[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Oops sorry Cherie!!

No worries

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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 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

[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/...pSbi314Ii1CzvA

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by 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/...pSbi314Ii1CzvA

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]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

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]

Originally Posted by 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/...pSbi314Ii1CzvA

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.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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

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.]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.

[Crimson Dynamo]

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]

Originally Posted by Alf

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

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]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

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]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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]

Originally Posted by Alf

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

Reminds me of Edna Evrage

Why didn’t Kamala Harris win

This person has only been selected to make a political statement