Gromit
International Man of Misery
Men of the Commons leave Men's Day debate to the women
Looks like the House of Commons was a blast today.
Looks like the House of Commons was a blast today.
International Mens Day
- Thread starter Kesher
- Start date
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
Yes, it was a bad thing to say.
FabricLiveBaby!
Live Baby Fabric!
And still applies to present, unless one believes that women are liberated now. My view is that the fight isn't over but if it's over for you then cool.
pengaleng said:
You've lost me I'm afraid. Gendered clothes, make up can be used for all sorts of bodies for all sorts of reasons. Some do it as a drag act, some to express their gender identity, some because society expects it of them. I'm not attributing a value system to any of it but for someone who sees gendered attire as a tool of oppression they might be offended. I personally am not, but there you have it.
That's just fucking out of order dude. Unless you're a psychiatrist you can keep your diagnosis to yourself. I'm fine with differing experience I'm not the one getting shirty.
Having to accept "cis" as a concept - otherwise it's "Denying identity". What a load of shit.
Lol. Not at all.
And now I'm going to bed.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
You know what?
I don't really understand gender politics. I only know what cis is from reading about it here. Before that I would've thought it meant normal, which I now realise is thoughtless. pengaleng is a good poster on this, and toggle and others taught me a few things about benevolent sexism (of which I'm irredeemably guilty) and other feminist issues, which, tbh, I still don't really get, properly. So I decided not to post on threads like this. You should do the same.
Even I realise that what you've posted there could hurt certain people's feelings.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Ok, I'm just catching up with the thread and see you've apologised. Fair do's.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
nope
nope. I can now actually understand some of your other politics posts if you think that. Perhaps its because its used lazily by journos and supposedly wise media heads as a bit of code it seems true. Its not. And the poison of identity focused politics throws that into sharp light- you'll tie yourself in knots on this path. We all know white w/c me would be treated with disdain by a magistrate or whatever because of my speech and demeanour. We all know the poshest black man you can think of getting a tug from the wrong police at the wrong time would get the full treatment those arseholes can put on you, even short of a nicking. class is not an identity group any more than black or brown is
e2a- you see, I've just tripped my ownself up there in my last sentence! cos now I'm wondering if wealthy future me would still get the treatment despite being rich, well perhaps so perhaps not
Gromit
International Man of Misery
That wasn't an apology. Only admission.
so you lump trans women in with drag queens do you? look to what you first said, you see it as appropriative etc. you dont make sense, the only way attire is oppressive is if you are being forced into the items that adorn you.
directing you towards therapy is not a medical diagnosis it is a suggestion. I think if you want your womb and shit cut out then yes you should get therapy - because thats what most people do, ooooh arent I such a bad person for suggesting therapy
this is some twisted shit. cis and trans are todays reality.
I aint stopping because this posters posts have some pretty vile shit in it that people are happy to agree with.
Last edited:
Athos
Well-Known Member
Anyone?
Athos
Well-Known Member
Why? Nobody is being hateful. FabricLiveBaby! Makes some fascinating points (even though I don't necessarily agree), and pengaleng is making some interesting points in reply. It's an fascinating discussion about an important subject (and one that affects all of us). If it upsets anyone, they needn't read it.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Athos
Well-Known Member
Understandably. But you're putting the counter-arguments. Either way, it's not for one poster to tell others to stop discussing something; that's what I was taking issue with.
I just dont know why anyone else gives a fuck about what anyone else does or why they are bothered when it;s got fuck all to do with them, I wanna know wtf people are scared of.
like why is anyone else giving a fuck about the way I feel about my own self - it aint their fucking domain
and to say that trans women appropriate 'woman' is so disgusting when I've never seen anyone getting passionate about drag shows. and then conflating drag with gender expression. it's all wrong
like why is anyone else giving a fuck about the way I feel about my own self - it aint their fucking domain
and to say that trans women appropriate 'woman' is so disgusting when I've never seen anyone getting passionate about drag shows. and then conflating drag with gender expression. it's all wrong
krtek a houby
Merry Xmas!
I'm scared of urban
Athos
Well-Known Member
Personally, becasue I'd rather not hurt others' feelings, and because of the practical consequences of discriminating against trans people, I'm happy to accept anyone's word about their own gender.
But, others feel differently.* Not because they hate or fear trans people or have a negative opinion of them, but because, if someone defines themselves by their own conception of a particular gender, then any attempt to force them to accept a change to the meaning of that gender can impact upon their sense of self.
* Accepting of course that there's another group who are just hateful bigots.
Last edited:
Athos
Well-Known Member
I had replied before you added the last paragraph. With regard to which, I would say that FabricLiveBaby! did explicitly say that they didn't agree with that view, rather it was one they'd heard expressed.
FabricLiveBaby!
Live Baby Fabric!
Pengaleng mate. I like you but you're reading into stuff that I never said and reading past my points. I have said a million times that I don't lump in trans with drag. Read my posts again. What I said is that some people might get offended by it. That person isn't me, but the logic is *if* you see gendered clothing ad a tool of oppression one. b]might[/b] (not me, but someone) find it offensive. This isn't about me it's about interpretations of concepts of gender.
You directing me towards therapy when I already said I got over it leads me to believe you're not reading me charitably. You know nothing of my medical history or indeed if I went to therapy or not. It all seems to be descending into ad-homeninm.
What has me going to therapy have to do with cis as a philosophical concept? This ain't about me.
Eg: You say I'm posting "vile shit", but what's vile? Discussing gender as a hierarchy? Asking for concrete definitions so everyone is on the same page?
Seriously mate, if we're going to accept things we need definitions. Are you seriously saying that trans cannot exist without cis?
Last edited:
CRI
Registered Chooser
Although it seems deeply unfashionable around these parts to favour an intersectional analysis of privilege and oppression, I was pointing out the limitations of a "single factor" approach.
It starts with the idea that one form of oppression, let's say patriarchy, is the most pervasive and damaging form. Others are also bad, but they are off shoots or dependent on the existence of patriarchal structures. The argument then goes that once you smash patriarchy, other forms of oppression will dissolve as well.
Now, transpose class oppression, racism, or any other single factor form.
There's no space here for understanding how differing forms of oppression and privilege are intertwined. For example, one can simultaneously be oppressed due to one factor but privileged due to another. In fact, this is often denied - e.g. white women aren't responsible for and don't benefit from racism because they're oppressed under patriarchy, working class people can be excused for homophobia because they're just reflecting values set by the privileged classes.
It also erases the experience of those affected by more than one form of oppression - expecting them to choose solidarity with one part of their identity over the other(s.)
So, you often get working class activists taking support of BAME people for granted. Then they'll claim Brexit or Trump was about the working class poking the "establishment" in the eye, conveniently forgetting BAME working class folks did NOT follow suit.
Similarly, I'm seeing lots of excuses and passes being issued by white feminists for so many white women voting Trump over Clinton (while like 85% of African American women chose Clinton) but accuse women of colour of being divisive or disloyal if they raise the issue of racism.
bell hooks describes the intersections of class, race and gender in a lot of her work, especially how in the US context African American women get the shittiest end of all the sticks.
One of her examples was how while all women are affected by patriarchal oppression, white middle class women can often gain advantage through their relationships with benevolent, privileged white men (e.g. fathers who'll pay for their expensive educations, husbands who'll bankroll their hobby business, sons who'll pay for their ageing mum's private carers, etc.) Women of colour still get all the misogyny, but without the "hand up" connections with white men can give.
Example just recently - On 9th November, I read an insightful series of tweets from Siyanda Mohutsiwa, who'd been studying the radicalisation of white men online. I think I posted part of it somewhere here. She said she'd tried to pitch it to the media and no one was interested.
Then, on 15th November, this article appears in the Guardian, "We need to talk about the online radicalisation of young, white men," which bore remarkable similarity to the content of Mohutsiwa's well-circulated tweets the week before, but she didn't refer to these in any way. Several people pulled her up about this on Twitter, particularly by women of colour. She insisted she didn't plagarise, that she'd been researching this for years, that she hadn't seen the other woman's tweets and increasingly adopted a "why are you all so mean to me" tone. Plenty of white men defended her. She got the (white) Guardian editor to tweet in her defense as well.
She then logged off for a while, ostensibly because of abusive tweets from men.Do you see what I mean about a person experiencing oppression (sexist abuse) at the same time as exercising privilege (access to paid publishing platforms)?
*Must remember Urban is not the place for this kind of discussion, ever.*
*I should just stick to funny pictures in the other thread.
*DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
Vintage Paw
dead stare and computer glare
This needs to be emblazoned at the beginning of every thread that discusses trans stuff.
Vintage Paw
dead stare and computer glare
Is this not the exact same argument fundie types use to deny equal marriage rights?
"If the gays can get married it will change the concept of marriage and I won't feel the same about my own marriage anymore."
It's absolute bullshit.
well I'm high and I got a bit annoyed so sorry if I read anything wrong there was a lot of writing - the therapy thing was past tense because it should have been there as a tool for you to use I aint bashing your medical history - I dont know anything about it why you keep suggesting I am doing this is odd. you might be over it now but you werent then, I am not talking about now I am talking about then.
I am probably expecting too much and I aint really got the energy for lengthy talks atm
hierarchical gender shit is different to an individuals own gender - all that needs to change are the words for that imo to define exactly which type of gender one is referring to - we seem to manage ok with the word sex - hundreds of different types not all the same but called the same.
Last edited:
Vintage Paw
dead stare and computer glare
Cis literally just means a person who identifies with the gender they were assigned at birth. How is that in the least bit contentious? It exists so that non-trans and non-genderfluid and non-non-binary (that's an odd phrase) people aren't automatically considered 'default' or 'normal' and so that trans, genderfluid and non-binary people aren't automatically considered 'other'. It's why we have straight as a counter-point to gay, or able-bodied as a counter-point to disabled, rather than 'normal'. In and of itself it says nothing at all about the construction of gender and sex, and is purely about being able to be clear and equal when we are discussing things. To take offence to it smacks of at best "but I don't need a term because I'm normal," and at worst "I refuse to give an inch in the terms of the debate because I disagree with your existence and your right to any agency in this discussion." Usually it's a grubby mix somewhere in between in my experience.
Similar threads
