co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
Seriously if that's the case I had no idea and I don't know how I'm supposed to have known.
Is this woman a transphobe?
- Thread starter co-op
- Start date
Seriously if that's the case I had no idea and I don't know how I'm supposed to have known.
Looby
Well-Known Member
It was mentioned pages ago. I really do think this thread was started to shit stir and give you an opportunity to get the debate going again here.
OK well you know now.
Oh don’t worry there’s not much chance of that, but I can put a sock in it to let trans voices be heard.
Fwiw my impression of co-op is that he is genuinely concerned about women’s rights and the effect identity politics is having on solidarity on the left. I don’t think he is shit stirring for the fun of it. I actually don’t think anyone is engaging in bad faith (the new chap is a bit pompous and has a slightly limited grasp for that degree of pomp, but that aside 
).
).
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Same here. Also, I did not know of any informal agreement not to start new trans threads. Clearly this wasn't communicated very well.Fwiw my impression of co-op is that he is genuinely concerned about women’s rights and the effect identity politics is having on solidarity on the left. I don’t think he is shit stirring for the fun of it. I actually don’t think anyone is engaging in bad faith (the new chap is a bit pompous and has a slightly limited grasp for that degree of pomp, but that aside
I'll leave this alone for a bit as well, but my opinion of debates on this subject here is clearly very different from that of many people. Yes, it's been destructive, and people from both sides have left because of it - that's worth pointing out. But it's the only place I've seen where actual discussion between people with opposing views has happened. Everywhere else I've seen has been an echo chamber of one form or another.
There’s definitely a lot of ‘Why I'm No Longer Talking to Cis Men About Feminism’ going on among women.
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
Ive never pretended I didn't want to debate the issue, that would be daft if I ve started a thread - I wanted to try and understand how Vicky Hubble is a transphobe, do people actually think this? Fine there's been no big movement. You c all it shit-stirring, your privilege of course but I think it just means "you think differently" but can't handle that reality.
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
An "agreement" by definition needs a bit of agreement doesn't it? It can't just be slapped down by one side of a disagreement, let alone done so so silently that no one else even knows.
Looby
Well-Known Member
I can absolutely handle thinking differently. What I hate is that this has had real implications for individuals and our community. I hate it.
This thread has been awful just like all the other threads. It’s just people arguing about details that don’t really matter in reality.
Last edited:
You want a debate in the same way Jazzz used to want a debate. You want a chance to push your increasingly cranky gender critical 'facts' to as wide an audience as possible in the hope you might red pill someone and gain another convert. You are consistently the most aggresive poster on this subject, you have little interest in actually learning about the lives and experiences of trans people. or women who disagree with you, you simply want to push your ideology down everyone's throat and claim victimhood when you are challenged about it. That's not a debate, it's evangelicising, its happening all over the internet and it adds nothing of worth to any constructive conversation. This situation doesn't affect you, so why not talk less and listen more and if you want to help feminism donate to a refuge or something instead of pouring petrol onto a conflict that has caused very real harm for many women and trans people on these boards,
purenarcotic
Conveniently Pocket Sized
People see it as shit stirring because this was argued to death on the other thread, nothing got resolved, good posters left. And here we go again, round and round and round, with people from what I can see just becoming ever more entrenched in their thinking and less and less people wanting to engage because it’s just hideous. I’m especially tired of the men on this thread using women’s services to make whatever point they want when the rest of the time they show no real interest at all in what’s happening to DV support. I hope some hefty donations are being made to refuges because we are drowning under the sea of ever rising demand with less and less resources.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Some people want to discuss it, others don't (no doubt both groups have a variety reasons for their respective positions - some in good faith, others less so).
The two approaches can be accommodated easily: the conversations continue, and those who don't want to join the discussion ignore those threads, or even engage with the threads but ignore posters with whom they disagree or whom they don't think have standing to participate e.g. men* (albeit that, on other threads some of the same people are arguing it's important for men to engage with feminist issues).
What can't be so easily accommodated is the idea that some seem to want to prevent others from discussing it. I get that they're upset by others' opinions, but that's part of the price we pay for vibrant boards that aren't over-moderated. I don't think this place should reward flounces that in some instances look like attempts to emotionally blackmail people into silence. Nor do I buy a lot of the hyperbole about discussions here amounting to a threat to people's very existence; this is one of the few places online where a range of views is reflected, and 99% of the time in a way that's robust but not abusive.
And, as someone who's in the middle - I'm broadly pro-inclusion, but do think it's important to listen to women's concerns, and do have some worries about certain aspects - I've learned a lot from those at either end of the spectrum. I'm really keen to listen to a range of views, but I don't think that means I should accept anything uncritically; I've taken issue with both 'sides' on various points.
And I do think my position has altered as a result of some of what I've read on these boards e.g. I'm far more cynical about a lot of what's presented as evidence by both 'sides' and more attuned to some of the nastier undercurrents.
Whilst I'm not a free-speech absolutist, I believe that, since it's hard to see how this issue can be resolved without communication, all opinions short of bigotry should be allowed. Now, I appreciate that there's a difference if opinion about where the line is, but, given people do have the option to ignore, I'd say that long-time posters who are otherwise sound be given the benefit of the doubt, to prevent the chilling effect of bad-faith accusations.
That said, I do think that it'd be better if we can avoid upsetting people unnecessarily by confining this stuff to one place (except when it's clearly important to another thread).
*On which issue, I'd make three points:
Firstly, the trans issue is (in part, at least) about gender, and the idea that men have no stake in that is ridiculous.
Secondly, of course we all have different perspectives, and it's important to recognise how they're informed by our own characteristics, but the idea that a good idea becomes bad because it's expressed by the 'wrong' person is bizarre and dangerous.
Thirdly, as someone who has (individually and as part of groups) donated much time and effort, and tens of thousands of pounds to women's causes including DV provision (all trans-inclusionary, as far as I know), the repeated implication of bad faith is tiresome.
The two approaches can be accommodated easily: the conversations continue, and those who don't want to join the discussion ignore those threads, or even engage with the threads but ignore posters with whom they disagree or whom they don't think have standing to participate e.g. men* (albeit that, on other threads some of the same people are arguing it's important for men to engage with feminist issues).
What can't be so easily accommodated is the idea that some seem to want to prevent others from discussing it. I get that they're upset by others' opinions, but that's part of the price we pay for vibrant boards that aren't over-moderated. I don't think this place should reward flounces that in some instances look like attempts to emotionally blackmail people into silence. Nor do I buy a lot of the hyperbole about discussions here amounting to a threat to people's very existence; this is one of the few places online where a range of views is reflected, and 99% of the time in a way that's robust but not abusive.
And, as someone who's in the middle - I'm broadly pro-inclusion, but do think it's important to listen to women's concerns, and do have some worries about certain aspects - I've learned a lot from those at either end of the spectrum. I'm really keen to listen to a range of views, but I don't think that means I should accept anything uncritically; I've taken issue with both 'sides' on various points.
And I do think my position has altered as a result of some of what I've read on these boards e.g. I'm far more cynical about a lot of what's presented as evidence by both 'sides' and more attuned to some of the nastier undercurrents.
Whilst I'm not a free-speech absolutist, I believe that, since it's hard to see how this issue can be resolved without communication, all opinions short of bigotry should be allowed. Now, I appreciate that there's a difference if opinion about where the line is, but, given people do have the option to ignore, I'd say that long-time posters who are otherwise sound be given the benefit of the doubt, to prevent the chilling effect of bad-faith accusations.
That said, I do think that it'd be better if we can avoid upsetting people unnecessarily by confining this stuff to one place (except when it's clearly important to another thread).
*On which issue, I'd make three points:
Firstly, the trans issue is (in part, at least) about gender, and the idea that men have no stake in that is ridiculous.
Secondly, of course we all have different perspectives, and it's important to recognise how they're informed by our own characteristics, but the idea that a good idea becomes bad because it's expressed by the 'wrong' person is bizarre and dangerous.
Thirdly, as someone who has (individually and as part of groups) donated much time and effort, and tens of thousands of pounds to women's causes including DV provision (all trans-inclusionary, as far as I know), the repeated implication of bad faith is tiresome.
Last edited:
8ball
Decolonise colons!
Athos
Well-Known Member
Something something bad faith, you were saying?
Yeah, that might have come across stronger than I intended; I've edited.
Looby
Well-Known Member
Why edit, it’s obviously what you think and was helpful.
I’m sure the posters who have left the boards will feel reassured too if they popped back hoping things would be different.
I’m not trying to shut down debate but I do think this is all being discussed all over the internet with absolutely fuck all resolution. Most people elsewhere are strangers arguing with each other and the freedom to disengage. It’s different here, people have known each other for years and years. There are real friendships and support networks and that should be the priority.
Athos
Well-Known Member
The edit is because it didn't accurately reflect my thoughts (I'm not one to mince words).
That it's not been resolved doesn't mean it can't or won't be.
Real friendships and support networks ought to be able to survive a difference of opinion; it's the demand for orthodoxy that undermines broad-based solidarity.
And if they don't survive, that's sad, but life goes on; I find the idea that adults can't share a corner of the internet with someone with whom they disagree (even with the ability to ignore that person!) bizarre.
Ironically, the 'GC' side has been much better at this than their opponents, with alliances between so-called feminists, right wing groups, religious hardliners, and the mass media!
Last edited:
You didn't start this to understand transphobia, you started it to start a political argument. That's fine, it's just that your politics are anti-trans. You're not here to listen. My personal inclination is towards complete free speech, even let fascists talk if they want to, but I recognise that's a recipe for constant war and upset. But that's also the result of your anti-trans politics. Urban75 collectively wouldn't tolerate this if it were any other group under fire.
Edit: I'm being too generous. You've recently stated in the Censor thread that these arguments are pointless, and it's not the first time you have tried to shut down this debate that you suddenly want to have either. I defer to what smokedout said above. Just red pilling propaganda.
Last edited:
mauvais
on reddit or something
Confining it to one avoidable place would be a start but it's probably not enough. Even if the 'discussion' stays in one place the social consequences leak everywhere, as do impressions of what or who this place is and isn't for.
It's hardly a 'flounce' if a large number of people that we can all name who were here for a decade left and never came back. The fallout from this is not theoretical, it has happened and continues to happen. It's not absolutely unique, we have had certain moments where political disagreements have done damage but nothing quite so fundamental to who people are. Just think about what the words 'toxic environment' mean to you - imagine a workplace or whatever else for context - and it's entirely possible that noone has to do anything, it can be the product of conversations alone.
I read all this justification for this stuff and to be blunt, at best, I just think you want to be granted the luxury of a license to carry on arguing the toss about something as if it were an irrelevant academic hobby, rather than something material to some people's lives, but unfortunately it is not.
There is a lot more to be said on this like, given historical parallels, where this whole thing is likely to be in decades from now and what your positions are likely to look like in retrospect, but it's all secondary to the damage being done to a community in exchange for individual entertainment, if even that.
It's hardly a 'flounce' if a large number of people that we can all name who were here for a decade left and never came back. The fallout from this is not theoretical, it has happened and continues to happen. It's not absolutely unique, we have had certain moments where political disagreements have done damage but nothing quite so fundamental to who people are. Just think about what the words 'toxic environment' mean to you - imagine a workplace or whatever else for context - and it's entirely possible that noone has to do anything, it can be the product of conversations alone.
I read all this justification for this stuff and to be blunt, at best, I just think you want to be granted the luxury of a license to carry on arguing the toss about something as if it were an irrelevant academic hobby, rather than something material to some people's lives, but unfortunately it is not.
There is a lot more to be said on this like, given historical parallels, where this whole thing is likely to be in decades from now and what your positions are likely to look like in retrospect, but it's all secondary to the damage being done to a community in exchange for individual entertainment, if even that.
hitmouse
so defeated, thinks it's funny
Yeah, I had been thinking of saying something like that but wasn't sure how to put it without sounding like further pointscoring. But yes, I think Sisters Uncut do good and important work that should be supported.
mauvais
on reddit or something
In particular I suggest that this line reveals a great deal of privilege on your part and perhaps this is something you could reflect on.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Is it a "large number"? I can think of a handful, a number of whom have returned.
To dismiss the issue as a "hobby" or "entertainment" is a bit patronising.
Last edited:
mauvais
on reddit or something
Of course it is. I'm not going to name them for you. The owner of this site acknowledges that it was an enormously damaging episode.
Athos
Well-Known Member
We can agree to disagree.
Athos
Well-Known Member
I will. And I do get your point that I'm fortunate not to have to rely on this place for emotional support, but I still find it odd that people would prefer not to know that their friends think differently from them. If I found out one of my mates was a racist, I'd try to change their mind; if I couldn't, I'd end our friendship. That'd be sad, but still preferable to not knowing they are a racist, surely?
Last edited:
Shechemite
Be the sun and all will see you
Sisters uncut are hardly an unproblematic organisation
My own sympathies with gender critical feminism began when I watched a 29 year old fella physically assault a 60 year old woman. (After stalking them round london and proclaiming in social media their desire to ‘fuck up a terf). And then seeing sections of the left leap to defence of ‘the she wolf’.
safer spaces eh
My own sympathies with gender critical feminism began when I watched a 29 year old fella physically assault a 60 year old woman. (After stalking them round london and proclaiming in social media their desire to ‘fuck up a terf). And then seeing sections of the left leap to defence of ‘the she wolf’.
safer spaces eh
bimble
floofy
This sounds perfectly reasonable but the thing you may be missing is that maybe you’ve never been ‘disagreed with’ about a thing that feels deeply personal and vulnerable and core to who you are, something that’s not just an opinion.
For instance I buggered off from here for one year when the antisemitism thing was raging on, because the vast majority of the posts on this website on that subject hurt to read, which is not the same thing as disagreeing, just actual hurt accumulating to a sort of frightening level where for my own mental ok-ness I had to go away.
I’m obviously not one to preach on this but one of the mostly-departed posters said something, not long ago, about how this subject can feel like that, to them, which was uncomfortable but helpful to be told. And if you’ve no idea what that might feel like, maybe think about why.
mauvais
on reddit or something
This is not worth anything. What I want is for you (and others) to listen to people, not necessarily me. So far this has been you saying what you want. Your last few posts appear to be based around a perspective of this place as a big piece of machinery for discussion that benefits the discourse and your own learning, with you thinking about how to sustain and optimise that machine for its highest productivity. But it simply isn't that. Maybe once, years ago, but certainly not any more. It's predominantly now a fixed-in-place bunch of individual people clinging on to something that brought us together, and its utility as an interesting argument factory is a distant second to that.
Vulnerable people do rely on this place for emotional support, but that's only one aspect of what I'm talking about. Would you want to remain in a place where some crucial, immutable element of your actual life is used as a theoretical football? You can't agree to disagree about what you are. So if your friends 'think differently', then in this case it's quite likely to be, in some form, contrary to your right to exist as you are. In the absence of being able to resolve anything by those people listening to you, it would actually be far better to never reveal the difference. Given the circumstances in which they exist, some things are much better not expressed.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Athos
Well-Known Member
Fair enough, I guess people have different conceptions of what this place is and what it should be.
Regarding the second paragraph, I don't buy the hyperbole; I can't think of a single instance here when a friend has said to a friend anything that could reasonably be interpreted as "contrary to their right to exist."
Similar threads
