Sea Star
have you ever explored your dark side?
YES!!!you are asking why i can't accept the validity of bigotry.......
YES!!!you are asking why i can't accept the validity of bigotry.......
No I'm not.you are asking why i can't accept the validity of bigotry.......
I'm not asking you to hug anyone.
That appears to be a mutual issue.
'Writing off', no, clearly not. But calling racism racism, yes. Always. Many people are not 'simply racists'. They are many other things as well, but in addition to those things, they also have racist ideas of one kind or another. And no, you should never be backward in saying that.Well I don't think it's very helpful in those cases either.
Trying to divide the world up into racists and non-racists is often useless, see the Fat White Family thread for a perfect example. While ideological racists still exist in todays Britain they are a fraction of the population, writing off huge swathes of the population simply as racists as if it's some binary state helps no one. In fact it's precisely that type of nonsense that has help feed the rise in UKIP.
If you've understood me, then you've chosen to misrepresent my argument.
The analogy is not exact, how could it be? My point was that once a lot of people didn't believe being gay was wrong, they didn't believe 'gay' really existed. They denied people the right to determine their own sexuality by erasing it from legitimate existence. Even the most moderate terf belives that transsexuality doesn't exist, it can't exist, that's why trans-women can't be women. Denial of transsexuality is what lies behind that belief. That someone isnt really what they feel they are, and has no right to feel that way, even if someone to all intents and purposes is virtually identical to a cis woman - and dont forget there is now a generation of young people who are trans (women) who have never experienced male puberty, who may have lived and been raised as girls, who have primary and secondary female sexual characteristics, fucks sake give it a couple of decades and they might have wombs and ovaries. To suggest they aren't women is nonsensical, bigoted and offensive, and unless you want to buy into patriachal ideas that femininity or beauty is what defines womanhood then this includes all trans-women, however they present and how far they decide to medically transition.
Sure.nah, i took the piss out of it.
Welcome to Urban75I'm out of this - its becoming petty and personal
I'm not sure I accept the idea that "even the most moderate terf belives that transsexuality doesn't exist." Whilst some crackpots believe that it's a cover for perverted men wanting to infiltrate, many do accept that trans women sincerely believe that they are woman (and don't tell them they have no right to feel that); they just don't accept that believing it makes it so - they define their own gender in way that does not include trans women. I don't think they're right, but I'm not sure the anology with homosexuality holds up, really. Nor does the idea that their definition is "nonsensical"; I happen to subscribe to another definition, but that's becasue it seems to me to be unnecessarily harmful to deny that trans women are women, rather than because there is any logical imperative that requires us to admit it (albeit the argument about trans women who have not ben socialised as males and gone through male puberty comes closest). After all, we don't extend the 'you are what you feel you are' logic to many other areas.
I find it slightly ironic, tbh, that such definitions are in reality amazingly crude. Greer's position is that you must have a vagina to be a woman, and that's that. It's a massively reductionist position.what it comes down to for me is that they aren't just defining their own identity, but are defining that of others.
and while governments and other authorities don't extend the same logic, a lot of people do. to the point that the gatekeepuing behavior of terf groups seems not so much like a grouping, but another attempt to claim the position of an authority. a rather annoying more feminist than thou. that gives them and only them the ability to be right.
Do you not think that redefining gender as something essential, a feeling located in the brain/mind/soul rather than something that is socially constructed, is defining other people's identity though? I think this is what many of the women (not radical feminists) whose views I have read on sites like mumsnet have as a concern. Can you see that for many feminists, gender being an essential part of you, separate from either biology or lived experience/socialisation, feels like a backward step and some naturally are worried about it being accepted uncritically.what it comes down to for me is that they aren't just defining their own identity, but are defining that of others.
and while governments and other authorities don't extend the same logic, a lot of people do. to the point that the gatekeepuing behavior of terf groups seems not so much like a grouping, but another attempt to claim the position of an authority. a rather annoying more feminist than thou. that gives them and only them the ability to be right.
Which is hardly justification for what has been happening to trans people. Trans people don't want to exclude TERFs, just want TERFs to stop excluding us.if we were accommodated as women it would not impact on TERFs one bit, except maybe for the ideological repercussions from accepting us for who we say we are.Do you not think that redefining gender as something essential, a feeling located in the brain/mind/soul rather than something that is socially constructed, is defining other people's identity though? I think this is what many of the women (not radical feminists) whose views I have read on sites like mumsnet have as a concern. Can you see that for many feminists, gender being an essential part of you, separate from either biology or lived experience/socialisation, feels like a backward step and some naturally are worried about it being accepted uncritically.
Tara Hudson, a 26-year old transgender woman from Bath who has lived as a woman for her whole adult life and has undergone six years of gender reconstruction surgery, has been sent to an all-male prison.
It has been the practice for decades to house post-operative transsexuals in prisons according to their acquired gender.Just seen this on FB and thought this would be the appropriate thread to post it:
Bath Magistrates, Prison Govenor of HM Prison Bristol, British Judicial System: Stop Transgender Woman Tara Hudson From Being Sent To An All-Male Prison in Bristol
Just seen this on FB and thought this would be the appropriate thread to post it:
Bath Magistrates, Prison Govenor of HM Prison Bristol, British Judicial System: Stop Transgender Woman Tara Hudson From Being Sent To An All-Male Prison in Bristol
I think she may also be pre operative.It has been the practice for decades to house post-operative transsexuals in prisons according to their acquired gender.
I think the problem here is that in this case, she had no documentation to show her status. She has no passport and did not have one of those stupid 'certificates' that the law requires nowadays.
There's petition but I can't work out how to link with it on my phone. Please Google and sign!
Surgery makes no difference whatsoever.According to the BBC, she's had reconstructive surgery, but in any case I don't see why that should be any part of the issue. She should be in a women's prison. It's an appalling situation.
God, Stella.Surgery makes no difference whatsoever.
It's one of my big fears at the moment - why I'm not going to any protests at the moment - you never know.
The idea that the brain can have a biological sex is a form of essentialism. Note "brain/mind/soul" in Thora's post:I think this gender essentialism will prove to be a bit of a red herring. I think biology will come to see trans people as having a biological sex of the body which does not correspond to the biological sex of their brain, so they choose to align their gender with the sex of their brain rather than the sex of their body.
Another way of considering this is the more basic question of what gender actually means at all. It is a topic that has been frequently grappled with in this thread but I've yet to see a satisfactory result of that grappling.Do you not think that redefining gender as something essential, a feeling located in the brain/mind/soul rather than something that is socially constructed, is defining other people's identity though? I think this is what many of the women (not radical feminists) whose views I have read on sites like mumsnet have as a concern. Can you see that for many feminists, gender being an essential part of you, separate from either biology or lived experience/socialisation, feels like a backward step and some naturally are worried about it being accepted uncritically.