Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Alex Callinicos/SWP vs Laurie Penny/New Statesman Facebook handbags

Status
Not open for further replies.
1. Same deal as any other woman making those demands.

2. That's unethical doctors. I had a brief fling with an FTM 16 year old who had been started on hormones before he was told about what the surgery involved. He was stuck in limbo with a deep voice, hairy face and big tits. This was 25 years ago, but there's a case coming up to court about these sorts of medical abuses now.

3. So the fuck what? They're women. I have no more right to say what a 'real' woman is than Netanyahu has to say what a 'real' Jew believes.

I don't know enough to take a side in the dispute. I've read parts of what Bindel has written and the responses at the time by Kaveney with the whole Stonewall picket affair and I'm unable to come to a conclusion. Some women feminists like Bindel (and others) do not consider trans women women in the same way as other women.
It's not something that's only 25 years ago, something similar to your anecdote happens today
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/britains-youngest-sex-swap-patient-wants-1403321

What I'm saying is that the Suzanne Moore affair has left me even more confused and bewildered by both sides - some of those tweets are horrific and Burchill's response was, well, Burchill.
 
3. So the fuck what? They're women. I have no more right to say what a 'real' woman is than Netanyahu has to say what a 'real' Jew believes.

Yeah, but you just did. Unless you're drawing a distinction between 'women' and 'real women'. You might as well say: "if they want to call themselves women, then they're women...there's no discussion to be had"...in the middle of a discussion about what is a woman.

I'm not disagreeing even. I'm happy to consider some who thinks of themselves a woman as just that. But I wouldn't consider that my view to be definitive or shut down valid debate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ymu
For transgender issues, the main area of demands

I want to clarify that my post was about the main area of demands that cause friction with feminists.
Opposition to bullying in schools, discrimination in employment and access to all services is something that should be uncontroversial.
 
I'd have thought 'the same' would mean should expect to live their lives without gratuitous abuse based on their situation. But you're right. Their 'situation' encompasses exactly the issues you mention. But it seems that some or most trans people and others would regard your raising these issues as constituting de facto abuse purely by dint of the implicit suggestion that they weren't wholly or authentically female. I wouldn't know where the fuck to start. You see I've sympathy with the arguments that gender's a) a social construct b) a neurobiological state and c) a spectrum. Nor have I ever seen a convincing argument that I should favour any of the three above another.

Where I really do have a problem is 1) with the idea that as a 'cis male' my speculation on the topic is in and of itself irrelevant, worthless and an abuse of my 'privilege'
2) with anyone, even trans people, who dogmatically demand that their definition of gender trumps all others...often out of purely theoretical considerations.

However...and no doubt I'm abusing my privilege and demonstrating a distinct lack of nuance in saying this...the idea that 'biology' doesn't come into it strikes me as ridiculous...sometimes you've gotta go with your gut.

1. As a 'cis male' it is impossible for you to know what it is like to be a woman, cis or otherwise. It's not so much about not being allowed to have an opinion, as having the courtesy to "shut the fuck up and listen" first. And that goes for anti-trans 'feminists' too; they speak for very few women anyway.

2. There's more than one side to that coin. My take on it is that trans women cannot know what it is like to have been born and brought up a girl/woman. They are frequently shocked at how they are treated once they start living as a woman. That will create problems with communication and unspoken assumptions carried over from being brought up male, but it's not like cis-women are a monolith with identical experiences simply because they are women. They are living as women and are experiencing most if not all the problems cis-women face plus a bunch of others to boot; they have a unique insight into how sexism affects their lives which cis-women cannot be fully aware of and could gain a great deal from learning about; denying a tiny minority the support of the sisterhood and leaving them to fight their own battles is a cunt's trick.
 
1. As a 'cis male' it is impossible for you to know what it is like to be a woman, cis or otherwise. It's not so much about not being allowed to have an opinion, as having the courtesy to "shut the fuck up and listen" first.

Erm...hang on. Couple of points.
1) I thought I'd pretty much made clear I'd 'checked my privilege' on this one and acknowledged my lack of expertise.
2) as regards 'listen first', I along with many others I suppose have followed this extensively lately. Are you saying, my opinion's never valid?...or do I need say 10 years' worth of listening...maybe a Phd..before venturing an opinion? You seem to be telling me this is a closed area of discourse for me...and I'm rejecting that line outta principle, as I'd reject any area of discourse as closed to anyone...as part of my rejection of identity politics as a whole.

Incidentally, I wasn't lookin for a row...and if I've pissed anyone off, I'm regretful about that. But, while acknowledging trans people have a far tougher daily battle with the world than I do, I'm stickin up for my right to talk about anything.
 
This was the submission
as regards 'listen first', I along with many others I suppose have followed this extensively lately

More importantly who to listen to.

I've been trying to listen ever since the Stonewall award to Julie Bindel and the picket of the awards ceremony, and it seems to me there are (sometime quite fundamentally) opposed and clashing facts and views. Sheila Jeffreys sees the "transgendering of children" (her phrase) as a harmful cultural practice. (Some even compare it to ritalin over-use - I think that's too far but Im not sure). Meta magazine, at least what I gathered from the Lees-Bindel interview, think it's acceptable because the age of puberty, at least in the west, is going down.
 
Erm...hang on. Couple of points.
1) I thought I'd pretty much made clear I'd 'checked my privilege' on this one and acknowledged my lack of expertise.
2) as regards 'listen first', I along with many others I suppose have followed this extensively lately. Are you saying, my opinion's never valid?...or do I need say 10 years' worth of listening...maybe a Phd..before venturing an opinion? You seem to be telling me this is a closed area of discourse for me...and I'm rejecting that line outta principle, as I'd reject any area of discourse as closed to anyone...as part of my rejection of identity politics as a whole.

Incidentally, I wasn't lookin for a row...and if I've pissed anyone off, I'm regretful about that. But, while acknowledging trans people have a far tougher daily battle with the world than I do, I'm stickin up for my right to talk about anything.
1. "Shut the fuck up and listen" was not aimed at you personally. It's a quote from a blog written by a bloke about his 'lightbulb moment', realising just how different the world is for women. (A workmate asked him to walk her to her car late at night and he was wtf? :confused: until he thought about it.)

2. Again, I'm not having a pop at you, I am trying to answer your questions. Some men get short shrift because they assert their own opinion repeatedly regardless of what the women in the conversation are telling them. You rarely see a feminist on here take exception to posts by people like Violent Panda or kabbes, because they don't do this. (Apologies to all the other great posters I've not name-checked.)
 
This was the submission

More importantly who to listen to.

I've been trying to listen ever since the Stonewall award to Julie Bindel and the picket of the awards ceremony, and it seems to me there are (sometime quite fundamentally) opposed and clashing facts and views. Sheila Jeffreys sees the "transgendering of children" (her phrase) as a harmful cultural practice. (Some even compare it to ritalin over-use - I think that's too far but Im not sure). Meta magazine, at least what I gathered from the Lees-Bindel interview, think it's acceptable because the age of puberty, at least in the west, is going down.
This is a very good, if brief, history which makes some interesting points which bear on this question: When Did Girls Start Wearing Pink?

Can't really quote from it because the relevance to this topic kind of builds throughout. And lays the blame squarely on capitalism, obv. ;)
 
1. "Shut the fuck up and listen" was not aimed at you personally. It's a quote from a blog written by a bloke about his 'lightbulb moment', realising just how different the world is for women. (A workmate asked him to walk her to her car late at night and he was wtf? :confused: until he thought about it.)

2. Again, I'm not having a pop at you, I am trying to answer your questions. Some men get short shrift because they assert their own opinion repeatedly regardless of what the women in the conversation are telling them. You rarely see a feminist on here take exception to posts by people like Violent Panda or kabbes, because they don't do this. (Apologies to all the other great posters I've not name-checked.)

Yeah...sorry about that...wasn't sure if you were havin a go or not and, unfortunately, I've always been a get-your-retaliation-in-first type...dunno why, it's never done me any favours.
As for point 2, I can see that but my issue is not with feminism per se or transgender politics, it's with identity politics in a larger sense, which...and I know this is to some extent a generalisation...seems to be the preserve of the middle-class pseudo-left who appear to think we live in a 'post-class' era, and lumps me in with the chairman of Goldman Sachs as a straight white ultra privileged cis male. That fucks me off cos it's a ridiculous state of affairs and the categorisation is patently useless since it lacks any coherence with reality. In fact, I can't see any purpose to it other than to allow the likes of Laurie Penny to write shit like "we on the left have always...." as though the 'we' placed her within some unbroken continuity of working class struggle. In this sense, identity politics is a cynical vehicle of appropriation.
 
Yeah...sorry about that...wasn't sure if you were havin a go or not and, unfortunately, I've always been a get-your-retaliation-in-first type...dunno why, it's never done me any favours.
As for point 2, I can see that but my issue is not with feminism per se or transgender politics, it's with identity politics in a larger sense, which...and I know this is to some extent a generalisation...seems to be the preserve of the middle-class pseudo-left who appear to think we live in a 'post-class' era, and lumps me in with the chairman of Goldman Sachs as a straight white ultra privileged cis male. That fucks me off cos it's a ridiculous state of affairs and the categorisation is patently useless since it lacks any coherence with reality. In fact, I can't see any purpose to it other than to allow the likes of Laurie Penny to write shit like "we on the left have always...." as though the 'we' placed her within some unbroken continuity of working class struggle. In this sense, identity politics is a cynical vehicle of appropriation.
We've done this a few times. This is probably the clearest explanation I've managed of what I am trying to say, with help from Frances who says the first part of it. (from another thread):

...

As for brands of feminism, I dunno, I'd never describe myself as a feminist coz a bloke doing that, well, it's pretty corny isn't it? But I have read a bit of Emma Goldman and there was a chick who knew the script - Her writings on prison were bang on and even though she's from hundreds of years ago, she's properly relevant to nowadays.

...

You've picked up on precisely what I think is wrong with the way feminism is generally perceived and often practised. In opposition to men. I don't think that can get us anywhere we would want to go. Men suffer under patriarchy too and focusing on what is wrong for women and with men just sets up conflict and invites the kind of deeply unpleasant backlash discussed in this thread without achieving anything meaningful in terms of equality.

Feminism has had some significant achievements but ultimately giving women equal access to high-profile jobs, equal pay and the right to treat men like worthless sex objects doesn't make anything better, it just changes who suffers from the abuse of power by others. So now we have men being objectified in magazines, taken the piss out of in advertising, a massive rise in eating (and related body image) disorders in males, programmes like Loose Women being seen as socially acceptable (even progressive), and two incomes being worth as much as one was thirty years ago.

There have been some victories, but mostly I see abject failure. Middle-class feminists have louder voices and so it is their agenda which gets pushed. Identity politics pushing out class politics to the detriment of all bar the most powerful. Same old same old.
 
oh this ones going to be fun


For once, we had glorious weather on Saturday for Gay Pride. I walked and partied with two dozen friends; we had a total ball, and kept bumping into old friends and making new ones. The whole thing ended with everyone dancing their socks off in Soho Square.

Going home, I'd more or less forgotten about the England game; it was startling, after all that good humour, to come up against an ugly crowd, throwing rubbish bins and yelling obscenities. One man had been hit by a bottle, and blood was pouring down his face and shirt.

Let's see. In the course of the day, we came across a group of Christians, bearing placards protesting in the most critical terms. What do you think they felt strongly against? The mindless infliction of violence because of a football result? Or a lot of people having a harmless time in the sun, celebrating their community in a way which couldn't possibly hurt anyone else? Yup, you got it in one.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...ory-repeats-itself-in-afghanistan-406662.html
 
There is an immense saving to be made, however, and it has to be faced, sooner or later. In my view, the railways are overstaffed to a huge degree. A third of employees could be sacked with no effect on services whatsoever.

I travel regularly on First Great Western trains down to Exeter from London, and from Exeter to Topsham. At Exeter Central, there are always four people standing at the ticket barriers. What are they doing? One of them seems to be explaining how to place your ticket in the machine. Another is offering to sell you tickets. The other two don't seem to be doing anything. Half a mile away, at Exeter St Davids, there are four more people standing at another set of ticket barriers. God knows why, or why a town the size of Exeter needs two fully staffed railway stations.

A month or two ago, I was waiting at Topsham station, watching a gentleman from First Great Western mend the ticket machine. He finished his job, closed the machine, and got on the train with the rest of us. He did a good job. Here's the thing, though; he was accompanied by a fat bloke in a uniform who did absolutely nothing. He just held the keys, and got on the train with the man who had actually achieved something. What did he do for the rest of the day? Stood by the ticket machine, probably. I could go on.

The London train has a pleasant service which offers free cups of tea in the first-class compartment, delivered by trolley, though the buffet is only two carriages away. It's pushed by two people, one in front, and one behind. One pours the tea; the other hands the tea bag to his colleague. What do you do? You accept the tea, and pay their wages. Why on earth is catering not being contracted out to Pret a Manger, anyway?
 
oh this ones going to be fun


Hensher the hero of 2011:

I'm a bleeding-heart liberal - so, what am I to make of these sickening scenes?

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...o-make-of-these-sickening-scenes-2337148.html


The riots of 1981, most commentators and thinking people would have told you, were the product of rage among the underclasses, the unemployed, the young whose future was in the process of being destroyed. Who, in this apocalyptic scenario, could think primarily of the shopkeepers?
Thirty years later, to a certain degree, it was all about shops. The liberal response to riot, disorder and violence is to withhold blame, and look for causes. Other people might call for floggings at the first sign of a broken window, a rude word called across a street. But we liberals try always to see how far deprivation of culture or means might have led to what must surely be a sign of distress at some level. Understand and improve is the liberal's motto, not isolate and protect.
But it was so hard to see what distress was driving the destruction, and the looters were highly selective in their acquisitions. The first targets, at every site, were the sites of teenage desire: sportswear shops and electrical goods emporiums. One of the most startling images of the early stages of the riots was of Shereka Leigh, a 22-year-old woman, apparently taking some trainers out of the box in Tottenham and trying them on in the street. "Crap trainers, too," a friend said, rather missing the point.
At the riots at Clapham Junction, every shop in the precinct was targeted and attacked – except Waterstone's bookshop. What was the liberal mind to make of a riot which looked like shopping by other means?


The liberal urge to understand, explain, improve and cure ran up against a problem that did not exist in 1981: there just was no unified cause. We stayed away from Mark Duggan, posing with fingers in a silly revolver pose, as a proximate cause. Did anything unite the looters except, mostly, their youth? A looter strikes directly at something the liberal holds dear, the community. It took Brixton years to recover from the riots. Who, now, would open a shop in Tottenham, or could afford to? Businesses will be bankrupted, or just withdraw quietly. Useful chain stores will wonder whether that part of town is worth their investment. And a part of a city slowly withers."

Throw the book at them," I said on social media, and a brave, liberal soul took me on. Yes, she said: throw literacy at them, libraries, reading. That will do them the world of good; prison will damage them further. What the liberal was faced with in August 2011 was a frightening abyss: a catastrophic action motivated, perhaps, by the shallowest and least idealistic of desires; an action of destruction and selfishness which seemed, for a moment, universal rather than the motions of an angry – perhaps rightly angry – minority. What to do about that? No one had the faintest idea. All we can do is what we do best – just go on talking.
 

I travel so much I know everything about the railways. Revenue protection and passenger safety? Pfft! And of course you don't need a security guard on hand when a ticket machine is being opened up. The useful bloke can look after himself, especially when the only other person at the station is busy selling tickets and dealing with dodgy turnstiles and making sure disabled passengers and those with luggage can access the platform.

(I know fuck all about the railways, so I hope I'm not miles off da troof. :oops:)
 
yep - bang would go any hope of passenger assistance for the elderly and infirm, or proper breaks for the staff on shift, or the ability to cope with more than 1 train at once etc.
 

Between the SWP’s rape-court scandal and Julie Burchill’s transmisogyny, I’ve been working hard in my essaying and reading this week in particular to negotiate some useful ways forward

Don't know about anyone else but I can't wait for LP to tell me, along with the oppressed masses of the world, what these useful ways forward might be. I'm sure it won't be anything predictable like embracing identity politics or anything like that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom