[user104658]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Well tbf the main "diversion from the status quo" was you accusing people of not really caring about womens rights and only pretending to, to hide the inner transphobe, did you just expect people to nod and agree with that or....?

I believe that some people blow certain aspects of it being about women's rights / women's safety out of proportion because they are generally threatened by the very concept of M2F transgenderism, yes. I find many of the objections to be extreme and not particularly level-headed, and when that is the case, the reason is usually "fear". In this case, not rational fear of attack, but the same "fear of the unknown other" that has affected ethnic minorities, homosexuals, and (somewhat ironically) women themselves when campaigning for acceptance. Rewind the women's rights movement 100 years, to when women were first gaining access to what were traditionally "male spaces", and a lot of the rhetoric from "men scared of change" is very familiar.

Could I have entered this thread better? Yes, and no. Yes because I jumped in angry. No because I don't think doing it any differently will make a difference - as I'll be told that as a penis-bearer I can't possibly have a concept of the issue that is fully informed, or that while I'm entitled to my opinion, it's inferior to the opinion of any female who has given it 30 seconds thought or more. I know it won't go down well. I know it'll be paraphrased and misrepresented. I know this while this topic is fine for DISCUSSION, it is off the table for DEBATE on here, from experience, and yes, that makes me ... "angry and frustrated".

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I believe that some people blow certain aspects of it being about women's rights / women's safety out of proportion because they are generally threatened by the very concept of M2F transgenderism, yes. I find many of the objections to be extreme and not particularly level-headed, and when that is the case, the reason is usually "fear". In this case, not rational fear of attack, but the same "fear of the unknown other" that has affected ethnic minorities, homosexuals, and (somewhat ironically) women themselves when campaigning for acceptance. Rewind the women's rights movement 100 years, to when women were first gaining access to what were traditionally "male spaces", and a lot of the rhetoric from "men scared of change" is very familiar.

Could I have entered this thread better? Yes, and no. Yes because I jumped in angry. No because I don't think doing it any differently will make a difference - as I'll be told that as a penis-bearer I can't possibly have a concept of the issue that is fully informed, or that while I'm entitled to my opinion, it's inferior to the opinion of any female who has given it 30 seconds thought or more. I know it won't go down well. I know it'll be paraphrased and misrepresented. I know this while this topic is fine for DISCUSSION, it is off the table for DEBATE on here, from experience, and yes, that makes me ... "angry and frustrated".

Well I don't know what kind of a reaction you were expecting tbf when you accuse people of what you did.

Anyway Withano, Jamie and Jack were perfectly able to have an opposing view without falling out with anyone or accusing them of basically lying about what they're concerned about.

Anyway, I'll leave it there with you.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Well I don't know what kind of a reaction you were expecting tbf when you accuse people of what you did.

Exactly the reaction I got?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I believe that some people blow certain aspects of it being about women's rights / women's safety out of proportion because they are generally threatened by the very concept of M2F transgenderism, yes. I find many of the objections to be extreme and not particularly level-headed, and when that is the case, the reason is usually "fear". In this case, not rational fear of attack, but the same "fear of the unknown other" that has affected ethnic minorities, homosexuals, and (somewhat ironically) women themselves when campaigning for acceptance. Rewind the women's rights movement 100 years, to when women were first gaining access to what were traditionally "male spaces", and a lot of the rhetoric from "men scared of change" is very familiar.

Could I have entered this thread better? Yes, and no. Yes because I jumped in angry. No because I don't think doing it any differently will make a difference - as I'll be told that as a penis-bearer I can't possibly have a concept of the issue that is fully informed, or that while I'm entitled to my opinion, it's inferior to the opinion of any female who has given it 30 seconds thought or more. I know it won't go down well. I know it'll be paraphrased and misrepresented. I know this while this topic is fine for DISCUSSION, it is off the table for DEBATE on here, from experience, and yes, that makes me ... "angry and frustrated".

You jumped in ignorant! You had no definitive opinion of your own ( by your own admission) you have no clue as to the issues or reasoning of other forum members and neither have you any personal insight as to the issues facing the transgender community.

If you think that entitles you stomp into a thread and demand that others amend or review their views you are very very wrong!

The reason why you are so worried about being paraphrased is you are terrified because you know that no matter how you word it you are going to come across as someone who is wholly prejudiced.

You have nothing to feel angry and frustrated for, there were no challenges to your opinion you didn't have one you simply failed to understand the concerns as debated and threw in your unnecessarily offensive remarks.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

You jumped in ignorant!

More personal slurs, Kizzy?

You had no definitive opinion of your own ( by your own admission)

The purpose of debate is to develop and inform an opinion. I know that some people believe that it's about butting their heads against a wall until the wall breaks, but it's not, and it's perfectly acceptable to have views on aspects of a discussion - or in this place (accurately) believe that the subject isn't really up for discussion - without a pre-formed "definitive opinion".

you have no clue as to the issues or reasoning of other forum members

Questioning and criticising other people's reasoning is a valid and important part of debate. Again, I understand why that would be a problem in a thread that is not up for debate.

neither have you any personal insight as to the issues facing the transgender community.

As far as I'm aware, no one on this thread does?

If you think that entitles you stomp into a thread and demand that others amend or review their views you are very very wrong!

I explicitly did not "demand that others amend or review their views". I requested that they cut the BS and be a bit more honest about the root of their views because, in my opinion, 2 + 2 is equalling 5 a lot of the time.

The reason why you are so worried about being paraphrased is you are terrified because you know that no matter how you word it you are going to come across as someone who is wholly prejudiced.

I'm not "worried" about anything; I dislike being paraphrased (which I'm going to take on board, because I'm guilty of doing it to others) and I especially dislike being paraphrased "so what you're saying is..." style with the suggestion being something that I haven't said at all. I'm especially opposed to this when there isn't even a quote to clarify.

You have nothing to feel angry and frustrated for, there were no challenges to your opinion you didn't have one you simply failed to understand the concerns as debated and threw in your unnecessarily offensive remarks.

Don't be a hypocrite Kizzy; who are you to tell anyone that they are or are not allowed to feel? I suspect you'd take issue with it if someone did that to you?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

More personal slurs, Kizzy?



The purpose of debate is to develop and inform an opinion. I know that some people believe that it's about butting their heads against a wall until the wall breaks, but it's not, and it's perfectly acceptable to have views on aspects of a discussion - or in this place (accurately) believe that the subject isn't really up for discussion - without a pre-formed "definitive opinion".



Questioning and criticising other people's reasoning is a valid and important part of debate. Again, I understand why that would be a problem in a thread that is not up for debate.



As far as I'm aware, no one on this thread does?



I explicitly did not "demand that others amend or review their views". I requested that they cut the BS and be a bit more honest about the root of their views because, in my opinion, 2 + 2 is equalling 5 a lot of the time.




I'm not "worried" about anything; I dislike being paraphrased (which I'm going to take on board, because I'm guilty of doing it to others) and I especially dislike being paraphrased "so what you're saying is..." style with the suggestion being something that I haven't said at all. I'm especially opposed to this when there isn't even a quote to clarify.



Don't be a hypocrite Kizzy; who are you to tell anyone that they are or are not allowed to feel? I suspect you'd take issue with it if someone did that to you?

See... you're determined to take offence from the off! If you don't have an opinion of your own, you don't know anyone elses then by definition you're ignorant TS.

Again all I see here is presumption and hypocrisy ... you dislike 'so what your saying is'... but apparently you LOVE 'what you're NOT saying is'?....

I haven't told anyone how to feel, I imagine being told how to think?!

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

See... you're determined to take offence from the off! If you don't have an opinion of your own, you don't know anyone elses then by definition you're ignorant TS.

I'm not taking offense Kizzy, I'm noting that (as with every other post directed at me recently) you're attempting (and failing) to cause offense.

Again all I see here is presumption and hypocrisy ... you dislike 'so what your saying is'... but apparently you LOVE 'what you're NOT saying is'?....

"I think you might have more to say that you're holding back" is not putting words in someone's mouth. There might be an implication of what "those things" are, I suppose, but then that would be easily cleared up with "No, what I'm holding back on saying is...". Someone could also say "Nope I'm not holding anything back" but again - in what world does that mean you MUST believe that? Is it debate? Really? If you think someone is holding back you should say so .


And no, I don't accept that not having a full-and-set-in-stone opinion on any subject equates to ignorance. In fact, some of the most ignorant people I've ever encountered are those who DO have such concrete belief sets.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I'm not taking offense Kizzy, I'm noting that (as with every other post directed at me recently) you're attempting (and failing) to cause offense.

So you make presumptuous accusatory comments about the motives of others, but you want me to see YOU as the victim?...No.


"I think you might have more to say that you're holding back" is not putting words in someone's mouth. There might be an implication of what "those things" are, I suppose, but then that would be easily cleared up with "No, what I'm holding back on saying is...". Someone could also say "Nope I'm not holding anything back" but again - in what world does that mean you MUST believe that? Is it debate? Really? If you think someone is holding back you should say so .

You accused people of vitriol, that posts were being mocked and disregarded, you accused moderators of not remaining impartial in certain topics. Your presumption was unwarranted and incendiary.




And no, I don't accept that not having a full-and-set-in-stone opinion on any subject equates to ignorance. In fact, some of the most ignorant people I've ever encountered are those who DO have such concrete belief sets.

Whoever said you had to have a set in stone opinion? Your whole argument hinges on the need for respectful, civilised debate ...just how is that to be realised if you stomp into a thread and accuse those who have given a reasoned opinion that that are effectively chatting ****?!