[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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.]

Originally Posted by 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

Why were women given a man of the year award?

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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]

Originally Posted by 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

Gq is read by 3 teenage boys and 6 championship players

And noone else

[Elliot]

She needs to take her medication clearly

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Elliot

She needs to take her medication clearly

What's that supposed to mean?

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

What's that supposed to mean?

he, is mocking her mental health

quite oblivious to how that frames this debate


astounding

[Kizzy]

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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]

[Alf]

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

[Oliver_W]

[Alf]

I've found a biologist who has the answer.

Youtube video

[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]

Originally Posted by Alf

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

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]

Youtube video

[user104658]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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]

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