacks on me, because of my gender identity, just a little bit childish? Aren't you tired of all this by now?


That was a personal attack but it's not because of your gender. You're entirely humourless and your gender has nothing to do with it. But you know, try and make it about you being trans. Because you are entirely beyond any kind of criticism because of that


----------



## trashpony (Feb 16, 2018)

I'm going to identify as male now because I'm going to download and then play a computer game and that's a male thing to do (plus I've only worn trousers for the last week and no make up and haven't brushed my hair since Tuesday). Laters


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 16, 2018)

Oh for fuck sake.


----------



## elbows (Feb 16, 2018)




----------



## Sea Star (Feb 16, 2018)

trashpony said:


> That was a personal attack but it's not because of your gender. You're entirely humourless and your gender has nothing to do with it. But you know, try and make it about you being trans. Because you are entirely beyond any kind of criticism because of that


Attack me for years because of my gender identity and them claim I'm humourless. You know I'm not humourless, right? Just when you're about because I always my guard up when you are around.

What fucking evidence do you have for me being humourles .Yeah you can pretend it's about a personality flaw if you like, but we both know why you've been a fucking cunt to me ever since I came on these boards.


----------



## Sea Star (Feb 16, 2018)

trashpony said:


> I'm going to identify as male now because I'm going to download and then play a computer game and that's a male thing to do (plus I've only worn trousers for the last week and no make up and haven't brushed my hair since Tuesday). Laters


Yeah fuck off


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 16, 2018)

kabbes said:


> I’m not saying link to anything.  Quite the opposite.  I’m saying that the rhetorical device of Socratic questioning is not, in itself, evidence of bigotry.  So it wouldn’t matter if you linked to an example of it.



Well it  would matter if you linked to an example/examples of it because you'd then know what context the rhetorical device was being used in.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Well it  would matter if you linked to an example/examples of it because you'd then know what context the rhetorical device was being used in.


Except that the fact that such questioning is being used is being taken as prima facie evidence of bigotry.  With no context, the questioning in and of itself is being cited as a reason not to engage with the person doing it.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 16, 2018)

A lot of this thread just needs the don't be a dick logic to be applied, people tying themselves in academic knots trying to prove some posters aren't being total dicks.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 16, 2018)

kabbes said:


> I’m not saying link to anything.  Quite the opposite.  I’m saying that the rhetorical device of Socratic questioning is not, in itself, evidence of bigotry.  So it wouldn’t matter if you linked to an example of it.



Ffs not all "just asking questions" is Socratic questioning. Some is shit stirring and some _is_ evidence of bigotry. Have your ravens back because on a thread as toxic as this all apparently 'socratic' questions are suspect. This current diversion about logical fallacies and ravens is suspect. This thread was closed for a week. Just about everything here is suspect.


----------



## trashpony (Feb 16, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> Attack me for years because of my gender identity and them claim I'm humourless. You know I'm not humourless, right? Just when you're about because I always my guard up when you are around.
> 
> What fucking evidence do you have for me being humourles .Yeah you can pretend it's about a personality flaw if you like, but we both know why you've been a fucking cunt to me ever since I came on these boards.


I think you're humourless because I've never seen any evidence of you having an iota of humour. And I've largely ignored you, at least in the last six months, because you're so quick to cry bully and I'm not one. But whatever. I'm sure you'll do your usual emotional blackmail schtick.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> A lot of this thread just needs the don't be a dick logic to be applied, people tying themselves in academic knots trying to prove some posters aren't being total dicks.


This is totally true, although I suspect the names on our dick list may not be entirely congruent.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> Ffs not all "just asking questions" is Socratic questioning. Some is shit stirring and some _is_ evidence of bigotry. Have your ravens back because on a thread as toxic as this all apparently 'socratic' questions are suspect. This current diversion about logical fallacies and ravens is suspect. This thread was closed for a week. Just about everything here is suspect.


You’re doing it again.

If A implies B, you cannot conclude B, therefore A.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 16, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Except that the fact that such questioning is being used is being taken as prima facie evidence of bigotry.  With no context, the questioning in and of itself is being cited as a reason not to engage with the person doing it.



It won’t happen because with a LOT of people (I don’t mean on here), questioning just hits the mantra “transwomen are women” and a refusal to debate. Which makes me suspicious but I suspect I’m in the minority.


----------



## trashpony (Feb 16, 2018)

Men can't be women because they 'identify' as them. Women can't be men because they identify as them either. 

Facts may be uncomfortable but they're not hate speech. 

I'd like to be 3 stone lighter, 20 years' younger with straight hair, green eyes and a darker skin complexion. It doesn't make it true.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 16, 2018)

Trashpony you should've quit when you hit the bottom of the barrel a few weeks ago.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 16, 2018)

Materialism out the window in favour of essentialism. Where does that leave class politics?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 16, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Materialism out the window in favour of essentialism. Where does that leave class politics?


False dichotomy anyway. There is a material basis to our thoughts and feelings.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 16, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> False dichotomy anyway. There is a material basis to our thoughts and feelings.



Driven by the material reality of what we are, informed by what we experience?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 16, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Driven by the material reality of what we are, informed by what we experience?


Essentially. The idea of a ghost in the machine adds zero explanatory value.

ETA: 

To add to that, there are different levels of explanation that are appropriate or useful in different contexts, but none of those levels is in opposition to one another.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 16, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Driven by the material reality of what we are, informed by what we experience?


Is this all entirely based on yer reproductive organs or whit


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 16, 2018)

trashpony said:


> I don't think anyone's ever going to accuse you of being funny Sea Star - one thing you don't have to worry about.


Ah, come on


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 16, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Is this all entirely based on yer reproductive organs or whit



My material reality of being a worker under capital exists, yes? It isn’t something I identify with or not.


----------



## Sea Star (Feb 16, 2018)

trashpony said:


> I think you're humourless because I've never seen any evidence of you having an iota of humour. And I've largely ignored you, at least in the last six months, because you're so quick to cry bully and I'm not one. But whatever. I'm sure you'll do your usual emotional blackmail schtick.


yiu hate me because you hate trans women and you can fuck yourself right up the arse as far as I'm concerned. For someone who's not a bully you're doing a great fucking impression.


And i am a fucking woman - you and no-one else is taking that away from me. I've fought for years to be who i really am. Go away hateful bigot.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 16, 2018)

kabbes said:


> You’re doing it again.
> 
> If A implies B, you cannot conclude B, therefore A.



Yes you can. Or C, D, or X. Your logical fallacy is: false dichotomy. Can we please leave this pointless blah.


----------



## Sea Star (Feb 16, 2018)

bin this thread


----------



## Sea Star (Feb 16, 2018)

where this thread should live


----------



## Sea Star (Feb 16, 2018)

when i look at this hateful thread i see this


----------



## Sea Star (Feb 16, 2018)

stop talking about other people like we're not here and can't see the shit you're saying about us


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 16, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> My material reality of being a worker under capital exists, yes? It isn’t something I identify with or not.


Is being a worker under capital the only thing that exists Magnus


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 16, 2018)

Muh material realities


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 16, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> when i look at this hateful thread i see this


Should have gone to specsavers


----------



## trashpony (Feb 16, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> yiu hate me because you hate trans women and you can fuck yourself right up the arse as far as I'm concerned. For someone who's not a bully you're doing a great fucking impression.
> And i am a fucking woman - you and no-one else is taking that away from me. I've fought for years to be who i really am. Go away hateful bigot.


I don't hate transwomen but your life and your experience is not mine and mine is not yours. I wouldn't dream of trying to articulate what being a transwoman is like because it's not my experience. But equally I expect you to respect mine and it isn't the same as yours.  

The fact that this is a really controversial thing to type is enormously fucked up.


----------



## bimble (Feb 16, 2018)

something tells me this threads going to get binned soon.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 16, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Is being a worker under capital the only thing that exists Magnus



No, I could be a millionaire. But I can’t just identify as being one. There’s a material reality to it.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> Yes you can. Or C, D, or X. Your logical fallacy is: false dichotomy. Can we please leave this pointless blah.


No, we certainly can’t leave it whilst you’re spouting demonstratively incorrect statements.

“A implies B.  B, therefore A” is literally a textbook example of begging the question.  The fact that you think there is nothing wrong with it is exactly the problem I am taking issue with.

You are declaring that questioning is prima facie evidence of bigotry and using this to label questioners as bigots.  You are then declaring the assumption correct on the grounds you see your self-labelled bigots asking questions.  This is the circular reasoning I am pointing out and it’s not some esoteric academic exercise — it’s all about the unfairness of you acting as judge and jury about people’s motives based on highly dubious grounds.


----------



## bimble (Feb 16, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> No, I could be a millionaire. But I can’t just identify as being one. There’s a material reality to it.


chrometophobe.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 16, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> No, I could be a millionaire. But I can’t just identify as being one. There’s a material reality to it.


Is there a material reality to anything else besides being working class or upper class . You should see my amygdala it's way bigger than normal and has fucking sorted out some compensatory circuit with the wrong bits in my head. I identify with an extreme fear of everything!

Where does that leave class politics?!!!

Avoiding an argument because you aren't as annoying as other posters haha! Nae energy


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 16, 2018)

Nightshift! 

Thread, well until the auld yins are sleeping:


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2018)

Sea Star said:


> bin this thread


You don’t personally actually have to have anything to do with this thread, you know.  You can even ignore it.  It’ll be in your own personal bin.  The rest of us will somehow soldier on without you.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 16, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Is there a material reality to anything else besides being working class or upper class . You should see my amygdala it's way bigger than normal and has fucking sorted out some compensatory circuit with the wrong bits in my head. I identify with an extreme fear of everything!
> 
> Where does that leave class politics?!!!
> 
> Avoiding an argument because you aren't as annoying as other posters haha! Nae energy



Ok this will be seen as controversial, but, if transwomen identify as women, what are they identifying with?
Surely ‘woman’ is someone’s lived experience as being a girl growing into one the same as working class is the experience of someone living as a person wage slaved to capital? 
Hipsters steal working class culture and stick a higher price on it. I don’t think that a useful analogy though; but it’s happening.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 16, 2018)

kabbes said:


> No, we certainly can’t leave it whilst you’re spouting demonstratively incorrect statements.
> 
> “A implies B.  B, therefore A” is literally a textbook example of begging the question.  The fact that you think there is nothing wrong with it is exactly the problem I am taking issue with.
> 
> You are declaring that questioning is prima facie evidence of bigotry and using this to label questioners as bigots.  You are then declaring the assumption correct on the grounds you see your self-labelled bigots asking questions.  This is the circular reasoning I am pointing out and it’s not some esoteric academic exercise — it’s all about the unfairness of you acting as judge and jury about people’s motives based on highly dubious grounds.



Or, a reader can read a post and conclude whatever they wish. Sorry about that.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> Or, a reader can read a post and conclude whatever they wish. Sorry about that.


Well, I’m helping readers form conclusions by pointing out where you are wrong.  Sorry about that.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 16, 2018)

that's just like, your opinion man.

eta, plus, I didn't know my own was so important. never mind.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 16, 2018)

I’m sure that gender dysphoria is horrible and I’d always support anyone going through it and use the correct pronouns of their choosing.
But what’s happening here is trans ideology is attempting to trump feminism. I’ll never support that.


----------



## Sea Star (Feb 16, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I’m sure that gender dysphoria is horrible and I’d always support anyone going through it and use the correct pronouns of their choosing.
> But what’s happening here is trans ideology is attempting to trump feminism. I’ll never support that.


how can you just say bollocks like this straight from the gutter press and not one person challenges you or asks you to back this bollocks up in any way. Fuck this shit!


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 16, 2018)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Ok this will be seen as controversial, but, if transwomen identify as women, what are they identifying with?
> Surely ‘woman’ is someone’s lived experience as being a girl growing into one the same as working class is the experience of someone living as a person wage slaved to capital?
> Hipsters steal working class culture and stick a higher price on it. I don’t think that a useful analogy though; but it’s happening.


 No it isn't a useful analogy and there's a thread here explaining why. And all you really need to do is say "cisgender woman" and "transgender woman" and voila two different lived experiences no  essentialism necessary. But you can't control how others choose to interpret the situation or what their politics is but saying being Transgender isn't a material reality for many seems a bit mad.


----------



## Sea Star (Feb 16, 2018)

keep framing trans equality as anti feminist and that's how people will begin to see it. Why don't they have a TERF problem in Ireland then, eh? Are those feminists all wrong? Or does Britain just have a fucking problem with extremists and transphobes? Hmmm.....  I'm seriously considering leaving this country. It is seriously shit. and seriously fucked up. Trans people get attacked from the left and the right. Fuck this shit!!


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Feb 16, 2018)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> No it isn't a useful analogy and there's a thread here explaining why. And all you really need to do is say "cisgender woman" and "transgender woman" and voila two different lived experiences no  essentialism necessary. But you can't control how others choose to interpret the situation or what their politics is but saying being Transgender isn't a material reality for many seems a bit mad.



Of course being transgender is a reality, I haven’t stated otherwise.


----------



## Mation (Feb 16, 2018)

I'm so sorry, Sea Star. There is so much on this thread that is a fucking disgrace. It is utterly bewildering that some people don't seem to understand that this is life and death important (and if they actually do and are behaving like this anyway, then all the fucking shame on them). I don't understand why the thread hasn't been closed. Why it's apparently ok to inflict this much pain. I'm so sorry


----------



## Mation (Feb 16, 2018)

elbows said:


>



Well you started it up again. Worst fucking idea.


----------



## elbows (Feb 16, 2018)

Mation said:


> Well you started it up again. Worst fucking idea.



I'm not going to apologise for caring about this stuff and wanting to talk about it.

I am starting to change my mind about the utility of this thread though, and to be quite honest activity levels on u75 in general are dipping below the level where Im wondering if any of it is worth it anymore.


----------



## Mation (Feb 16, 2018)

elbows said:


> I'm not going to apologise for caring about this stuff and wanting to talk about it.
> 
> I am starting to change my mind about the utility of this thread though, and to be quite honest activity levels on u75 in general are dipping below the level where Im wondering if any of it is worth it anymore.


It's at the great expense of people more directly affected. Wanting to talk about it is fine, but surely you can see how painful this thread has been and continues to be?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 16, 2018)

This thread is now permanently closed.


----------

