Stella said I had faux concern and I thought you were thinking the same.I aint got much interest in arguing about women, dont make out i am being a sly dickhead to you, me and stella what? I ainyt done shit all with stella or you so you need to watch the fuck what you say.
fucking have a word with yourself.
Thank you! That's a really good leaflet
Well except there's no way of knowing if there's a higher risk of prostrate cancer or DVT or whatever in the trans population. Do we just say that's not that interesting and we don't care? How can we deliver public health programmes if we can't target those at risk?
ETA and what the is the point (and cost involved) of inviting transwomen for endless smears and mammograms?
that was found on the internet. no fucking idea where anything is in this roomThank you! That's a really good leaflet
Your room is clearly a lot fucking tidier than my house
you can choose to not have treatment for cancer, so am pretty sure choosing not to have screening for it isnt a issue.
people still smoke with giant warnings on the packets that it will kill them.
I dont think other peoples medical choices or their records are anything to do with anyone else.
Until there's bad effects and people look for someone to sue.
I'm sure you wouldn't argue for the right to choose thalidomide?
Well except there's no way of knowing if there's a higher risk of prostrate cancer or DVT or whatever in the trans population. Do we just say that's not that interesting and we don't care? How can we deliver public health programmes if we can't target those at risk?
ETA and what the is the point (and cost involved) of inviting transwomen for endless smears and mammograms?
One's own body, and the choices one makes for it, must be allowed to be decided and defined by the individual whose body it is. How can I passionately want the right to decide whether I can have an abortion, and believe fundamentally that it's my body, my choice, yet tell transgender people they can't decide what to do with their bodies? In fact, I have serious reservations about menopausal women being denied HRT after a certain length of time. If they are aware of the risks of continuing it, and believe that the benefits outweigh those risks, then I think they should be allowed to make that call themselves, as adults. In the same way, I believe transgender people should be able to make the same call in their own use of hormones.
Why not? Been a few spats and the like, but it's an important thread/discussion.Fifty two pages? FIFTY TWO???
I recall when I was young, hetro nuclear family normality was the only option on offered to me. My not wanting to get married when I was young was seen as a bit odd by many of my family and my peers.
In my upbringing being single, unless you had a religious vocation, was not viewed as an acceptable option and was generally considered to be sad. Married women without children were pitied. Unmarried women with children were scandalous and a problem. Intersex children were a medical problem often subjected to surgery. Everyone had to be either totally male or totally female, and being either would limit your life choices. Being a gay male was barely legal, in no way socially acceptable and was a media joke. Lesbians were hidden by total invisibility. I'd never heard of bi or trans then. This was before recent equality legislation, mostly before the equality acts of the early 70s.
A lot of the movements and actions that changed that statis quo have been called here 'identity politics'. or have I misunderstood that? Can someone please explain to me how some other movement or 'structural analysis' could have brought about the change we see in societies acceptance of people like me, other queer people or BME, thats what I don't understand.
I understand neoliberals and libertarians may have joined many organisations now (where were they when putting your head above the parapet was dangerous) - but is there a need to demonise the whole history of our struggles?
Can I bring this here, please. I dont really understand the stuff on the Identity politics thread
Good post. Sums up precisely my confusion with I.d politics. Cos so far I haven't seen anyone offer a positive solution/alternative. It's all just been criticism but no answers to what should be done instead.
so is a womens/queer/bme campaign fighting for equal rights definitely not identity politics then? is it or isn't it - that is my confusion.I think the confusion stems from a mistaken belief that any activity which aims to improve the lot of oppressed minorities is identity politics.
I will hold my hands up and say that I am struggling to understand some of it. I have liked the posts that were clear and helped illustrate/teach me somethingThere's loads about the alternatives on danny la rouge 's thread.
so is a womens/queer/bme campaign fighting for equal rights definitely not identity politics then? is it or isn't it - that is my confusion.
I've read danny la rouge 's thread and I'm not the wiser. which is why I brought it here.
well thats clear then!It may or may not be.
well thats clear then!
And on that note you can fuck off for two days. I've had enough complaints about you and your LOOKATME behaviour.tbh editor is well phobic.
I'd still be interested to know how ID politics / Marxian structual analysis helps frame any approach to dealing with trans/ gender issues.
Who has access to the levers of power? It's not just economic power that create social structure. The structures of religion have historically been just as if not more important, even though they have waned post-industrialisation. But those religious structures have interests in buttressing the basis on which they are maintained, which includes control over sex and sexuality.Fair enough. I guess a starting point would be to think about why trans people are discriminated against under capitalism.
Who has access to the levers of power? It's not just economic power that create social structure. The structures of religion have historically been just as if not more important, even though they have waned post-industrialisation. But those religious structures have interests in buttressing the basis on which they are maintained, which includes control over sex and sexuality.
Of course, because power is power and those with it use whatever means are at their disposal to maintain it. I do think that the key element is the power, though, and not the economics. You can just as well say that those at the top of religion used the transfer of wealth to maintain their religious interests as vice versa. It's true both ways round, but both perspectives miss the point that it is the maintenance of power that is central.The religions which (are allowed to) prevail reflect and typically serve material interests. Look at way our state religion historically facilitated the transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, both explicitly (taxes and tithes), and implicitly (with ideas that those who suffer patiently in this life will be rewarded in the next).
Of course, because power is power and those with it use whatever means are at their disposal to maintain it. I do think that the key element is the power, though, and not the economics. You can just as well say that those at the top of religion used the transfer of wealth to maintain their religious interests as vice versa. It's true both ways round, but both perspectives miss the point that it is the maintenance of power that is central.