Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Is this woman a transphobe?

For the purposes of this thread 'natural born' is a distinction. But then you already knew that. I'm not into fucking about with your "I know what you mean but I'm going to say I don't" bollocks. Fair warning and all that.
 
SpackleFrog said:
You seem capable of recognising that males are expected to behave a certain way. Maybe from here you can manage to recognise that many people struggle with that in all kinds of different ways.
Click to expand...

You are one taking my words without the context in which they were phrased. I clearly don't have a problem, per se, with Trans people and I can clearly see the struggle that Trans people have. CLEARLY, that was not my point.

Fucking hell.
 
bmd said:
You are one taking my words without the context in which they were phrased. I clearly don't have a problem, per se, with Trans people and I can clearly see the struggle that Trans people have. CLEARLY, that was not my point.

Fucking hell.
Click to expand...

:hmm:

bmd said:
This is the problem, all of it, that I have with Trans people.
Click to expand...
 
This is in reply to a pm I just received lol. Sorry to the person who PM'd me. I thought I was replying via pm but posted it here instead. God I'm thick.

This could be a lot of words. To keep it short, I want to talk about something not semantics. Did you honestly not know what I meant? That you believe all I was saying was that I have a problem with Trans people, full stop? I hate even having to qualify my words but I do, on here, because people do shit like you are doing. Take a phrase, twist it to match what they want to argue about and fire it back at you with the belief that you will engage on that ground just because that's what they have decided you should be doing. The problem I have with Trans people is that they do not have the same lived experience as me, so how do we talk about this if we are going to insist that there are zero differences between us when there clearly are?

There, kept it short. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
littlebabyjesus said:
That's highly questionable tbf, unless you're going the whole hog and calling all things constructs, which is all very well but not very useful. It's very hard to explain the workings of sexual reproduction without employing the category 'sex'.
Click to expand...

Sex and sexual reproduction is biological, but being critical of gender or attributing characteristics to biological sex is not inherently biological but political, which is why the development of artificial wombs will be such an eventual challenge to radical feminism as a political project because it immediately undercuts the basis for the concept of womanhood, which cannot be directly deduced from physical biology but in social intercourse. The only way I see around this contradiction is to deny consciousness entirely.
 
Last edited:
krtek a houby said:
Be interested in how acting, eating and walking defines this male concept you mentioned.
Click to expand...

No you wouldn't because you're not so thick as to think that I wasn't just using those as examples to make a point about the way gender is instilled from birth.
 
Anyway, my apologies for the distraction. I'll step away from this thread as I don't wish to do that any longer.
 
bmd said:
No you wouldn't because you're not so thick as to think that I wasn't just using those as examples to make a point about the way gender is instilled from birth.
Click to expand...

Ok, am acting thick while you eat your words and walk away from the thread
 
bmd said:
Has Athos ever talked about anything with a genuine desire for knowledge? I honestly haven't seen that. All I've seen is a shit-stirring cunt.
Click to expand...

All this because of what happened on that other thread? You should remember that it wasn't me who made you look silly, it was you. And you're doing so, again.
 
Last edited:
Spanner said:
Not sure one unauthorised and quickly unpublished cartoon equals “gone full transphobe”
Click to expand...
I don't think the problem somehow starts and ends with one cartoon.
1617263477084.png
theclarionmag.org

Keluaran HK Hari Ini: Togel Hongkong Pools, Pengeluaran HK Pools, Data Hongkong 2024, Result Togel HK Prize

keluaran hk hari ini merupakan angka resmi yang disediakan oleh togel hongkong pools, pengeluaran hk pools akan tercatat setiap hari kedalam tabel data hongkong 2024.
theclarionmag.org
Etc etc
How does an "unauthorised cartoon" find itself getting published, btw?
 
[
belboid said:
I cba to go over this yet again, so all I'll say is, the woman who said it still plays a leading role, and their leadership is one of the few non-uk womens groups who are active i the 'GC' movement.

Of course they can make their own decisions, but they then have to bear the consequences. Which led to a loss of 3% of their funding from the council and a host of complaints from other organisations (of women & LGBT groups). Doing good things doesn't give them an excuse to behave in an exclusionary way and more than it does, say, the Sally Army. The funding the council would have provided them went to a different organsiation, so that support was still there.

Ohh, and I'll just throw in the other obvious point - any organisation that refuses any men in it are discriminating against those large numbers of women with caring responsibilities. Unless you think it's a good idea to leave male children/dependent adults with an abusive partner.
Click to expand...
You make my skin crawl. Yes those women who make decisions for themselves should bear the consequences shouldn’t they belboid. Let’s cut their money to teach them a lesson about excluding men. Creep.

Also SpackleFrog I don’t give a fuck about your Marxism and your ‘women aren’t a class’ excuses. I bet women were as fucked under communism as they have been under capitalism.
 
belboid said:
I cba to go over this yet again, so all I'll say is, the woman who said it still plays a leading role, and their leadership is one of the few non-uk womens groups who are active i the 'GC' movement.

Of course they can make their own decisions, but they then have to bear the consequences. Which led to a loss of 3% of their funding from the council and a host of complaints from other organisations (of women & LGBT groups). Doing good things doesn't give them an excuse to behave in an exclusionary way and more than it does, say, the Sally Army. The funding the council would have provided them went to a different organsiation, so that support was still there.

Ohh, and I'll just throw in the other obvious point - any organisation that refuses any men in it are discriminating against those large numbers of women with caring responsibilities. Unless you think it's a good idea to leave male children/dependent adults with an abusive partner.
Click to expand...

You're right that their leadership has been active in the 'GC' movement. Mostly, I suspect, because they have been fighting a legal battle against the trans woman they refused to employ as a volunteer. This is how wedges are driven in. The trans woman in question (who was post-op) was clearly very hurt by the decision to refuse to employ her, but she clearly also didn't respect the collective's right to make its own decisions on this matter. She tried to obtain a legal ruling that they do not have that right. In doing so, she and her supporters did harm.

I'm sure you're aware that operations in sectors that rely wholly or partly on volunteers are not zero-sum. It's not just about funding, but crucially it requires the people with the motivation, energy, time and ability to keep everything together. Lose a refuge like this one - the very first of its kind in Vancouver - and you can't just transfer the money somewhere else without losing out.

Here in the UK, the 2010 Equality Act currently provides an explicit exception for women's refuges. I think that's a proportionate exception, and you don't have to agree with the decision necessarily, just respect the right of those running the refuges to make it.
 
Edie said:
[

You make my skin crawl. Yes those women who make decisions for themselves should bear the consequences shouldn’t they belboid. Let’s cut their money to teach them a lesson about excluding men. Creep.

Also SpackleFrog I don’t give a fuck about your Marxism and your ‘women aren’t a class’ excuses. I bet women were as fucked under communism as they have been under capitalism.
Click to expand...

Jesus people are in a bad mood this morning...

The USSR, despite things going badly wrong, was the first country to allow women to divorce their husbands and the first country to provide safe legal abortions. It also provided free communal childcare. So your bet would be a daft one and you'd lose your dollar.
 
SpackleFrog said:
Jesus people are in a bad mood this morning...

The USSR, despite things going badly wrong, was the first country to allow women to divorce their husbands and the first country to provide safe legal abortions. It also provided free communal childcare. So your bet would be a daft one and you'd lose your dollar.
Click to expand...
Oh god should we be grateful for that?

Scratch the surface of ‘feminist’ men and find this.
 
Edie said:
Oh god should we be grateful for that?

Scratch the surface of ‘feminist’ men and find this.
Click to expand...

What do you mean?

Women in Russia in 1917 weren't grateful for these things, they fought for them.

If you want to dismiss those achievements then fine. But what will you put in their place?
 
littlebabyjesus said:
You're right that their leadership has been active in the 'GC' movement. Mostly, I suspect, because they have been fighting a legal battle against the trans woman they refused to employ as a volunteer. This is how wedges are driven in. The trans woman in question (who was post-op) was clearly very hurt by the decision to refuse to employ her, but she clearly also didn't respect the collective's right to make its own decisions on this matter. She tried to obtain a legal ruling that they do not have that right. In doing so, she and her supporters did harm.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that someone who feels they have been discriminated against shouldn't do anything about it if the organisation that they felt were discriminatory otherwise does good work? One of the reasons there is so much confusion about the law relating to trans people in the UK is that there is no case law. Laws like this are expected to be tested, that's how the legal system works. Surely the problem is how these cases are funded rather then someone acting perfectly legally in an attempt to assert their rights under the law?

VRR were not radicalised by this case. They have always been a radical feminist organisation with a strong ideological basis. They refer to sex workers as prostituted women for example, something which concerns me more given their client group then their policies on trans women.

Here in the UK, the 2010 Equality Act currently provides an explicit exception for women's refuges. I think that's a proportionate exception, and you don't have to agree with the decision necessarily, just respect the right of those running the refuges to make it.
Click to expand...

No the Equality Act does not provide an explicit exception for refuges. It is likely that a refuge would fall under the scope of a proportionate and legitimate aim, depending on the nature of the discrimination, but it is not known for sure due to the reasons I gave above. In actual fact several VAWG organisations including Women's Aid want this clarified, which can only really be achieved by either additional legislation or someone bringing a case just like the one in Vancouver.
 
Also littlebabyjesus are you going to answer my question, do you think Posie Parker is transphobic?

You are very keen to endlessly philosophise and scrutinise the lives of trans people but you seem somewhat reluctant to your own opinions being under any scrutiny.
 
SpackleFrog said:
Jesus people are in a bad mood this morning...

The USSR, despite things going badly wrong, was the first country to allow women to divorce their husbands and the first country to provide safe legal abortions. It also provided free communal childcare. So your bet would be a daft one and you'd lose your dollar.
Click to expand...

The Soviet Union, despite pointing to the achievements of sections of the newly formed Soviet intelligentsia as proof of their superiority, saw most women stuck in some of the lowest paid, lowest status and some of the most physically arduous labour, as well as social provisions being only theoretical depending on where you lived and who/what you were. The double burden of work outside the home and social reproduction inside of it was little different to other relatively industrialised and thoroughly patriarchal societies.
 
seventh bullet said:
The Soviet Union, despite pointing to the achievements of sections of the newly formed Soviet intelligentsia as proof of their superiority, saw most women stuck in some of the lowest paid, lowest status and some of the most physically arduous labour, as well as social provisions being only theoretical depending on where you lived and who/what you were. The double burden of work outside the home and social reproduction inside of it was little different to other relatively industrialised and thoroughly patriarchal societies.
Click to expand...

I did say things went badly wrong, didn't I? But you can't deny the initial achievements of the revolution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Wookey
Woman falls through a hole in Blackpool Pier
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
Lotte
L
WhyLikeThis
Is your Labour MP on this list?
2
Replies
58
Views
3K
WhyLikeThis
WhyLikeThis
Maggot
What is wrong with government borrowing?
2 3
Replies
61
Views
2K
LakieLady
LakieLady
_Russ_
This little shit.....
Replies
19
Views
873
stavros
S
Humberto
David Cameron is a walking disaster. And war criminal.
Replies
12
Views
695
Mation
Mation
Back
Top Bottom