danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
It wasn’t you, and it was someone who was a reasonable person who was being supportive.
Transgender hate crimes recorded by police go up 81%
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
No, that’s a fair point.
lazythursday
Averagely-Known Member
I agree with Danny re that specific incident but the poster in question can be difficult to discuss things with on non-trans topics too - there are people who can just be plain difficult of all genders.
Jennaonthebeach
What would Picard do?
Well, with respect, that's just you saying they're reasonable. I'm staying neutral on this one because i don't know the details.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
It was on this thread recently. I don’t want to reignite the exchange, so I’m loath to name either party. I brought it up to say there are raised tempers, perhaps understandably, and snap decisions and condemnations where sober reflection might have led to a different response.
I’m not saying I get everything right. I don’t. I’m offering an opinion after someone else raised the topic of people who feel excluded.
Cid
Proper break this time
Assuming we're talking about the same thing, the er... criticiser was also pulled up on it quite promptly. I agree that shit wasn't helpful at all, but it notably did not spiral.
Jennaonthebeach
What would Picard do?
the way i see it is the only people who should definitely not be excluded are trans people. Allies can be treated sympathetically so they can learn and improve, but everyone needs to get over their own ego, is what i think. So what if someone tells you you're wrong - isn't that how we learn? God, if trans people were as fragile as many cis people we'd all still be in the closet.
Either you want to get it right or don't bother. I mean its just words, not actual violence, and from a vulnerable minority like trans people, how could that hurt anyone?
Puddy_Tat
naturally fluffy
i could probably find it, but don't want to make this a call-out aimed at either of the people involved.
this is the internet, people do occasionally react badly to things, possibly because they have misunderstood what someone meant or what their motives were. it usually blows over.
none of us on here know what shit the person who reacted might have already had to put up with that day anywhere else on the interwebs or in the real world, but from where i'm sitting, i'd say the chances of a trans person not having had to put up with some shit from somewhere on any day of the week is low.
but when someone from a minority group reacts in a way that isn't 'nice' to anything, then they often then get accused of being strident / uppity / undermining their case...
Jennaonthebeach
What would Picard do?
That's when i say fuck it, let's just be ourselves. The gay community only ever got anything by rioting (with trans people rioting alongside them) so i speak as i find.
Jennaonthebeach
What would Picard do?
There honestly wouldn't be any point - because as you say - an online clash doesn't really tell you much about anything without doing lengthy research - and even then - there are so many other factors involved.
Jennaonthebeach
What would Picard do?
i did until 5 years ago - but then i guess younger people would be up the front these days. I could hold down the rear! Or make the tea.
lazythursday
Averagely-Known Member
I think this is right but that doesn't mean that those fighting for their rights NEVER undermine their case through their actions. Every cause has people who can actively prevent the building of solidarity and understanding. You see it in online arguments all the time.
They may undermine the perceptions of their case amongst those who are sceptical or in opposition, but that doesn't undermine the case itself. The principle of LGBTQ liberation is not undermined by an LGBTQ person acting like a dick. Optics do matter in pragmatic terms, but they don't change the fundamental underlying morality.
lazythursday
Averagely-Known Member
Yep agree. I phrased that badly - not undermine the case, but impact on it's progress, potentially.
InArduisFouette
Well-Known Member
no dear, fash get told to fuck off because they are fash- Trans Exclusionary Reactionary Fascists are exactly that
InArduisFouette
Well-Known Member
Spymaster is still in denial that they are a transphobe despite clear evidence of their transphobia
Jennaonthebeach
What would Picard do?
oh, he is one for sure.
Balbi
Hey, Dean Yager!
The position that any trans and nb people are denying the reality of sex is foundational to the gender crits, terfs etc. Then there's everything that comes with that position involving bodily autonomy - not just for the lgbtqi community, but everyone who relies on legal precedent to make decisions about contraception, abortion and other care.
I mean there's a reason why the Heritage Foundation, the ADF and others have paired up with gender critical groups in the US and manage to fund their speakers going on tour to spread their gospel. And that the criminalisation of trans existence, the banning of healthcare has swept in step with the banning of abortion and contraception, and has led to some incredibly invasive legislation that affects cis women proportionally more - because there's more of them.
Trans rights was the wedge issue identified by these groups after they lost on gay marriage in a lot of anglophone countries. In the states it's done by lobbying local politicians who slap down state legislation written by the anti-trans, anti-abortion, anti-contraception groups. In the UK it's been harder to take this route.
If you can demonise trans women as rapists or massively overpowered sports dangers, and characterise trans men as confused mentally ill people who've been tricked by the medical establishment, which their movement relies on, you can get them banned from sport and start the withdrawal of the established healthcare for them.
If you can claim a young person can't consent under the established precedent of Gillick competence, you can go after the underlying precedent for abortion and contraception access for young people. When Bell v Tavistock got judged wrongly initially, the right wing cheered because they'd undermined Gillick. That's why the High Court slapped that judge so hard because he'd fucked with something very important.
However now Cass says well there's some treatments young people can't consent to until we've got evidence. Watch this turn into a question about the pill and abortion from the same lawyers who've represented Bell and others.
The weirdest and horribly funny bit is people on the left particularly who see the Christian right cheering on the roll back of women's rights via the avenue of attacking trans rights and go "well we should consider the points" or hope that maybe the Tories or Labour won't implement everything the media and various lobby groups have demanded.
These are people who are aiming to rewrite the Equality Act 2010 to exclude protection for trans women, wanted to roll back gender healthcare to cut off the trans community, and advocate loudly for excluding trans people from public toilets, sports teams, hospital wards etc.
The UK Labour Party and the Tories agree on pretty much all of the above, and if you're on the left or anywhere near radical what the fuck are you doing agreeing with those corrupt cunts eh?
I mean there's a reason why the Heritage Foundation, the ADF and others have paired up with gender critical groups in the US and manage to fund their speakers going on tour to spread their gospel. And that the criminalisation of trans existence, the banning of healthcare has swept in step with the banning of abortion and contraception, and has led to some incredibly invasive legislation that affects cis women proportionally more - because there's more of them.
Trans rights was the wedge issue identified by these groups after they lost on gay marriage in a lot of anglophone countries. In the states it's done by lobbying local politicians who slap down state legislation written by the anti-trans, anti-abortion, anti-contraception groups. In the UK it's been harder to take this route.
If you can demonise trans women as rapists or massively overpowered sports dangers, and characterise trans men as confused mentally ill people who've been tricked by the medical establishment, which their movement relies on, you can get them banned from sport and start the withdrawal of the established healthcare for them.
If you can claim a young person can't consent under the established precedent of Gillick competence, you can go after the underlying precedent for abortion and contraception access for young people. When Bell v Tavistock got judged wrongly initially, the right wing cheered because they'd undermined Gillick. That's why the High Court slapped that judge so hard because he'd fucked with something very important.
However now Cass says well there's some treatments young people can't consent to until we've got evidence. Watch this turn into a question about the pill and abortion from the same lawyers who've represented Bell and others.
The weirdest and horribly funny bit is people on the left particularly who see the Christian right cheering on the roll back of women's rights via the avenue of attacking trans rights and go "well we should consider the points" or hope that maybe the Tories or Labour won't implement everything the media and various lobby groups have demanded.
These are people who are aiming to rewrite the Equality Act 2010 to exclude protection for trans women, wanted to roll back gender healthcare to cut off the trans community, and advocate loudly for excluding trans people from public toilets, sports teams, hospital wards etc.
The UK Labour Party and the Tories agree on pretty much all of the above, and if you're on the left or anywhere near radical what the fuck are you doing agreeing with those corrupt cunts eh?
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
I'm really sorry that you feel that way about me, Jenna, but I understand why you think I've let you down.
Over more than 20 years I've clearly cultivated the persona of a contrarian here. Some of that's genuine, some a little tongue-in-cheek, and some outright trolling bollocks. But I've been absolutely genuine about my thoughts and feelings re trans.
As you know, a couple of years before lockdown, I was trying to find my way around this. It was fucking anathema to a council estate Asian lad from the 70s, that people with male genitalia could be considered women.
I approached (by PM on here) several trans posters in good faith, looking to engage and understand. Most ignored me, one told me to get fucked, but you were kind enough to meet for lunch and enlighten me. At that point I thought I had it sorted.
After that I spent time with people here (friends of mine) who got labelled TERFS and transphobes, for doing anything less than expressing outright support for some, frankly, ludicrous trans-allied positions. Several of those brilliant, long-term posters are now gone.
I disagree with much of what trans/allies say, but I think that everyone should be able to live as they wish.
There is a poster on here called Arduis something, who I have on ignore. I believe they're trans. They've offered me a fight; suggested that LBJ is a paedophile, and consistently referred to children's genitalia.
But they've done it in a very womanly fashion!
If you sleep with dogs, you're gonna get fleas, Jenna. You need to bin cunts like that ^^^^
Last edited:
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
Fucking hell, the Arduis allegations are shocking. They're a relatively new poster, does anyone know them?
Re "womanly fashion" I don't know what the fuck that could possibly be. Or were you just saying that in a manly fashion?
Balbi
Hey, Dean Yager!
Australia here going "nah fuck what the UK is doing our gender healthcare is good actually". That it's coming from the politicians responsible at State and Federal level kind of shows how weird the UK looks from overseas.
www.theguardian.com
What implications does England’s review of trans healthcare have for Australia?
Australian experts defend ‘holistic, gender-affirming’ approach to gender-diverse care as very different from that of the NHS
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Yes to both of those.
I don’t know the context of LBJ seemingly being called a paedophile, but if it happened it’s out of order. Even if he said it first, which I can’t for the life of me imagine he would.
The “children’s genitalia” thing? What’s that about? Is there a context? I can’t get my head around that.
But also, Spymaster “in a womanly fashion”? What’s that? That’s a weird thing to say.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
I'm going to take a step away from these allegations and try to move the discussion back to the thread topic. I know I played a part in the sidetrack, so I'm going to try to play a part in moving things back.
I'll probably get things wrong, because I'm in no way clued up on trans issues or literature. I just come at these things from a position of respecting other human beings. I try to listen and learn, but I get things wrong. I'm 59. I've been socialised for decades in a patriarchal, sexist society that has very rigid ideas of gender roles and expression.
But I've also long known that the social norms are a straitjacket. Back in the 80s I favoured the movement for gender neutral pronouns. In the 90s, when my daughters were born, we tried to keep their toys gender neutral. They both rebelled against that, teaching me the sheer power of societal norm-building.
With that background, I understand that trans people already have a lot to deal with as they grow up. It must be a huge struggle. And especially as the proportion of trans people in society is so small, they are very unlikely to have encountered anyone else going through the same thing. They will feel isolated. And probably as if they are the only one like them.
This will have been alleviated somewhat by the visibility movement of the decades since the millenium. Social media visibility and seeing trans people in film and tv roles will have been a help to trans people growing up now, that trans people in my generation won't have had. The tv and film portrayals will obviously have had problems, in the same way that LGB visibility in the media has had during my lifetime. But the increased representation has probably been overall a good thing, both for trans kids themselves and for the wider population to get used to the idea that they exist.
However, as with gay people before, the press, especially the tabloid press, focus on the prurient. LGB people were, and still are at times, seen as "sex people" first, and human beings second, if at all. Similarly coverage of trans and non binary people is all about genitals. It's quite the obsession.
This is where I'm going to get things wrong, because I'm not trans, I've never to my knowledge discussed genitals with anyone trans or non binary, and my sociology framework was learned in the 80s. So excuse me if I get terms wrong, but I'm coming from a place of respect.
I don't know how gender dysphoria works, but I imagine it as a feeling of distress. Just from breaking the word down into its parts. Dys phoria. The opposite of euphoria. I imagine it as distress at having to live within a gender role, with gender expression, that doesn't feel right for oneself.
Again, I'm floundering in the realms of empathy rather than direct experience, but I know that just as gender identity isn't the same for everyone, neither is the experience the same for all trans people. And I understand that genital surgery isn't necessarily right for all trans people.
This doesn't surprise me. Genitals are not the centre of my being either. They aren't what I base my personality on. And I generally keep them covered. We probably need to move the discussion away from genitals. It's weird, it's private, and it's not what the focus should be.
Again, I'm willing to bet I get something wrong here, but of more importance to many trans people will be outward presentation. And face and body shape and voice pitch will be of huge psychological importance. This is why puberty blockers are of importance to trans teens. If these outward signs of gender presentation are causing them distress, then of course hormone treatment to alleviate that will be helpful to their mental well-being. That stands to reason.
Hormone therapy is not surgery. Puberty is routinely delayed for kids who hit puberty early. When the treatment stops, puberty kicks back in. The idea that this is irreversible is wrong, and frankly scaremongering. Also the scare stories of incidences of regret are exaggerated. There are very few trans people. There are huge barriers for teens getting hormone treatment. The delays are lengthy. And the percentage of those who regret transition are smaller than those who regret, for example, abortion. And social transitioning is reversible.
The idea that any of this is "child abuse" is wrong. The abuse is denying treatment to people who can have their distress alleviated.
What society needs to face is its notions of gender role, gender identity and gender presentation. These do not need to be as they've "always" been. ('Always' in quotes, because actually history and socioanthropology have counter examples).
What we need to do is listen to what people are telling us, and be less sure that what we learned as social roles are "natural".
I'll probably get things wrong, because I'm in no way clued up on trans issues or literature. I just come at these things from a position of respecting other human beings. I try to listen and learn, but I get things wrong. I'm 59. I've been socialised for decades in a patriarchal, sexist society that has very rigid ideas of gender roles and expression.
But I've also long known that the social norms are a straitjacket. Back in the 80s I favoured the movement for gender neutral pronouns. In the 90s, when my daughters were born, we tried to keep their toys gender neutral. They both rebelled against that, teaching me the sheer power of societal norm-building.
With that background, I understand that trans people already have a lot to deal with as they grow up. It must be a huge struggle. And especially as the proportion of trans people in society is so small, they are very unlikely to have encountered anyone else going through the same thing. They will feel isolated. And probably as if they are the only one like them.
This will have been alleviated somewhat by the visibility movement of the decades since the millenium. Social media visibility and seeing trans people in film and tv roles will have been a help to trans people growing up now, that trans people in my generation won't have had. The tv and film portrayals will obviously have had problems, in the same way that LGB visibility in the media has had during my lifetime. But the increased representation has probably been overall a good thing, both for trans kids themselves and for the wider population to get used to the idea that they exist.
However, as with gay people before, the press, especially the tabloid press, focus on the prurient. LGB people were, and still are at times, seen as "sex people" first, and human beings second, if at all. Similarly coverage of trans and non binary people is all about genitals. It's quite the obsession.
This is where I'm going to get things wrong, because I'm not trans, I've never to my knowledge discussed genitals with anyone trans or non binary, and my sociology framework was learned in the 80s. So excuse me if I get terms wrong, but I'm coming from a place of respect.
I don't know how gender dysphoria works, but I imagine it as a feeling of distress. Just from breaking the word down into its parts. Dys phoria. The opposite of euphoria. I imagine it as distress at having to live within a gender role, with gender expression, that doesn't feel right for oneself.
Again, I'm floundering in the realms of empathy rather than direct experience, but I know that just as gender identity isn't the same for everyone, neither is the experience the same for all trans people. And I understand that genital surgery isn't necessarily right for all trans people.
This doesn't surprise me. Genitals are not the centre of my being either. They aren't what I base my personality on. And I generally keep them covered. We probably need to move the discussion away from genitals. It's weird, it's private, and it's not what the focus should be.
Again, I'm willing to bet I get something wrong here, but of more importance to many trans people will be outward presentation. And face and body shape and voice pitch will be of huge psychological importance. This is why puberty blockers are of importance to trans teens. If these outward signs of gender presentation are causing them distress, then of course hormone treatment to alleviate that will be helpful to their mental well-being. That stands to reason.
Hormone therapy is not surgery. Puberty is routinely delayed for kids who hit puberty early. When the treatment stops, puberty kicks back in. The idea that this is irreversible is wrong, and frankly scaremongering. Also the scare stories of incidences of regret are exaggerated. There are very few trans people. There are huge barriers for teens getting hormone treatment. The delays are lengthy. And the percentage of those who regret transition are smaller than those who regret, for example, abortion. And social transitioning is reversible.
The idea that any of this is "child abuse" is wrong. The abuse is denying treatment to people who can have their distress alleviated.
What society needs to face is its notions of gender role, gender identity and gender presentation. These do not need to be as they've "always" been. ('Always' in quotes, because actually history and socioanthropology have counter examples).
What we need to do is listen to what people are telling us, and be less sure that what we learned as social roles are "natural".
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Me speaking again trigger warning.
A line of questioning that used to come up on these boards has just sprung to mind.
“Would you sleep with a trans woman?”
There’s a lot wrong with that line of reasoning, but also, if we’re basing who gets to be called a woman on whether I fancy them or not (and wtf?) then frankly we’re going to get both false positives and false negatives that many of the people involved wouldn’t be happy about.
A line of questioning that used to come up on these boards has just sprung to mind.
“Would you sleep with a trans woman?”
There’s a lot wrong with that line of reasoning, but also, if we’re basing who gets to be called a woman on whether I fancy them or not (and wtf?) then frankly we’re going to get both false positives and false negatives that many of the people involved wouldn’t be happy about.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Been there done that.
Jennaonthebeach
What would Picard do?
I haven't seen InArduisFouette do anything wrong. Has only reflected back what cis people have said about trans people, which explains the so called allegations, and has used robust language to do that. Many transphobes seem obsessed with children's genitals I'm afraid, so draw your own conclusions.
The only scum i see on this page are those who use TERF tropes, make allegations about trans people with no evidence, even if its by using cowardly language that they know a trans person would understand but would fly under the radar of anyone else. And those that just deny trans women could ever be women because we have genitalia that developed when we were children because we were too scared to tell anyone we were trans until we reached maturity. Scum, all of them.
I stand with any trans person on here, however rude you think they might be. #solidarity
The only scum i see on this page are those who use TERF tropes, make allegations about trans people with no evidence, even if its by using cowardly language that they know a trans person would understand but would fly under the radar of anyone else. And those that just deny trans women could ever be women because we have genitalia that developed when we were children because we were too scared to tell anyone we were trans until we reached maturity. Scum, all of them.
I stand with any trans person on here, however rude you think they might be. #solidarity
Did you approach every trans person on the site and ask them to meet you personally? You did me. Do you not understand how creepy that is? And whatever your motivations, why on earth should any trans person take time out of their life to go an meet some self confessed troll from an internet forum to sit down and have to justify their existence? That is not good faith. It's weird and fucking entitled.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Just the ones I was arguing with. You had the opportunity to ignore or accept the outreach. You ignored it someone else accepted. Your call.
Last edited:
Similar threads
