yeh. your own arguments. based on mill, marx and engels.
And that ^ is a purely conservative position.
But you do this with cis? Wheres your respect?
He's a liberal so everyone should show him respect
Or he will scweem and squeem.
Yeh this would be the common use of neofascist, that is, something you don't like
) naïve interventions on this thread. Random interjections about the whole thing as a debate, as a form of politics. Things like 'what would this debate look like in the absence of identity politics' and 'what is the potential for solidarity'? Another way of saying all that is to ask about the terrain on which the battle is taking place. Seems to me both sides are taking fro granted society's inequalities and oppressions around gender and sexuality, seeking to attack each other within those oppressions. I've not seen much that might prefigure the way people would want to live in a better society, that moves beyond biological and social restrictions on who we are and who we want to be. Still less making links to other social forces, austerity, class...
Yes, but thoughts and feelings are a reality - and so we go round and round. Yes, I get it, you are choosing to use biological terms and language. 'I'm not a postmodernist but'... you are still making an active, ideological choice to prioritise the biological.
Well, y'know, I get that. I'm just not convinced that this policing of the boundaries of what genders are, who is in and who is out, does much to challenge that oppression.
No-one has ever denied some trans people experience autogynephilia, that's a whole world away from the reactionary homophobic shit Blanchard spouts. I'll ask you again, how do you justify the gender essentialism inherent to Blanchard's taxonomy of naturally feminine "extreme homosexual" transsexual men?
I, or more to the point, trans people might dispute some of that as specifics, as words, as definitions. But I won't.
Actually, yes, I can entirely see where you are coming from. I might personally have a problem a problem with some of the arguments put by some trans activists, that personal/subjective identification should in itself automatically bring a full set of social and legal responses. But then I don't feel that drawing tight boundaries around gender helps either. It's messy, it need to be worked out. That's why I keep asking where does this go, how does it link to anything else, how does it undermine the sources of oppression and sexual violence in society? Is this debate in any way prefigurative of the way people would want to live in a better society?
I, or more to the point, trans people might dispute some of that as specifics, as words, as definitions. But I won't.
Both a social structure and a social construction, which is why I'm not convinced biology should be deployed as the trump card. Lived experiences are complex - that's why I said 'it's messy and needs to be worked out'. In fact a recognition of that messiness, of the need for good will, of the need to work things through has been entirely missing from all this.
K and L are very close on the keyboard.
Well, it's not ultimately for me to pronounce on women's spaces and who is let in. Yes, there should be self awareness from someone like Kellie Maloney (I don't personally know what she has claimed access to), there should be mutual awareness of the way different oppressions have shaped people's lives. There's a need for, well, dialogue. But then where are those oppressions located?
K and L are very close on the keyboard.
