Is this woman a transphobe?

[co-op]

"you lot"

To some extent this is a case of if the cap fits then wear it.

But I was really thinking of anyone who thinks that GC posters on here are "transphobes" for not posting pro-trans messages on anti-trans threads from 16 years ago. Seems kinda clown-like to me.

But I guess it's safer than being accused of "transphobia" yourself, so maybe it's cowardice rather than clownitude? But the allegation of "transphobia" won't be easily pacified, you will have to keep making bigger offerings & in the end the most important offering is to publicly be-clown yourself. Case in point, David Lammy just shared with the world that he thinks transwomen have a cervix

 

[belboid]

David Lammy just shared with the world that he thinks transwomen have a cervix

Did he? Every report I’ve seen says he said it’s ‘not right’ to say ‘only women have a cervix.’ Somewhat different to your claim, tho we should just come to accept that from you.

I think a transphobe is someone who works against trans people having equal rights with cis people. That includes in healthcare and access to facilities and services. Far more recently than 16 years ago it was argued on here that such campaigns were unacceptable demands for special treatment.

Meanwhile, violence against trans people has quadrupled over five years. Unemployment is around fifty percent. One in four trans people has attempted suicide.

The Council of Europe has just released a major report on LGBT+ rights, the Uk does not come out well:

It describes “a marked increase” in anti-LGBT+ hate speech and hate crime and condemns “with particular force the extensive and often virulent attacks” on LGBT+ rights in the UK, which is named alongside Hungary, Poland, Turkey and the Russian Federation.

What lovely company!

The supposed opposition between women’s and trans rights is nothing but a smokescreen that the right want to use to attack both groups.

 

[co-op]

Did he? Every report I’ve seen says he said it’s ‘not right’ to say ‘only women have a cervix.’ Somewhat different to your claim, tho we should just come to accept that from you.

There are a lot of factual inaccuracies in your post but just to get this one out of the way, why not listen to what he actually said?



I know the main point of your post is to prove to the rest of your chums that you are hyper-vigilant in the fight against "transphobia" rather to actually deal with reality, but it's odd that you should use this example as a way of proving my 'repeating falsehoods', when you could have so easily checked this one?

Does it not embarrass you when you are caught out like this? Or is the auto-enclowning, worth it to avoid the allegation of "transphobia"?

 

[krtek a houby]

To some extent this is a case of if the cap fits then wear it.

But I was really thinking of anyone who thinks that GC posters on here are "transphobes" for not posting pro-trans messages on anti-trans threads from 16 years ago. Seems kinda clown-like to me.

But I guess it's safer than being accused of "transphobia" yourself, so maybe it's cowardice rather than clownitude? But the allegation of "transphobia" won't be easily pacified, you will have to keep making bigger offerings & in the end the most important offering is to publicly be-clown yourself. Case in point, David Lammy just shared with the world that he thinks transwomen have a cervix

Some people think you have a brain

 

[co-op]

Some people think you have a brain

Is this really the best you can do?

Do you think tw grow a cervix, or were they born with one?

 

[ElizabethofYork]

Is this really the best you can do?

Do you think tw grow a cervix, or were they born with one?

What?

 

[belboid]

There are a lot of factual inaccuracies in your post but just to get this one out of the way, why not listen to what he actually said?



I know the main point of your post is to prove to the rest of your chums that you are hyper-vigilant in the fight against "transphobia" rather to actually deal with reality, but it's odd that you should use this example as a way of proving my 'repeating falsehoods', when you could have so easily checked this one?

Does it not embarrass you when you are caught out like this? Or is the auto-enclowning, worth it to avoid the allegation of "transphobia"?

There were no factual inaccuracies, all the reports I saw - including in the right wing press who support your transphobia - report it as I said. Probably because it is blatantly obvious what he meant (ie trans men). A pretty pathetic attempt by you. Which is a mild improvement on your usual standard.

You enjoy trying to whip up antipathy towards trans people and I don’t see why you should be treated differently to any misogynist, racist or homophobe.

 

[krtek a houby]

Is this really the best you can do?

Do you think tw grow a cervix, or were they born with one?

Doesn't matter what this self thinks. What matters is who and what people are. What they are comfortable identifying with.

It may anger and terrify some out there who can't fathom it. Won't fathom it. But frankly, they are the ones with issues.

 

[co-op]

There were no factual inaccuracies, all the reports I saw - including in the right wing press who support your transphobia - report it as I said. Probably because it is blatantly obvious what he meant (ie trans men).

Jesus, you are off down the rabbit hole aren't you? It's crystal clear he's talking about transwomen - he suggests that it might be a "procedure" or due to "hormones" - how on earth could this possibly be how a transman has a cervix? They are born with one.

This is a surreal explanation even by the standards of this topic.

But just shout "transphobia!" and everything will be ok, I'm sure.

 

[co-op]

Doesn't matter what this self thinks. What matters is who and what people are. What they are comfortable identifying with.

All of these thing matter I agree. One reason that simply saying this doesn't solve anything is that there is a rupture between "what people are" and "what they are comfortable identifying with".

 

[ElizabethofYork]

Jesus, you are off down the rabbit hole aren't you? It's crystal clear he's talking about transwomen - he suggests that it might be a "procedure" or due to "hormones" - how on earth could this possibly be how a transman has a cervix? They are born with one.

This is a surreal explanation even by the standards of this topic.

But just shout "transphobia!" and everything will be ok, I'm sure.

Don't be ridiculous. It's obvious that he meant transmen.

 

[co-op]

What?

David Lammy appears to think that (some? all?) transwomen have a cervix. This is where chanting "transwomen are women" for long enough will get you. Pretty confused. But of course saying any of this is "transphobic".

 

[hitmouse]

I can't believe I'm in the position of having to defend David Lammy, but I find it easier to sympathise with someone who isn't completely sure what he's on about and ends up saying something a bit daft as a result of being tripped up while being badgered about a subject he doesn't know that much about than I do with the obsessive weirdos doing the badgering. Or do you think Nick Ferrari was so keen to bring the subject up because of his long-standing commitment to radical feminism?

 

[co-op]

Don't be ridiculous. It's obvious that he meant transmen.

OK you think so too, doesn't sound like that to me. And not what he actually says.
Why do you think he uses the word "procedure" in there? Does he think transmen have operations to put a cervix in? How does that word, or the word "hormones" in there fit with this being about transmen?

 

[belboid]

Jesus, you are off down the rabbit hole aren't you? It's crystal clear he's talking about transwomen - he suggests that it might be a "procedure" or due to "hormones" - how on earth could this possibly be how a transman has a cervix? They are born with one.

This is a surreal explanation even by the standards of this topic.

But just shout "transphobia!" and everything will be ok, I'm sure.

He talks about how ‘trans women’ may still have cervixes but not ovaries, following ‘procedures and all the rest of it’. It’s ducking obvious to anyone listening he meant trans men unless you were being deliberately stupid. Even the Express recognised that. You’re to the right of the Express, well done you!

 

[Athos]

Don't be ridiculous. It's obvious that he meant transmen.

I don't think so. Because he said they couldn't have ovaries but could have a cervix following procedures and hormone treatment. I think it's just more a case that Lammy is a useless prick. Don't think it has anything more to significant to add to discussions on trans issues than that, though.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

I can't believe I'm in the position of having to defend David Lammy, but I find it easier to sympathise with someone who isn't completely sure what he's on about and ends up saying something a bit daft as a result of being tripped up while being badgered about a subject he doesn't know that much about than I do with the obsessive weirdos doing the badgering. Or do you think Nick Ferrari was so keen to bring the subject up because of his long-standing commitment to radical feminism?

It would be better if all these politicians making fools of themselves kept quiet then, and admitted they don't know that much about the subject, rather than making dogmatic statements about which it turns out they are uncertain.

 

[co-op]

I can't believe I'm in the position of having to defend David Lammy, but I find it easier to sympathise with someone who isn't completely sure what he's on about and ends up saying something a bit daft as a result of being tripped up while being badgered about a subject he doesn't know that much about than I do with the obsessive weirdos doing the badgering. Or do you think Nick Ferrari was so keen to bring the subject up because of his long-standing commitment to radical feminism?

Obviously Nick Ferrari is a right wing shock-jock who's smart enough to see when his political enemies are all over the shop on an issue and he will exploit that.

 

[belboid]

Anyway, all co-ops bullshit is just a sad attempt to force the issue onto trivialities and to ignore the material reality of the level of bias against trans people. Shameful.

 

[co-op]

He talks about how ‘trans women’ may still have cervixes but not ovaries, following ‘procedures and all the rest of it’. It’s ducking obvious to anyone listening he meant trans men unless you were being deliberately stupid. Even the Express recognised that. You’re to the right of the Express, well done you!

How does that fit with his saying "they can't have ovaries"? You're absolutely talking gibberish here.

 

[belboid]

How does that fit with his saying "they can't have ovaries"? You're absolutely talking gibberish here.

Fuck off

 

[Raheem]

How does that fit with his saying "they can't have ovaries"? You're absolutely talking gibberish here.

Why are you so excited about this?

 

[co-op]

Fuck off

Seriously you'd have done better to say Lammy's a confused idiot. By choosing to go with the idea that he's making sense you just back yourself into a corner and this ^^ is always going to be the only way out.

 

[hitmouse]

It would be better if all these politicians making fools of themselves kept quiet then, and admitted they don't know that much about the subject, rather than making dogmatic statements about which it turns out they are uncertain.

I mean:

BBC stoking row over trans rights, Labour frontbencher David Lammy says

Shadow justice secretary says corporation is deliberately asking about issues not of interest on the doorstep

www.independent.co.uk

A Labour frontbencher has criticised the BBC for focusing on "identity issues" and effectively stoking a row over trans rights in the party.

In an interview on Wednesday morning shadow justice secretary David Lammy said Today programme presenter Nick Robinson was "deliberately asking me about an issue that you know does not come up on the doorstep."

Mr Robinson had asked a number of questions about trans rights in the set-piece interview, which came hours ahead of Keir Starmer's keynote conference speech.

The presenter had claimed Labour's stance would be an issue with voters in the so-called "red wall" of seats won by the Tories.

But Mr Lammy said: "You, the BBC, are choosing to land on this subject - that most British people aren't talking about in a fuel crisis - and spend minutes on this because it keeps Labour talking about identity issues and not about the substantive policies that Keir will set out."

He suggested it would be more appropriate to talk about the fuel and supply chain crisis engulfing the country.

Obviously, I can't say I'm that excited about Keir Starmer's substantive policies or whatever, but it does seem to me like Lammy wants to be talking about the fuel crisis instead, but the Nick Robinsons and Ferraris of this world keep on insisting he has to talk about trans people in the hopes that he'll produce an exciting mis-step that the likes of co-op can then bang on endlessly about? Quite how anyone benefits from this is not entirely clear.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

I mean:

BBC stoking row over trans rights, Labour frontbencher David Lammy says

Shadow justice secretary says corporation is deliberately asking about issues not of interest on the doorstep

www.independent.co.uk

Obviously, I can't say I'm that excited about Keir Starmer's substantive policies or whatever, but it does seem to me like Lammy wants to be talking about the fuel crisis instead, but the Nick Robinsons and Ferraris of this world keep on insisting he has to talk about trans people in the hopes that he'll produce an exciting mis-step that the likes of co-op can then bang on endlessly about? Quite how anyone benefits from this is not entirely clear.

So like I said, he shouldn't get involved when he's uncertain of his ground.

 

[hitmouse]

Obviously Nick Ferrari is a right wing shock-jock who's smart enough to see when his political enemies are all over the shop on an issue and he will exploit that.

What do you hope to achieve by amplifying Nick Ferrari's messaging here? What's the end goal that you're hoping to move towards by highlighting the fact that a right-wing shock-jock got a confused interviewee to say something confused?

 

[belboid]

Seriously you'd have done better to say Lammy's a confused idiot. By choosing to go with the idea that he's making sense you just back yourself into a corner and this ^^ is always going to be the only way out.

Seriously, fuck off.

The ftm transition process involves always removing the ovaries but not necessarily the cervix. Lammy clearly knows more than you.

And, just to repeat, fuck off.

 

[Athos]

The ftm transition process involves always removing the ovaries but not necessarily the cervix.

No it doesn't. Many people transition socially without any surgery.

 

[co-op]

Why are you so excited about this?

Possibly you meant to address this to Belboid?

 

[hitmouse]

Possibly you meant to address this to Belboid?

I can't speak for Raheem, but I think they may have intended to address it to the person who first decided to bring it up here, and paired it with three smilies to show how excited they were about it?