Transgender stuff - what's going on?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, No2 said:

Fair fucks to them and they managed to fool the electorate .

Yeah, I bet the voters had no idea that these women were trans women.

[PestiRed]

37 minutes ago, Captain Willard said:

In my view, gender is a fact not a subjective construct. Other people think it is not a fact and can be self determined by an individual. I think the logic of that argument falls over if you substitute race for gender but I think other people should be allowed to express their views without fear. I don't like beans on a fry up but I don't threaten people with violence for expressing that preference. 

 

Starmer said "you shouldn't say that" when Duffield said "only women have a cervix" so either he thinks gender is a subjective construct or he saying it is a fact but shouldn't be discussed. Either way, he was trying to shut down the debate rather than backing one of his female MPS who was being threatened by activists for daring to have a different view. 

Negged for failing to threaten pro-beaners with violence

[Section_31]

22 minutes ago, Pidge said:

Why would you substitute race for gender?

 

It's a legitimate question IMO.

 

When someone transitions into a woman, they take on the physical appearance of a woman, but they don't take on the shared history of what it means to be a woman in a man's world. It's that aspect of 'being a woman' which many women who are most vocal about all this have an issue with. 

 

A transgender woman presumably hasn't grown up fearing footsteps behind her at night, nor been passed over for promotions or had to pretend they were on the phone to their boyfriend when they were in a taxi alone, never been physically intimidated by men in everyday situations or the subject of lude references. 

 

When women, some of whom like JK Rowling who've been victims of domestic violence, have issues with men encroaching on women's spaces, it's not because they don't think they're proper women or because they think they 'own' what it is to be a woman, it's because they 'feel' things that only women who've been born women have probably experienced, such as constant feelings of (potential) physical threat, and they feel that there are boundaries of safety and security which have to be respected.

 

The race issue is analogous because, even if I got get my skin pigmentation changed to look black, say I'd always felt black and deserved to be treated as black, I'd never know what it feels like to be a black man in a white man's world, be it feelings of threat from the authorities or being the subject of snide and racist comments. I could not justifiably go to a gathering of black lives matter and pretend I know how it feels to be a black person, if I did, I'd be rightly ridiculed.

 

Now. what really makes all this interesting to my mind, is the people who'd poo poo my first example of cis bigotry or whatnot, would be supportive of my stance on the second example, what makes them different - in their minds - I'm not sure, social acceptance perhaps. People dismissed as 'anti trans' are on the run as far as the arguments go, they're legitimate targets, but anyone defending the second point on race isn't - yet. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Captain Willard]

9 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

 

It's a legitimate question IMO.

 

When someone transitions into a woman, they take on the physical appearance of a woman, but they don't take on the shared history of what it means to be a woman in a man's world. It's that aspect of 'being a woman' which many women who are most vocal about all this have an issue with. 

 

A transgender woman presumably hasn't grown up fearing footsteps behind her at night, nor been passed over for promotions or had to pretend they were on the phone to their boyfriend when they were in a taxi alone, never been physically intimidated by men in everyday situations or the subject of lude references. 

 

When women, some of whom like JK Rowling who've been victims of domestic violence, have issues with men encroaching on women's spaces, it's not because they don't think they're proper women or because they think they 'own' what it is to be a woman, it's because they 'feel' things that only women who've been born women have probably experienced, such as constant feelings of (potential) physical threat, and they feel that there are boundaries of safety and security which have to be respected.

 

The race issue is analogous because, even if I got get my skin pigmentation changed to look black, say I'd always felt black and deserved to be treated as black, I'd never know what it feels like to be a black man in a white man's world, be it feelings of threat from the authorities or being the subject of snide and racist comments. I could not justifiably go to a gathering of black lives matter and pretend I know how it feels to be a black person, if I did, I'd be rightly ridiculed.

 

Now. what really makes all this interesting to my mind, is the people who'd poo poo my first example of cis bigotry or whatnot, would be supportive of my stance on the second example, what makes them different - in their minds - I'm not sure, social acceptance perhaps. People dismissed as 'anti trans' are on the run as far as the arguments go, they're legitimate targets, but anyone defending the second point on race isn't - yet. 

 

 

 

 

 

This. Really good post. Agree 100%

[Rico1304]

25 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Here's an interesting thread for people who give a shite about whether trans men live or die. (Everyone else can just skip ahead to the bit where they make some hilariously snarky reference to the Emperor's New Clothes).

 

 

Fucking hell, yes, my position is clear.  I don’t care whether they live or die.  Exactly what I’ve been saying all along.  Clown. 
 

Oh yes, nearly forgot.  Stonewall have campaigned for the changes that led to this situation. They are the ones that want to remove sex markers from NHS records, the census.  You know, every where it’s important to understand sex.  

[TD_LFC]

25 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

A transgender woman presumably hasn't grown up fearing footsteps behind her at night, nor been passed over for promotions or had to pretend they were on the phone to their boyfriend when they were in a taxi alone, never been physically intimidated by men in everyday situations or the subject of lude references. 

Do you have to have had one of those or all of them, what if you've had none of them.

 

The stats would suggest that most transgender women have experienced at least one of those. Men can no doubt claim a few of them. 

[Rico1304]

AoT ‘saying transmen are women means you actually want them to die’

 

Also AoT ‘ actually some transmen will die if you don’t treat them as women’. 

[Rico1304]

3 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

I’d be interested to hear which of these declarations is unreasonable or transphobic. 
 

 

Anyone at the Labour conference can go and see these women and listen to their views today.  Unfortunately I can’t tell you where because they are unable to reveal the location until 4pm  as they are scared of harassment and attack.  At the Labour Party Conference.  

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, Rico1304 said:

AoT ‘saying transmen are women means you actually want them to die’

 

Also AoT ‘ actually some transmen will die if you don’t treat them as women’. 

None of that is true.

[Pidge]

1 hour ago, Section_31 said:

 

It's a legitimate question IMO.

 

When someone transitions into a woman, they take on the physical appearance of a woman, but they don't take on the shared history of what it means to be a woman in a man's world. It's that aspect of 'being a woman' which many women who are most vocal about all this have an issue with. 

 

A transgender woman presumably hasn't grown up fearing footsteps behind her at night, nor been passed over for promotions or had to pretend they were on the phone to their boyfriend when they were in a taxi alone, never been physically intimidated by men in everyday situations or the subject of lude references. 

 

When women, some of whom like JK Rowling who've been victims of domestic violence, have issues with men encroaching on women's spaces, it's not because they don't think they're proper women or because they think they 'own' what it is to be a woman, it's because they 'feel' things that only women who've been born women have probably experienced, such as constant feelings of (potential) physical threat, and they feel that there are boundaries of safety and security which have to be respected.

 

The race issue is analogous because, even if I got get my skin pigmentation changed to look black, say I'd always felt black and deserved to be treated as black, I'd never know what it feels like to be a black man in a white man's world, be it feelings of threat from the authorities or being the subject of snide and racist comments. I could not justifiably go to a gathering of black lives matter and pretend I know how it feels to be a black person, if I did, I'd be rightly ridiculed.

 

Now. what really makes all this interesting to my mind, is the people who'd poo poo my first example of cis bigotry or whatnot, would be supportive of my stance on the second example, what makes them different - in their minds - I'm not sure, social acceptance perhaps. People dismissed as 'anti trans' are on the run as far as the arguments go, they're legitimate targets, but anyone defending the second point on race isn't - yet. 

 

I feel like that presumably is doing a lot of heavy lifting, as those experiences will obviously vary greatly, and I don't think it's analogous as most of the real complications our society is trying to work through relating to gender transitions don't relate to race in the modern day. 

 

Beyond social acceptance all of the arguments relating to the segregation of services, institutions and sports obviously do not apply to a racial paradigm, so as an analogy it's is already reducing the issue to an unhelpful extent. Then it is ignoring (or dismissing) the distinct reasons why a racial transition would face less social acceptance, first that gender dysphoria is a medically classified condition and secondly that changing your appearance to that of another race would be seen as, essentially, blackface and rejected as such. That's not about the validity of one's experience/existence...

 

Your final sentence is, frankly, outright slippery slope rhetoric.

[A Red]

41 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

None of that is true.

Here's an interesting thread for people who give a shite about whether trans men live or die. (Everyone else can just skip ahead to the bit where they make some hilariously snarky reference to the Emperor's New Clothes).

 

Rico disagrees with your view so he doesn't care if they live or die. Bit snidey/snarky/nasty that, you can do better.

[Strontium]

2 hours ago, Section_31 said:

The race issue is analogous because, even if I got get my skin pigmentation changed to look black, say I'd always felt black and deserved to be treated as black, I'd never know what it feels like to be a black man in a white man's world, be it feelings of threat from the authorities or being the subject of snide and racist comments. I could not justifiably go to a gathering of black lives matter and pretend I know how it feels to be a black person, if I did, I'd be rightly ridiculed.

 

There's a white woman who has done just that and had her skin pigmentation altered so she has a dark skinned appearance. And she has, of course, been roundly ridiculed for it. As well she might because she looks ridiculous.

[Captain Willard]

23 minutes ago, Pidge said:

I feel like that presumably is doing a lot of heavy lifting, as those experiences will obviously vary greatly, and I don't think it's analogous as most of the real complications our society is trying to work through relating to gender transitions don't relate to race in the modern day. 

 

Beyond social acceptance all of the arguments relating to the segregation of services, institutions and sports obviously do not apply to a racial paradigm, so as an analogy it's is already reducing the issue to an unhelpful extent. Then it is ignoring (or dismissing) the distinct reasons why a racial transition would face less social acceptance, first that gender dysphoria is a medically classified condition and secondly that changing your appearance to that of another race would be seen as, essentially, blackface and rejected as such. That's not about the validity of one's experience/existence...

 

Your final sentence is, frankly, outright slippery slope rhetoric.

Just to be clear, are you saying I can self identify as a white women but not as a black women ? 

[Rico1304]

4 hours ago, Jack the Sipper said:

Your view? I thought this was fact a few pages back? Rico seems certain it is. And it's what you based your attack on Starmer on; that he was stifling facts by saying people shouldn't be claiming that only women can have a cervix. Yet, if you're now saying that the concept of a fixed gender is only a 'view' and thus allowing for the possibility that trans men are men, then the claim that only women have cervixes evidently isn't true according to your own rationale.

 

Maybe it is a fact that trans man are women and therefore only women have cervixes and therefore Starmer was stifling facts, as you claimed earlier. But I've yet to see evidence,, least of all from you, who made the claim, to support that assertion, and even if you did it wouldn't detract from my point, which was that even 'facts' shouldn't necessarily be blurted out, without context, without nuance, without fear of causing offence and, most of all, without even being certain that it is a fact to begin with... 

 

You dismiss my point as a philosophical musing, but isn't it somewhat important in the normal run of things to know what facts are, their value, their validity, their place in an argument, and the dangers of presenting all 'facts' as absolutes (I'd hope you'd agree that many claims we in society present as 'facts' aren't as trouble-free as '2+2=4'), like some deranged 'free speech' martyr who thinks he's protected from censure from reasonable people because, well, 'thems the facts innit'.

 

I'll make clear again that I don't even agree with Starmer's view here. In this instance Duffield, in my view, should be free to make that argument and he should accept that as a part of a reasoned ongoing debate - something that's been sorely missing in this shitty black-and-white flame war. I'm taking issue with your wider claim that he's a major left wing politician behaving like the 'thought police' in attempting to stifle facts, which sounds nakedly partisan and sounds like the kind of guff I'd read below the line on The Spectator online articles. And wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

Rico is certain. You can pretend to yourself all you want.  

[Pidge]

3 minutes ago, Captain Willard said:

Just to be clear, are you saying I can self identify as a white women but not as a black women ? 

You can identify yourself however you want, babe.

[Captain Willard]

15 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

There's a white woman who has done just that and had her skin pigmentation altered so she has a dark skinned appearance. And she has, of course, been roundly ridiculed for it. As well she might because she looks ridiculous.

This is a good interview with a black female activist in the US who was exposed as actually being white. Touches on a lot of the issues we have been discussing on here. 

 

Rachel Dolezal: ‘I’m not going to stoop and apologise and grovel’ | Rachel Dolezal | The Guardian

[Rico1304]

15 minutes ago, Captain Willard said:

Just to be clear, are you saying I can self identify as a white women but not as a black women ? 

It’s worth than that, he’s saying you can BE a white woman, and then BE a white man the next day.  

[Captain Willard]

11 minutes ago, Pidge said:

You can identify yourself however you want, babe.

Ha ha, thanks but I think your'e avoiding the question

 

[skend04]

20 minutes ago, Captain Willard said:

Just to be clear, are you saying I can self identify as a white women but not as a black women ? 

I think the world has enough problems without there being more than one of you.

[Pidge]

1 hour ago, Rico1304 said:

It’s worth than that, he’s saying you can BE a white woman, and then BE a white man the next day.  

Where have I said this?

[Pidge]

1 hour ago, Captain Willard said:

Ha ha, thanks but I think your'e avoiding the question

 

I think I made my point regarding the distinction between the two in terms of social acceptance and otherwise. I don't think I ever claimed to be the arbiter of what people can or can't do.

 

Now if you really want to draw your bullshit analogy into a longer debate you'll have to find someone else.

[Bjornebye]

 

 

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

I think where the race analogy falls down is in the fact that sex exists (as something other than a social construct) and race doesn't.

[Rico1304]

21 minutes ago, Pidge said:

Where have I said this?

I thought you believed in Self-ID. Apologies if I’ve got you wrong. 

[Rico1304]

11 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

I think where the race analogy falls down is in the fact that sex exists (as something other than a social construct) and race doesn't.

But, if it exists it’s measurable and observed then your idea that people can change sex is complete nonsense.   
 

In your world you could have twin males standing in front of you, neither suffering from DSD (taking that red herring away from you) both with male genitalia, both wearing a beard, and you wouldn’t be able to say they were men unless they told you. In fact you’d accept one was a man and one was a woman if they said so.  So how does sex exist again?