kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
A politician/would-be politician telling porkies/being economical with the actualities?
Shurely shome mistake?
The Green Party has some serious questions to answer
- Thread starter q_w_e_r_t_y
- Start date
A politician/would-be politician telling porkies/being economical with the actualities?
Shurely shome mistake?
SpackleFrog
Smash showy bell-bottom pants and sporty haircuts
We've *all* got skin in the game you fucking dinosaur.
not-bono-ever
meh
not got involved with the identity poltics threads as its not something i have anything to contribute or have considered to any great depth ( though thats never stopped me before) - so its a bit of an eye opener for me as i have cruised them - is it always this fraught ?
Not so long ago, pedophiles squirmed their way into the Gay Rights movement. Lets not let that happen with the LGBT movement.
Thank you for finding that. I was going to post it for the opposite purpose.
The anti-trans position is very reminiscent of the demonisation of all gay people, especially gay men, because some paedophiles target boys. They were never a reason not to legalise homosexuality and equalise the age of consent. They are not a reason to prevent gay men from looking after children.
Gay people in communal showers are not a threat. Equal marriage is not equivalent to allowing people to marry animals. All that bullshit.
Campaigners for gay rights were not wrong because some dodgy characters hijacked their cause. Equalising the age of consent did nothing to help paedophiles and self ID changes nothing because birth certificates are not part of any abuser's toolkit.
Trans people are vulnerable because misogynists police gender violently. I don't understand why people who call themselves feminists are willing to abandon them. I suppose it is individualist v structural analysis? Men are shit v patriarchy is shit?
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
It’s not possible to say gender critical feminism is an “individualistic” analysis - it clearly isn’t. You can disagree with it but it’s clearly a structural analysis rooted in the material reality of women’s bodies and men’s need to control women’s reproduction - thereby controlling the inheritance of wealth and power. This is why so many - most - second wave feminists were also radical socialists and used terms like “sex class” to describe women’s reproductive Labour.
On the other hand a historically huge amount of transgender ideology has been reductively individualistic. GC feminism has always demanded that society is fundamentally changed to smash gender stereotypical behaviour (the need for it) and to liberate the individual by social change. TG theory has - historically (ie until very recently) - been almost exclusively concerned with changing the individual to fit in with stereotypical gender roles and liberate patriarchal society to continue on its merry way. This was a key reason for radical feminists rejecting trans theory so early on; it reified and valorised stereotypical gender roles.
The advent of more complex genderqueer theory has changed the above analysis but - imo - only by going crazy. GC feminism sees sex as a simple material reality and gender (ie the assigned “correct” behaviour) as purely a social construct. You can argue with that (eg is some component of gender innate?) - but the basic analysis is rooted in reality; we can all see that gender roles are part of human culture to some extent and therefore are invented - at least to some extent.
But full on TG stuff now is basically saying that gender is an innate reality, eternal, that we are each born with, while biology is just a social construct;is that a penis? Or a girl dick? Depends on your socialisation. In the latest version of this crazy stuff TG penises have literally become clitorises - because if “trans women are women” and this is a TWs genital, then by definition it’s a clitoris. This is bonkers.
TERF was coined by RadFems to distance themselves from RadFems who rejected trans people so that's not the whole story?
I do find it hard to separate all the strands of transphobic thinking but it feels like the TERFs are going from an anti-essentialist position, gender is a social construct, to an essentialist one, no one can be a woman unless they experience childbirth. Or have been brought up as a girl. Or whatever it is they're using to exclude people today.
The TERF position ignores a lot of science but those questions are not settled and we shouldn't need science to tell us to believe what a group of people say about how they feel. It was like this with the "gay gene" too.
Trans people are telling us the truth. They don't all agree with each other because trans is not one thing and trans people are people. There are difficult discussions around safeguarding, trust and understanding which need to be approached calmly and reasonably. That seems impossible when the antitrans position is so dominated by scoffing, disbelief, rudeness, ignorance and smearing by association.
I do find it hard to separate all the strands of transphobic thinking but it feels like the TERFs are going from an anti-essentialist position, gender is a social construct, to an essentialist one, no one can be a woman unless they experience childbirth. Or have been brought up as a girl. Or whatever it is they're using to exclude people today.
The TERF position ignores a lot of science but those questions are not settled and we shouldn't need science to tell us to believe what a group of people say about how they feel. It was like this with the "gay gene" too.
Trans people are telling us the truth. They don't all agree with each other because trans is not one thing and trans people are people. There are difficult discussions around safeguarding, trust and understanding which need to be approached calmly and reasonably. That seems impossible when the antitrans position is so dominated by scoffing, disbelief, rudeness, ignorance and smearing by association.
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
I've got to be honest I find a lot of this post to be incomprehensible - eg what's that first line all about?
But I'd make the following comments;
1. It's not transphobic to question demands made by trans-rights activists. Many of those demands are pretty obviously homophobic and ridiculous (eg the demand that lesbians accept that TG men with penises can be lesbians)
2. You're right to say there are different strands in criticisms of TG activism. Radical feminism is just one of them. No radical feminist that I have seen has ever said no one can be a woman "unless they experience childbirth" - and it would make no sense in terms of anything else rad fems believe - so you are either extremely ignorant of radical feminism or you are lying. If it's the former, educate yourself, why not? If the latter, why bother? You'll get found out soon enough.
3. The stuff about science makes no sense; 'Radical Feminists ignore science, but science isn't important anyway'. Whatever.
4. You say 'trans people are telling us the truth' and then say 'trans is not one thing'. So whose truth are we to believe? Because some of those truths directly contradict each other. Which is why for example so many in the group who used to called 'transsexuals' are coming out against self-id and are building bridges with radical feminists. Several transgender people (mtf) have spoken at Women's Place events, nd written publicly against self-id Standing up for transsexual rights | Letters. The response to this from within the TG camp has been predictably angry but it's exposed a very clear rift. Many TRAs have routinely referred to the group that used to be called transsexuals as "truscum" or more politely "trans-medicalist". You have to acknowledge this split - it clearly exists. So whose truth are we to believe? It's clear that "truscum" (ie what most people take as "transgender") are massively out-numbered by the legions of fetishists and genderqueer poseurs so I'm betting that it's the latter group who will win here, but they are the ones are the problem, this is the group where the problems lie.
Treacle Toes
Time
No. Aimee.
FabricLiveBaby!
Live Baby Fabric!
Treacle Toes
Time
I hope it's a fake tbh. If not I can't quite get my head around Aimee not seeing how inappropriate this would be.
spanglechick
High Empress of Dressing Up
When was it posted by AC?
Get this man away from children.
lazythursday
Well-Known Member
It's certainly not on her Tumblr now as far as I can see. Either posted a very long time ago or a fake.
FabricLiveBaby!
Live Baby Fabric!
I would hope that so. It looks like a tumblr site.
If posted a long time ago I would still be concerned re the current revelations. Not necessarily that AC is a participant, but certainly affected, and could be projection.
A cached page would be needed screenshots, while it should be adequate are easy to fake.
Caution is necessary.
lazythursday
Well-Known Member
OK I've found it. Posted three years ago, September 2015.
Treacle Toes
Time
FabricLiveBaby!
Live Baby Fabric!
Jesus.
LT
Can you cache the page? It may be necessary. At this point it may be that AC knew of the abuse OR was a victim of abuse and is projecting that abuse as "playtime".
Either way. Its a massive childhood safeguarding issue.
I'm not tech savvy enough.
lazythursday
Well-Known Member
In fact, it was posted by a graphic designer (who I assume created it) and then reposted (or whatever the Tumblr equivalent of a retweet is) by Challenor and lots of others. It's an American thing about guns and child safety.
Karen Hurley | The clever ‘Always lock up your guns’ film I...
Karen Hurley | The clever ‘Always lock up your guns’ film I...
Treacle Toes
Time
Or Aimee reposted/blogged it as it is kind of amusing way of making a serious comment if not in the context of child abuse. That kids will play with just about anything?
lazythursday
Well-Known Member
I
I can't see how it's a massive childhood safeguarding issue. It's a clever piece of advertising that has likely been shared by an awful lot of people. It only looks terrible under Aimee Challenor's name because of what her father did some time later. It's more likely one of those awful coincidences rather than evidence of Challenor's depravity.
FabricLiveBaby!
Live Baby Fabric!
Jesus fucking christ. I am not sure what to make of that. Somone clearly thought the shock factor of getting kids to play with various sex aids (?) as opposed to guns would be shocking and take the message home.
That it is. But in light of context its really a red flag.
It could be an awful coincidence (and I hope it is!), but I don't think it should go without some serious investigating. Seeing as guns are illegal in the UK.
lazythursday
Well-Known Member
Tumblr works in a similar way to Twitter. This will have appeared in Aimee's feed, posted by someone else she follows, she's found it amusing and clicked 'repost'. Likely without barely thinking about it. It's a red herring, not a red flag, imo.
andysays
Love and solidarity
Much like Tucker seems to have reposted what someone else sent her, without knowing what it was or when it was originally posted by AC and why. And most of those commenting seem to have jumped very quickly to incorrect conclusions on the basis of their own knee jerk assumptions.
Twitter and Tumblr are a shit way to do politics.
spanglechick
High Empress of Dressing Up
I think it's fairly amusing as an ad campaign. It's the sort of thing I might have shared if I was in a sharing mood.
I think whoever dug it up and shamed AC for it now was, by neglecting the date or the anti-gun context, dishonestly trying to smear AC. And TBH, if that's the best they could find even after trawling back to when AC was seventeen years old, they are grasping at straws.
spanglechick
High Empress of Dressing Up
Why?
Edit - if I posted that, should I be stopped from teaching? After all I have a lot more contact with kids than AC does.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I don't feel sorry for Aimee Challenor at all. I met her a couple of times at Green Party conferences last year. She was always a fucking liability, even without her dad's crimes. She's a bully and a bigot who sold herself as an authority on trans issues, who mostly relied on her own biased opinions for "policy guidance". Her behaviour when younger (she threatened a shopping centre with a cyber-attack because they pissed her off) is a fairly good marker of how she behaves now - petulance, poorly-controlled anger, and a need to bully anyone she thinks might have a brighter light shining than she does.
Treacle Toes
Time
The date that AC reblogged that stuff above (3 years ago) and origin was pointed out to Pilgrim, her response is...
Similar threads
- Poll
