Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Is this woman a transphobe?

Have you taken that from the UN convention here?


If you want to get pedantic about technical definitions, I could point out that the full wording is as follows:
...
Which actually limits it to "national, ethical, racial or religious" groups.

But that really doesn't matter, because the context of the "genocide apologist" comment was an article for general readership, not a technical or legal document, which means it's quite appropriate to take "genocide" to be intended to communicate the meaning that you'll consistently find in most dictionaries, which is the murder of an entire group of people.

The word was used in that article for shock value. It's up to the writer's judgement whether that's effective. Maybe it is for some readers. For other readers it won't be.
Did you even read the article?
1636467352403.png
1636467390348.png
I think that where someone explicitly and at length refers to the legal document they're talking about, they're probably trying to communicate the meaning used in that legal document, which is why they're citing and discussing it.
 
Did you even read the article?
View attachment 296096
View attachment 296097
I think that where someone explicitly and at length refers to the legal document they're talking about, they're probably trying to communicate the meaning used in that legal document, which is why they're citing and discussing it.

Fair enough, I missed that part, instead finding the bit where Kathleen Stock is described as a "genocide apologist" in the conclusion to the article.

So, it was wrong of me to say that the writer used it with the intention of it being understood in terms of its conventional dictionary definition.
 
I think it's worth reposting the Sarah Ahmed article hitmouse linked to earlier, since it pretty comprehensively deals with many of the points that keep coming up.


I do wonder why people (well, teuchter at the moment) think that 'I've talked to a couple of people, don't really know anything about the arguments, but y'know, have this kind of vibe' is a sound basis for charging into a thread about the rights of an extremely marginalised group and arguing the toss about the finer points of their eradication.

Anyway, shouldn't really be back, least of all on this thread. I shall fuck back off into my void.
 
If that's true, then I apologise. I haven't been religiously following this thread. But it looks like the BBC has yet to correct their error.

No prob - there is some useful context there that fills in some of the stuff mauvais was talking about earlier in the thread, and which was veiled sufficiently in the amended article for me to miss some important bits of the awful tone (not that it was just a matter of tone).
 
Last edited:
The word "transphobe" is a problem in itself. it is used to shut down conversations. Not everyone agrees on issues and calling people transphobes for simply speaking their mind causes divisions. It just adds to the growing divides
 
The word "transphobe" is a problem in itself. it is used to shut down conversations. Not everyone agrees on issues and calling people transphobes for simply speaking their mind causes divisions. It just adds to the growing divides
If someone's saying something transphobic then they deserve to be challenged and called out on it. Regardless of if they are speaking their mind or not.
 
The word "transphobe" is a problem in itself. it is used to shut down conversations. Not everyone agrees on issues and calling people transphobes for simply speaking their mind causes divisions. It just adds to the growing divides
There's nothing wrong with the word 'transphobe' per se, as long as it's used to describe people who are transphobes, of which they're are many. The issue is when it's used in bad faith to try to silence people who aren't transphobes.
 
causes divisions
I've learned in the last year or so just how much this trope is relied on to hide bullshit opinions. Saying that you prefer ketchup over mustard is divisive. Saying that the world is round is divisive. Everything is divisive. People just don't like finding out they're suddenly on one side of a divide with some pretty unsavoury people, can we not have that particular divide please?
 
If someone's saying something transphobic then they deserve to be challenged and called out on it. Regardless of if they are speaking their mind or not.
i was talking about the word itself. Not everyone can contain and control their emotions. Using belboid as an example. They want shutdown conversations. Which is like using the word "transphobe" and instead of talking and being rational
 
i was talking about the word itself. Not everyone can contain and control their emotions. Using belboid as an example. They want shutdown conversations. Which is like using the word "transphobe" and instead of talking and being rational
Piss off

And take your bullshit with you.
It's a wankers tactic to accuse the people you disagree with of being emotional and not rational.
It's a giant pile of poo.
 
Last edited:
i was talking about the word itself. Not everyone can contain and control their emotions. Using belboid as an example. They want shutdown conversations. Which is like using the word "transphobe" and instead of talking and being rational
That's true to extent. But, even as someone who believes in trans rights and women's (hard won) rights to single sex (not gender) spaces, I recognise that some straight-up bigots co-opt women's rights (which they don't support in any other context) as cover for transhobia.
 
i was talking about the word itself. Not everyone can contain and control their emotions. Using belboid as an example. They want shutdown conversations. Which is like using the word "transphobe" and instead of talking and being rational
Not everyone can write sentences according to this post.
 
Why you guys so upset. You are the ones choosing to be bigots. Your entire beliefs are for all to read
The reason people are upset is that you're a "new poster" :hmm: turning up, wading in on a long running, upsetting thread/subject with your 2 pence worth with no regard to the history of the subject and its effects on this site.

Do you regularly walk in to pubs and cafes and just tell your opinions to random strangers that are sitting having other conversations?
 
Back
Top Bottom