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’.
Transgender is it just me that is totally perplexed?
- Thread starter The Flying Pig
- Start date
- Status
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Fair enough. The Cambridge eg is also reality-based, and it has been used to attack trans inclusion.
Would the college you attended have been compromised by the presence of the odd trans woman?
Regarding the wider question of encouraging women and girls into science we could do worse than to look at how it was done in the former communist block. That involved breaking with shite gender stereotypes from a young age as I understand it.
There’s no escaping the fact that women are the class that produce babies, but the context under capitalism is that it’s unpaid labour that capital benefits from. No idea how trans fits into this.
If they’re equitable because of ‘male violence’ well men are victims of that also.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
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.
Stupid thing to say that somehow the concerns of trans people are not a reflection of now because there aren't many of them.
Not male sexual violence, or sexual objectification or sexual exploitation and harassment, to anywhere near the same extent.
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
Fair point, guv.
Gromit
International Man of Misery
Not 100% sure if this is trans relevant but watch how the Mail start the article using female pronouns and then slide into male ones:
CBB: Male stars enter the house | Daily Mail Online
They quote a tweet that says trans but they themselves refer to ‘drag queen’ throughout the article.
I don’t know who this person is but in my mind a drag queen is an entertainer who isn’t trans but merely cross dressing for their job.
Which I consider different to transsexual and transvestite.
CBB: Male stars enter the house | Daily Mail Online
They quote a tweet that says trans but they themselves refer to ‘drag queen’ throughout the article.
I don’t know who this person is but in my mind a drag queen is an entertainer who isn’t trans but merely cross dressing for their job.
Which I consider different to transsexual and transvestite.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Yeah, its the fall-out from the Vice article that I posted about the other day. I wonder if Stella knew what some of these people can be like before she found herself in the middle of a barrage of abuse. She does now
Shechemite
Be the sun and all will see you
The extent of the ‘abuse’ there is her position being described as ‘barmy af’.
‘Getting much abuse’ is hyperbole.
Manter
Lunch Mob
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, egregious slut shaming, insults, suggestions women who don't agree with them are sluts, 'fun fems' and deserve everything they get (including sexual assault) plus plenty of attitudes straight from the patriarchy, despite calling themselves feminists. Deeply, deeply unpleasant to talk to, as well as wildly intolerant and just plain rude.
So, that was fun
So, that was fun
Manter
Lunch Mob
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....
MochaSoul
It's being enslaved of your own free will
TopCat
Putin fanboy
Interesting article.
MochaSoul
It's being enslaved of your own free will
I thought so too. However according to some that was pure and simple scaremongering from transphobic TERFs
elbows
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
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.
MochaSoul
It's being enslaved of your own free will
And yet, some people felt within their rights to demand Tunks removal from the NUT following that article. People who call themselves feminist allies. This is why when people shout "Our friend's been abused" I tend to give a toss no longer.
Miranda Yardley
Willing Warrior.
This really is the issue, whether someone's personal and subjective inner sense of 'self' should trump material reality. If transgender activists would even acknowledge there's a rights conflict and entertain that idea that 'trans women' may be something other than women (how often do we hear 'trans women are women end of!') much of the objections that exist now would likely fade. As a for example, see the video from Friday evening of India Willoughby from Friday night's Big Brother, what India was demanding was not courtesy it was submission.
(And no, ordinarily I would never watch that show, but the gender politics meant I was quickly roped into it).
The demedicalisation worries me, it's all moving to be 'identity based' and is being done so without critical analysis; surgical and drug-based transition have pretty profound effects on our bodies and our physical and mental health. I believe we should have better evidence-based treatments (based on studies commissioned without ANY external political interference) and before we start offering drug treatment protocols to children, we need a clear and agreed etiology of what 'trans' is, that's supported by science. Try asking any transgender activist to describe what 'trans' means...
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
The idea that words mean things is always wont to stir up trouble.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
The reference to 'pregnant people' in that article appears to be a reference in part at least to a UK FO submission to the UN to get the term changed so that trans men who get pregnant are included in a statement about human rights. It was leaped on by the r/w press at the time.
It’s not women who get pregnant — it’s ‘people’
My first thought on reading that was that this was an attempt at legal clarity more than anything else, and not quite as the likes of The Times, The Sun or The Express have reported. And that is what the FO itself has said:
Has the government banned the term 'pregnant woman'?
However, we clearly have a confusion here with language and meanings. Later in that article, the concept of 'pregnant men' appears as a suggested term for pregnant trans men. I don't see much middle ground here, tbh, if each side demands primacy of one or the other - sex or gender - where we just have one word for both. We're stuck with a bunch of inadequate terms. However, I'm not sure it's helpful to take this line:
I can see the case for creating clarity in a legal document in order not to allow loopholes (protecting against the idea that 'he was legally registered as a man, so we were entitled to kill him, pregnant or not'), but something has surely gone wrong somewhere if the term 'pregnant woman' is deemed offensive.
It’s not women who get pregnant — it’s ‘people’
My first thought on reading that was that this was an attempt at legal clarity more than anything else, and not quite as the likes of The Times, The Sun or The Express have reported. And that is what the FO itself has said:
Has the government banned the term 'pregnant woman'?
However, we clearly have a confusion here with language and meanings. Later in that article, the concept of 'pregnant men' appears as a suggested term for pregnant trans men. I don't see much middle ground here, tbh, if each side demands primacy of one or the other - sex or gender - where we just have one word for both. We're stuck with a bunch of inadequate terms. However, I'm not sure it's helpful to take this line:
I can see the case for creating clarity in a legal document in order not to allow loopholes (protecting against the idea that 'he was legally registered as a man, so we were entitled to kill him, pregnant or not'), but something has surely gone wrong somewhere if the term 'pregnant woman' is deemed offensive.
Miranda Yardley
Willing Warrior.
Please then address the point I made, because you look like you're contradicting yourself.
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.
Miranda Yardley
Willing Warrior.
Re-hi.
I don't spend an awful lot of time on Twitter as I get roped into so many conversations, as often by people with opposing views to myself. Also, I'm not responsible for what my followers say, and I am not going to defend someone else's beliefs, only my own. FWIW I don't even agree with much of what the people I follow say. You may also notice I will often tell someone when I disagree with what they say, even if we are supposed to be 'friends'. But like I said, I'm not on there all the time.
Please would you outline here or on DM here (or on Twitter) what was said that was 'Islamophobic'? I'd appreciate that, thanks.
Miranda Yardley
Willing Warrior.
Having a political disagreement on whether adult males are men isn't being a dick.
MochaSoul
It's being enslaved of your own free will
What does this mean?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
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'.
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
- Status
