Originally Posted by Cherie (Post 11146348)

Has a transman made Man of the year yet?

Originally Posted by Liam- (Post 11146363)

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

Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 11146367)

Why were women given a man of the year award?

Originally Posted by Liam- (Post 11146363)

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

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 11146373)

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).

Originally Posted by Liam- (Post 11146363)

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

Originally Posted by Elliot (Post 11146760)

She needs to take her medication clearly

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 11146894)

What's that supposed to mean?

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 11146894)

What's that supposed to mean?

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 11146035)

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.

Originally Posted by Kizzy (Post 11146910)

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?

Originally Posted by Alf (Post 11149208)

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

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper (Post 11149672)

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.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 11149678)

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.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 11149695)

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.

Originally Posted by Oliver_W (Post 11149699)

:joker:

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

Originally Posted by glib (Post 11149704)

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

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper (Post 11149700)

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

Originally Posted by glib (Post 11149704)

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

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 11149710)

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.

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper (Post 11149716)

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.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 11149721)

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.

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper (Post 11149826)

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?

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 11149830)

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.

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper (Post 11149841)

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.

Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 11149850)

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