JK Rowling slams Keir Starmer over his words 'trans women are women’

[arista]

[JK Rowling slams Keir Starmer after
Labour leader says ‘trans women are women’,
as Harry Potter author says the party
can 'no longer be counted on to defend women’s rights'
Harry Potter author took aim at Keir Starmer
saying 'women's anger is growing'
She criticised Labour party on Twitter
for no 'longer defending women’s rights'
Starmer last night insisted 'trans women are women'
claiming it 'was the law'
The Labour leader called for a more
'respectful' debate on transgender issues]

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2022/03/12/13/55266221-10605735-image-a-15_1647091466863.jpg


[She also slammed Sir Keir for
'publicly misrepresenting' the 2010 Equality Act,
which legally protects people from
discrimination in the workplace and
in wider society, and said women's
anger was 'growing'.]



He also one of his MP's against him on this



Sign Of The Times.

[UserSince2005]

Freeze her assets now.

[Crimson Dynamo]

More woke madness and another reason (if you need anymore) why starmer will never be PM

[Jordan.]

Does this woman have any personality outside of hating transwomen it's so sad to see.

[arista]

More woke madness and another reason (if you need anymore) why starmer will never be PM


Great Points LT.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Great Points LT.

JK is the way forward against this nonsense

She is quite the woman in this post author period in her successful life

[Oliver_W]

Transwomen aren't women though :shrug: there's no need to pretend they are, especially when the world (and women!) have enough to deal with ATM.

[Liam-]

She won’t be happy until trans people are completely secluded from society, such a horrible, hateful woman, it’s a shame really, she could have been a torch carrier for decent conversation but she’s chosen to just out herself as an outright bigot and go down this route, she should be thoroughly ashamed, but anti-trans rhetoric is cool these days, her and her ilk have no issues shouting about what they are and they have the backing of the establishment and the media who have found their new victims

[Oliver_W]

She won’t be happy until trans people are completely secluded from society, such a horrible, hateful woman, it’s a shame really, she could have been a torch carrier for decent conversation but she’s chosen to just out herself as an outright bigot and go down this route, she should be thoroughly ashamed, but anti-trans rhetoric is cool these days, her and her ilk have no issues shouting about what they are and they have the backing of the establishment and the media who have found their new victims

When has she been bigoted or hateful?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Transwomen aren't women though :shrug: there's no need to pretend they are, especially when the world (and women!) have enough to deal with ATM.

and pretending its so for some woke agenda is actually moving backwards

more power to her elbow

[Niamh.]

Does this woman have any personality outside of hating transwomen it's so sad to see.Writing best selling books etc etc stuff like that

[Niamh.]

She won’t be happy until trans people are completely secluded from society, such a horrible, hateful woman, it’s a shame really, she could have been a torch carrier for decent conversation but she’s chosen to just out herself as an outright bigot and go down this route, she should be thoroughly ashamed, but anti-trans rhetoric is cool these days, her and her ilk have no issues shouting about what they are and they have the backing of the establishment and the media who have found their new victimsDefending women = Bigot....nothing new

[Livia]

Why do we never have trans men threatening born men with violence? Because they wouldn't bloody put up with it.

[Niamh.]

Why do we never have trans men threatening born men with violence? Because they wouldn't bloody put up with it.Also biological differences do actually matter... go figure

[Kizzy]

Me and my kids agree on most things.. they are lefties too. But we do differ massively on this, especially my gen z, he is disgusted by my views on this.
I am really conflicted myself too as I can appreciate the issues faced by the trans community, and yet I always find myself disagreeing with the politically advocated view on this issue.

I am all for anyone living how you like, one life .you do you and all that . But .. unless you grew up from a baby, infant, child, adolescent and young adult as a female then you haven't had the socialisation that shapes what I consider a woman. ( and obviously the same for men)
This is only my personal view, it might upset some and I am sorry for that, I've gone over and over it many many times but I can't change my stance on this.

Essentially what I'm saying is my belief is trans male and female can't be men and women as they haven't had the whole life experience.

[GoldHeart]

Well hang on a minute what exactly was Starmer supposed to say ? . I'm not even a fan of his , but did JK want him to start calling trans women "MEN" ? Or something ? . Starmer knows biologically they were born male.But they identify as female now.

I have agreed with the points JK Rowling has made with protecting womens rights etc,I'm a woman myself.

But it feels like this is a pointless rant she's gone on now or am I missing something?? .

[Jordan.]

Well hang on a minute what exactly was Starmer supposed to say ? . I'm not even a fan of his , but did JK want him to start calling trans women "MEN" ? Or something ? . Starmer knows biologically they were born male.But they identify as female now.

I have agreed with the points JK Rowling has made with protecting womens rights etc,I'm a woman myself.

But it feels like this is a pointless rant she's gone on now or am I missing something?? .

Transphobes would have loved for him to say that, thankfully the things they feel emboldened to say behind the safety of their keyboard is not the reality of the real world.

[Jordan.]

Writing best selling books etc etc stuff like that

Easy to forget when her twitter antics have become more memorable than anything she's released in the last decade.

[Cherie]

Has a politician ever singled out trans men for their support?

[Oliver_W]

Easy to forget when her twitter antics have become more memorable than anything she's released in the last decade.

And yet no-one can point to anything actually bigoted or hateful...

[Oliver_W]

Me and my kids agree on most things.. they are lefties too. But we do differ massively on this, especially my gen z, he is disgusted by my views on this.
I am really conflicted myself too as I can appreciate the issues faced by the trans community, and yet I always find myself disagreeing with the politically advocated view on this issue.

I am all for anyone living how you like, one life .you do you and all that . But .. unless you grew up from a baby, infant, child, adolescent and young adult as a female then you haven't had the socialisation that shapes what I consider a woman. ( and obviously the same for men)
This is only my personal view, it might upset some and I am sorry for that, I've gone over and over it many many times but I can't change my stance on this.

Essentially what I'm saying is my belief is trans male and female can't be men and women as they haven't had the whole life experience.
I'm apparently a millennial, just a couple of years off being a zoomer, and I'm at odds with a lot of people my age and younger about the trans issue.

I feel like either a) I'm taking crazy pills or b) people my age and down have lost the ability to think critically about the issue of gender :joker:

Gender is a social construct, and some aspects of gender norms change through time, but males are males and females are females. How one "identifies" has nothing to do with anything, and a thought in someone's head shouldn't be put above biological realities, especially when it comes to one group's rights...

[Niamh.]

Me and my kids agree on most things.. they are lefties too. But we do differ massively on this, especially my gen z, he is disgusted by my views on this.
I am really conflicted myself too as I can appreciate the issues faced by the trans community, and yet I always find myself disagreeing with the politically advocated view on this issue.

I am all for anyone living how you like, one life .you do you and all that . But .. unless you grew up from a baby, infant, child, adolescent and young adult as a female then you haven't had the socialisation that shapes what I consider a woman. ( and obviously the same for men)
This is only my personal view, it might upset some and I am sorry for that, I've gone over and over it many many times but I can't change my stance on this.

Essentially what I'm saying is my belief is trans male and female can't be men and women as they haven't had the whole life experience.Well yeah I think most people think this way, previously left leaning people haven't all of a sudden just turned into nasty bigots for no reason (despite the narrative) there is a reason for sex based rights (specifically for women)

[Cherie]

Well yeah I think most people think this way, previously left leaning people haven't all of a sudden just turned into nasty bigots for no reason (despite the narrative) there is a reason for sex based rights (specifically for women)

I think most people who enter the debate for genuine reasons know that...

There are an element who just want to stir the pot and be nasty

[Alf]

1502766411919282185

[Mystic Mock]

Like Goldheart, I honestly don't get what she wanted Starmer to come out and say here?

[user104658]

I think most people who enter the debate for genuine reasons know that...

There are an element who just want to stir the pot and be nasty

I think basically EVERYONE knows, it's just that there's this "tried and tested" prescribed methodology of "fighting back against this" that's been taken on - the slogans, mantras, refusing to engage in good faith, declaring debate offensive, the idea that any questioning or dissent is akin to hatred or more ludicrously "murder", and also an entire disingenuous demeanor that goes with it (that can be summed up with the :idc: emoji). You could collectively call it "stonewalling".

It doesn't really work any more but for whatever reason there are a large group of people still forging ahead with it. Probably because they don't actually have any other way to do it because, as a consequence of doing things this way, they have no solid understanding of their own cause and the arguments offered up are immature and riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies. If you point those out, they just fall back on "getting rly angry" and the names come out (TERFs, harpies, murderers etc.). 95% aimed at women of course :shrug:.

[Liam-]

Defending women = Bigot....nothing new

No, being a bigot = being a bigot, but you defending bigots in the name of ‘protecting women’ is nothing new

[Liam-]

Well hang on a minute what exactly was Starmer supposed to say ? . I'm not even a fan of his , but did JK want him to start calling trans women "MEN" ? Or something ? . Starmer knows biologically they were born male.But they identify as female now.

I have agreed with the points JK Rowling has made with protecting womens rights etc,I'm a woman myself.

But it feels like this is a pointless rant she's gone on now or am I missing something?? .

That’s exactly what she and her hateful horde want people to do, they don’t want trans people, especially trans women, to be recognised as what they are, they want them marginalised and separated away from the rest of society because they don’t see them as legitimate, that’s what it all boils down to

[user104658]

That’s exactly what she and her hateful horde want people to do, they don’t want trans people, especially trans women, to be recognised as what they are, they want them marginalised and separated away from the rest of society because they don’t see them as legitimate, that’s what it all boils down to

Most people just want proper safeguarding analysis to be done before forging ahead with irreversible changes to the law, and for reasonable debate where everyone stops pretending that there's no difference (sports, fairness in competition) and no risk (self-ID, exploitation of loopholes by predators). The argument seems to boil down to "predatory men won't exploit loopholes" which sadly just shows absolutely zero awareness of the risk women face from predatory men, and apparently, absolutely no desire to try to understand that risk. Any loopholes that haven't been adequately considered WILL be exploited. It's not a risk - it's a certainty.

I'm not going to sit here and pretend that there aren't bigots who simply don't like "the idea" hanging onto the coat-tails of the debate and using it as a shield to be petty, vindictive and cruel. Of course there are, there always are in any debate. Using that as justification to "no debate" the issue and tar everyone with concerns as being "just like those people" is a deflecting tactic and absolute nonsense. High school stuff. No place at all in the real discussion - and yet it's rhetoric that's bleeding into the politics and legislation of the issue (because of most politician's endless drive to appeal to populism).

[user104658]

To add to the above - JK Rowling is blatantly not one of those people using it as an excuse to be hateful. She has followers who do fall into that category, certainly. That's neither her fault nor her problem and none of what she has actually said is particularly unreasonable - although it's clear she's becoming increasingly frustrated.

[Oliver_W]

No, being a bigot = being a bigot, but you defending bigots in the name of ‘protecting women’ is nothing new
What has she said that's bigoted?

That’s exactly what she and her hateful horde want people to do, they want them marginalised and separated away from the rest of society
When has she said this?

they don’t want [] trans women, to be recognised as what they are
But they do want transwomen to be recognised as what they are ...

[Alf]

Trump said last night in his speech that when he gets back in the White House he will be stopping men from competing in women's sports.

[bots]

rhetoric like "hateful horde" is just not helpful

[Alf]

Trump said last night in his speech that when he gets back in the White House he will be stopping men from competing in women's sports.A real feminist.


1502828666597879814

[GoldHeart]

Most people just want proper safeguarding analysis to be done before forging ahead with irreversible changes to the law, and for reasonable debate where everyone stops pretending that there's no difference (sports, fairness in competition) and no risk (self-ID, exploitation of loopholes by predators). The argument seems to boil down to "predatory men won't exploit loopholes" which sadly just shows absolutely zero awareness of the risk women face from predatory men, and apparently, absolutely no desire to try to understand that risk. Any loopholes that haven't been adequately considered WILL be exploited. It's not a risk - it's a certainty.

I'm not going to sit here and pretend that there aren't bigots who simply don't like "the idea" hanging onto the coat-tails of the debate and using it as a shield to be petty, vindictive and cruel. Of course there are, there always are in any debate. Using that as justification to "no debate" the issue and tar everyone with concerns as being "just like those people" is a deflecting tactic and absolute nonsense. High school stuff. No place at all in the real discussion - and yet it's rhetoric that's bleeding into the politics and legislation of the issue (because of most politician's endless drive to appeal to populism).

I understand the whole safeguarding, the issue is sensitive. And predators will always take advantage. And yes women's rights is important.

And some so called "activists" are insane.

But I just CAN'T see where JK is coming from on this new TIRADE of hers ,it seems she just wants to have a go at Starmer..... And I'm NOT even a big fan of his. How did she want him to refer to trans women?.

It's NOT like he said anything bad ,but she's chosen to be offended.

[Crimson Dynamo]

. How did she want him to refer to trans women?.

.

you have successfully just answered your own question :laugh:

[Kizzy]

Personally I don't feel Caitlin Jenner had the most positive impact. Sure, for the trans community she was a hero and the transition raised a lot of awareness with the media attention.
However, from my perspective I saw someone who effectively leap frogged over a huge part of what most consider an integral part of transition. Living as a female prior to surgery.

In July 2015 Caitlin won a 'Woman of the year' award, she had only come out to her family in April.
The award was presented by Abby Wambach, who that year had inspired the world by kissing her partner following a soccer win.

Taking the award from a woman who had been as if not more pivotal in the LGBTQ+ community seemed like .. male privilege.

The fact that in February that year Caitlin (then Bruce) had killed a 69yr old woman by driving recklessly. She escaped any accountability for that, again smacked of privilege due to status.

The fact that once transitioned Caitlin was for a long while a right wing mouthpiece was a massive kick in the face for those struggling. She didn't appear to acknowledge the struggle that had formed the crux of her acceptance speech. And it became clear to me that in her opinion rights and change are bought, not a right.

[Niamh.]

No, being a bigot = being a bigot, but you defending bigots in the name of ‘protecting women’ is nothing newOK Liam [emoji106]

[Swan]

Kind of ironic how some biological men think they know better on this subject.

[Niamh.]

Kind of ironic how some biological men think they know better on this subject.Isn't it?

[Liam-]

Caitlin Jenner was never considered a hero :joker:

[Kizzy]

Isn't it?

Actually yes , as I said my son is the first to tell me how wrong I am on this...jog on manchild!

[Liam-]

Only men that agree with you are allowed a voice then? Cause that’s what I’m getting here, none of you seem to have an issue with any of the men who are arguing the same side as you, it’s weird how you preach you’re being silenced yet diminish the opinion of people who don’t agree with you based on their gender, funny that

[Oliver_W]

Actually yes , as I said my son is the first to tell me how wrong I am on this...jog on manchild!
Was he able to explain why you're wrong?

[Alf]

Caitlin Jenner was never considered a hero :joker:Bruce was.

[Cherie]

It used to be trans women and women...then it was transwomen and cis women...now the goalposts have moved again and its women as a collective, thats a not a good move for women born as women in my view

[user104658]

Only men that agree with you are allowed a voice then? Cause that’s what I’m getting here, none of you seem to have an issue with any of the men who are arguing the same side as you, it’s weird how you preach you’re being silenced yet diminish the opinion of people who don’t agree with you based on their gender, funny thatI think to call a spade a spade here... When I see clashes across the media and the biggest contributers to each side of that argument are women on one side, and gay men on the other (a group who for the most part have far less vested interest in women than any other, to be blunt), and the argument is about women's rights... It seems fairly obvious which side I should be listening to in greater depth... And again to be blunt: you'd (I assume) completely understand that if it was about any other group. If a racial group for example was standing up and saying "Listen, this is how this actually affects us, these are our worries" and the response of a completely unrelated group with no skin in the game whatsoever was "Shut up you hateful scum!"... Well. I suspect you'd see the issue, then.

No attempt at all made to actually discuss or ease the fears of women, many of whom have very real personal reasons to be afraid. Just "shut up and stop getting in the way TERF". It's honestly a horrendous attitude.

[Niamh.]

It used to be trans women and women...then it was transwomen and cis women...now the goalposts have moved again and its women as a collective, thats a not a good move for women born as women in my viewIt seems to be women and "people with a cervix " or "mensturaters" so transwomen are women and women are a bodily function or body part. Men are still just men though.... odd that

[Niamh.]

I think to call a spade a spade here... When I see clashes across the media and the biggest contributers to each side of that argument are women on one side, and gay men on the other (a group who for the most part have far less vested interest in women than any other, to be blunt), and the argument is about women's rights... It seems fairly obvious which side I should be listening to in greater depth... And again to be blunt: you'd (I assume) completely understand that if it was about any other group. If a racial group for example was standing up and saying "Listen, this is how this actually affects us, these are our worries" and the response of a completely unrelated group with no skin in the game whatsoever was "Shut up you hateful scum!"... Well. I suspect you'd see the issue, then.

No attempt at all made to actually discuss or ease the fears of women, many of whom have very real personal reasons to be afraid. Just "shut up and stop getting in the way TERF". It's honestly a horrendous attitude.Exactly. I wonder if Liam will actually reply to your post this time or is it just the women he likes to lecture and "educate" about ourselves and our rights?

[Liam-]

I think to call a spade a spade here... When I see clashes across the media and the biggest contributers to each side of that argument are women on one side, and gay men on the other (a group who for the most part have far less vested interest in women than any other, to be blunt), and the argument is about women's rights... It seems fairly obvious which side I should be listening to in greater depth... And again to be blunt: you'd (I assume) completely understand that if it was about any other group. If a racial group for example was standing up and saying "Listen, this is how this actually affects us, these are our worries" and the response of a completely unrelated group with no skin in the game whatsoever was "Shut up you hateful scum!"... Well. I suspect you'd see the issue, then.

No attempt at all made to actually discuss or ease the fears of women, many of whom have very real personal reasons to be afraid. Just "shut up and stop getting in the way TERF". It's honestly a horrendous attitude.

Right, so you’ve just confirmed what I’ve said then, men that don’t agree with the likes of Jk, especially gay men it seems, aren’t going to be listened to, great discussion that is for sure, very balanced, very equal.

Also, by your example, nobody is listening to trans people in this debate, the only ones who are being highlighted like you enjoy reminding us are the looney ones who show themselves up and they’re being used as an example to tar the entire demographic to further the anti-trans agenda, JK herself didn’t this on Twitter yesterday when she posted examples of support for her, censoring out the name of said supporter, but blasting someone’s out because they disagreed with her, knowing full well what she was going to send their way.

There are genuine concerns about an incredibly tiny percentage of people that could possibly abuse a loophole in the system, but I genuinely don’t believe that that’s what the majority of this is about anymore, it started off as genuine questions being asked, but i believe that it’s been turned into a full on which hunt against an already marginalises part of society, based off of ignorance and bigotry and I’ll continue to think that until I see something that changes my mind.

[Liam-]

Exactly. I wonder if Liam will actually reply to your post this time or is it just the women he likes to lecture and "educate" about ourselves and our rights?

I haven’t lectured or tried to educate anybody, I’m just sharing my opinion on the matter like everybody else, it’s not my fault you don’t like people, especially men, disagreeing with you

[Livia]

I think to call a spade a spade here... When I see clashes across the media and the biggest contributers to each side of that argument are women on one side, and gay men on the other (a group who for the most part have far less vested interest in women than any other, to be blunt), and the argument is about women's rights... It seems fairly obvious which side I should be listening to in greater depth... And again to be blunt: you'd (I assume) completely understand that if it was about any other group. If a racial group for example was standing up and saying "Listen, this is how this actually affects us, these are our worries" and the response of a completely unrelated group with no skin in the game whatsoever was "Shut up you hateful scum!"... Well. I suspect you'd see the issue, then.

No attempt at all made to actually discuss or ease the fears of women, many of whom have very real personal reasons to be afraid. Just "shut up and stop getting in the way TERF". It's honestly a horrendous attitude.

Great post TS.

[Niamh.]

I mean I don't actually understand why you think it's more likely that women just hate transwomen than actually being concerned about our rights, our safety and fairness towards ourselves?

[Jordan.]

It seems to be women and "people with a cervix " or "mensturaters" so transwomen are women and women are a bodily function or body part. Men are still just men though.... odd that

Literally no one refers to women this way in real life. We need to stop acting like niche examples that get blown out of proportion on social media are the new reality.

[Liam-]

Literally no one refers to women this way in real life. We need to stop acting like niche examples that get blown out of proportion on social media are the new reality.

The whole anti-trans argument is based entirely off of minority examples that are blown up and sent around to spread fear and ignorance around trans people, it blows my mind, it’s like Facebook has actually infected people

[Niamh.]

I haven’t lectured or tried to educate anybody, I’m just sharing my opinion on the matter like everybody else, it’s not my fault you don’t like people, especially men, disagreeing with youYou're right, I don't like people ESPECIALLY men telling me what a woman is and what I should be comfortable with in terms of sex based rights

[user104658]

Exactly. I wonder if Liam will actually reply to your post this time or is it just the women he likes to lecture and "educate" about ourselves and our rights?Another thing I genuinely worry about is, gender ideology has become so all-encompassing that I have to wonder where the support for gay teenagers and young people has gone? It's an absolute shambles in school. My daughter (who had thus far only shown any interest in girls) has been told its biggotted not to consider non-binary males. Not even trans girls... Non-binary kids who present as 100% male. Another message that is gaining traction is that "anyone who doesn't identify as male who likes anyone else who doesn't identify as male is lesbian". Two biological boys, who present as male, but identify as non-binary, in a relationship, are supposedly lesbian. Now I don't doubt this is down to some inevitable young-teen confusion about terminologies but where is the concerns for what an absolute mind **** this is for "plain old" gay kids both girls and boys?? Nowhere to be seen in the current LGBT mindset is my experience.

There's also a boy in her class, literally only out as gay for 6 months, who has now been completely shunned by "the community" because there's a trans-boy who quite simply looks entirely female that likes him, but he said he's not interested because he's gay. Not allowed. He's a bigot now. Hes had people refer to him as a "genital fetishist". A 13 year old boy! Who has just come out as gay. Absolute shambles.

Now... I do honestly understand that older gay men potentially don't know about the issues that young gay people are facing at the moment trying to tackle the mess of poorly defined gender ideologies. Why and how would they know?

My concern though is that they don't particularly care. I've spoken before about how there used to be an LGBT group at my daughter's school but now there effectively is not, because it's all trans and non-binary. The gay kids have their own unofficial hangouts. Their "old fashioned" sexuality has no place at the official group. Utterly depressing.

The acceptable collateral damage for unwavering support of the gender zeitgeist extends to young gay people as well as adult women.

Lets not forget though; adult gay men can still confidently assert that they love penis and that's that. And it's fine. And if anyone has an issue with that, they're a homophobe, and should go and hang out with the other bigots such as the genital-fetishist lesbians who only want to date people with vaginas.

[Niamh.]

Literally no one refers to women this way in real life. We need to stop acting like niche examples that get blown out of proportion on social media are the new reality.Women's health information isn't real life?

[Liam-]

You're right, I don't like people ESPECIALLY men telling me what a woman is and what I should be comfortable with in terms of sex based rights

Okay, so you don’t like men having opinions on this matter, if they don’t agree with you, glad that’s established, not very equal of you

[user104658]

Okay, so you don’t like men having opinions on this matter, if they don’t agree with you, glad that’s established, not very equal of youIs the only opinion one can have on this topic the definition of what a woman is or is not? Because I'm plenty opinionated on this topic but I don't think I've tried to define that anywhere.

[Niamh.]

Okay, so you don’t like men having opinions on this matter, if they don’t agree with you, glad that’s established, not very equal of youOn women's rights? [emoji2368]

[Kizzy]

Caitlin Jenner was never considered a hero :joker:

Not in your opinion obviously.

However according to this article the award was initially seen as hugely positive.

It's noted how you gave no other comment on my points..I see TS however you responder to fully. Hmm? Unconscious bias?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/22409461/caitlyn-jenner-california-governor-recall

[user104658]

the looney ones who show themselves up

At least younceed that this fringe element (the dangerous fringe element, that people have genuine concerns about) exists. You'd face some harsh criticism for that concession out in the open.



There are genuine concerns about an incredibly tiny percentage of people that could possibly abuse a loophole in the system



Violence against women stats prove without a shadow of a doubt that its not just "possible" that any loophole will be exploited by dangerous men. It will be. It already has been. It will snowball if not treated carefully. People come under fire just for saying "please treat this carefully". I wish I lived in a world where these stats weren't clear but they are.


but I genuinely don’t believe that that’s what the majority of this is about anymore, it started off as genuine questions being asked, but i believe that it’s been turned into a full on which hunt against an already marginalises part of society, based off of ignorance and bigotry and I’ll continue to think that until I see something that changes my mind.

Even if that's entirely true, does it negate those genuine questions that were asked initially? Do those no longer matter because of a hijack?

[Liam-]

Not in your opinion obviously.

However according to this article the award was initially seen as hugely positive.

It's noted how you gave no other comment on my points..I see TS however you responder to fully. Hmm? Unconscious bias?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/22409461/caitlyn-jenner-california-governor-recall

Unconscious bias?

Do you want bullet points in response to all of your comments or what?

I get accused of lecturing if I reply to women and now I’ve got an unconscious bias against them when I don’t reply to everything you say :joker:

The awarding of the award to a trans woman was an incredibly positive step yes, but not because it was Caitlyn Jenner, her status as the new face of trans was refuted right from the beginning

[Kizzy]

Literally no one refers to women this way in real life. We need to stop acting like niche examples that get blown out of proportion on social media are the new reality.

This just shows how ignorant you are on this issue. You've reduced a valid point to an hysterical response to comments on social media.

People don't refer to women as 'people with a cervix' but that appears to be the blanket term being advocated in certain spheres.

[bots]

for me, i think the question needs to be asked. Why do trans women feel its necessary to tear down the protections that have been put in place for women. Why do they want access to their safe spaces for example, why do they want to compete in their sporting competitions when they are clearly at an unfair physical advantage.

If people can start giving proper answers to these questions it would be a good start

[Crimson Dynamo]

JK retweeted this...

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">This stupid diagram is obviously bat**** but looking at it again I'm struck by the fact that while the caption at the bottom purports to include anyone who challenges gender roles, it includes crossdressers and drag artists, and not, say, female firefighters or male care staff. <a href="https://t.co/b0gq1JwIkI">pic.twitter.com/b0gq1JwIkI</a></p>&mdash; Jack Appleby (@jackappleby) <a href="https://twitter.com/jackappleby/status/1502713719301758984?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 12, 2022</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[Kizzy]

Unconscious bias?

Do you want bullet points in response to all of your comments or what?

I get accused of lecturing if I reply to women and now I’ve got an unconscious bias against them when I don’t reply to everything you say :joker:

The awarding of the award to a trans woman was an incredibly positive step yes, but not because it was Caitlyn Jenner, her status as the new face of trans was refuted right from the beginning

Well if you replied with anything other than mocking joker emojis then you might be taken seriously when responding to the concerns of women.

My point was that step wouldn't have happened initially if taken by anyone else.. she had the money and the media gravitas to make it happen. It propelled trans issues into the spotlight instantly.
There was an element of hero worship about it as I remember well on here...it was discussed at length and the majority of the comments were massively supportive mirrored by the trans community.

[Kizzy]

for me, i think the question needs to be asked. Why do trans women feel its necessary to tear down the protections that have been put in place for women. Why do they want access to their safe spaces for example, why do they want to compete in their sporting competitions when they are clearly at an unfair physical advantage.

If people can start giving proper answers to these questions it would be a good start

This is the crux of it really, it's the idea that essentially it's considered by women's rights groups that hard won protections are being usurped.

You can't protect the rights of one group by eroding the rights of another and not expect some valid pushback.

[Mystic Mock]

No, being a bigot = being a bigot, but you defending bigots in the name of ‘protecting women’ is nothing new

Personally I don't think that Niamh is Transphobic tbf.

Imo it's a tricky subject to solve without harming the rights of either group, imo everyone should be demanding that the Government comes up with a solution that pleases both sides rather than forcing either side to do something that most of them aren't comfortable doing.

And name calling isn't gonna help either I feel.

[user104658]

Personally I don't think that Niamh is Transphobic tbf.

Imo it's a tricky subject to solve without harming the rights of either group, imo everyone should be demanding that the Government comes up with a solution that pleases both sides rather than forcing either side to do something that most of them aren't comfortable doing.

And name calling isn't gonna help either I feel.

There is no way to please everyone, the only answer is ever compromise but unfortunately a large section of trans rights activism, and a section that's gaining significant traction with legislators and governments, simply won't accept that any compromise on this should never, ever, for any reason, place "individual comfort" or "desire for acceptance" above genuine physical safety concerns. That's the crux of what has women, IMO quite rightly, concerned about their rights and safety. The refusal to conceed that there IS a problem at all (and again I'll just say it; a rhetoric that comes prescribed straight from organisations like Stonewall) has inevitably lead to anger. It's gaslighting :shrug:. Concerns that dangerous men will use new legislation to gain access to victims is met with "no never!" or at best "maybe but there's no proof of that". It's a flat out lie. They will, they do, they have.

[Mystic Mock]

Another thing I genuinely worry about is, gender ideology has become so all-encompassing that I have to wonder where the support for gay teenagers and young people has gone? It's an absolute shambles in school. My daughter (who had thus far only shown any interest in girls) has been told its biggotted not to consider non-binary males. Not even trans girls... Non-binary kids who present as 100% male. Another message that is gaining traction is that "anyone who doesn't identify as male who likes anyone else who doesn't identify as male is lesbian". Two biological boys, who present as male, but identify as non-binary, in a relationship, are supposedly lesbian. Now I don't doubt this is down to some inevitable young-teen confusion about terminologies but where is the concerns for what an absolute mind **** this is for "plain old" gay kids both girls and boys?? Nowhere to be seen in the current LGBT mindset is my experience.

I'm gonna put this in a crude way, and I honestly don't mean to be offensive to non-binary males when I say this, but if your Daughter is a Lesbian the School has to accept that she isn't gonna be sexually attracted to someone with a Penis, it's that simple.

I'm with you on this Toy Soldier, gay/lesbian kids should still be supported, and they certainly shouldn't be made to feel uncomfortable about who they feel sexually attracted to, it's kinda prejudiced in it's own right.

[Mystic Mock]

There is no way to please everyone, the only answer is ever compromise but unfortunately a large section of trans rights activism, and a section that's gaining significant traction with legislators and governments, simply won't accept that any compromise on this should never, ever, for any reason, place "individual comfort" or "desire for acceptance" above genuine physical safety concerns. That's the crux of what has women, IMO quite rightly, concerned about their rights and safety. The refusal to conceed that there IS a problem at all (and again I'll just say it; a rhetoric that comes prescribed straight from organisations like Stonewall) has inevitably lead to anger. It's gaslighting :shrug:. Concerns that dangerous men will use new legislation to gain access to victims is met with "no never!" or at best "maybe but there's no proof of that". It's a flat out lie. They will, they do, they have.

I think that a middle ground approach needs to be taken.

Like in Sports for example why not have a third tier where Transwomen and Ciswomen (that are comfortable with taking on Transwomen in these events) take part, whilst the Ciswomen who aren't comfortable with taking on Transwomen in Sports still get to keep their version of the Sport.

When it comes to predators abusing the system with things like the Bathrooms etc I have no idea what should happen to try to solve that issue.

[Oliver_W]

I think that a middle ground approach needs to be taken.

Like in Sports for example why not have a third tier where Transwomen and Ciswomen (that are comfortable with taking on Transwomen in these events) take part, whilst the Ciswomen who aren't comfortable with taking on Transwomen in Sports still get to keep their version of the Sport.

When it comes to predators abusing the system with things like the Bathrooms etc I have no idea what should happen to try to solve that issue.

Nah sportspeople should just compete as their actual sex.

[The Slim Reaper]

Nah sportspeople should just compete as their actual sex.

If you don't believe sportspeople should be put at a physical disadvantage (which I agree with), then sending trans people back to fight or run against men after taking estrogen is exactly what you're suggesting. The same way you want "women" loaded up with testosterone to go and fight other women. It's just nonsense.

[Crimson Dynamo]

that bloke in USA swimming is a disgrace to sport and how he can brass neck his way to victory is actually disgusting

[Oliver_W]

If you don't believe sportspeople should be put at a physical disadvantage (which I agree with), then sending trans people back to fight or run against men after taking estrogen is exactly what you're suggesting. The same way you want "women" loaded up with testosterone to go and fight other women. It's just nonsense.

Women who take performance-enhancing drugs are generally kicked out of sports anyway, so why should trans-identifying women be any different? I don't think men who deplete their own strength are penalised per say, but if they're damaging their own performance by altering their body chemistry, then it's their own fault if they can no longer make the cut.

[user104658]

I don't think there's an answer to the sports issue. Trans women who were born male are at a distinct advantage in women's sports, but will be unable to compete in male physical sports at a high level after taking hormones. Conversely, Trans men who were born female are at a distinct advantage in women's sports because of the performance enhancing effects of testosterone - but its never going to be to the extent where they can compete in male sports. Both end up in a sort of middle ground. But there's (for obvious reasons) no desire for a 3rd category.

As I see it, unfortunately giving up competitive sport probably just has to be seen as a cost of transitioning. It doesn't mean people can't play sports as a hobby, but there's no way that it can be in ranked competition in the name of fairness. The evidence of the physical advantage is overwhelming.

[Niamh.]

Exactly TS, it is unfortunate but you can't sacrifice fairness and safety for women to accommodate a minority of people, I say you "can't " but I guess it should have been "shouldn't " because that's exactly what is happening

[Oliver_W]

I don't think there's an answer to the sports issue. Trans women who were born male are at a distinct advantage in women's sports, but will be unable to compete in male physical sports at a high level after taking hormones.
That's their own fault :joker: if they're serious about their sports, they should forsake the hormones and compete against the other men to the best of their ability.

Conversely, Trans men who were born female are at a distinct advantage in women's sports because of the performance enhancing effects of testosterone - but its never going to be to the extent where they can compete in male sports.
Quite. The only "fair" way for the transmen themselves and the other women would be of they didn't medically transition, and stayed in the women's divisions.

[The Slim Reaper]

Women who take performance-enhancing drugs are generally kicked out of sports anyway, so why should trans-identifying women be any different? I don't think men who deplete their own strength are penalised per say, but if they're damaging their own performance by altering their body chemistry, then it's their own fault if they can no longer make the cut.


It's not a performance-enhancing drug if a person is transitioning.

Ok so here's where I stand on this whole issue.

Firstly, Niamhs concerns are valid and understandable. I'm sympathetic to them myself, and actually believe a trans sports body will need to be formed so that everyone is on a level playing field.

However, trans people aren't going anywhere, a new bathroom category will not be created, and some tolerance is also going to be needed to ease integration.

There is no data to suggest that trans women are more likely to use access to historically trad spaces in order to commit sexual attacks. Women are still way more in danger from men they already have relationships with than anyone in a bathroom, and trans women are 4x more likely to be the victims of sexual violence or abuse.

These are the vulnerable people that folks insist should be using "male" bathrooms, because a trans woman in a mens bathroom would face absolutely no danger. And that's my whole issue really, that everything is looked at from the perspective of the status quo.

It should also be completely visible to anyone with a brain cell, that the folks women currently think are their allies in this area are anything but. The same tactics were used against gay people as they became more visible, with women being co-opted to protest about harm to the family, in order to provide cover for the biggots shouting fags and *****.

There are really complicated issues at play that go well beyond sports and bathrooms, so I'd personally question the motives of anyone that uses descriptors such as "bloke" and only wants to talk bathrooms and sports. Again, gay people in the dressing rooms/arses against the walls, lads, was even a thing when I was a kid, and probably still is today. It's exactly the same prejudice involved with ant-trans movements.

[Liam-]

It's not a performance-enhancing drug if a person is transitioning.

Ok so here's where I stand on this whole issue.

Firstly, Niamhs concerns are valid and understandable. I'm sympathetic to them myself, and actually believe a trans sports body will need to be formed so that everyone is on a level playing field.

However, trans people aren't going anywhere, a new bathroom category will not be created, and some tolerance is also going to be needed to ease integration.

There is no data to suggest that trans women are more likely to use access to historically trad spaces in order to commit sexual attacks. Women are still way more in danger from men they already have relationships with than anyone in a bathroom, and trans women are 4x more likely to be the victims of sexual violence or abuse.

These are the vulnerable people that folks insist should be using "male" bathrooms, because a trans woman in a mens bathroom would face absolutely no danger. And that's my whole issue really, that everything is looked at from the perspective of the status quo.

It should also be completely visible to anyone with a brain cell, that the folks women currently think are their allies in this area are anything but. The same tactics were used against gay people as they became more visible, with women being co-opted to protest about harm to the family, in order to provide cover for the biggots shouting fags and *****.

There are really complicated issues at play that go well beyond sports and bathrooms, so I'd personally question the motives of anyone that uses descriptors such as "bloke" and only wants to talk bathrooms and sports. Again, gay people in the dressing rooms/arses against the walls, lads, was even a thing when I was a kid, and probably still is today. It's exactly the same prejudice involved with ant-trans movements.

Preach!

The same ‘think of the children!!’ arguments were used to discourage the gay rights movement as it’s now being used against trans people, because anything other than straight and cis is apparently naturally dangerous to vulnerable people and their lifestyles, it’s nauseating and that’s why so many of the LGBT community are so against what’s happening, not because they hate women, but because it’s a very clear repeat of what has already happened to gays in the past

[Niamh.]

It's not even genuine transpeople that are the issue here Slim. I don't think transpeople are more predatory or more violent, the concerns are around creating loopholes for men who like to cheat or are predators easier access to do just that and it removes women and girls rights and ability to even challenge a man who's exploiting these loopholes, just look at the Wii Spa incident for evidence of that and how the women complaining were treated and it was tried to be played off in the media as a fake story which was untrue. Women's sex based safe spaces are there for a reason, why should we have to give up our safe guards to other people, why are our rights and our safety less important?

[Oliver_W]

It's not a performance-enhancing drug if a person is transitioning.
Transmen are literally enchancing their performance by taking the "transition" hormones. It doesn't matter whether or not they think they're men, taking "transition" hormones gives them an unfair advantage against other women, and should be regarded the same way as taking other boosters.

[user104658]

The main focus of the current debates (that's having people branded supposed TERFs) is on self gender ID which would allow anyone to declare their own gender at any time. There is no data that shows genuine trans women are an increased risk to women. There is, horribly enough, ABUNDANT data that men are a risk to women, and that predatory men will be willing to use self-ID legislation to gain access to vulnerable women. As I've said before, I wish I still lived in a bubble where I didn't know this to be the case, but I don't. The things men will do, and have done, to gain access to victims is utterly mind-boggling.

Why people are determined to deflect away from this, I don't know. I can only assume its agenda based. I keep seeing people insisting blue in the face that Trans Rights Activists are not pursuing this legislative change. They 100% absolutely are and it wouldn't take long to look that up? So I can only assume that people simply don't want to know, or don't want to lose face by having to admit that it poses a massive risk to women's safety.

Ffs it poses a massive risk to actual transwomen's safety but no one cares! Self-ID and gender non-binary ideology trumps all other concerns. There are plenty of trans women and men who are vo ally critical of self-ID and the dogma of current gender ideology. They're branded, dismissed, ridiculed and insulted along with the "TERFs" for Doing Trans All Wrong.

[user104658]

because anything other than straight and cis is apparently naturally dangerous to vulnerable people and their lifestyles

Men are dangerous to vulnerable women. Full stop. Do you not believe that, or do you genuinely just not care? Is it considered acceptable collateral?

[Niamh.]

Men are dangerous to vulnerable women. Full stop. Do you not believe that, or do you genuinely just not care? Is it considered acceptable collateral?The ugly truth is yes we are considered acceptable collateral, you can't argue for removing our safe guards unless you think that

[The Slim Reaper]

Preach!

The same ‘think of the children!!’ arguments were used to discourage the gay rights movement as it’s now being used against trans people, because anything other than straight and cis is apparently naturally dangerous to vulnerable people and their lifestyles, it’s nauseating and that’s why so many of the LGBT community are so against what’s happening, not because they hate women, but because it’s a very clear repeat of what has already happened to gays in the past

I do think that cis women need to be heard and understood though. No one really likes change, and especially when it comes at the cost of our own perceived safety, so looking from the outside in, I think some of the absolutism for trans acceptance does need to be lowered a notch or 2 at the same time, because this is a completely new issue and if everything is black or white, it will only lead to things getting worse.

There will definitely be horrendous incidents that flair up from the new reality, and at that point, statistics about how much more dangerous someones husband/da/brother is, isn't really going to cut it, and will only lead to a more extremist anti-trans movement that will be far more dangerous than anything currently imaginable.

[Liam-]

Men are dangerous to vulnerable women. Full stop. Do you not believe that, or do you genuinely just not care? Is it considered acceptable collateral?

No, predators are dangerous to vulnerable women, it’s got nothing to do with their gender, being a man, doesn’t make someone dangerous, a predator can be a man or a woman

[The Slim Reaper]

It's not even genuine transpeople that are the issue here Slim. I don't think transpeople are more predatory or more violent, the concerns are around creating loopholes for men who like to cheat or are predators easier access to do just that and it removes women and girls rights and ability to even challenge a man who's exploiting these loopholes, just look at the Wii Spa incident for evidence of that and how the women complaining were treated and it was tried to be played off in the media as a fake story which was untrue. Women's sex based safe spaces are there for a reason, why should we have to give up our safe guards to other people, why are our rights and our safety less important?

I genuinely understand where you're coming from. I believe unisex changing spaces in swimming pools are the highest location for sexual assaults in the whole "changing rooms and toilets" debate, in some data collection that was done a couple of years ago, so I understand the foundation your fears are coming from.

Your rights are not any less important, but we currently have a societal minority underclass with fewer rights, and so I think bringing these people actually in to society is just as important.

No one thinks because you call yourself a woman, that you're either mentally ill, an attention seeker, or a sexual predator; and yet that is the way some of the most vulnerable people in society are viewed.

[Crimson Dynamo]

No, predators are dangerous to vulnerable women, it’s got nothing to do with their gender, being a man, doesn’t make someone dangerous, a predator can be a man or a woman

:facepalm:

[The Slim Reaper]

More woke madness and another reason (if you need anymore) why starmer will never be PM

and pretending its so for some woke agenda is actually moving backwards

more power to her elbow

that bloke in USA swimming is a disgrace to sport and how he can brass neck his way to victory is actually disgusting

:facepalm:

I mean... You can either agree or disagree with him, but using a facepalm emoji rather than an explanation, when above is the majority of your thread contribution, is a little weird.

[Crimson Dynamo]

I mean... You can either agree or disagree with him, but using a facepalm emoji rather than an explanation, when above is the majority of your thread contribution, is a little weird.

No it's symbolic of the post and is highly effective

As your reply highlighted

[Kizzy]

Preach!

The same ‘think of the children!!’ arguments were used to discourage the gay rights movement as it’s now being used against trans people, because anything other than straight and cis is apparently naturally dangerous to vulnerable people and their lifestyles, it’s nauseating and that’s why so many of the LGBT community are so against what’s happening, not because they hate women, but because it’s a very clear repeat of what has already happened to gays in the past

By using 'think of the children' as some perceived hysterical reaction you are playing to the narrative that the opinions of women on this topic are not valid.
Not sure why you are trying to align this with the gay rights movement decades ago ..I f you didn't know there was legistation against the teaching of, and limited information around st that time following decriminalisation. Do you really think that all women today are so shallow, vacuous and misinformed haven't bothered to look into this objectively?

I can see predudice here, and it's not from the women in the thread.

[Liam-]

By using 'think of the children' as some perceived hysterical reaction you are playing to the narrative that the opinions of women on this topic are not valid.
Not sure why you are trying to align this with the gay rights movement decades ago ..I f you didn't know there was legistation against the teaching of, and limited information around st that time following decriminalisation. Do you really think that all women today are so shallow, vacuous and misinformed haven't bothered to look into this objectively?

I can see predudice here, and it's not from the women in the thread.

That’s a whole lot of reaching you’ve done there, but sure, if that’s what you want to think, knock yourself out

[Kizzy]

That’s a whole lot of reaching you’ve done there, but sure, if that’s what you want to think, knock yourself out

And your silly comment that the women of today are the same as women at the time of the gay rights movement wasn't? ... :/

[Niamh.]

I genuinely understand where you're coming from. I believe unisex changing spaces in swimming pools are the highest location for sexual assaults in the whole "changing rooms and toilets" debate, in some data collection that was done a couple of years ago, so I understand the foundation your fears are coming from.



You're rights are not any less important, but we currently have a societal minority underclass with fewer rights, and so I think bringing these people actually in to society is just as important.



No one thinks because you call yourself a woman, that you're either mentally ill, an attention seeker, or a sexual predator; and yet that is the way some of the most vulnerable people in society are viewed.I'm not without sympathy for transpeople but the fact of the matter is I don't just call myself a woman, I am a woman in the biological sense and its in that sense where the need for these sex segregated areas, sports etc is.

[Kizzy]

I'm not happy with being assigned a label. I'm not 'a person with a cervix' or a 'cis' I am a woman. I'm very proud to be a woman and I object totally to anyone foisting their made up terms on me.

[Liam-]

And your silly comment that the women of today are the same as women at the time of the gay rights movement wasn't? ... :/

I... literally didn’t say that at all though, but what I did say, which is that the principle of the two arguments are based off of the same idea, I’ll 100% stand by

[user104658]

No, predators are dangerous to vulnerable women, it’s got nothing to do with their gender, being a man, doesn’t make someone dangerous, a predator can be a man or a woman99% are men and they aren't particularly rare. You're living in a comfortable, naive fantasy.

[Kizzy]

No, predators are dangerous to vulnerable women, it’s got nothing to do with their gender, being a man, doesn’t make someone dangerous, a predator can be a man or a woman

Define 'vulnerable women'.

[Kizzy]

I... literally didn’t say that at all though, but what I did say, which is that the principle of the two arguments are based off of the same idea, I’ll 100% stand by

You inferred the thought processes are the same then. You can back track all you like but it's obvious what you meant.

[Jordan.]

1503115876551192576

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2022/03/14/09/55327999-10609231-image-a-155_1647249641752.jpg

[Cherie]

Are the little ladies now been told we don’t know what we are standing up against...what next

[Beso]

https://youtu.be/IOf6ursZ0FA



Funny.

[user104658]

1503115876551192576

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2022/03/14/09/55327999-10609231-image-a-155_1647249641752.jpg

She's made it abundantly clear that she isn't...

[user104658]

https://youtu.be/IOf6ursZ0FA



Funny.

You can tell how uncomfortable she is about the entire line of debate and that's most likely not because it makes her angry that this is a question, it's not because she can't formulate an answer or a discussion point at least about it... it's because she's absolutely terrified that no matter how good her intentions are, she might "say the wrong thing" ... and that is absolutely huge. A serious, serious problem.

[Beso]

Indeed it is TS. Indeed it is.

[Crimson Dynamo]

you can tell how uncomfortable she is about the entire line of debate and that's most likely not because it makes her angry that this is a question, it's not because she can't formulate an answer or a discussion point at least about it... It's because she's absolutely terrified that no matter how good her intentions are, she might "say the wrong thing" ... And that is absolutely huge. A serious, serious problem.

hence you end up with men winning in womens sports

its like the emperors new clothes

[user104658]

hence you end up with men winning in womens sports

its like the emperors new clothes

I get people not understanding that there's such a big difference in physicality between biological males and females... asking for it to be considered and studied and looked into as a possibility... even trying to find further ways to genuinely make it a level playing field somehow if it's something they believe in. Each to their own on all of that, honestly, if it was possible then ... sure why not. If in 100 years (if we're not radioactive dust obvz) they develop nanites that can completely rebuild a human body and people want to switch genders and play sports, then :shrug: yes go for it.

What I don't understand and find utterly baffling is people actually seeing with their own eyes, individuals who are twice the size of every other competetor lifting twice the weight anyone else in the contest can over their head... outswimming the next fastest by a full length of a pool... causing serious injuries in combat and contact sports... and STILL say "this is fine there isn't a problem here".

But they do. They'll watch a 6'2, 250lb trans woman win an olympic gold, turn around and look you square in the eye, and say "no that person did not have an unfair advantage".

But they must know it isn't true. They simply MUST. Logically, it's undeniable. It's like having someone look you in the face and say "Hello there - I am either lying or stupid and I'm fine with everyone knowing that."

[Oliver_W]

I get people not understanding that there's such a big difference in physicality between biological males and females... asking for it to be considered and studied and looked into as a possibility... even trying to find further ways to genuinely make it a level playing field somehow if it's something they believe in. Each to their own on all of that, honestly, if it was possible then ... sure why not. If in 100 years (if we're not radioactive dust obvz) they develop nanites that can completely rebuild a human body and people want to switch genders and play sports, then :shrug: yes go for it.

What I don't understand and find utterly baffling is people actually seeing with their own eyes, individuals who are twice the size of every other competetor lifting twice the weight anyone else in the contest can over their head... outswimming the next fastest by a full length of a pool... causing serious injuries in combat and contact sports... and STILL say "this is fine there isn't a problem here".

But they do. They'll watch a 6'2, 250lb trans woman win an olympic gold, turn around and look you square in the eye, and say "no that person did not have an unfair advantage".

But they must know it isn't true. They simply MUST. Logically, it's undeniable. It's like having someone look you in the face and say "Hello there - I am either lying or stupid and I'm fine with everyone knowing that."
It's because they think transwomen are women. Pesky things like reality and physiological differences between the two sexes aren't as important as feelings...

Define 'vulnerable women'.
Vulnerable Adult Human Female :D

[The Slim Reaper]

I get people not understanding that there's such a big difference in physicality between biological males and females... asking for it to be considered and studied and looked into as a possibility... even trying to find further ways to genuinely make it a level playing field somehow if it's something they believe in. Each to their own on all of that, honestly, if it was possible then ... sure why not. If in 100 years (if we're not radioactive dust obvz) they develop nanites that can completely rebuild a human body and people want to switch genders and play sports, then :shrug: yes go for it.

What I don't understand and find utterly baffling is people actually seeing with their own eyes, individuals who are twice the size of every other competetor lifting twice the weight anyone else in the contest can over their head... outswimming the next fastest by a full length of a pool... causing serious injuries in combat and contact sports... and STILL say "this is fine there isn't a problem here".

But they do. They'll watch a 6'2, 250lb trans woman win an olympic gold, turn around and look you square in the eye, and say "no that person did not have an unfair advantage".

But they must know it isn't true. They simply MUST. Logically, it's undeniable. It's like having someone look you in the face and say "Hello there - I am either lying or stupid and I'm fine with everyone knowing that."

There is no way if someone was writing out homophobic slurs, that you would reply with the same sincerity you're treating the purposefully offensive slurs against the trans community. I don't disagree with what you've written here, by the way.

If folks were using arse bandit/dykes there would instantly be a price to pay, but call trans women blokes, and the they are treated as though they re making a well throughout response.

It's the completely uneven playing field that makes these debates so toxic imo.

[Niamh.]

There is no way if someone was writing out homophobic slurs, that you would reply with the same sincerity you're treating the purposefully offensive slurs against the trans community. I don't disagree with what you've written here, by the way.

If folks were using arse bandit/dykes there would instantly be a price to pay, but call trans women blokes, and the they are treated as though they re making a well throughout response.

It's the completely uneven playing field that makes these debates so toxic imo.

It isn't the same thing though Slim, "bloke" isn't a slur like the ones you've mentioned. transwomen are biologically men and transmen are biologically women, that is reality not a slur. I understand the want to be polite and respectful and to not want to hurt peoples feelings by pointing this out but it's gotten to a point where it needs to be pointed out when you've got people like Lia Thomas taking the absolute piss out of the actual female swimmers in their competitions. When you have men claiming to be transwomen in order to serve their sentences in female prisons, when you have flashers walking in to female only spa areas flashing their male genitals at women and little girls etc

[The Slim Reaper]

It isn't the same thing though Slim, "bloke" isn't a slur like the ones you've mentioned. transwomen are biologically men and transmen are biologically women, that is reality not a slur. I understand the want to be polite and respectful and to not want to hurt peoples feelings by pointing this out but it's gotten to a point where it needs to be pointed out when you've got people like Lia Thomas taking the absolute piss out of the actual female swimmers in their competitions. When you have men claiming to be transwomen in order to serve their sentences in female prisons, when you have flashers walking in to female only spa areas flashing their male genitals at women and little girls etc

There have been times when all of the slurs we now understand to be slurs, were not considered slurs.

If you're a transwoman, then it will absolutely be considered and more importantly, it will feel like a slur. Calling trans women blokes (as an example) is used only to belittle and minimise.

This is where sports and bathrooms become the dominant issue again. I agree with your points, but a few examples aren't representative for the experiences of the trans community. It just isn't. Like I said in my previous posts in this thread, there will be absolutely horrendous incidents that spring up from this new reality, and they will be indefensible even by the strongest trans advocates, in the same way that gay people can do horrendous things or us heteros can murder our families etc. It doesn't suddenly make every hetero husband a family annihilator.

There is a reason that this debate narrowly focusses on very limited issues, and that is because they have the widest appeal to generally good and right-minded people.

[arista]

https://youtu.be/IOf6ursZ0FA



Funny.


Yes GBnewsHD
has used this
showing how Crazy the Labour Party is.

[user104658]

There is no way if someone was writing out homophobic slurs, that you would reply with the same sincerity you're treating the purposefully offensive slurs against the trans community. I don't disagree with what you've written here, by the way.

If folks were using arse bandit/dykes there would instantly be a price to pay, but call trans women blokes, and the they are treated as though they re making a well throughout response.

It's the completely uneven playing field that makes these debates so toxic imo.

This has a slightly complex and I have to admit pretty murky answer to be honest. The first part of it is that ... it's TiBB so yes I probably overlook pointed comments that I wouldn't elsewhere.

The second is that I think the sports issue is incredibly shaky. There's money in it. There are lucrative scholarships in it. There are opportunities to attend top universities in the US that simply would not be available by any other means than through a sports promgramme. I'm aware that there are genuine trans people who, rightly or wrongly, just want to still be able to compete in a sport (with my stance being that it's not possible due to the biological advantage). However - because it's money, fame, success, opportunity - I am staight up 100% positive that a proportion of those purporting to be trans in order to succeed in a sport they were only middling at as a male, are not women by any definition, they're abusing the system and making a mockery of genuine trans people for personal gain. I don't even consider this a suspicion - I consider it to be an outright certainty.

And I think the people who say "lol no one would do that" don't understand the stakes involved/how far people will go for glory and recognition/human nature in general.

The same goes for the issue of women's prisons and "no one would pretend to be trans to get into a different jail". Yes they would. Either with nefarious intent or to avoid male prison. They just... ... would. There are already examples.

[Niamh.]

There have been times when all of the slurs we now understand to be slurs, were not considered slurs.

If you're a transwoman, then it will absolutely be considered and more importantly, it will feel like a slur. Calling trans women blokes (as an example) is used only to belittle and minimise.

This is where sports and bathrooms become the dominant issue again. I agree with your points, but a few examples aren't representative for the experiences of the trans community. It just isn't. Like I said in my previous posts in this thread, there will be absolutely horrendous incidents that spring up from this new reality, and they will be indefensible even by the strongest trans advocates, in the same way that gay people can do horrendous things or us heteros can murder our families etc. It doesn't suddenly make every hetero husband a family annihilator.

There is a reason that this debate narrowly focusses on very limited issues, and that is because they have the widest appeal to generally good and right-minded people.

The thing with not being allowed call transwomen men and considering that a slur means that you can never question a persons motive for saying they're trans, you have rapists being referred to as women which is wildly inappropriate and you end up with sex based statistics being skewed and meaningless

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10595897/Tory-police-chief-reprimanded-sharing-JK-Rowling-trans-tweet-three-men-complained.html

I'm sorry Slim but I can't agree that women and girls should give up safe guards that are already in law and were hard fought for a "new reality" and just accept that we women and girls are the acceptable collateral damage of this.

The debate focuses on the issues that will negatively effect women and girls because those are the issues we're concerned about.

As a side note, I do appreciate someone on the other "side" actually engaging in a proper debate about this, maybe if the whole thing started out this way we wouldn't be in the hostile positions we are in now towards each other (not you and I but in general)

[The Slim Reaper]

The thing with not being allowed call transwomen men and considering that a slur means that you can never question a persons motive for saying they're trans, you have rapists being referred to as women which is wildly inappropriate and you end up with sex based statistics being skewed and meaningless

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10595897/Tory-police-chief-reprimanded-sharing-JK-Rowling-trans-tweet-three-men-complained.html

I'm sorry Slim but I can't agree that women and girls should give up safe guards that are already in law and were hard fought for a "new reality" and just accept that we women and girls are the acceptable collateral damage of this.

The debate focuses on the issues that will negatively effect women and girls because those are the issues we're concerned about.

As a side note, I do appreciate someone on the other "side" actually engaging in a proper debate about this, maybe if the whole thing started out this way we wouldn't be in the hostile positions we are in now towards each other (not you and I but in general)

That's fair. I don't expect everyone to see everything in exactly the same way. I know you're coming from a genuine and good place, we just both think that the other has it a little wrong. Nothing terrible about that.

I do think there are a couple of discrepancies in the labelling of trans women (in particular) that we see on here as an example. The kind of person I'm referring to, isn't worried about having a discussion about the way to move forward and create a environment that both alleviates the fears of folks like you or Kizzy, and also of trans women. I can show that pretty definitively imo simply by pointing out that they're not even interested in using trans women as a descriptor, it's straight to the minimisation of men/blokes. That's how you know, and that's why I worry about having bigots as allies for women from both sides. From your perspective it should be clear that you're being used, and from my perspective, if bigots and women are teaming up, then it lays the ground for complete radicalisation against a minority group.

Ultimately, as humans with rights they deserve to be integrated into society without prejudice, so my only concern is how we go about that.

I appreciate your last paragraph too. From my own perspective, it's such a complex issue, that I've had to work out exactly where I stood on the matter before I could even begin to explain that to others, so I've always avoided these threads.

[The Slim Reaper]

This has a slightly complex and I have to admit pretty murky answer to be honest. The first part of it is that ... it's TiBB so yes I probably overlook pointed comments that I wouldn't elsewhere.

The second is that I think the sports issue is incredibly shaky. There's money in it. There are lucrative scholarships in it. There are opportunities to attend top universities in the US that simply would not be available by any other means than through a sports promgramme. I'm aware that there are genuine trans people who, rightly or wrongly, just want to still be able to compete in a sport (with my stance being that it's not possible due to the biological advantage). However - because it's money, fame, success, opportunity - I am staight up 100% positive that a proportion of those purporting to be trans in order to succeed in a sport they were only middling at as a male, are not women by any definition, they're abusing the system and making a mockery of genuine trans people for personal gain. I don't even consider this a suspicion - I consider it to be an outright certainty.

And I think the people who say "lol no one would do that" don't understand the stakes involved/how far people will go for glory and recognition/human nature in general.

The same goes for the issue of women's prisons and "no one would pretend to be trans to get into a different jail". Yes they would. Either with nefarious intent or to avoid male prison. They just... ... would. There are already examples.

Again, completely fair. There are folks (and I'm sure some of us know their kind IRL), that if any opportunity to benefit arises in whatever situation, they'll take it. Whether it's money/sex or anything else, so i don't doubt that these people exist. I'm not sure they exist to the degree it is assumed they might, but only time will tell.

My only point, was the ease and acceptance with which we treat anti-trans bigotry, versus all other kinds. I don't mean that you're the bigot here, either, let me just make that clear. It's pretty obvious you're coming from a place of discussion.

[Niamh.]

That's fair. I don't expect everyone to see everything in exactly the same way. I know you're coming from a genuine and good place, we just both think that the other has it a little wrong. Nothing terrible about that.

I do think there are a couple of discrepancies in the labelling of trans women (in particular) that we see on here as an example. The kind of person I'm referring to, isn't worried about having a discussion about the way to move forward and create a environment that both alleviates the fears of folks like you or Kizzy, and also of trans women. I can show that pretty definitively imo simply by pointing out that they're not even interested in using trans women as a descriptor, it's straight to the minimisation of men/blokes. That's how you know, and that's why I worry about having bigots as allies for women from both sides. From your perspective it should be clear that you're being used, and from my perspective, if bigots and women are teaming up, then it lays the ground for complete radicalisation against a minority group.

Ultimately, as humans with rights they deserve to be integrated into society without prejudice, so my only concern is how we go about that.

I appreciate your last paragraph too. From my own perspective, it's such a complex issue, that I've had to work out exactly where I stood on the matter before I could even begin to explain that to others, so I've always avoided these threads.

Re the bolded section :
It's an interesting point of view, I see how you could have come to that conclusion and I won't deny that there are absolutely people on my "side" who are speaking about this with different motivations, equally I could say to you that a lot of the people speaking out on this issue on your side (not even actual trans people themselves) are guiding and pushing things in a certain way because they are misogynists and want to silence and put women in their place, they want excuses to be able to threaten and insult women and still be seen as the good guys, I could say they're taking advantage of people's good nature and desire for inclusivity by comparing it to an issue with a bad past like the gay rights movement even though they're really completely different things and in actual fact contradict what the gay rights movement was actually for ie Same sex Attraction, it's now same "gender" attraction

[Oliver_W]

I don't really get why transpeople's delusions (for wa t of better word) get pandered to so much, especially when it comes at the expense of women's rights.

[Niamh.]

Again, completely fair. There are folks (and I'm sure some of us know their kind IRL), that if any opportunity to benefit arises in whatever situation, they'll take it. Whether it's money/sex or anything else, so i don't doubt that these people exist. I'm not sure they exist to the degree it is assumed they might, but only time will tell.

My only point, was the ease and acceptance with which we treat anti-trans bigotry, versus all other kinds. I don't mean that you're the bigot here, either, let me just make that clear. It's pretty obvious you're coming from a place of discussion.

weeeeeelllllll I think you'll find that women are a fair target here as well, there's quite a bit of misogynistic slurs that are fired around and celebrated when this topic is being discussed not to mention the threats are much more often directed at women who disagree with the "TRA" side

[LukeB]

1503115876551192576

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2022/03/14/09/55327999-10609231-image-a-155_1647249641752.jpg

:love:

Got me thinking how a lot of people who speak on women rights do not agree with JK Rowling and the ones who do agree with JK Rowling are men who are anti woke (even though they are obsessed with woke) and are anti trans/feminist

[Crimson Dynamo]

YUQ09RjRT84

[Niamh.]

:love:

Got me thinking how a lot of people who speak on women rights do not agree with JK Rowling and the ones who do agree with JK Rowling are men who are anti woke (even though they are obsessed with woke) and are anti trans/feminist

Plenty of people who speak on womens rights do agree with JK Rowling though :shrug:

[user104658]

I think there's a hair trigger tipping point on this issue because it's fought so intensely and that's where issues start to creep in, with people asking genuine questions being branded hateful, but also people with genuine gender dysphoria being branded disingenuous... It's an incredibly complex and nuanced topic even before you bring in the concept of gender non-binary (full disclosure; I firmly believe that gender non-binary describes 99.9% of the population and is thus almost entirely meaningless as a descriptor of identity, but that's another debate).

But yes I've seen a lot of people drawn from sincere, through frustrated, and into mocking, which is never great and also doesn't solve anything (it just cements views in place because defensiveness comes into it and people start defending illogical things that they don't even believe).

There are also "elephant in the room" issues such as unintended effect... For example the simple fact that a lot of trans and general gendered thinking (i.e. the behaviours and presentations that make a trans women "like a woman") very often veer into being offensive to women, and encompass offensive stereotypes. People need to be able to speak up about things like that without it being branded transphobic. The very statement that "I know I'm actually [insert category of people] because I'm X, Y, Z and those are traits of [that category of people]" is inherently offensive. That is always going to be a major sticking point.

[LukeB]

Plenty of people who speak on womens rights do agree with JK Rowling though :shrug:

But not enough but that doesn't take away it's mostly men that that agree with JK Rowling (who are pretending to care about womans rights because it's against 'woke' ) plus some women who are anti woke.

[Niamh.]

But not enough but that doesn't take away it's mostly men that that agree with JK Rowling (who are pretending to care about womans rights because it's against 'woke' ) plus some women who are anti woke.

It isn't mostly men, where have you gotten that idea from?

[glib]

I firmly believe that gender non-binary describes 99.9% of the population and is thus almost entirely meaningless as a descriptor of identity

Non binary means you’re neither male or female.

99.9% of the population are not non binary.

[Oliver_W]

Non binary means you’re neither male or female.

99.9% of the population are not non binary.

Well no, "non binary" people are still male or female, they just think they aren't.

[LukeB]

It isn't mostly men, where have you gotten that idea from?

It's what I see :shrug:

[Niamh.]

It's what I see :shrug:

It's certainly not what I see, not by a long shot

[The Slim Reaper]

Re the bolded section :
It's an interesting point of view, I see how you could have come to that conclusion and I won't deny that there are absolutely people on my "side" who are speaking about this with different motivations, equally I could say to you that a lot of the people speaking out on this issue on your side (not even actual trans people themselves) are guiding and pushing things in a certain way because they are misogynists and want to silence and put women in their place, they want excuses to be able to threaten and insult women and still be seen as the good guys, I could say they're taking advantage of people's good nature and desire for inclusivity by comparing it to an issue with a bad past like the gay rights movement even though they're really completely different things and in actual fact contradict what the gay rights movement was actually for ie Same sex Attraction, it's now same "gender" attraction

Absolutely it exists. I saw some YT'er the other day who regularly pops up on my recommended list (I think it's because he's a communist :joker: ) have a video titled something like "Why I used sexism to defeat JK Rowling" and I just thought "No. Dont do that"

Generally, I think you'd have a hard time making a blanket argument that the kind of people fighting for trans rights, would be the kind of people likely to be anti-women or misogynistic in general though, especially as they're the kind of people to be fighting for women's rights if the situations were reversed.

To use all encompassing and facile language to make a point which I know isn't representative of everyone, it has always been the kind of people you believe might be your allies currently, that have historically mocked and derided feminists and feminism. It's opportunism.

I think the issue with the left on this particular issue, is that they are so committed to the human rights of everyone (and rightly so), that as a collective, bulldozing through someone else's fears, rights, and concerns hasn't really hit home, so I don't necessarily agree that it's a misogyny problem (although as above, for some people - yes), I think it's viewed as a rather uncomplicated human rights issue. Which i also have sympathies with, just without the "uncomplicated" part.

[Niamh.]

Non binary means you’re neither male or female.

99.9% of the population are not non binary.

What he means is very few people follow stereo-typically gendered roles/likes/dislikes 100% and are usually some kind of a mix of masculine and feminine

[user104658]

:love:



Got me thinking how a lot of people who speak on women rights do not agree with JK Rowling and the ones who do agree with JK Rowling are men who are anti woke (even though they are obsessed with woke) and are anti trans/feminist

There are a large number of feminist philosophers who have been writing about gender and feminism for decades who (loosely) agree with JK Rowling. I will at this point point out that Emma Watson is a young lady with no qualification at all in sociology, politics or psychology and who has written nothing on any of these topics. I'm not saying there aren't academics who disagree with JK Rowling. I am saying that you're wrong in assuming that this is a partisan political issue. It demonstrably is not, and where it is, that's because of lines drawn in the sands of tribalism and not the content of the debate itself. You're seeing conservatives (small c) jumping on the bandwagon for their own reasons and assuming that their views are part of the academic gender-identity debate.

In short though... Just because you haven't done much reading on a topic, you shouldn't assume that your initial perception of a divide is correct.

[user104658]

But not enough but that doesn't take away it's mostly men that that agree with JK Rowling (who are pretending to care about womans rights because it's against 'woke' ) plus some women who are anti woke.It's mostly women (by a massive margin) and they come from both sides of the usual political divide. I don't know that there's anything to debate here. You've just got the facts wrong.

[The Slim Reaper]

weeeeeelllllll I think you'll find that women are a fair target here as well, there's quite a bit of misogynistic slurs that are fired around and celebrated when this topic is being discussed not to mention the threats are much more often directed at women who disagree with the "TRA" side

From my own POV, I've always seen blatant misogyny pulled up on here (as I have pulled others up, too), and these are now the people that are aligned with your positions. But i agree about women as targets on here, definitely.

[user104658]

From my own POV, I've always seen blatant misogyny pulled up on here (as I have pulled others up, too), and these are now the people that are aligned with your positions. But i agree about women as targets on here, definitely.I think (really quite sadly, actually) there's been a fair amount of misogyny around this topic from people who I'd never seen any hint of it from before. Again to an extent there's the element of defensiveness and it being a "raw nerve" issue for a lot of people, but it's there and quite clear.

If you brave other areas of social media it gets even more bizarre as you have people declaring themselves feminists on their profile whilst at the same time openly attacking women. Then of course you have the bands of gammon who inexplicably declare themselves trans rights advocates and use it as the "acceptable stick" with which to beat down women who they happen to have completely unrelated issues with. They don't give a stuff about LGBT rights.

[Niamh.]

Absolutely it exists. I saw some YT'er the other day who regularly pops up on my recommended list (I think it's because he's a communist :joker: ) have a video titled something like "Why I used sexism to defeat JK Rowling" and I just thought "No. Dont do that"

Generally, I think you'd have a hard time making a blanket argument that the kind of people fighting for trans rights, would be the kind of people likely to be anti-women or misogynistic in general though, especially as they're the kind of people to be fighting for women's rights if the situations were reversed.

To use all encompassing and facile language to make a point which I know isn't representative of everyone, it has always been the kind of people you believe might be your allies currently, that have historically mocked and derided feminists and feminism. It's opportunism.

I think the issue with the left on this particular issue, is that they are so committed to the human rights of everyone (and rightly so), that as a collective, bulldozing through someone else's fears, rights, and concerns hasn't really hit home, so I don't necessarily agree that it's a misogyny problem (although as above, for some people - yes), I think it's viewed as a rather uncomplicated human rights issue. Which i also have sympathies with, just without the "uncomplicated" part.

I take all your points, I'll just comment on this part here :

Generally, I think you'd have a hard time making a blanket argument that the kind of people fighting for trans rights, would be the kind of people likely to be anti-women or misogynistic in general though, especially as they're the kind of people to be fighting for women's rights if the situations were reversed.

Agree totally however I'm not sure I remember a situation where 2 groups of people's rights have been in such direct conflict with each other before. It feels like this topic has torn people a part who would previously have always been on the same "side" that in itself should show that maybe it's not just a simple black/white, you're mean and we're not type of a topic

[Alf]

Do people ever have fun anymore?

[Niamh.]

From my own POV, I've always seen blatant misogyny pulled up on here (as I have pulled others up, too), and these are now the people that are aligned with your positions. But i agree about women as targets on here, definitely.

I wasn't even thinking about on TiBB actually I meant in the wider debate, twitter etc

[glib]

Do people ever have fun anymore?

Lol

[The Slim Reaper]

I think (really quite sadly, actually) there's been a fair amount of misogyny around this topic from people who I'd never seen any hint of it from before. Again to an extent there's the element of defensiveness and it being a "raw nerve" issue for a lot of people, but it's there and quite clear.

If you brave other areas of social media it gets even more bizarre as you have people declaring themselves feminists on their profile whilst at the same time openly attacking women. Then of course you have the bands of gammon who inexplicably declare themselves trans rights advocates and use it as the "acceptable stick" with which to beat down women who they happen to have completely unrelated issues with. They don't give a stuff about LGBT rights.

I've had a migraine issue for the last few months, so my internet usage has been way more limited and intermittent than usual. I guess I've probably just missed a load of it.

[The Slim Reaper]

I wasn't even thinking about on TiBB actually I meant in the wider debate, twitter etc

Apologies. I initially read the bit where you said "here as well" as "on here as well."

[Beso]

It's still ok to drag a gammon whenever anyone feels like it though.

[Oliver_W]

Generally, I think you'd have a hard time making a blanket argument that the kind of people fighting for trans rights, would be the kind of people likely to be anti-women or misogynistic in general though, especially as they're the kind of people to be fighting for women's rights if the situations were reversed.
Thing is though trans rights and women's rights are in conflict, in some cases - transwomen using women's spaces directly contradicts the right to woman-only spaces.

[The Slim Reaper]

I take all your points, I'll just comment on this part here :

Generally, I think you'd have a hard time making a blanket argument that the kind of people fighting for trans rights, would be the kind of people likely to be anti-women or misogynistic in general though, especially as they're the kind of people to be fighting for women's rights if the situations were reversed.

Agree totally however I'm not sure I remember a situation where 2 groups of people's rights have been in such direct conflict with each other before. It feels like this topic has torn people a part who would previously have always been on the same "side" that in itself should show that maybe it's not just a simple black/white, you're mean and we're not type of a topic

I think the purposeful intent to direct this debate into very limited areas (as I've already gone on about) is the cause of this. As an example, the US is currently in the middle of pretty much banning abortion, which is the height of being anti-woman. A move that was set in place by Trump nominating anti-abortion judges to the supreme court. Then he's at a rally the other night saying he will ban trans competitors from women's sports. Now - in what world does this make any sense?

Both women and trans rights activists are being played by the same people, and rather than coming together to work it through, walls have been built and no one is being heard. I do think that women will have to concede ground, but I think it could and should have been through consultation rather than demands.

[The Slim Reaper]

It's still ok to drag a gammon whenever anyone feels like it though.

https://i.imgur.com/qWCDlvrh.jpg

[arista]

I've had a migraine issue for the last few months, so my internet usage has been way more limited and intermittent than usual. I guess I've probably just missed a load of it.


Furthermore, I hope That Clears

Good Real Music can relax you.

[The Slim Reaper]

Furthermore, I hope That Clears

Good Real Music can relax you.

https://media3.giphy.com/media/3ohjUU04Js6d8dXoXu/200w.gif?cid=82a1493bgi7i0iuuau418us8rivrkw67qvvjn hn3xxey2ph9&rid=200w.gif&ct=g

[Beso]

https://i.imgur.com/qWCDlvrh.jpg

That's not the point.

The pint is, everyone should be attained the same level of courtesy as the next person.

It's silly to debate these issues whilst using slurs to describe other groups of people.

[user104658]

That's not the point.

The pint is, everyone should be attained the same level of courtesy as the next person.

It's silly to debate these issues whilst using slurs to describe other groups of people.

But what group is being described with the term "Gammon"? I know people like to disingenuously pretend it's all middle-aged white men but that's plainly not true.

[The Slim Reaper]

That's not the point.

The pint is, everyone should be attained the same level of courtesy as the next person.

It's silly to debate these issues whilst using slurs to describe other groups of people.


Until middle-aged white dudes get the justice that history has denied them, then no one should be able to talk about the rights of others.


Gammon comes from a dickens quote using ham as a describer for the nonsense being spoken, it isn't even racial. That's just been tagged on to claim victimhood, and as it fit quite nicely, it managed to stick.

[Niamh.]

I think the purposeful intent to direct this debate into very limited areas (as I've already gone on about) is the cause of this. As an example, the US is currently in the middle of pretty much banning abortion, which is the height of being anti-woman. A move that was set in place by Trump nominating anti-abortion judges to the supreme court. Then he's at a rally the other night saying he will ban trans competitors from women's sports. Now - in what world does this make any sense?

Both women and trans rights activists are being played by the same people, and rather than coming together to work it through, walls have been built and no one is being heard. I do think that women will have to concede ground, but I think it could and should have been through consultation rather than demands.

mmmm well, women never had much of an issue (generally speaking) until the "rules" around what a woman is or can be became so wide that the word is almost meaningless which then pushes the door wide open for any opportunist to walk through. This is what the problem actually is, not that genuine transwomen can use the women's bathrooms, that has been happening for many many years and no one really had any big issue with it, making "trans" such a huge umbrella term not only allows people to abuse the system, it prevents women from complaining about people abusing it

[Alf]

Until middle-aged white dudes get the justice that history has denied them, then no one should be able to talk about the rights of others.


Gammon comes from a dickens quote using ham as a describer for the nonsense being spoken, it isn't even racial. That's just been tagged on to claim victimhood, and as it fit quite nicely, it managed to stick.Humbug also comes from a Dickens quote. It means "Bollocks"

[The Slim Reaper]

Humbug also comes from a Dickrns quote. It means "Bollocks"

Stop oppressing me with dickens quotes :laugh:

[Crimson Dynamo]

Until middle-aged white dudes get the justice that history has denied them, then no one should be able to talk about the rights of others.


Gammon comes from a dickens quote using ham as a describer for the nonsense being spoken, it isn't even racial. That's just been tagged on to claim victimhood, and as it fit quite nicely, it managed to stick.

incorrect

when Dickens and Bronte used it it was "gammon and spinach" and it was used to indicate humbug, a ridiculous story, deceitful talk.

Gammon is a pejorative popularised in British political culture since around 2012. The term refers in particular to the colour of a person's flushed face when expressing their strong opinions, as compared to the type of pork of the same name. It is defined in this context by the Oxford English Dictionary as "various parasynthetic adjectives referring to particularly reddish or florid complexions" (wiki)

In 2012, Caitlin Moran wrote that British Prime Minister David Cameron resembled "a slightly camp gammon robot" and "a C3PO made of ham" in her book Moranthology.

In 2015, Ruby Tandoh called Great British Bake Off judge Paul Hollywood a "walking gammon joint".

In 2017, children's author Ben Davis tweeted a picture of nine members of a BBC Question Time audience and referred to them as "the Great Wall of Gammon", leading to the term becoming popularised, particularly on social media.
(wiki)

[The Slim Reaper]

incorrect

when Dickens and Bronte used it it was "gammon and spinach" and it was used to indicate humbug, a ridiculous story, deceitful talk.

Gammon is a pejorative popularised in British political culture since around 2012. The term refers in particular to the colour of a person's flushed face when expressing their strong opinions, as compared to the type of pork of the same name. It is defined in this context by the Oxford English Dictionary as "various parasynthetic adjectives referring to particularly reddish or florid complexions" (wiki)

In 2012, Caitlin Moran wrote that British Prime Minister David Cameron resembled "a slightly camp gammon robot" and "a C3PO made of ham" in her book Moranthology.

In 2015, Ruby Tandoh called Great British Bake Off judge Paul Hollywood a "walking gammon joint".

In 2017, children's author Ben Davis tweeted a picture of nine members of a BBC Question Time audience and referred to them as "the Great Wall of Gammon", leading to the term becoming popularised, particularly on social media.
(wiki)

We've had this discussion before. I provided you a source, you cried about the source, so I provided you an article in the spectator and you disappeared.

[The Slim Reaper]

If you want to create a gammon thread, I'm sure a mod will move the last few posts over, and this thread can be kept for it's original purpose rather than it being derailed.

[Crimson Dynamo]

We've had this discussion before. I provided you a source, you cried about the source, so I provided you an article in the spectator and you disappeared.

yes this one: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/gammon

and again it illustrates you are incorrect

[Kizzy]

It's still ok to drag a gammon whenever anyone feels like it though.

Are you offended... Do you identify as gammon?

[Swan]

All this Gammon talk is making me hungry!

[The Slim Reaper]

yes this one: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/gammon

and again it illustrates you are incorrect

You used quotes from an author before the term was in in common parlance, a food blogger (who was about to come out at the time whilst being sexually linked to Hollywood by the media), and a childrens author, none of which actually proves anything, especially as gammon really came into use around 2016-17.

What about the time that HIGNFY used a large piece of ham as a stand in for a politician in the 90's? Was that racial, too?

[Crimson Dynamo]

You used quotes from an author before the term was in in common parlance, a food blogger (who was about to come out at the time whilst being sexually linked to Hollywood by the media), and a childrens author, none of which actually proves anything, especially as gammon really came into use around 2016-17.

What about the time that HIGNFY used a large piece of ham as a stand in for a politician in the 90's? Was that racial, too?

Not sure why you are asking me about if it is racial. I just pointed out you posted incorrect information.

[The Slim Reaper]

Not sure why you are asking me about if it is racial. I just pointed out you posted incorrect information.

You pointed it out, but it wasn't incorrect.

Sorry, but thanks for playing the hits.

[Oliver_W]

I do think that women will have to concede ground, but I think it could and should have been through consultation rather than demands.

Yeah I think they will end up having to, but why should they? Why should women lose their rights?

[Beso]

Are you offended... Do you identify as gammon?

I'm a middle aged white man, but I dont get ruddy faced. So no.

[Beso]

Kier starmer is a gammon though.

Ita why he uses concealer

[Cherie]

Yeah I think they will end up having to, but why should they? Why should women lose their rights?

Would the LGBT community give up any of their hard fought rights?

[Oliver_W]

Would the LGBT community give up any of their hard fought rights?

Is allowing transwomen into women's spaces a "hard fought right" ? Nah it's something they just took.

[Cherie]

Is allowing transwomen into women's spaces a "hard fought right" ? Nah it's something they just took.

Think you missed my point Oliver, it seems everyone is expecting women to move on this, but would the The LGBT community move on any rights that they have won ...not a chance ...so how can that be fair particularly when it will make women even less safe than they are now, it seems the untimely death or attack on even the tiniest percentage of women is deemed an acceptable price to pay in some people’s minds

[user104658]

Is allowing transwomen into women's spaces a "hard fought right" ? Nah it's something they just took.

I think Cherie was agreeing with you and you've attacked her viciously :worry:.

I think the point is right though, the LGBT community do have rights that were long fought for, and I can't imagine for a second that they'd willingly give up those rights to "make room" for a new group, nor should they be expected to. I think part of the problem is that women are being viewed as a "privileged group" being asked to give up long-held ground, and not a group that only made any real progress of their own a few short decades before gay rights.

[Oliver_W]

Think you missed my point Oliver, it seems everyone is expecting women to move on this, but would the The LGBT community move on any rights that they have won ...not a chance ...so how can that be fair particularly when it will make women even less safe than they are now, it seems the untimely death or attack on even the tiniest percentage of women is deemed an acceptable price to pay in some people’s minds

I think Cherie was agreeing with you and you've attacked her viciously :worry:.

I think the point is right though, the LGBT community do have rights that were long fought for, and I can't imagine for a second that they'd willingly give up those rights to "make room" for a new group, nor should they be expected to. I think part of the problem is that women are being viewed as a "privileged group" being asked to give up long-held ground, and not a group that only made any real progress of their own a few short decades before gay rights.
Oops :joker: sorry Cherie!!

[user104658]

Think you missed my point Oliver, it seems everyone is expecting women to move on this, but would the The LGBT community move on any rights that they have won ...not a chance ...so how can that be fair particularly when it will make women even less safe than they are now, it seems the untimely death or attack on even the tiniest percentage of women is deemed an acceptable price to pay in some people’s minds

I was thinking this yesterday actually when someone pointed out that the people in the LGBT community who are heavily advocating for a lot of the things that women are worried about would usually consider themselves feminist and be completely pro women's rights in other contexts - which I think is (broadly) the case ... but I think the elephant in the room is that there is a clear heirarchy and I'm just going to be entirely blunt about what that hierarchy seems to look like for gay men (who again being blunt, are actually some of the most aggressively vocal on this topic);

1. Gay men
2. New gender ideology
3. "Old fashioned" Trans community
4. Gay women
5. Straight women


It's not that they won't fight for any one of these groups in a wider socialogical context BUT when issues facing these categories butt up against each other, this is the order of priority they're given. In my experience.

[Cherie]

I think Cherie was agreeing with you and you've attacked her viciously :worry:.

I think the point is right though, the LGBT community do have rights that were long fought for, and I can't imagine for a second that they'd willingly give up those rights to "make room" for a new group, nor should they be expected to. I think part of the problem is that women are being viewed as a "privileged group" being asked to give up long-held ground, and not a group that only made any real progress of their own a few short decades before gay rights.

Viciously :fist:

[Cherie]

Oops :joker: sorry Cherie!!

No worries :laugh:

[Oliver_W]

I was thinking this yesterday actually when someone pointed out that the people in the LGBT community who are heavily advocating for a lot of the things that women are worried about would usually consider themselves feminist and be completely pro women's rights in other contexts - which I think is (broadly) the case ... but I think the elephant in the room is that there is a clear heirarchy and I'm just going to be entirely blunt about what that hierarchy seems to look like for gay men (who again being blunt, are actually some of the most aggressively vocal on this topic);

1. Gay men
2. New gender ideology
3. "Old fashioned" Trans community
4. Gay women
5. Straight women.

It'd be interesting to see the "mechanics" behind the thought processes here.

Like in some cases, they think transwomen literally are women, so of course they'd be included in feminism. And having been raised male, of course transwomen are more oppressed than the women who were raised female! That's how intersectionality works, right?
So looking at the world through the filter of "transwomen are women", then discounting them is probably seen as akin to racism - I'd think (hope!) we'd all object to black or Asian women being told they can't compete against other women.
So if your perspective is that a woman is being denied rights based on her biology, it's understandable why it would be so vehemently objected to.

I think some gay guys feel like transwomen are "owed" something, due to the Stonewall Riots narrative - a drag queen was credited with throwing the apocryphal (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/31/us/first-brick-at-stonewall-lgbtq.html) first brick. Therefore, now gays are all but fully accepted in society, it's "our turn" to help elevate those are seen to have gotten us here.
That's understandable on a surface level, but that elevation should be trying to get society to the point where transwomen aren't abused in the streets or get fired for being trans ... Not taking the rights away from women.

Don't some MGTOW types (/pretend to) support trans rights because it helps give male people another card to hold over women?

butt up against each other
:hehe:

[Niamh.]

This is a pretty good article, it's not really about the debate itself and who is right or wrong but more the motivation behind why JK Rowling and other women (and men but it's mostly women who get the backlash) speak out about it

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/JK-Rowling-trans?fbclid=IwAR3MTTkVogF19gX0l_cAgsuD-8sH2YrkX9DSwxSgrBWjKpSbi314Ii1CzvA

[Oliver_W]

This is a pretty good article, it's not really about the debate itself and who is right or wrong but more the motivation behind why JK Rowling and other women (and men but it's mostly women who get the backlash) speak out about it

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/JK-Rowling-trans?fbclid=IwAR3MTTkVogF19gX0l_cAgsuD-8sH2YrkX9DSwxSgrBWjKpSbi314Ii1CzvA

Rowling’s Razor
Which of these is more likely?
1) A person who is otherwise socially liberal and tolerant has taken a position on sex and gender that is driven by prejudice and hatred.
2) That person has some concerns about how changes in sex and gender law could have consequences for women and girls.

Nice!

[Cherie]

Rowling’s Razor
Which of these is more likely?
1) A person who is otherwise socially liberal and tolerant has taken a position on sex and gender that is driven by prejudice and hatred.
2) That person has some concerns about how changes in sex and gender law could have consequences for women and girls.

Nice!

Nicked it for my sig

[user104658]

This is a pretty good article, it's not really about the debate itself and who is right or wrong but more the motivation behind why JK Rowling and other women (and men but it's mostly women who get the backlash) speak out about it

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/JK-Rowling-trans?fbclid=IwAR3MTTkVogF19gX0l_cAgsuD-8sH2YrkX9DSwxSgrBWjKpSbi314Ii1CzvA

I feel that there's something fundamental that he's not quite caught though, maybe because of not being aware enough of the current state of identity politics and political tribalism (two things that go hand in hand). He's presenting a reasonable and rational choice between two things but he hasn't realised that to the people who see hatred, they are not separate at all.

He asks;

Rowling’s Razor
Which of these is more likely?

1. A person who is otherwise socially liberal and tolerant has taken a position on sex and gender that is driven by prejudice and hatred.

2. That person has some concerns about how changes in sex and gender law could have consequences for women and girls.


What he's missed is that to the most vocal people on this topic, these are not separate positions. Their answer would be;

3. She believes that there are concerns about how changes in sex and gender law could have consequences for women and girls, and that is inherently a position of prejudice and hatred.


So for the most embroiled in the debate the distinction isn't necessary... the suggestions are not paradoxical to them. #2 being true makes #1 also true.

To further complicate matters, I have seen the anger and frustration experienced by many who fall under #2 lead them to state or repeat things that I personally wouldn't say are rooted in hatred, but certainly in prejudice and anger. Expecting otherwise is to overlook one of the basics of human nature, though.

[Niamh.]

I feel that there's something fundamental that he's not quite caught though, maybe because of not being aware enough of the current state of identity politics and political tribalism (two things that go hand in hand). He's presenting a reasonable and rational choice between two things but he hasn't realised that to the people who see hatred, they are not separate at all.

He asks;

Rowling’s Razor
Which of these is more likely?

1. A person who is otherwise socially liberal and tolerant has taken a position on sex and gender that is driven by prejudice and hatred.

2. That person has some concerns about how changes in sex and gender law could have consequences for women and girls.


What he's missed is that to the most vocal people on this topic, these are not separate positions. Their answer would be;

3. She believes that there are concerns about how changes in sex and gender law could have consequences for women and girls, and that is inherently a position of prejudice and hatred.


So for the most embroiled in the debate the distinction isn't necessary... the suggestions are not paradoxical to them. #2 being true makes #1 also true.

To further complicate matters, I have seen the anger and frustration experienced by many who fall under #2 lead them to state or repeat things that I personally wouldn't say are rooted in hatred, but certainly in prejudice and anger. Expecting otherwise is to overlook one of the basics of human nature, though.

Just regarding your last paragraph, yeah definitely seen that too, I see a lot of women who started out trying to be as polite as possible and really trying to tiptoe around and not hurt people's feelings while at the same time trying to be heard but being met for the most part with anger and vitriol and threats and insults and those women gradually start to care less about hurting feelings because that isn't getting them anywhere and they're already being called TERFs and Bigots and all the names anyway so they may as well just start being blunt and really saying No. It's unfortunate, it's really sad actually how this whole thing is playing out

[Oliver_W]

All this talk of bigots makes no sense, I ain't no French bread :fist:

As for TERFs, JK isn't a lawn has never really came off as a radical feminist, just a normie "yeah of course women should have rights" type.

[Liam-]

Sorry, don’t buy the whole ‘prejudice through anger’ scenario at all, that’s the excuse racists use when they’re caught being racist ‘oh, I was angry and caught up in the moment, it slipped out I swear’ if you say something bigoted ‘through anger’ then sorry, it’s a general thought process you have, things like that don’t just come from nowhere as a reaction

[Niamh.]

Sorry, don’t buy the whole ‘prejudice through anger’ scenario at all, that’s the excuse racists use when they’re caught being racist ‘oh, I was angry and caught up in the moment, it slipped out I swear’ if you say something bigoted ‘through anger’ then sorry, it’s a general thought process you have, things like that don’t just come from nowhere as a reaction

That's not exactly what I was saying (though maybe you were replying to TS?) My point was I've seen people be less polite and more blunt when making their points. I'm not excusing unnecessary slurs etc

[user104658]

Sorry, don’t buy the whole ‘prejudice through anger’ scenario at all, that’s the excuse racists use when they’re caught being racist ‘oh, I was angry and caught up in the moment, it slipped out I swear’ if you say something bigoted ‘through anger’ then sorry, it’s a general thought process you have, things like that don’t just come from nowhere as a reaction

Prejudice (pre-judgement) is a noun, not an adjective. Of course prejudice is borne of anger and fear? Where else are you arguing it comes from? It's not an excuse it's just basic psychology. I didn't say "the prejudice is coming from a place of fear, anger and frustration so that makes it OK" - the whole point, what makes one "civilised", is the ability to self-reflect and try hard NOT to let anger and frustration result in prejudice.

If you're telling me you know anyone who exists entirely without prejudice though ... well I just won't believe you because it doesn't exist. Or it's Jesus and he's real after all.

[Niamh.]

And to add I've seen PLENTY of prejudice in the form of misogyny come out on the opposite side. The main slur used against women in this is dripping with it

[user104658]

And to add I've seen PLENTY of prejudice in the form of misogyny come out on the opposite side. The main slur used against women in this is dripping with it

Well exactly, and if you peel back the layers it's of course coming from the same places - anger and fear. Again it's not an excuse... it doesn't make someone right... it's just a fact.

[Oliver_W]

Sorry, don’t buy the whole ‘prejudice through anger’ scenario at all, that’s the excuse racists use when they’re caught being racist ‘oh, I was angry and caught up in the moment, it slipped out I swear’ if you say something bigoted ‘through anger’ then sorry, it’s a general thought process you have, things like that don’t just come from nowhere as a reaction
That makes it sound like you're just assuming that any objection to transwomen in women's spaces comes from a place of prejudice. Wanting to preserve women's rights is not prejudiced.

[Kizzy]

The sticking point for most women are not transitioned females. It's ' self identifying' people.
The idea any man can wake up and say I'm a woman today.. and expect to welcomed into women only spaces.

[Kizzy]

Sorry, don’t buy the whole ‘prejudice through anger’ scenario at all, that’s the excuse racists use when they’re caught being racist ‘oh, I was angry and caught up in the moment, it slipped out I swear’ if you say something bigoted ‘through anger’ then sorry, it’s a general thought process you have, things like that don’t just come from nowhere as a reaction

Unconscious bias? ...

Sometimes I think that some young people have this when it comes to women especially women say over 30, the Karen.
No matter how valid the argument, one OK Karen! And the debate dissolves.

[Ninastar]

I was thinking this yesterday actually when someone pointed out that the people in the LGBT community who are heavily advocating for a lot of the things that women are worried about would usually consider themselves feminist and be completely pro women's rights in other contexts - which I think is (broadly) the case ... but I think the elephant in the room is that there is a clear heirarchy and I'm just going to be entirely blunt about what that hierarchy seems to look like for gay men (who again being blunt, are actually some of the most aggressively vocal on this topic);

1. Gay men
2. New gender ideology
3. "Old fashioned" Trans community
4. Gay women
5. Straight women


It's not that they won't fight for any one of these groups in a wider socialogical context BUT when issues facing these categories butt up against each other, this is the order of priority they're given. In my experience.

Out of all the posts here, I think this is the most accurate

[Alf]

This person has just won USA Today woman of the year. True story.


1503748453255499780

[Crimson Dynamo]

https://komonews.com/resources/media/fcbcb1dc-c08d-49ec-932b-e1324c5f984e-large16x9_AP21019374026055.jpg?1647367194891

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">During the pandemic, Rachel Levine evacuated her own mother from a nursing home all while sending thousands of PA seniors to their deaths by forcing them to languish there.<br>Sit this one out. <a href="https://t.co/yylTZrNDEo">https://t.co/yylTZrNDEo</a></p>&mdash; Sean Parnell (@SeanParnellUSA) <a href="https://twitter.com/SeanParnellUSA/status/1503504689580716037?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 14, 2022</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Levine reportedly oversaw the implementation of guidance requiring Pennsylvania nursing homes to accept COVID-positive patients discharged from the hospital – a move critics argue directly contributed to the more than 13,200 nursing home coronavirus deaths in the state.

“Our secretary of health, Dr. Levine, decided that it would be good to allow COVID-positive patients to be returned to elder-care facilities. And as a result of that, it broke out like fire,” said Republican state Sen. Doug Mastriano, according to TribLive.com. Not long after implementing this statewide guidance, Levine reportedly removed her mother from a personal care facility.

[Kizzy]

This person has just won USA Today woman of the year. True story.


1503748453255499780

She is a government official first so that's possibly one reason.
I know I raisled this earlier but credit where it is due I thought. Let's have a look ... this is the person responsible for allowing covid positive patients released from hospital back into residential care homes... she also removed her own mother from a residential care home.


So yeah...woman of the year :/

[Alf]

All that progress over the years that women have made. Getting the vote, better wages, obtaining positions of power and responsibility. And men are winning their awards now.

A kick in the face to women.

You should fight back.

[glib]

https://komonews.com/resources/media/fcbcb1dc-c08d-49ec-932b-e1324c5f984e-large16x9_AP21019374026055.jpg?1647367194891

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">During the pandemic, Rachel Levine evacuated her own mother from a nursing home all while sending thousands of PA seniors to their deaths by forcing them to languish there.<br>Sit this one out. <a href="https://t.co/yylTZrNDEo">https://t.co/yylTZrNDEo</a></p>&mdash; Sean Parnell (@SeanParnellUSA) <a href="https://twitter.com/SeanParnellUSA/status/1503504689580716037?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 14, 2022</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Levine reportedly oversaw the implementation of guidance requiring Pennsylvania nursing homes to accept COVID-positive patients discharged from the hospital – a move critics argue directly contributed to the more than 13,200 nursing home coronavirus deaths in the state.

“Our secretary of health, Dr. Levine, decided that it would be good to allow COVID-positive patients to be returned to elder-care facilities. And as a result of that, it broke out like fire,” said Republican state Sen. Doug Mastriano, according to TribLive.com. Not long after implementing this statewide guidance, Levine reportedly removed her mother from a personal care facility.

No Donald Trump article? Or is that because he’s a friend of Farage

Wrong thread for covid news

[Cherie]

Has a transman made Man of the year yet?

[Cherie]

She is a government official first so that's possibly one reason.
I know I raisled this earlier but credit where it is due I thought. Let's have a look ... this is the person responsible for allowing covid positive patients released from hospital back into residential care homes... she also removed her own mother from a residential care home.


So yeah...woman of the year :/

Matty Hancock should receive a Knighthood in that case

[glib]

This person has just won USA Today woman of the year. True story.


1503748453255499780

Reminds me of Edna Evrage

Why didn’t Kamala Harris win

This person has only been selected to make a political statement

[Niamh.]

Has a transman made Man of the year yet?

as if

[Liam-]

The GQ ‘men of the year‘ awards last year had two women awarded for their efforts on the oxford Covid vaccine, no issues with that? Or is it just certain minorities getting certain awards that ticks you off? In fact, multiple women were given awards for that last year, also including Vivienne Westwood

[Niamh.]

The GQ ‘men of the year‘ awards last year had two women awarded for their efforts on the oxford Covid vaccine, no issues with that? Or is it just certain minorities getting certain awards that ticks you off? In fact, multiple women were given awards for that last year, also including Vivienne Westwood

Why were women given a man of the year award?

[Alf]

Why were women given a man of the year award?I think it's all done to put the people into a state of confusion.

[Oliver_W]

Just goes to show GQ needs to also have a Woman of the Year.

[user104658]

The GQ ‘men of the year‘ awards last year had two women awarded for their efforts on the oxford Covid vaccine, no issues with that? Or is it just certain minorities getting certain awards that ticks you off? In fact, multiple women were given awards for that last year, also including Vivienne Westwood

You're missing the point a little there I think. If a trans woman had done something truly deserving of the award then I think far fewer people would take issue with it. I won't say "no one" as we all know there'll always be people to take issue with ... pretty much anything.

But here you have someone who a little digging shows has been involved in some seriously questionable decisionmaking, and hypocrisy... yet has been given the award. At which point you have to ask why - when there are doubtless many other suitable candidates. It's not particularly out there to wonder - did they decide that they wanted a trans woman to win it in the first instance, and THEN try to find their winner? If so I suppose it comes down to your stance on positive discrimination (or "virtue signalling", some would say).

[Alf]

You're missing the point a little there I think. If a trans woman had done something truly deserving of the award then I think far fewer people would take issue with it. I won't say "no one" as we all know there'll always be people to take issue with ... pretty much anything.

But here you have someone who a little digging shows has been involved in some seriously questionable decisionmaking, and hypocrisy... yet has been given the award. At which point you have to ask why - when there are doubtless many other suitable candidates. It's not particularly out there to wonder - did they decide that they wanted a trans woman to win it in the first instance, and THEN try to find their winner? If so I suppose it comes down to your stance on positive discrimination (or "virtue signalling", some would say).Not guilty your honour.

[Crimson Dynamo]

The GQ ‘men of the year‘ awards last year had two women awarded for their efforts on the oxford Covid vaccine, no issues with that? Or is it just certain minorities getting certain awards that ticks you off? In fact, multiple women were given awards for that last year, also including Vivienne Westwood

Gq is read by 3 teenage boys and 6 championship players

And noone else

[Elliot]

She needs to take her medication clearly

[user104658]

She needs to take her medication clearly

What's that supposed to mean?

[Oliver_W]

What's that supposed to mean?

Seeing women and transwomen as not 100% the same is a sign of insanity, and needs to be treated with medication.

[Crimson Dynamo]

What's that supposed to mean?

he, is mocking her mental health

quite oblivious to how that frames this debate


astounding

[Kizzy]

I feel that there's something fundamental that he's not quite caught though, maybe because of not being aware enough of the current state of identity politics and political tribalism (two things that go hand in hand). He's presenting a reasonable and rational choice between two things but he hasn't realised that to the people who see hatred, they are not separate at all.

He asks;

Rowling’s Razor
Which of these is more likely?

1. A person who is otherwise socially liberal and tolerant has taken a position on sex and gender that is driven by prejudice and hatred.

2. That person has some concerns about how changes in sex and gender law could have consequences for women and girls.



What he's missed is that to the most vocal people on this topic, these are not separate positions. Their answer would be;

3. She believes that there are concerns about how changes in sex and gender law could have consequences for women and girls, and that is inherently a position of prejudice and hatred.


So for the most embroiled in the debate the distinction isn't necessary... the suggestions are not paradoxical to them. #2 being true makes #1 also true.

To further complicate matters, I have seen the anger and frustration experienced by many who fall under #2 lead them to state or repeat things that I personally wouldn't say are rooted in hatred, but certainly in prejudice and anger. Expecting otherwise is to overlook one of the basics of human nature, though.

I have a couple of questions,
1. Who are the people who see hatred?
2. Your point 3. Appears to be your analysis of the most offensive comments on this topic which have wrongly been attributed to everyone who speak up for the current rules in place on this subject.

Why does the reaction have to be driven by prejudice and hate? Could they not be driven by fear?

[user104658]

I have a couple of questions,
1. Who are the people who see hatred?
2. Your point 3. Appears to be your analysis of the most offensive comments on this topic which have wrongly been attributed to everyone who speak up for the current rules in place on this subject.

Why does the reaction have to be driven by prejudice and hate? Could they not be driven by fear?

These aren't the things I think Kizzy, this is what I've observed is the logic of the people who argue that JK Rowling is hateful. They believe that having any concern is hateful, so they don't have to choose between "believing she has genuine concerns" and "believing she's just hateful". They believe that she has genuine concerns because she is hateful, and also, that having genuine concerns is in itself hateful. It's a circular logic that props itself up and means they don't have to actually think about the issues in too much detail.

[Alf]

1506966948483059716

[Alf]

Biden's new Supreme Court judge nomination can't define what a woman is, because she's "not a biologist."



1506805498091290634

[Oliver_W]

https://www.christian.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/womandefinition02.png

[Alf]

I've found a biologist who has the answer.



T3wcxHiorJ4

[user104658]

"I asked them simple questions and watched gender ideology crumble right in front of my eyes."

That's the crux of it for me... what is currently passing for an "ideology" on gender doesn't stand up to even very light, casual debate let alone proper academic/sociological deconstruction and study. That's why the former is discouraged, and attempts at the latter outright branded as some sort of hate speech. On this and any other topic, as always, I'm more than open to a proper discussion and examination of the topic (with people who are capable of suspending their emotional responses for more than 5 minutes). It's yet to happen. I don't think it's possible. Multiple elements are self-contradictory and/or so poorly defined that there's barely even a starting point for debate. The political situation is an absolute shambles, with most if not all politicians constantly filp-flopping between wanting to appease angry people, and being so scared of them that they won't discuss it at all. Politicians and academics absolutely CAN answer the question one way or another or at least attempt to. They won't because they feel that their careers are being held at gunpoint. It has to stop.

[The Slim Reaper]

Biden's new Supreme Court judge nomination can't define what a woman is, because she's "not a biologist."



1506805498091290634

I mean, this is complete BS whichever way you spin it. ACB wasn't asked to define exactly what a woman is when she was rushed through 2 years ago, and no other SC judge has ever been asked to define a word before. Definition of a word will never reach supreme court, so it's not something she'd ever have to do after she is seated.

It's a bizarre line of questioning based around trying to pretend she's dangerous.

[Crimson Dynamo]

T8eCCkBKPIk

[user104658]

Folks stil don't have enough intellectual curiosity to wonder why all of the fears are being stoked to target a minority in a culture war.

Putin
Johnson
Trump
farage
Tories
Republicans

There's a reason, and some of you will realise at some point, whilst others don't care because it's the cruelty towards a community with insane rates of suicide and attempted suicide, they they get off on.

As our own PM said previously.



And these are the people you're aligning with.You're like half way there and then being distracted by the details in my opinion Slim. The aligning is the point. The division is the point. The people who care about stoking the fears don't give a **** if you're "aligned" with TRA's or TERF's so long as you pick a hymn sheet to sing from and stick to it... And neither side is less dangerous, in this context, than the other.

[The Slim Reaper]

You're like half way there and then being distracted by the details in my opinion Slim. The aligning is the point. The division is the point. The people who care about stoking the fears don't give a **** if you're "aligned" with TRA's or TERF's so long as you pick a hymn sheet to sing from and stick to it... And neither side is less dangerous, in this context, than the other.

And I would put your own criticism of being half way there back in your lap.

You can say they don't care which side people flock to, and yet the most powerful RW forces currently align with exactly the same cause against exactly the same people. If chaos and division was the sole aim, there is just no way they would be as regimented as they are. And SJW snowflakes internet crew etc, aren't anywhere near as dangerous as the side with the media and the leaders of countries.

If Trump said kill all trans folks (as an example) what do you think would be the result of that? I'm not even sure who you could call the leading advocate for trans rights, so let's say it's Dolly Parton (it's facetious and if you have a better person, Ill accept without challenge - I just genuinely can't think) said - kill all cis folks, do you think the responses would be equal?

Then throw in Murdoch, Putin, and Johnson (his letterbox comment alone lead to a 300% spike in anti-Muslim attacks). It's just not a level playing field.

As I've said previously, I see merit in some of the concerns raised by the "anti-trans" side, but bigotry is the motivating factor of it's leaders (of which I don't include Rowling).

It's the same sh1t we've always seen; whether it's black men, gay people, Muslims, the Irish ad infinitum.

This is where it gets a bit weird, because I genuinely and honestly believe that folks like you or Niamh aren't coming from a bigotry angle in any way, shape, or form, but I also know how mass manipulation works.

[user104658]

I fundamentally disagree that those with any actual power pushing an agenda are motivated by "just bigotry" - it doesn't make sense, and to add to that, it's just never been the case. The motivation of those in power is maintaining and furthering power and using manipulative techniques to maintain control. Always has been, from the very first sparks of organised religion to any movement that exists now.

Are the likes of Trump USING bigotry as a tool to herd a passionate following? Absolutely, just as rulers and dictators have used God's and ideologies all throughout history to do the same.

They do not give the tiniest sliver of a **** about the actual issue. They do not care about their followers. They do not care what a woman is or who is or isn't trans. They don't believe in gods or messiahs.

If you can't see exactly the same tribalism and group-identity ideology being leveraged on the other side of the coin to the exact same ends then your eyes just aren't open, or your vision is being blurred by a drive towards empathy. Feeling that you MUST align with all aspects of trans rights campaigns "or else you're aligned with the likes of..." is all part of the same smoke and mirrors.

And in all honesty if you think that you don't "have to" align with ALL aspects of the campaign and ideology... I think you'll find that the vast majority of vocal trans rights activists will quickly disagree.

[Oliver_W]

:joker:

Can't even a discussion about an invasion and possibility of impending world war not get detailed by trans stuff?

[The Slim Reaper]

I fundamentally disagree that those with any actual power pushing an agenda are motivated by "just bigotry" - it doesn't make sense, and to add to that, it's just never been the case. The motivation of those in power is maintaining and furthering power and using manipulative techniques to maintain control. Always has been, from the very first sparks of organised religion to any movement that exists now.

Are the likes of Trump USING bigotry as a tool to herd a passionate following? Absolutely, just as rulers and dictators have used God's and ideologies all throughout history to do the same.

They do not give the tiniest sliver of a **** about the actual issue. They do not care about their followers. They do not care what a woman is or who is or isn't trans. They don't believe in gods or messiahs.

If you can't see exactly the same tribalism and group-identity ideology being leveraged on the other side of the coin to the exact same ends then your eyes just aren't open, or your vision is being blurred by a drive towards empathy. Feeling that you MUST align with all aspects of trans rights campaigns "or else you're aligned with the likes of..." is all part of the same smoke and mirrors.

And in all honesty if you think that you don't "have to" align with ALL aspects of the campaign and ideology... I think you'll find that the vast majority of vocal trans rights activists will quickly disagree.

No issue with the first bit; I said how it's the same thing we've always seen, and I believe my opinions on that matter alone should already be well known. Of course it's "the other" that is the scary bogeymen, but it's always directed into the bigotry/fears of the people they are trying to reach. I understand why you would try and move this away from the bigots, and arrive at the general power destination, but all other oppressive movements, always come with both, and as an example, it wasn't enough that people were homophobic in the past, they had to legislate laws to criminalise it at the same time. The group - and the acts.

In fact, it's only the last two paragraphs where I believe we really differ, so let me expand on that.

Of course there is tribalism, I've never denied that. I even said that the rhetoric of pro-trans folks needed to be toned down (JK thread). Again though, we are looking at leaders and the media versus...? I'd also question the ultimate aims of the groups. One side is after acceptance and rights, the other...to scare and induce fear for personal gain.

I know that I would also be viewed as a problem, and yet I still find empathy for individuals going through heinous crap, with a ridiculous suicide/attempted suicide rate within their community. If I know I'm not getting a Christmas card from them, but yet can still be empathetic towards their struggle, then that should suggest I haven't arrived here with blurred vision.

[user104658]

:joker:

Can't even a discussion about an invasion and possibility of impending world war not get detailed by trans stuff?Believe it or not, the topics overlap in some quite complicated ways. At this poi t I fully believe that the push towards hyperindividualism is part of the same equation as gas and oil prices, federal approval of stablecoins and Russia entering Ukraine.

It sounds like conspiracy madness but its getting to the point where the alternative is too packed with serendipity to be realistic.

[glib]

I can’t believe the fight against Russia is being compared to trans rights campaigners. What a joke.

[The Slim Reaper]

I can’t believe the fight against Russia is being compared to trans rights campaigners. What a joke.

It isn't. Russia is pushing the culture wars, and that's how trans people entered the thread. Crazy though, Johnson actually compared Ukrainians fighting against Russia, to brexiteers, but that was cool.

[user104658]

No issue with the first bit; I said how it's the same thing we've always seen, and I believe my opinions on that matter alone should already be well known. Of course it's "the other" that is the scary bogeymen, but it's always directed into the bigotry/fears of the people they are trying to reach. I understand why you would try and move this away from the bigots, and arrive at the general power destination, but all other oppressive movements, always come with both, and as an example, it wasn't enough that people were homophobic in the past, they had to legislate laws to criminalise it at the same time. The group - and the acts.

In fact, it's only the last two paragraphs where I believe we really differ, so let me expand on that.

Of course there is tribalism, I've never denied that. I even said that the rhetoric of pro-trans folks needed to be toned down (JK thread). Again though, we are looking at leaders and the media versus...? I'd also question the ultimate aims of the groups. One side is after acceptance and rights, the other...to scare and induce fear for personal gain.

I know that I would also be viewed as a problem, and yet I still find empathy for individuals going through heinous crap, with a ridiculous suicide/attempted suicide rate within their community. If I know I'm not getting a Christmas card from them, but yet can still be empathetic towards their struggle, then that should suggest I haven't arrived here with blurred vision.

It will always come down to humanity, and even the fact you feel as though

The boogeyman rhetoric is a mirror image though, unfortunately groups of people en masse don't really "do" nuance so it has to be. To someone who is genuinely anti-trans, any transperson is disingenuous and a danger. To a trans right activist, anyone with questions is complacent and a TERF. People are prone to seeing monsters in every corner, when of course the reality is that most people are neither. A big problem at the mkment though is that most people to SOME degree have questions, and there's a large section of Trans Rights Activism that views this as large scale persecution.

It gets even more complicated for me because I actually think that the genuine trans community that is the most vulnerable and at risk has been all but entirely usurped by "new gender ideology", and broad conflation of two things that actually under any scritiny have very little in common (and in fact are, in places, entirely contradictory ideologies).

I don't disagree that the current gender zeitgeist is a mental health minefield - especially for young people - but I'd be wary of putting all of that down to actual persecution. There's a lot at play. It's a hard concept to forge a reality out of and mental health problems are abundant when people struggle to define their reality. To compound that, it's a community that is often inherently attractive to young people who are already battling with mental health problems, anxiety and family issues.

[user104658]

I can’t believe the fight against Russia is being compared to trans rights campaigners. What a joke.The thread could do with being split I suppose. Russia is happily tipping her hand that this is, in fact, part of the war though.

[The Slim Reaper]

The boogeyman rhetoric is a mirror image though, unfortunately groups of people en masse don't really "do" nuance so it has to be. To someone who is genuinely anti-trans, any transperson is disingenuous and a danger. To a trans right activist, anyone with questions is complacent and a TERF. People are prone to seeing monsters in every corner, when of course the reality is that most people are neither. A big problem at the mkment though is that most people to SOME degree have questions, and there's a large section of Trans Rights Activism that views this as large scale persecution.

It gets even more complicated for me because I actually think that the genuine trans community that is the most vulnerable and at risk has been all but entirely usurped by "new gender ideology", and broad conflation of two things that actually under any scritiny have very little in common (and in fact are, in places, entirely contradictory ideologies).

I don't disagree that the current gender zeitgeist is a mental health minefield - especially for young people - but I'd be wary of putting all of that down to actual persecution. There's a lot at play. It's a hard concept to forge a reality out of and mental health problems are abundant when people struggle to define their reality. To compound that, it's a community that is often inherently attractive to young people who are already battling with mental health problems, anxiety and family issues.

No rights have ever been given to a new minority group. Ever. They had to fight for them and take them, so I understand the antagonism through that prism.

Of course it's not all persecution, and I didn't say it was. There are many factors that go into any MH situation, but the fact this community is being especially hard hit, should at least prove they exist and are genuine. So if I accept that, then that is my starting point.

I appreciate the convo - still working through where I stand on everything, and though we disagree, I always know it's a good faith discussion.

[Beso]

British Trans rights activists are mostly commie in leaning, as in, I must be a commie to hate what I hate about myself.

That being western, and white

[user104658]

No rights have ever been given to a new minority group. Ever. They had to fight for them and take them, so I understand the antagonism through that prism.

True but there also hasn't been a situation where the pursuit of those rights has so disproportionately affected the rights and safety of another group... let alone another group that wasn't even finished gaining them for themselves. This is the major reason that I think the conflation between trans rights and the history of gay rights/race issues etc. isn't helpful. There are clear and massive differences and the refusal to acknowledge those differences is fuelling the fire. I hear a lot of people saying, "no one will be pushed into extreme thinking if that thinking wasn't there already". Basic psychology and clear history shows that to be simply false. It might not be comfortable to acknowledge, but yes, enough frustration can make a bigot out of literally anyone, and quite easily out of most. In fact the only real defense against it is a willingness to engage in open discourse and non-judgemental questioning and self reflection. Most people don't have those skills. Those are just the facts. But beyond that you have people actively trying to discourage or outright disallow it across the board... it's a mess and one that, to me, is starting to look increasingly deliberate.

[The Slim Reaper]

True but there also hasn't been a situation where the pursuit of those rights has so disproportionately affected the rights and safety of another group... let alone another group that wasn't even finished gaining them for themselves. This is the major reason that I think the conflation between trans rights and the history of gay rights/race issues etc. isn't helpful. There are clear and massive differences and the refusal to acknowledge those differences is fuelling the fire. I hear a lot of people saying, "no one will be pushed into extreme thinking if that thinking wasn't there already". Basic psychology and clear history shows that to be simply false. It might not be comfortable to acknowledge, but yes, enough frustration can make a bigot out of literally anyone, and quite easily out of most. In fact the only real defense against it is a willingness to engage in open discourse and non-judgemental questioning and self reflection. Most people don't have those skills. Those are just the facts. But beyond that you have people actively trying to discourage or outright disallow it across the board... it's a mess and one that, to me, is starting to look increasingly deliberate.

Wait - I just need to clarify something. I thought the issue with trans rights wasn't the actual trans people, but rather people abusing access to these spaces to abuse/hurt women?

If that is the case, then how can you say that trans people seeking rights is a threat? If that isn't the case then try that sentence with any other group of people and test out how it reads. Now I understand the insistence that under no circumstances can previous bigotry be linked to the denial of rights from a targeted minority in this case. As if "they're comin' for our wimin" is a new idea. It's the exact reason that this debate is yet to get past bathrooms and sport, because when we move away from these very specific areas, we have to start humanising them, and that could never do.
.

[user104658]

Wait - I just need to clarify something. I thought the issue with trans rights wasn't the actual trans people, but rather people abusing access to these spaces to abuse/hurt women?

If that is the case, then how can you say that trans people seeking rights is a threat?


This is not even vaguely complicated though? The rights being sought by trans rights activist groups (not that they might possibly seek - that they are currently seeking and in some cases have already achieved) make it easier for people with nefarious intent (or selfish intent) to access things like women's safe spaces (or women's sports/prisons/scholarship schemes intended for women etc.)

Whether that's intentional or not is entirely irrelevant, and where it's unintentional but there's a refusal to allow the work to be done to discover the extent of the risk, it becomes straight up hostile.

I will however say that the trans people or trans allies who refuse to engage or who simply don't care about the unintended outcomes are absolutely part of the issue. The harm caused doesn't need to be direct to be harm. "Wanting rights" is obviously understandable. "I want my rights no matter how it affects others so get out of the way" really is not.

The idea that trans people's mental health is somehow more important than or even close to being on a level with women's safeguarding is extremely dubious. There are other routes to supporting people's mental health. "We have to make these changes otherwise they might kill themselves" is not good mental health support in the slightest and in fact, if you bring it down to the individual level, if someone gives an "X needs to happen or else I might kill myself" ultimatum, the solution would NEVER be unquestioning compliance with the request.

[The Slim Reaper]

This is not even vaguely complicated though? The rights being sought by trans rights activist groups (not that they might possibly seek - that they are currently seeking and in some cases have already achieved) make it easier for people with nefarious intent (or selfish intent) to access things like women's safe spaces (or women's sports/prisons/scholarship schemes intended for women etc.)

Whether that's intentional or not is entirely irrelevant, and where it's unintentional but there's a refusal to allow the work to be done to discover the extent of the risk, it becomes straight up hostile.

I will however say that the trans people or trans allies who refuse to engage or who simply don't care about the unintended outcomes are absolutely part of the issue. The harm caused doesn't need to be direct to be harm. "Wanting rights" is obviously understandable. "I want my rights no matter how it affects others so get out of the way" really is not.

The idea that trans people's mental health is somehow more important than or even close to being on a level with women's safeguarding is extremely dubious. There are other routes to supporting people's mental health. "We have to make these changes otherwise they might kill themselves" is not good mental health support in the slightest and in fact, if you bring it down to the individual level, if someone gives an "X needs to happen or else I might kill myself" ultimatum, the solution would NEVER be unquestioning compliance with the request.

You're holding up positions that I don't hold, such as "trans MH over women's safety" and then knocking them down. I'm completely in favour of working through these things to find solutions. What is your actual opinion on the genuine existence of trans people? Do you think it's genuine, mass hysteria, a trend/fad? I need to know where you're coming from.

If you were given supreme power over the world, what would be your solution?

Do you think there is anything suspicious in the fact that 2 weeks ago, no one cared about women's swimming, but now a trans women, who is generally supported by her rivals, competitors, and the sport itself is the poster child of everything negative?

I agree that self ID around prisons is dangerous, but do you think trans athletes would put themselves through years of stigma, abuse, hormones etc just to get to the top of a sport? I'm asking generally because no doubt there will be a couple of individuals who would. What about trans men competing in sports? What is their motivation?

Is there any data that shows trans women annihilating all the competition, because just being born "male" obviously makes you superior, and is there any misogyny you think may also be wrapped up in that statement?


None of that is accusatory, I'm just trying to see where you're coming from and where your thinking is at.

[The Slim Reaper]

A really interesting thread comparing the fight for gay rights in the past, versus trans rights now.

Read it, or don't. Agree, or don't. I'm posting for information, but I'd recommend you read the whole thing if at all.


1507740599125950464

[Niamh.]

You're holding up positions that I don't hold, such as "trans MH over women's safety" and then knocking them down. I'm completely in favour of working through these things to find solutions. What is your actual opinion on the genuine existence of trans people? Do you think it's genuine, mass hysteria, a trend/fad? I need to know where you're coming from.

If you were given supreme power over the world, what would be your solution?

Do you think there is anything suspicious in the fact that 2 weeks ago, no one cared about women's swimming, but now a trans women, who is generally supported by her rivals, competitors, and the sport itself is the poster child of everything negative?

I agree that self ID around prisons is dangerous, but do you think trans athletes would put themselves through years of stigma, abuse, hormones etc just to get to the top of a sport? I'm asking generally because no doubt there will be a couple of individuals who would. What about trans men competing in sports? What is their motivation?

Is there any data that shows trans women annihilating all the competition, because just being born "male" obviously makes you superior, and is there any misogyny you think may also be wrapped up in that statement?


None of that is accusatory, I'm just trying to see where you're coming from and where your thinking is at.With all due respect Slim, you don't have to be into women's swimming to have an opinion on the unfairness of Lia Thomas a fully intact, previously ranked four hundred and something male swimmer in this sport. And this isn't just about swimming its women's sport in general and the integrity of it, it also isn't about just women's sport, its about women's rights in general.

Saying that "most of her rivals " support her is absolutely incorrect. Most of her rivals have to keep their mouths shut and any that have spoken up have done so anonymously for fear of losing their sports careers. I'm surprised you are using this as something that's an injustice to transwomen rather than these women. That whole thing is outrageous in how blatantly unjust it is - and I mean towards women

[The Slim Reaper]

With all due respect Slim, you don't have to be into women's swimming to have an opinion on the unfairness of Lia Thomas a fully intact, previously ranked four hundred and something male swimmer in this sport. And this isn't just about swimming its women's sport in general and the integrity of it, it also isn't about just women's sport, its about women's rights in general.

Saying that "most of her rivals " support her is absolutely incorrect. Most of her rivals have to get their mouths shut and any that have spoken up have done so anonymously for fear of losing their sports careers. I'm surprised you are using this as something that's an injustice to transwomen rather than these women. That whole thing is outrageous in how blatantly unjust it is - and I mean towards women

That's the problem though, Niamh. We've stopped talking about people, and it's been forced into the corner of sports and bathrooms, so I'm just participating in that. I was asking very specific questions to find out where TS was coming from.

On a wider point though, I don't understand why anyone oblivious to women's swimming two weeks ago, would suddenly care today. I'm using the most up to date examples so we all know what we're talking about. I'm not sure why you think I said it's an injustice to trans women.

[Niamh.]

Can't stand Owen Jones, he's a total misogynist and gay rights never effected anyone else's rights.

[AnnieK]

To be fair Slim.....its not about swimming. As you have done, a lot of people have used Lia as an example of the unfairness....not just in swimming but in all sports. Lia has highlighted the difference between born males and born females. A mediocre born male athlete will out-perform the top level born female athletes in just about every sport. Bone mass, muscle density and hormone levels make it almost impossible for a horn female to be faster, stronger or more athletic than a born male. If born males who are not excelling in their fields can decide to switch to complete with born female counter parts there will eventually be virtually no born females at elite level.

I don't comment much on these threads as I have no interest in being called a bigot but the sports issue is a big one for female born athletes....tennis, track and field, swimming etc would be dominated by transwomen just because of their physiology

[Niamh.]

That's the problem though, Niamh. We've stopped talking about people, and it's been forced into the corner of sports and bathrooms, so I'm just participating in that. I was asking very specific questions to find out where TS was coming from.

On a wider point though, I don't understand why anyone oblivious to women's swimming two weeks ago, would suddenly care today. I'm using the most up to date examples so we all know what we're talking about. I'm not sure why you think I said it's an injustice to trans women.You really don't get why people who may not necessarily be into women's swimming wouldn't still see this and have an opinion on the fairness of it? Really? This is a women's rights issue. This should be a problem for anyone who is a woman or has a daughter, a sister, a mother, an aunt. Fairness is a topic that should concern most people, shouldn't it?

I also don't know why you keep referring to the sports and bathroom stuff as if it's only a tiny part being focused on to make an issue of something else. These are the issues being talked about because these are the issues that are creating the conflict between sex based rights and gender identity

[bots]

On a wider point though, I don't understand why anyone oblivious to women's swimming two weeks ago, would suddenly care today. I'm using the most up to date examples so we all know what we're talking about. I'm not sure why you think I said it's an injustice to trans women.

because the bedrock of all sport is fairness. You don't need to be a swimmer to see and object to blatant unfairness

[The Slim Reaper]

To be fair Slim.....its not about swimming. As you have done, a lot of people have used Lia as an example of the unfairness....not just in swimming but in all sports. Lia has highlighted the difference between born males and born females. A mediocre born male athlete will out-perform the top level born female athletes in just about every sport. Bone mass, muscle density and hormone levels make it almost impossible for a horn female to be faster, stronger or more athletic than a born male. If born males who are not excelling in their fields can decide to switch to complete with born female counter parts there will eventually be virtually no born females at elite level.

I don't comment much on these threads as I have no interest in being called a bigot but the sports issue is a big one for female born athletes....tennis, track and field, swimming etc would be dominated by transwomen just because of their physiology

That's the heart of my question - where is the data that shows all these trans athletes dominating all of the sports?

I'll ask you the same question - do you think that trans athletes would go through the years of stigma, abuse, HRT etc, just to play sports?


I've said I'm working things through and often the only way to do that is trying the ideas out, asking others where they're coming from, thought experiments and testing. I'm going to great lengths to engage, and yet look at the accusations I was hit with instantly.

Truly bizarre.

[Oliver_W]

I'll ask you the same question - do you think that trans athletes would go through the years of stigma, abuse, HRT etc, just to play sports?


Male people shouldn't be allowed to compete against females in sports, no matte what "ordeals" they've decided to inflict upon themselves. Whether or not they "transition" for the sole purpose of beating actual women in sport is irrelevant, they should only be competing against other males.

[Cherie]

Can't stand Owen Jones, he's a total misogynist and gay rights never effected anyone else's rights.



Indeed the two are not comparable at all

[Zizu]

Male people shouldn't be allowed to compete against females in sports, no matte what "ordeals" they've decided to inflict upon themselves. Whether or not they "transition" for the sole purpose of beating actual women in sport is irrelevant, they should only be competing against other males.


It is a strange predicament isn’t it ..

I mean they can’t ‘win’ either way so why bother .

If they lose they lose whist if they win they lose because they have inbuilt masculine traits .. .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[AnnieK]

That's the heart of my question - where is the data that shows all these trans athletes dominating all of the sports?

I'll ask you the same question - do you think that trans athletes would go through the years of stigma, abuse, HRT etc, just to play sports?


I've said I'm working things through and often the only way to do that is trying the ideas out, asking others where they're coming from, thought experiments and testing. I'm going to great lengths to engage, and yet look at the accusations I was hit with instantly.

Truly bizarre.

Its not bizarre when you yourself have said that you don't feel Niamh and others are "necessarily" coming from a place of bigotry....you know that reads that they could be coming from a place of bigotry.

In any ways, I wasn't directing that comment soley at you, many other member (always male members) are far more prolific at just flinging TERF around when anyone raises any concerns from a born female perspective.

I think some ultra competitive athletes would do anything to excel at their sport, performance enhancing drugs have always been in circulation, is it that much of a reach to think any advantage would be worth taking?

I am still working through my thoughts on it to be honest. I am very much live and let live, am of an age where I'm never going to be an elite athlete and only have a son so it will not impact his life moving forward. But I am also aware that it is only just over 100 years ago that women fought a similar fight to gain equal rights and now we are being told, mainly by males, to put up or shut up when we try to exercise those rights to have opinions heard.

Other than you, I haven't seen much discussion other than to shout Terf or bigot.

[user104658]

Just to say Slim I was half way through a rather long reply, my phone died and its gone. I'll have another bash at it. I feel like this thread is being heavily derailed though so I might stick it in another thread (or a new one?)