19force8
For the avoidance of faith
The 70s are "not that long ago"
Is this woman a transphobe?
- Thread starter co-op
- Start date
The first thread there was 16 years ago. A couple of posters expressed some unsavoury views and they were challenged on them by other posters. Which is what has happened here since before the forums even existed and it was a basic message board.The 70s are "not that long ago"
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
The 70s are "not that long ago"
They are for those of us born in the '60s, maaan.
You don't think the fact those threads existed and not one person challenged them is a problem then? Noted.
Personally I think it's revealing that not one of the gender critical people who were members at the time and who now care so passionately about people being dehumanised and objectifed raised a peep in protest at those threads.
I’m out of this, putting this thread on ignore. Love and respect to you, smokedout.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Those threads reflect poorly on this place, notwithstanding the fact that much has changed since then.
Revealing how? You don't know that any of them saw those threads, do you? Can you see any gender critical posters who've objected to dehumanising/objectifying language who've voted or posted on them? I can't. But, ironically, I can see a number of those who now appear to be trans-inclusive. Some merely engaging with the poor taste poll/thread, but others even going so far as to actively indicate that they wouldn't sleep with a trans person/weren't sure!
Last edited:
19force8
For the avoidance of faith
I read this three times trying to work out how anyone could use a toilet placed at eye level
bimble
floofy
the editor of the Lancet has done a Statement.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
A man apologising for a woman's choice of words. Feminism is saved.
Shechemite
Be the sun and all will see you
Fucking doctors
A man not apologising for his own choice of headline, would be the more accurate assessment.
Cid
Proper break this time
The woman who wrote the piece is the senior editor for the Lancet's Child and Adolescent health journal. We have no idea what input she had wrt the headline... May well have been none, may not have been. Both of the managing editors at the main journal are women. All of the executive editors are women. 3/5 of the senior executive editors are women. The deputy editor is a woman (and has 'contributed to the roundtable Session D: GENDER ISSUES IN SCIENCE PUBLICATIONS <not my caps> How can editorial policies and writing on gender issues in science be improved to make the assessment and selection of research results for publication sensitive to gender and sex issues?' ). Top spot goes to man of course, because we've not come that far apparently. But people are making one fuck of a lot of assumptions about editorial decisions here.
Athos
Well-Known Member
I don't think the statement is as bad as people here (and moreso on Twitter) are saying. It did acknowledge the dehumanising language, and did contain an apology, whilst stressing the need for inclusivity. But the proof will be in the pudding of how they address these issues in the future.
Last edited:
How about just, “in the future, when we pull a single quote from an article to use it out of context as a headline, we’ll try to pay more attention to what that might be saying as a stand-alone statement.”
Cid
Proper break this time
One of the problems here is that the idea of 'bodies' is something that has been used in critical theory academic literature for ages. I am not remotely qualified to know whether this would be an appropriate use in that context... But this is the problem, and this is what people mean when they talk about 'the outrage'. What would normally be a fairly narrow academic discussion is distorted and amplified through the popular press or twitter, i.e people no more qualified than me, in an attempt to whip up moral panics; all chance for correctives are lost, all hope for productive debate subsumed. You see it as much with the rabid frothing of Fox news etc over critical race theory as over gender politics (not that outrage is just levelled at the right). The academic discussion will happen, but it will just be picking over the wreckage caused by the shitstorm.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Well, what it "says" as a stand-alone statement is down to how any reader interprets it.
I think it's fine for the Lancet to disagree with the interpretation that some have taken from it, perhaps even take the view that it's an unreasonable interpretation to take from it, whilst still being sorry if it has unintentionally caused offense.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
'We support the author of the article and we don't change our editorial policies in response to barracking from people who don't actually read anything we print.'
I'm sure those posters who disapprove of language being controlled could only agree with such a sentiment.
Cid
Proper break this time
Yes, may have kind of missed that...
I meant in the context of third wave feminism and intersectionality; the development of ideas of gender as distinct from sex and the deconstruction of social constructs of gender (scuse clumsy formulation). Judith Butler with bodies that matter... Also ideas you find in critical race theory; the notion of the bodily experience of racism and oppression, e.g Dorothy Roberts' killing the black body. I'm miles out of my comfort zone here, but my point was that discussion of body as something distinct has been part of feminist and intersectional literature for 30 odd years. It's possible that that has in some ways lead to use of the word in a too casual sense, that's something that may be worthy of discussion. But I'm pretty sure The Mail, Spectator, Telegraph and Piers fucking Morgan were not thinking about that.
I don't know what the intent of the author was... But yeah you're absolutely right that it's an extremely physical piece. Both in the sense that it explores an exhibition, and in that it confronts people like me (cis men) with an embodied reality that we've spent millennia pushing away. Summed up in the final paragraph;
Definitely putting thread on ignore now. Yep. Also definitely didn't do it before and notice 'ignored thread' on the forums page
Last edited:
_Russ_
Never not Knowingly Misunderstood
Strange reaction
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
Personally I don't.
It's ridiculous to accuse just one group of somehow being responsible for views in threads which they didn't even post in and may not have known existed, or may not have even been members of the forums when these threads were active. It's just stupid, but obviously you are obsessed with tying this bogus claim of "transphobia" on anyone who doesn't agree with your gender politics and that's the only way in which your allegation makes sense. Self-serving crap.
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
Yet it's perfectly fine to post tweets of random nutters as evidence of what the 'trans lobby' thinks. So fucking transparent.
I think most people on this thread whatever their views are posting in good faith. You, on the other hand, are an obsessive cranky weirdo with an agenda.
krtek a houby
Merry Xmas!
Nope
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
What I've posted on this thread is a woman, a trade unionist getting harassed by her employer for saying the words I posted up. And asking "is she a transphobe?" for saying the words she said. You don't engage with that, instead you agree that the fact that I didn't condemn posts from 16 years ago on threads I didn't even read is evidence of my transphobia and accuse me of "posting tweets of random nutters"?
And then accuse me of not arguing in good faith
. You really are a fucking idiot.Honestly you lot really need to get out more. You are making clowns of yourselves on this.
krtek a houby
Merry Xmas!
"you lot"
Similar threads
