I don’t think the idealism of 0.4% of the population and their allies reflect it either so it’s worth discussing if it might possibly impact on 50% of people in the ‘real world NOW’.
Fair enough. The Cambridge eg is also reality-based, and it has been used to attack trans inclusion.No, it was just a reality based created example to get an answer to the question. I briefly attended a women only college a few years ago. That's where I met my friend.
Segregation was what some of us actually needed.
So what do you think? Is trans inclusion a threat to that 50 percent or not? If so, how?You seem to want things both ways - both a tiny number of people and also somehow a threat.I don’t think the idealism of 0.4% of the population and their allies reflect it either so it’s worth discussing if it might possibly impact on 50% of people in the ‘real world NOW’.
If they’re equitable because of ‘male violence’ well men are victims of that also.
Of course. But that wasn't my question to spanglechick. I was asking whether or not, in her experience, it's the feeling of being in 'team female' that makes her a woman. (As opposed to e.g. her being a woman that makes her feel part of 'team female'.)
Stella Creasy getting much abuse from TERFs now for being trans supportive
Stella Creasy getting much abuse from TERFs now for being trans supportive
My little run in with terfs was as a result of her being called the most disgusting politician that ever lived (on a post where she quoted Gramsci, bizarrely- it had no connection the vogue photo they are so cross about) and I've seen her called that and worse. And hundreds of messages an hour. They don't lack energy....The extent of the ‘abuse’ there is her position being described as ‘barmy af’.
‘Getting much abuse’ is hyperbole.
Kiri Tunks suffered the same sort of abuse for raising the issue in the Morning Star in an attempt to encourage dialogue.
Keeping a balance on who abuses whom the most is idiotic beyond attempting to shut the other side up.
Interesting article.
Interesting article.
Totally irrelevant to this thread, but having followed your link I then searched the site on a hunch and discovered to my satisfaction that I have been quoted in the Morning Star.
It was interesting. Even if I read it again several times and manage to find some bits to pick on, there are clearly a bunch of real issues here that cannot be dismissed just because there are some extreme positions and abusive language on both sides.
Even without the overly-charged extremes on both sides, I'm not sure the right balance and solutions are particularly obvious or easily reachable now. Oh how I wish so much more had been won long before now in terms of womens rights etc, because quite a few of the problems now might have been avoidable if the landscape had been radically changed.
I guess the rub come when allowing others to live according to their own beliefs crosses into compelling others to profess those beliefs. In most cases, it's a matter a courtesy with no real consequence to those from whom it's expected. But it becomes more difficult in the marginal cases e.g. women only rape shelters.
Also, you seem to want to eat your cake and have it, switching between it being a condition that retirees a therapeutic response on the one hand, and a desire to demedicalise it on another.
A Foreign Office spokesperson commented: “We strongly support the right to life of pregnant women, and we have requested that the Human Rights Committee does not exclude pregnant transgender people from that right to life.”
The Times reported that “The government has said the term “pregnant woman” should not be used in a UN treaty”.
This is not strictly true – the government’s suggestion aimed to add legal clarity in one specific General Comment on a UN treaty, which will not appear in the main treaty itself. It does not affect the use of “pregnant woman” in any other part of the treaty, or dictate when the term can be used in general.
Bernard Reed, Trustee of the Gender Identity Research & Education Society, told us that the most important thing is to “listen” to the trans community. If they find the term “pregnant woman” offensive, he says we should consider changing it.
Using an analogy about the tiger was clearly meant to mock. If some one said they were a tiger it would not be worth taking seriously so equating that to this subject is plainly fucking stupid.
It is possible to express a personally held view that you disagree that transwomen are not the same as non trans women without insisting on calling a trans person a man when they have said they do not wish to be addressed that way.
I do not understand this issue, I am confused about language, the law and rights but I do understand the need for an honest discussion, the need to stop hatred and bigotry, the need to move forward but mostly I understand that MY is offering very little if anything to help in any of these areas in my opinion.
I stumbled into a Terf- nest on twitter this weekend. Miranda Yardley may be intelligent and articulate, but some of her fellow travellers are repulsive (I mention her because they tagged her into the conversation)- islamophobic, retweeting stuff tagged MAGA, lots of shouty capitals... etc
I think I can genuinely say that I don't reason things out in that way. U75's 'don't be a dick' would be a decent place to start. imo deliberately misgendering people for effect, for instance like Miranda Yardley has repeatedly done on this thread, is 'being a dick'.
What does this mean?The idea that words mean things is always wont to stir up trouble.
I think this is disingenuous because the language you use in this debate, such as the way you phrased post 4494, shows that for you it is clear that the price of admission to discussion is to demand that we accept 'trans women are men'.How can we have honest discussion when the price of admission to discussion is to demand we accept 'trans women are women'? Again, this is not asking for courtesy, it's asking for submission and to concede the very point central to this debate.