[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I have literally no time to go into this in much depth as I'm leaving for work in 10 mins and I'm not even dressed, but as a quick run-down ;

- I'm not just talking about this thread (this may be where some of the confusion is coming from).

- I'm not saying there isn't scope for discussion or scepticism or criticism on the topic, at all, and yes Vicky has done so in a well thought out way several times.

- she is also guilty of posting the (to paraphrase) comments that amount to "Just because a bloke cuts off his dick doesn't make him a woman!!". Again this is not an exact quote, just in the ball park.

- these are what I have a problem with because points being made with similar language would quite blatantly NOT be accepted if it was about a racial group, homosexuals, or pretty much any other group.

- my MAIN ISSUE is that it has to be either OK or not OK. My personal view is that I have ZERO doubt that these comments would be far more likely to be flagged if several moderators hadn't expressed clear support of those comments or the ideology behind them. In the past, I've never had any major concerns about mod impartiality on here but at this point, there are clear issues.

- Kizzy. I didn't quote ANYONE in my initial post about this. Feel free to check, guys. I quoted Kizzy AFTER Kizzy demanded to see an example, as it was the most recent example on the page. I'm sorry Kizzy but none of this is about you at all. I know that's hard to accept.



Anyway like I said, can't really go into a back and forth on this just now but (look forward to it, guys!) I'm off tomorrow so I'm going to mull the issue over and give it it's own thread. Just wanted to address some of the initial misunderstanding.

Tbh I think many would disagree with your comments about not having any concerns about mod impartiality on here - they just happen to come from the opposite side of the argument to you generally and have a very different experience. And I am not talking about either of the mods you mentioned. Perspective is very much related to experience.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I have literally no time to go into this in much depth as I'm leaving for work in 10 mins and I'm not even dressed, but as a quick run-down ;

- I'm not just talking about this thread (this may be where some of the confusion is coming from).

- I'm not saying there isn't scope for discussion or scepticism or criticism on the topic, at all, and yes Vicky has done so in a well thought out way several times.

- she is also guilty of posting the (to paraphrase) comments that amount to "Just because a bloke cuts off his dick doesn't make him a woman!!". Again this is not an exact quote, just in the ball park.

- these are what I have a problem with because points being made with similar language would quite blatantly NOT be accepted if it was about a racial group, homosexuals, or pretty much any other group.

- my MAIN ISSUE is that it has to be either OK or not OK. My personal view is that I have ZERO doubt that these comments would be far more likely to be flagged if several moderators hadn't expressed clear support of those comments or the ideology behind them. In the past, I've never had any major concerns about mod impartiality on here but at this point, there are clear issues.

- Kizzy. I didn't quote ANYONE in my initial post about this. Feel free to check, guys. I quoted Kizzy AFTER Kizzy demanded to see an example, as it was the most recent example on the page. I'm sorry Kizzy but none of this is about you at all. I know that's hard to accept.



Anyway like I said, can't really go into a back and forth on this just now but (look forward to it, guys!) I'm off tomorrow so I'm going to mull the issue over and give it it's own thread. Just wanted to address some of the initial misunderstanding.

I know you didn't but I knew it was in relation to my comment which is why I asked you to expand, you then confirmed it but afterward chastised me for it :/
If it was nothing to do with me then why hold my comment up as an example?

I look forward to your thread, I can't wait for your explanation of how some members and the female moderators discriminate on the forum.

[Marsh.]

Anne's struggles to see issues in career progression stem from being in a big job on telly earning thousands and not having to really worry about fighting her way through a male dominated field.

That literally comes from her lucky and comfortable position. Not a possible male brain. Although I suppose she could have one.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Anne's struggles to see issues in career progression stem from being in a big job on telly earning thousands and not having to really worry about fighting her way through a male dominated field.

That literally comes from her lucky and comfortable position. Not a possible male brain. Although I suppose she could have one.

That hasn't always been so has it, how old is Anne, she hasn't always been a shalebrity has she?

So there is is a male brain and a female brain, that's nice and boxy isn't it?

What about a female autistic brain, I wonder what they're like? Do you think there might be a nice science shaped box for those too?

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

I'm really on the fence with self-ID, I haven't quite made my mind up on that yet. I worry that as well as it potentially causing problems for women it could also cause problems for transsexuals as it might blur the lines between transsexual women and predatory men (in the eyes of some people). But then I agree that it would be better if such traumatic surgery wasn't seen as being as much of a necessity for trans people, and surgery isn't something that actually makes someone trans. So I don't know really its a complicated one.

Currently, surgery is not a requirement for a GRC.

It would be barbaric if we made a law that said that someone had to have surgery.

You only have to be diagnosed with sex dysphoria, and to have 'lived as' the opposite sex for 2 years. The second part I reckon could be removed tbh, as 'lived as' does come down to stereotypes. You also need top pay a small fee, but this is waived if you are low income.

This is why I disagree with self-ID. I don't see whats wrong with having to have a diagnosis to say that yes, you do have dysphoria rather than it being a whim. And transactivists think this is a bad thing, really? I think it is necessary 'gatekeeping' to keep women as safe as possible, whilst also allowing transsexual people a bit more peace of mind. Make the GRC a 'anyone can get one' type deal, and it will be seen as a total joke.

[bots]

As a man reading this thread I can make the following observations.

1. Men are trying to tell women how they should feel, what they should accept, how they should be referred to

2. The woman's position is being actively undermined

This doesn't seem particularly progressive to me.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

As a man reading this thread I can make the following observations.

1. Men are trying to tell women how they should feel, what they should accept, how they should be referred to

2. The woman's position is being actively undermined

This doesn't seem particularly progressive to me.

Except women can also transition to become men.

The cis/trans discussion isn't a female oriented topic. It's a human one so your observation is flawed.

If we were discussing a female based topic like abortion or something I'd see your point. As it is you're telling men they have no say in a discussion that is about them just as much as it's about women. It's about everyone.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

As a man reading this thread I can make the following observations.

1. Men are trying to tell women how they should feel, what they should accept, how they should be referred to

2. The woman's position is being actively undermined

This doesn't seem particularly progressive to me.

Thanks so much for seeing it exactly as it is!
Roast chicken for dinner.

[Marsh.]

Boxy?

No. Scientific fact that there are masculine and feminine parts of the brain of which everyone is somewhere on the scale, making them more or less feminine/masculine in emotions and behaviour. Also affected by the chemistry in their body estrogen/ testosterone etc.

No. Anne hasn't always been a celebrity but clearly hasn't experienced career progression difficulty which either means she never attempted a career of sorts prior to being cast on the Chase to start one in television (I think she was a professional quiz champion or whatever they're called) or she did very well progressing up the ladder with no difficulty, which is no excuse for not looking beyond her own front yard.

Her celebrity status is a hard one to label as successful career progression because it's not really typical. It can literally happen overnight, especially these days. It's rare anyone really works their way for years into the business anymore.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Boxy?

No. Scientific fact that there are masculine and feminine parts of the brain of which everyone is somewhere on the scale, making them more or less feminine/masculine in emotions and behaviour. Also affected by the chemistry in their body estrogen/ testosterone etc.

No. Anne hasn't always been a celebrity but clearly hasn't experienced career progression difficulty which either means she never attempted a career of sorts prior to being cast on the Chase to start one in television (I think she was a professional quiz champion or whatever they're called) or she did very well progressing up the ladder with no difficulty, which is no excuse for not looking beyond her own front yard.

Her celebrity status is a hard one to label as successful career progression because it's not really typical. It can literally happen overnight, especially these days. It's rare anyone really works their way for years into the business anymore.

I understand that, however there is no absolutes in brain brain type, you may have a man whos brain chemistry could be described as female, this is not definitive proof that he is trans is it?

Can intellect be measured as career progression? That most certainly isn't something that happens overnight.


For clarity on this issue, for my own peace of mind.
Let me get this right if I see M/F trans as female but not a woman or F/M trans as a male but not a man I'm transphobic?


I'll have to live with that then.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

For clarity on this issue, for my own peace of mind.
Let me get this right if I see M/F trans as female but not a woman or F/M trans as a male but not a man I'm transphobic?

Well I wouldn't say it makes you transphobic but it does make you literally incorrect in terms of the actual terminology.

Male and Female are biological descriptions of sex. Man and Woman are social constructions of gender.

A Trans-woman can be sociologically a woman (arguably, I'm not saying everyone agrees with this), and not a man, but will always be biologically male.

You have it the wrong way round. And that's not opinion or "Mansplaining" - that is the actual terminology of established gender theory going back several decades.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Well I wouldn't say it makes you transphobic but it does make you literally incorrect in terms of the actual terminology.

Male and Female are biological descriptions of sex. Man and Woman are social constructions of gender.

A Trans-woman can be sociologically a woman (arguably, I'm not saying everyone agrees with this), and not a man, but will always be biologically male.

You have it the wrong way round. And that's not opinion or "Mansplaining" - that is the actual terminology of established gender theory going back several decades.

I haven't accused you of mansplaining no need to be so defensive, They are biological descriptions of gender, genetics are descriptions of sex.
A theory is just that... Theoretical, subject to change.
Simone De Beauvior stated 'One is not born, one is made a woman'.
It pays not to take that too literally

I don't believe that transfemales can be sociologically a woman as to my mind a whole life experience not in how you relate to the world and those in it but how the world and those in it relate to you.

[Northern Monkey]

Cis sounds like something from Starwars.I aint no Cis Lord.
It’s a ridiculous word.There is no need or reason for me to ‘identify’ as cis or any other made up bollox.
Human man will do fine.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

Cis sounds like something from Starwars.I aint no Cis Lord.
It’s a ridiculous word.There is no need or reason for me to ‘identify’ as cis or any other made up bollox.
Human man will do fine.

You don't need to "identify" as cis.

It's just a descriptive word when discussing transsexuals to differentiate. Let's not make it into some diagnosis people are having thrust upon them. It's merely language.

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

Cis sounds like something from Starwars.I aint no Cis Lord.
It’s a ridiculous word.There is no need or reason for me to ‘identify’ as cis or any other made up bollox.
Human man will do fine.

It's not an identity. I'm amazed that people are so strung up on this word that means nothing other than 'non-trans' And it's ironic that it's only purpose is to make conversation about trans topics easier, yet here we are.

It's like referring to yourself as a 'heterosexual man' to differentiate during a topic about homosexuality. It's meaning is literally no different to that. You don't need to 'identify' as heterosexual you just are. It's a description. This is currently a debate about nothing other than semantics.

(never mind, Marsh got there first )

[Cherie]

trans is enough of a descriptor, why do we need "cis" if you are non trans, it adds nothing expect a label where it isnt needed

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by Cherie

trans is enough of a descriptor, why do we need "cis" if you are non trans, it adds nothing expect a label where it isnt needed

I guess because people usually would fall into the habit of saying "normal" instead of cis, when referring to anyone who isn't transgender, thus rendering the alternative (trans) as 'abnormal'.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Shaun

I guess because people usually would fall into the habit of saying "normal" instead of cis, when referring to anyone who isn't transgender, thus rendering the alternative (trans) as 'abnormal'.

that makes sense I guess

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Cherie

trans is enough of a descriptor, why do we need "cis" if you are non trans, it adds nothing expect a label where it isnt needed

You could say the same about the word "heterosexual" or "straight" though, I guess... But people seem to be OK with those descriptions at this point.

To be fair for my own part... I do think there needs to be a word, but I also think "cis" is a phonetically daft word with a flimsy etymology and I wish it was a different word... ... ... But, its here now so its probably going to stick.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Cherie

trans is enough of a descriptor, why do we need "cis" if you are non trans, it adds nothing expect a label where it isnt needed

It doesnt describe everybody though? Caitlin Jenner and Kendall Jenner walk in to a bar, the woman orders a drink.

The descriptor 'woman' is not helpful in that sentence. Whereas the descriptors 'transwoman' or 'ciswoman' would have been.

The place is going to go in to a meltdown when the bigender woman enters the bar.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Withano

The place is going to go in to a meltdown when the bigender woman enters the bar.

Nah, she'd just be referred to as a woman.

[Shaun]

It always seems to me there are more complaints about the complaints about transphobia, than there are complaints about transphobia... hence this thread

[AnnieK]

Part of the problem on this forum at the moment is there are two distinct types of posters.
These transgender views and topics are a fairly recent issue, one of which some of the older members of the forum are not familiar with, new terminology, cis etc. Younger posters are more used to an all accepting (or more accepting) population. We all need to be more understanding and informed about issues. The problems that a lot of people have is the manner in which more informed members of this forum try to educate. I have many times typed out a question and then not posted because I cant be arsed with the "duh...[insert patronising insulting reply]" from a section of this forum

Like on this page, cherie posted a question, Shaun answered and Marsh answered. Both basically with the same information but one to the point end of the other with barbed patronising language. And you wonder why people bite?

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

Part of the problem on this forum at the moment is there are two distinct types of posters.
These transgender views and topics are a fairly recent issue, one of which some of the older members of the forum are not familiar with, new terminology, cis etc. Younger posters are more used to an all accepting (or more accepting) population. We all need to be more understanding and informed about issues. The problems that a lot of people have is the manner in which more informed members of this forum try to educate. I have many times typed out a question and then not posted because I cant be arsed with the "duh...[insert patronising insulting reply]" from a section of this forum

Like on this page, cherie posted a question, Shaun answered and Marsh answered. Both basically with the same information but one to the point end of the other with barbed patronising language. And you wonder why people bite?

That's a very good post and I agree with some of it. But I will disagree that some of us 'need educating'. As women we've spent a lifetime fighting for just the right to be treated as an equal and it still isn't happening, you've seen the recent news on gender pay issues to name but one. Now along comes another group telling we aren't even women anymore. No. This isn't even an issue about transgender or transsexual people. I don't have any problem with how someone wants/needs to live their life. I have a problem with someone trying to redefine my identity and trying to 'include' someone at my expense.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by jaxie

That's a very good post and I agree with some of it. But I will disagree that some of us 'need educating'. As women we've spent a lifetime fighting for just the right to be treated as an equal and it still isn't happening, you've seen the recent news on gender pay issues to name but one. Now along comes another group telling we aren't even women anymore. No. This isn't even an issue about transgender or transsexual people. I don't have any problem with how someone wants/needs to live their life. I have a problem with someone trying to redefine my identity and trying to 'include' someone at my expense.

Completely agree Jaxie. We should not be expected to tolerate others trying to redefine our identity. We know who we are and do not need to be dictated to by anyone about what we do or do not accept. It isn’t our responsibility to define others or to suffer any negative consequences as a result.