https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/10/jk-rowling-says-survivor-of-domestic-abuse-sexual-assault
QuoteJK Rowling has revealed her experience of domestic abuse and sexual assault for the first time, in a lengthy and highly personal essay written in response to criticism of her public comments on transgender issues.
In a 3,600-word statement published on her website on Wednesday, Rowling described in more detail than ever how she became involved in an increasingly bitter and polarised debate around the concept of gender identity.
The author revealed she was "a domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor", citing this alongside her belief in freedom of speech and experience as a teacher as reasons behind her position.
"I'm mentioning these things now not in an attempt to garner sympathy, but out of solidarity with the huge numbers of women who have histories like mine, who've been slurred as bigots for having concerns around single-sex spaces," she wrote.
The piece came after the Harry Potter author posted a series of messages on Twitter at the weekend that provoked fresh criticism, including one that read: "If sex isn't real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives."
Since then, prominent figures have publicly argued against her position, including actors who have worked in the Harry Potter franchises such as Daniel Radcliffe and Eddie Redmayne, the non-binary celebrity Jonathan Van Ness and the trans author Juno Dawson.
In her essay, Rowling writes of her own struggles with sexism and misogyny, and her adolescent sense of being "mentally sexless", adding that reading accounts of gender dysphoria by trans men had made her wonder "if I'd been born 30 years later, I too might have tried to transition".
"The allure of escaping womanhood would have been huge. I struggled with severe OCD as a teenager. If I'd found community and sympathy online that I couldn't find in my immediate environment, I believe I could have been persuaded to turn myself into the son my father had openly said he'd have preferred," she wrote.
Rowling said she had initially been moved to share her thoughts after reading about proposed "gender confirmation certificates" in Scotland, which will allow trans people to change sex on their birth certificates based on how they identify and not medical and psychiatric reports. She accused her critics of "groupthink" and "relentless attacks", saying that while she believed trans people needed and deserved protection due to the high rates of domestic and sexual violence they endure, she did not agree that trans women who have not undergone hormone therapy or surgical transition should have access to single-sex spaces.
"When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he's a woman – and, as I've said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth," she wrote.
She said the criticism had left her "in a very dark place inside my head, as memories of a serious sexual assault I suffered in my 20s recurred on a loop. That assault happened at a time and in a space where I was vulnerable, and a man capitalised on an opportunity. I couldn't shut out those memories and I was finding it hard to contain my anger and disappointment about the way I believe my government is playing fast and loose with women's and girls' safety."
She also confirmed for the first time that she had suffered physical abuse in her 20s. "If you could come inside my head and understand what I feel when I read about a trans woman dying at the hands of a violent man, you'd find solidarity and kinship," she wrote.
Citing an unnamed poll, Rowling claimed that those who did not support preserving single-sex spaces were "only those privileged or lucky enough never to have come up against male violence or sexual assault, and who've never troubled to educate themselves on how prevalent it is".
She said she had been contacted by "huge numbers" of women who were afraid to speak publicly about trans reforms, and decried institutions and organisations she once admired for "cowering before the tactics of the playground". She said she believed misogyny and sexism were reasons behind the 4,400% increase in the number of girls being referred for transitioning treatment in the past decade.
"I've read all the arguments about femaleness not residing in the sexed body, and the assertions that biological women don't have common experiences, and I find them, too, deeply misogynistic and regressive. It's also clear that one of the objectives of denying the importance of sex is to erode what some seem to see as the cruelly segregationist idea of women having their own biological realities or – just as threatening – unifying realities that make them a cohesive political class ... It isn't enough for women to be trans allies. Women must accept and admit that there is no material difference between trans women and themselves," she wrote.
The essay prompted a heated debate on Twitter. On Wednesday evening Emma Watson, who played Hermione Granger in the Harry Potter films, tweeted: "Trans people are who they say they are and deserve to live their lives without being constantly questioned or told they aren't who they say they are."
In a second tweet, she said: "I want my trans followers to know that I and so many other people around the world see you, respect you and love you for who you are."
Odd that while declaring herself a trans ally, she vaguely suggests that it is a mental illness and then takes the path of US Republicans in noting bathrooms are a key issue. :hmm:
Yes, ally is probably the wrong word, an alliance requires both parties.
Didn't she also say that transgender persons were erasing all meaning of sex? :wacko:
Quote from: Syt on June 11, 2020, 07:36:53 AM
Didn't she also say that transgender persons were erasing all meaning of sex? :wacko:
Verbatim?
Wasn't this latest round started by her objecting to an online article writing about "people who menstruate" as writing "women" instead would be offensive because not every self-declared women have the organs to menstruate with?
QuoteJ.K. Rowling
@jk_rowling
If sex isn't real, there's no same-sex attraction. If sex isn't real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn't hate to speak the truth.
12:02 AM · Jun 7, 2020·Twitter for iPhone
Jun 7
Replying to
@jk_rowling
The idea that women like me, who've been empathetic to trans people for decades, feeling kinship because they're vulnerable in the same way as women - ie, to male violence - 'hate' trans people because they think sex is real and has lived consequences - is a nonsense.
@jk_rowling
Jun 7
I respect every trans person's right to live any way that feels authentic and comfortable to them. I'd march with you if you were discriminated against on the basis of being trans. At the same time, my life has been shaped by being female. I do not believe it's hateful to say so.
These were the tweets that causes the stir, I believe.
Quote from: Tamas on June 11, 2020, 07:39:13 AM
Wasn't this latest round started by her objecting to an online article writing about "people who menstruate" as writing "women" instead would be offensive because not every self-declared women have the organs to menstruate with?
She thought they should have written "women who menstruate"? Seems like a tiny detail to get worked up over.
Besides, there's women who don't menstruate.
Quote from: The Brain on June 11, 2020, 07:53:12 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 11, 2020, 07:39:13 AM
Wasn't this latest round started by her objecting to an online article writing about "people who menstruate" as writing "women" instead would be offensive because not every self-declared women have the organs to menstruate with?
She thought they should have written "women who menstruate"? Seems like a tiny detail to get worked up over.
No. There was an article about some issues around menstruation. But the article refused to use the term "women". They opted for "people who menstruate" instead. Rowling voiced opposition to this by a snarky comment along the lines of ""People who menstruate" if only there was a word for them, what was it again?".
Quote from: Syt on June 11, 2020, 07:56:29 AM
Besides, there's women who don't menstruate.
That is actually a good point because their numbers must be greater than transgender people's, so if we upend grammar and way of speaking to accommodate the latter, surely we should do so for the former.
Quote from: Syt on June 11, 2020, 07:56:29 AM
Besides, there's women who don't menstruate.
Exactly my thought, almost half of them in our long-lived society :hmm:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 11, 2020, 08:11:27 AM
Quote from: Syt on June 11, 2020, 07:56:29 AM
Besides, there's women who don't menstruate.
Exactly my thought, almost half of them in our long-lived society :hmm:
Then again the vast majority of them did menstruate at an earlier point in their lives, excluding them from conversations regarding the health or even convenience concerns of menstruation might be offensively dismissive of their previous experiences and the impact on their current health and wellbeing.
Yet she does this to lap up a particularly insideous piece of far right bollocks. I expect better of her. She usually is better.
So sick of the nonsense word games of sex and gender.
You know what doesn't exist? Reasonable public discourse.
Does too, fuck you.
Respecting other people and respecting their right to drink the Kool-Aid should always be enough. Making drinking the Kool-Aid a requirement is destructive. It is also, since there are so many mutually exclusive Kool-Aids, a recipe for perpetual strife.
Quote from: Tamas on June 11, 2020, 07:39:13 AM
Wasn't this latest round started by her objecting to an online article writing about "people who menstruate" as writing "women" instead would be offensive because not every self-declared women have the organs to menstruate with?
:)
By her standards, I'm not a woman even though I've birthed five children.
Quote from: The Brain on June 11, 2020, 10:53:55 AM
Respecting other people and respecting their right to drink the Kool-Aid should always be enough. Making drinking the Kool-Aid a requirement is destructive. It is also, since there are so many mutually exclusive Kool-Aids, a recipe for perpetual strife.
I'm not sure how she was forced to share her thoughts on twitter.
Quote from: garbon on June 11, 2020, 11:00:02 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 11, 2020, 10:53:55 AM
Respecting other people and respecting their right to drink the Kool-Aid should always be enough. Making drinking the Kool-Aid a requirement is destructive. It is also, since there are so many mutually exclusive Kool-Aids, a recipe for perpetual strife.
I'm not sure how she was forced to share her thoughts on twitter.
My impression is that she shared the "wrong" thoughts. Demanding silence from people who disagree seems to me to be very destructive.
Quote from: The Brain on June 11, 2020, 11:02:15 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 11, 2020, 11:00:02 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 11, 2020, 10:53:55 AM
Respecting other people and respecting their right to drink the Kool-Aid should always be enough. Making drinking the Kool-Aid a requirement is destructive. It is also, since there are so many mutually exclusive Kool-Aids, a recipe for perpetual strife.
I'm not sure how she was forced to share her thoughts on twitter.
My impression is that she shared the "wrong" thoughts. Demanding silence from people who disagree seems to me to be very destructive.
I think the world would be better off if fewer people went on Twitter rants.
Quote from: garbon on June 11, 2020, 11:03:17 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 11, 2020, 11:02:15 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 11, 2020, 11:00:02 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 11, 2020, 10:53:55 AM
Respecting other people and respecting their right to drink the Kool-Aid should always be enough. Making drinking the Kool-Aid a requirement is destructive. It is also, since there are so many mutually exclusive Kool-Aids, a recipe for perpetual strife.
I'm not sure how she was forced to share her thoughts on twitter.
My impression is that she shared the "wrong" thoughts. Demanding silence from people who disagree seems to me to be very destructive.
I think the world would be better off if fewer people went on Twitter rants.
Possibly. You can start by shutting up your president.
Quote from: garbon on June 11, 2020, 11:00:02 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 11, 2020, 10:53:55 AM
Respecting other people and respecting their right to drink the Kool-Aid should always be enough. Making drinking the Kool-Aid a requirement is destructive. It is also, since there are so many mutually exclusive Kool-Aids, a recipe for perpetual strife.
I'm not sure how she was forced to share her thoughts on twitter.
So it's okay to have different thoughts, as long as you don't share them?
Quote from: DGuller on June 11, 2020, 11:47:48 AM
So it's okay to have different thoughts, as long as you don't share them?
On twitter? Yes. One should never share or discuss thoughts on twitter. It is a platform that is terrible at facilitating nuanced discussions and is excellent at facilitating harrasment campaigns and tribal echo chambers.
Quote from: Valmy on June 11, 2020, 11:49:20 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 11, 2020, 11:47:48 AM
So it's okay to have different thoughts, as long as you don't share them?
On twitter? Yes. One should never share or discuss thoughts on twitter. It is a platform that is terrible at facilitating nuanced discussions and is excellent at facilitating harrasment campaigns and tribal echo chambers.
:yes:
Quote from: Valmy on June 11, 2020, 11:49:20 AM
twitter...is terrible
I whittled your post down to the most relevant parts. :)
Twitter seems like just going and shouting your thoughts on the street, except they get recorded for people to hold against you years later.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EaRGz7pWsAAamxU.jpg)
I know it's a tabloid, but can they stop using "JK"? "Wedding day... JK", tell us what it really was instead.
Quote from: garbon on June 12, 2020, 01:51:54 AM
(http://https:pWsAAamxU.jpg)
Considering the views of general Sun readers.... I guess they look up to this guy.
Bad things can happen to bad people. She's still trash. I'm so glad I never got into Harry Potter.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on June 14, 2020, 05:43:58 PM
Bad things can happen to bad people. She's still trash. I'm so glad I never got into Harry Potter.
Damn.
Quote from: Valmy on June 14, 2020, 07:25:41 PM
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on June 14, 2020, 05:43:58 PM
Bad things can happen to bad people. She's still trash. I'm so glad I never got into Harry Potter.
Damn.
Yeah, intolerance is an ugly thing (and it isn't JK Rowling that is being intolerant).
I don't wish bad things on intolerant assholes, though. I leave the assholiness to them.
Watching the Twitter Left is like watching the abused become the abuser.
I'm just getting a sick kick out of people with Harry Potter tattoos freaking out. Mainly because fad tattoos are annoying
Quote from: DGuller on June 14, 2020, 08:34:48 PM
Watching the Twitter Left is like watching the abused become the abuser.
Eh, she retweeted and posted crappy shit and is being called out on it. Doesn't matter if she was abused or not, she's not immune to criticism because of it.
Quote from: Solmyr on June 15, 2020, 03:46:39 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 14, 2020, 08:34:48 PM
Watching the Twitter Left is like watching the abused become the abuser.
Eh, she retweeted and posted crappy shit and is being called out on it. Doesn't matter if she was abused or not, she's not immune to criticism because of it.
Yeah, she taints the purity of the revolution at her own peril, amiright?
Quote from: Solmyr on June 15, 2020, 03:46:39 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 14, 2020, 08:34:48 PM
Watching the Twitter Left is like watching the abused become the abuser.
Eh, she retweeted and posted crappy shit and is being called out on it. Doesn't matter if she was abused or not, she's not immune to criticism because of it.
What was the crappiest shit she retweeted and posted?
He can't say, that would be like retweeting it. :o
Quote from: Tamas on June 15, 2020, 03:48:51 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on June 15, 2020, 03:46:39 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 14, 2020, 08:34:48 PM
Watching the Twitter Left is like watching the abused become the abuser.
Eh, she retweeted and posted crappy shit and is being called out on it. Doesn't matter if she was abused or not, she's not immune to criticism because of it.
Yeah, she taints the purity of the revolution at her own peril, amiright?
What the fuck are you talking about? :huh:
Also, :nelson:
https://twitter.com/TheLegoMoses/status/1271942226130731009
Quote from: The Brain on June 15, 2020, 03:55:07 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on June 15, 2020, 03:46:39 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 14, 2020, 08:34:48 PM
Watching the Twitter Left is like watching the abused become the abuser.
Eh, she retweeted and posted crappy shit and is being called out on it. Doesn't matter if she was abused or not, she's not immune to criticism because of it.
What was the crappiest shit she retweeted and posted?
I didn't phrase this very well. What I'm interested in is some examples of the crappy shit she retweeted or posted, so I can form some kind of opinion myself.
Quote from: The Brain on June 15, 2020, 04:56:49 AM
so I can form some kind of opinion myself.
Ok, boomer.
Quote from: Tamas on June 15, 2020, 03:48:51 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on June 15, 2020, 03:46:39 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 14, 2020, 08:34:48 PM
Watching the Twitter Left is like watching the abused become the abuser.
Eh, she retweeted and posted crappy shit and is being called out on it. Doesn't matter if she was abused or not, she's not immune to criticism because of it.
Yeah, she taints the purity of the revolution at her own peril, amiright?
:huh:
From what I saw in her essay (and what she posted on twitter), she claims she is a trans ally but then parrots all of the standard scaremongering lines that are used by people who are anti-trans.
I was having a stab at Solmyr for usually being such a hardcore woke person. :P Not all threads are self-contained little universes, people.
Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2020, 05:28:28 AM
:huh:
From what I saw in her essay (and what she posted on twitter), she claims she is a trans ally but then parrots all of the standard scaremongering lines that are used by people who are anti-trans.
Yep. This attempt to try and paint transphobia as about women's rights is just ridiculous. And sadly effective in brainwashing many.
Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2020, 05:28:28 AM
:huh:
From what I saw in her essay (and what she posted on twitter), she claims she is a trans ally but then parrots all of the standard scaremongering lines that are used by people who are anti-trans.
I don't know why but it is striking how much more often you see these scaremongering lines in the UK press and from UK feminists than in North America. It's a very weird divergence - I've seen gay folk in the US commenting on it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 15, 2020, 05:35:39 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2020, 05:28:28 AM
:huh:
From what I saw in her essay (and what she posted on twitter), she claims she is a trans ally but then parrots all of the standard scaremongering lines that are used by people who are anti-trans.
I don't know why but it is striking how much more often you see these scaremongering lines in the UK press and from UK feminists than in North America. It's a very weird divergence - I've seen gay folk in the US commenting on it.
I guess in the US more traditional right wing arguments about God and such nonsense is still effective whilst our hard right have to pretend to be nice?
You see them a lot trying to turn progressive arguments against the left. "I'm not the racist, you're the racist because blah blah" et al.
Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2020, 05:28:28 AM
From what I saw in her essay (and what she posted on twitter), she claims she is a trans ally but then parrots all of the standard scaremongering lines that are used by people who are anti-trans.
It came across as the classic response to me. "I'm not anti-(x), some of my best friends are (x). However ...."
Quote from: Tyr on June 15, 2020, 05:37:03 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 15, 2020, 05:35:39 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2020, 05:28:28 AM
:huh:
From what I saw in her essay (and what she posted on twitter), she claims she is a trans ally but then parrots all of the standard scaremongering lines that are used by people who are anti-trans.
I don't know why but it is striking how much more often you see these scaremongering lines in the UK press and from UK feminists than in North America. It's a very weird divergence - I've seen gay folk in the US commenting on it.
I guess in the US more traditional right wing arguments about God and such nonsense is still effective whilst our hard right have to pretend to be nice?
Yeah but I'm not talking about right-wingers. I'm talking about feminists and people who are allies on other issues. I've seen US gay folks commenting on how they'll read nice comments from UK people and then do about of research and find they've got a big strain of transphobia as well - which is not the norm in the US or Canada. Over there if you are a prominent feminist or speaking out on gay rights issues, chances are you're also not transphobic.
Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2020, 05:28:28 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 15, 2020, 03:48:51 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on June 15, 2020, 03:46:39 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 14, 2020, 08:34:48 PM
Watching the Twitter Left is like watching the abused become the abuser.
Eh, she retweeted and posted crappy shit and is being called out on it. Doesn't matter if she was abused or not, she's not immune to criticism because of it.
Yeah, she taints the purity of the revolution at her own peril, amiright?
:huh:
From what I saw in her essay (and what she posted on twitter), she claims she is a trans ally but then parrots all of the standard scaremongering lines that are used by people who are anti-trans.
People who are anti-something will often, if they have half a brain, use any available non-insane arguments about it (and often also other, insane, arguments). Does that make using such non-insane arguments about something mean that a person is anti-something? NB JK's arguments may well be insane (I haven't seen the juicy ones), but the fact that anti-trans people use them (if that is so) seems to me to be less than important. Guilt-by-association for arguments seems to me to be destructive. If her arguments are poor then surely they are poor even if anti-trans people didn't use them.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 15, 2020, 05:40:13 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 15, 2020, 05:37:03 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 15, 2020, 05:35:39 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2020, 05:28:28 AM
:huh:
From what I saw in her essay (and what she posted on twitter), she claims she is a trans ally but then parrots all of the standard scaremongering lines that are used by people who are anti-trans.
I don't know why but it is striking how much more often you see these scaremongering lines in the UK press and from UK feminists than in North America. It's a very weird divergence - I've seen gay folk in the US commenting on it.
I guess in the US more traditional right wing arguments about God and such nonsense is still effective whilst our hard right have to pretend to be nice?
Yeah but I'm not talking about right-wingers. I'm talking about feminists and people who are allies on other issues. I've seen US gay folks commenting on how they'll read nice comments from UK people and then do about of research and find they've got a big strain of transphobia as well - which is not the norm in the US or Canada. Over there if you are a prominent feminist or speaking out on gay rights issues, chances are you're also not transphobic.
I still ultimately blame the far right. This stuff originates with them, they then sway otherwise more moderate peolle with it.
I really believe if it wasn't for the bathroom nonsense in the US and the efforts to turn this into a key wedge issue that TERFs would be much of a thing in the UK.
Maybe it's that the culture war is far more advanced in the US that insideous bollocks isnt given room to sprout amongst moderate feminists?
I find it immensely ironic that a social movement predicated on the desirability of people feeling more uncomfortable condemns a person who says they feel uncomfortable.
woops. sb comfortable
Also, I don't think what I read from JK is "transphobic". Unless being non-transphobic means never being in disagreement with an argument that is nominally put forward to support trans people.
Quote from: Tamas on June 15, 2020, 06:12:29 AM
Also, I don't think what I read from JK is "transphobic". Unless being non-transphobic means never being in disagreement with an argument that is nominally put forward to support trans people.
This, and I don't get "fearmongering" either.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 15, 2020, 06:20:57 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 15, 2020, 06:12:29 AM
Also, I don't think what I read from JK is "transphobic". Unless being non-transphobic means never being in disagreement with an argument that is nominally put forward to support trans people.
This, and I don't get "fearmongering" either.
I haven't read JK's comments because I cannot be arsed with the discourse.
But I think the issue is it's easy to make comments that are supportive of trans people, but unless you're engaging with how they practically live that's not actually very supportive (and it's a little bit - "I've got nothing against the gays I just wish they wouldn't push it in our faces"). So, for example, I see trans men as men and trans women as women. So to use the bathroom example I don't mind trans men using the men's room and trans women using the women's bathroom.
So if your point is sex is determinative in some way - I suppose I just don't understand the pratical impact of that. If you've got no issue with them using the bathroom of their gender - but you think sex is determinative - then fine. I mean I don't know that you need to keep raising points that are purely sort of theoretical about other people, but okay. If not, then presumably trans men should be in the women's loo and trans women in the men's - is that what you want because I can see issues with that, or are we saying there should be two separate trans bathrooms instead? What's the practical solution?
In terms of fearmongering, I think the general point is that the fears that are raised around trans people are incredibly rare. It, again, reminds me of the old link people used to make between gay men and paedophilia.
I could be entirely wrong because I really haven't been following her tweets and such either, but my impression has been that Rowling's general point is that you cannot fully extend the legal and social aspects/protections allowed to women to males, without creating some level of extra risk to females in the process.
As Sheilbh said this may very well be incorrect due to the scale of things we are talking about, the point itself however should be not be shunned out of discussion by the convenient label of "transphobia".
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 15, 2020, 06:32:07 AM
I haven't read JK's comments because I cannot be arsed with the discourse.
But I think the issue is it's easy to make comments that are supportive of trans people, but unless you're engaging with how they practically live that's not actually very supportive (and it's a little bit - "I've got nothing against the gays I just wish they wouldn't push it in our faces"). So, for example, I see trans men as men and trans women as women. So to use the bathroom example I don't mind trans men using the men's room and trans women using the women's bathroom.
So if your point is sex is determinative in some way - I suppose I just don't understand the pratical impact of that. If you've got no issue with them using the bathroom of their gender - but you think sex is determinative - then fine. I mean I don't know that you need to keep raising points that are purely sort of theoretical about other people, but okay. If not, then presumably trans men should be in the women's loo and trans women in the men's - is that what you want because I can see issues with that, or are we saying there should be two separate trans bathrooms instead? What's the practical solution?
In terms of fearmongering, I think the general point is that the fears that are raised around trans people are incredibly rare. It, again, reminds me of the old link people used to make between gay men and paedophilia.
I personally don't care if a trans man takes a piss next to me. What I do care about is when a person raises what, to me, are valid and sincere concerns, that she not be immediately branded a transphobe and accused of fearmongering. I sympathize with women in battered shelters who object to trans women being allowed in. I think people like those should not be internet blacklisted.
Quote from: Tamas on June 15, 2020, 06:40:57 AM
I could be entirely wrong because I really haven't been following her tweets and such either, but my impression has been that Rowling's general point is that you cannot fully extend the legal and social aspects/protections allowed to women to males, without creating some level of extra risk to females in the process.
But nobody is doing that, because trans women are not male. They are actually in many ways less protected/safe than cis women.
Quote from: Tamas on June 15, 2020, 06:40:57 AM
I could be entirely wrong because I really haven't been following her tweets and such either, but my impression has been that Rowling's general point is that you cannot fully extend the legal and social aspects/protections allowed to women to males, without creating some level of extra risk to females in the process.
As Sheilbh said this may very well be incorrect due to the scale of things we are talking about, the point itself however should be not be shunned out of discussion by the convenient label of "transphobia".
But again while I've not engaged with the discourse on JK's comments, so I don't know the specifics. If you're raising risks then I think it needs to be grounded in facts - because otherwise it all reminds me of the furore around gay men teaching or teaching about homosexuality in a positive way (such as by depicting "pretended family relationships") in schools (the former was a big issue in the US and, to a lesser extent, UK; the latter was illegal in the UK from the mid-80s to 1998). It turns out, factually, that gay men are no more likely to be paedos than straight men and, it turns out, that allowing positive depictions of gay people in schools didn't put children at risk either. So personally I think because there's no factual basis, actually gay men presenting a threat to children should be shunned out of discussion and is homophobic.
From everything I've read there is no evidence that transpeople present an extra risk than other people, so for me it just boils down to the practical issue.
https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/
QuoteSo I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he's a woman – and, as I've said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth.
This is a legitimate concern and simple truth? :huh:
https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/
QuoteMost people probably aren't aware – I certainly wasn't, until I started researching this issue properly – that ten years ago, the majority of people wanting to transition to the opposite sex were male. That ratio has now reversed. The UK has experienced a 4400% increase in girls being referred for transitioning treatment. Autistic girls are hugely overrepresented in their numbers.
Now she's considered about autistic girls and how they are being pushed into transitioning?
https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/
QuoteThe writings of young trans men reveal a group of notably sensitive and clever people. The more of their accounts of gender dysphoria I've read, with their insightful descriptions of anxiety, dissociation, eating disorders, self-harm and self-hatred, the more I've wondered whether, if I'd been born 30 years later, I too might have tried to transition. The allure of escaping womanhood would have been huge. I struggled with severe OCD as a teenager. If I'd found community and sympathy online that I couldn't find in my immediate environment, I believe I could have been persuaded to turn myself into the son my father had openly said he'd have preferred.
When I read about the theory of gender identity, I remember how mentally sexless I felt in youth. I remember Colette's description of herself as a 'mental hermaphrodite' and Simone de Beauvoir's words: 'It is perfectly natural for the future woman to feel indignant at the limitations posed upon her by her sex. The real question is not why she should reject them: the problem is rather to understand why she accepts them.'
As I didn't have a realistic possibility of becoming a man back in the 1980s, it had to be books and music that got me through both my mental health issues and the sexualised scrutiny and judgement that sets so many girls to war against their bodies in their teens. Fortunately for me, I found my own sense of otherness, and my ambivalence about being a woman, reflected in the work of female writers and musicians who reassured me that, in spite of everything a sexist world tries to throw at the female-bodied, it's fine not to feel pink, frilly and compliant inside your own head; it's OK to feel confused, dark, both sexual and non-sexual, unsure of what or who you are.
So JK views trans as a legitimate thing but then also muses how perhaps she would have been trans had she had 'community and sympathy online' but 'fortunately' she 'found [her] own sense of otherness' in pop culture at the time and realized she could be okay with confusion about who she was without a need to transition?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 15, 2020, 06:42:51 AM
I personally don't care if a trans man takes a piss next to me. What I do care about is when a person raises what, to me, are valid and sincere concerns, that she not be immediately branded a transphobe and accused of fearmongering. I sympathize with women in battered shelters who object to trans women being allowed in. I think people like those should not be internet blacklisted.
Sure and I sympathise with that - but we know trans women face significant threat of violence in society and at home. So what's the practical solution for them? Should they go to a domestic violence shelter for ment (to the extent they exist) or should there be separate domestic violence shelters for trans women or even LGBT people?
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 15, 2020, 07:01:02 AM
Sure and I sympathise with that - but we know trans women face significant threat of violence in society and at home. So what's the practical solution for them? Should they go to a domestic violence shelter for ment (to the extent they exist) or should there be separate domestic violence shelters for trans women or even LGBT people?
That's a reasonable question. I don't have an answer. Raising this question shouldn't make one a pariah.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 15, 2020, 07:03:05 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 15, 2020, 07:01:02 AM
Sure and I sympathise with that - but we know trans women face significant threat of violence in society and at home. So what's the practical solution for them? Should they go to a domestic violence shelter for ment (to the extent they exist) or should there be separate domestic violence shelters for trans women or even LGBT people?
That's a reasonable question. I don't have an answer. Raising this question shouldn't make one a pariah.
She isn't raising questions though. Rather she's make pronouncements. Like the following statement that kicked it all off:
QuoteIf sex isn't real, there's no same-sex attraction. If sex isn't real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn't hate to speak the truth.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 15, 2020, 07:03:05 AM
That's a reasonable question. I don't have an answer. Raising this question shouldn't make one a pariah.
Okay but the issue is - is it factual? If it's not I don't see any difference between raising this question than, say, "gays - are they paedos?" "Jews - why do they love money?" etc. For me the answer isn't to say well those are legitimate questions but actually to not tolerate them and to educate people.
If it isn't factual and you just have philosophical issues then, you know, I'd still object to that but you either need to present a practical alternative or you're just saying trans people don't get these servies - whether its gyms, or bathrooms, or domestic violence shelters. You have to engage at the practical level on this and there's too many people who just operate in the sort of ether about gender or sex (which I don't find that interesting) without engaging with actual reality.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 15, 2020, 07:11:52 AM
Okay but the issue is - is it factual? If it's not I don't see any difference between raising this question than, say, "gays - are they paedos?" "Jews - why do they love money?" etc. For me the answer isn't to say well those are legitimate questions but actually to not tolerate them and to educate people.
If it isn't factual and you just have philosophical issues then, you know, I'd still object to that but you either need to present a practical alternative or you're just saying trans people don't get these servies - whether its gyms, or bathrooms, or domestic violence shelters. You have to engage at the practical level on this and there's too many people who just operate in the sort of ether about gender or sex (which I don't find that interesting) without engaging with actual reality.
First, the Scout leader paedo thing is not such a great data point for you, seeing as the Boy Scouts recently filed for bankruptcy after a number of abuse cases.
Second, aside from the factual chance of being assaulted, there is simple discomfort. Why can't a woman feel uncomfortable in a battered shelter in the company of a person who has the build of a man and was born with a penis? Likewise in a bathroom? Does trans discomfort trump cis discomfort?
Quote from: Solmyr on June 15, 2020, 06:44:40 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 15, 2020, 06:40:57 AM
I could be entirely wrong because I really haven't been following her tweets and such either, but my impression has been that Rowling's general point is that you cannot fully extend the legal and social aspects/protections allowed to women to males, without creating some level of extra risk to females in the process.
But nobody is doing that, because trans women are not male. They are actually in many ways less protected/safe than cis women.
This might be a language thing. I meant persons who were born with the chromosome pair which was in the past associated with being male.
Also while we are at the topic of sex not determining your gender: should not we just eliminate all genders altogether? What is the point of distinguishing them? Serious question.
If Person X can freely be Gender A, B, C, D, E, F, G, even H regardless of their genetics, and if there should be no discrimination or special rules/laws applicable to an of those genders, then A=B=C=D=E=F=G=H, which means we can just use A in all situations.
Quote from: Tamas on June 15, 2020, 07:34:30 AM
Also while we are at the topic of sex not determining your gender: should not we just eliminate all genders altogether? What is the point of distinguishing them? Serious question.
Who is "we" in this case? The central gender committee? I am not sure how one would go about doing that.
I mean the number of trans and nonbinary and fluid and so forth people are pretty small. Just do whatever is reasonable to accomodate them and move forward. Maybe we slowly move towards a genderless society but I don't see how it is feasible to just decide to do that overnight.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 15, 2020, 07:27:02 AM
First, the Scout leader paedo thing is not such a great data point for you, seeing as the Boy Scouts recently filed for bankruptcy after a number of abuse cases.
Okay. But, gay men are no more of a risk to children than straight men (according to some research they present less of a risk). Despite that homophobic campaigns have focused on the need to "save our children" or, as you've just mentioned, the boy scouts or the Catholic Church. And a big part of homophobia in earlier years was this lie that gay men were predators - in the 70s over 70% of people thought were dangerous because they would try to sexually molest children. It's why there were campaigns against gays having certain jobs like teachers, or restricting what children could be taugh. Even 20 years ago about a fifth of straight men thought gay men were "likely or very likely" to try and molest children. It is the trope that Putin's current campaign against gays rests on - it isn't intolerance it's about protecting children. It's untrue - but it has been and still is at the base of a lot homophobia, that gay men in particular are ultimately "recruiting" children in some way.
So in the nicest possible way your point isn't true and is repeating a homophobic trope.
QuoteSecond, aside from the factual chance of being assaulted, there is simple discomfort. Why can't a woman feel uncomfortable in a battered shelter in the company of a person who has the build of a man and was born with a penis? Likewise in a bathroom? Does trans discomfort trump cis discomfort?
But the alternatives aren't discomfort v discomfort. It's discomfort v accessing a service.
Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2020, 07:05:10 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 15, 2020, 07:03:05 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 15, 2020, 07:01:02 AM
Sure and I sympathise with that - but we know trans women face significant threat of violence in society and at home. So what's the practical solution for them? Should they go to a domestic violence shelter for ment (to the extent they exist) or should there be separate domestic violence shelters for trans women or even LGBT people?
That's a reasonable question. I don't have an answer. Raising this question shouldn't make one a pariah.
She isn't raising questions though. Rather she's make pronouncements. Like the following statement that kicked it all off:
QuoteIf sex isn't real, there's no same-sex attraction. If sex isn't real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn't hate to speak the truth.
A statement that isn't in any way unreasonable or transphobic. Do YOU have a problem with that statement?
Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists are a thing in NA too (correct me if I have the term wrong Garbon). It seems to be tied with "man hating" I think. They're not real women so are bad. Let them in the shelters and they'll harass women. Or other men will take advantage of the situation (allowing transgender women into bathroom) because men are evil.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 15, 2020, 07:41:43 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 15, 2020, 07:27:02 AM
First, the Scout leader paedo thing is not such a great data point for you, seeing as the Boy Scouts recently filed for bankruptcy after a number of abuse cases.
Okay. But, gay men are no more of a risk to children than straight men (according to some research they present less of a risk). Despite that homophobic campaigns have focused on the need to "save our children" or, as you've just mentioned, the boy scouts or the Catholic Church. And a big part of homophobia in earlier years was this lie that gay men were predators - in the 70s over 70% of people thought were dangerous because they would try to sexually molest children. It's why there were campaigns against gays having certain jobs like teachers, or restricting what children could be taugh. Even 20 years ago about a fifth of straight men thought gay men were "likely or very likely" to try and molest children. It is the trope that Putin's current campaign against gays rests on - it isn't intolerance it's about protecting children. It's untrue - but it has been and still is at the base of a lot homophobia, that gay men in particular are ultimately "recruiting" children in some way.
So in the nicest possible way your point isn't true and is repeating a homophobic trope.
QuoteSecond, aside from the factual chance of being assaulted, there is simple discomfort. Why can't a woman feel uncomfortable in a battered shelter in the company of a person who has the build of a man and was born with a penis? Likewise in a bathroom? Does trans discomfort trump cis discomfort?
But the alternatives aren't discomfort v discomfort. It's discomfort v accessing a service.
As an aside, it is amazing to me how that 'gay = pervert, protect them kids' thing has so totally died out in my own society. I can remember that from when I was a kid, no-one much questioned it. Gays were, at best, pitied. But adults certainly felt totally justified in completely excluding them from having any contact with kids.
I think the whole thing is self-referential. If being gay us a source of shame and exclusion, it makes sense for people who are not gay to think 'these guys are breaking social norms. So they must be up to no good, or sick, or desperate'. Then they just mix "being gay" in the same mental category of everyone else who is breaking social norms. All are by definition "perverts" and so why distinguish between them? A guy willing to have sex with another guy is a "pervert" and so is a guy willing to have sex with a kid. Both are 'basically' in the same category, so one is seen as being likely to also be the other.
Same way as many people felt for years that people smoking pot were "the same" as hardcore heroin addicts in terms of being addicted - the activity was "drug taking" and no distinction was made. Not to say being gay equates in any way with taking drugs, just that the mental acrobatics involved in stereotyping the two groups are the same.
Once non-gay people ceased to put gays in the same mental category, saw being gay as simply a different orientation, the connection broke and so there was no more push to equate the two.
Quote from: Tamas on June 15, 2020, 06:12:29 AM
Also, I don't think what I read from JK is "transphobic". Unless being non-transphobic means never being in disagreement with an argument that is nominally put forward to support trans people.
Of course that's what it means.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 15, 2020, 05:40:13 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 15, 2020, 05:37:03 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 15, 2020, 05:35:39 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2020, 05:28:28 AM
:huh:
From what I saw in her essay (and what she posted on twitter), she claims she is a trans ally but then parrots all of the standard scaremongering lines that are used by people who are anti-trans.
I don't know why but it is striking how much more often you see these scaremongering lines in the UK press and from UK feminists than in North America. It's a very weird divergence - I've seen gay folk in the US commenting on it.
I guess in the US more traditional right wing arguments about God and such nonsense is still effective whilst our hard right have to pretend to be nice?
Yeah but I'm not talking about right-wingers. I'm talking about feminists and people who are allies on other issues. I've seen US gay folks commenting on how they'll read nice comments from UK people and then do about of research and find they've got a big strain of transphobia as well - which is not the norm in the US or Canada. Over there if you are a prominent feminist or speaking out on gay rights issues, chances are you're also not transphobic.
Sadly, that isn't always the case, but yeah, I think in general it is.
That being said, there are plenty of "feminist gatherings" that specifically state that only those born a woman are allowed to attend. It's gotten better, but they still exist.
Quote from: HVC on June 15, 2020, 07:53:39 AM
Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists are a thing in NA too (correct me if I have the term wrong Garbon). It seems to be tied with "man hating" I think. They're not real women so are bad. Let them in the shelters and they'll harass women. Or other men will take advantage of the situation (allowing transgender women into bathroom) because men are evil.
Yes. That is the thinking behind this.
Quote from: merithyn on June 15, 2020, 11:15:23 AM
Quote from: HVC on June 15, 2020, 07:53:39 AM
Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists are a thing in NA too (correct me if I have the term wrong Garbon). It seems to be tied with "man hating" I think. They're not real women so are bad. Let them in the shelters and they'll harass women. Or other men will take advantage of the situation (allowing transgender women into bathroom) because men are evil.
Yes. That is the thinking behind this.
So you disagree with the men are evil premise? :P
Quote from: Tamas on June 15, 2020, 07:34:30 AM
Also while we are at the topic of sex not determining your gender: should not we just eliminate all genders altogether? What is the point of distinguishing them? Serious question.
If Person X can freely be Gender A, B, C, D, E, F, G, even H regardless of their genetics, and if there should be no discrimination or special rules/laws applicable to an of those genders, then A=B=C=D=E=F=G=H, which means we can just use A in all situations.
We should. We should get rid of M/F bathrooms. We should change shower rooms to be unisex with individual cubbies. We should eliminate any need to differentiate between men and women in any capacity. I've advocated for this for years.
The reality is that in our misogynistic society, men being equated with women is still so highly problematic that it's not going to happen. Women can - and regularly do - dress, talk, and act like men, and that's okay. No one bats an eye at that, really. But the moment that a man does he's either gay (which not all effeminate men are) or trans. He can't just be a guy who likes girlie things because they're fun.
There are some changes happening in that regard. I see men wearing nail polish now, and skirts more often. But I also live in Portland, OR. Those things are more accepted here. I can't imagine those going over so well in Champaign, IL, or Des Moines, IA.
Quote from: Tamas on June 15, 2020, 11:19:29 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 15, 2020, 11:15:23 AM
Quote from: HVC on June 15, 2020, 07:53:39 AM
Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists are a thing in NA too (correct me if I have the term wrong Garbon). It seems to be tied with "man hating" I think. They're not real women so are bad. Let them in the shelters and they'll harass women. Or other men will take advantage of the situation (allowing transgender women into bathroom) because men are evil.
Yes. That is the thinking behind this.
So you disagree with the men are evil premise? :P
I think that enough men are dangerous as to pose a constant risk. I am never not on alert when I'm out in public. But do I think that transwomen are men and therefore should have the same level of fear? No, not at all. They are women. As much as I am one. So having them in the same space as an all-women concert is just fine with me.
That being said, I struggle with M-to-F transfolk (especially white ones) who try to explain the "plight" of women in this country to me. You don't say? Huh. I wonder how I missed it all these years....
Quote from: merithyn on June 15, 2020, 11:20:20 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 15, 2020, 07:34:30 AM
Also while we are at the topic of sex not determining your gender: should not we just eliminate all genders altogether? What is the point of distinguishing them? Serious question.
If Person X can freely be Gender A, B, C, D, E, F, G, even H regardless of their genetics, and if there should be no discrimination or special rules/laws applicable to an of those genders, then A=B=C=D=E=F=G=H, which means we can just use A in all situations.
We should. We should get rid of M/F bathrooms. We should change shower rooms to be unisex with individual cubbies. We should eliminate any need to differentiate between men and women in any capacity. I've advocated for this for years.
The reality is that in our misogynistic society, men being equated with women is still so highly problematic that it's not going to happen. Women can - and regularly do - dress, talk, and act like men, and that's okay. No one bats an eye at that, really. But the moment that a man does he's either gay (which not all effeminate men are) or trans. He can't just be a guy who likes girlie things because they're fun.
There are some changes happening in that regard. I see men wearing nail polish now, and skirts more often. But I also live in Portland, OR. Those things are more accepted here. I can't imagine those going over so well in Champaign, IL, or Des Moines, IA.
Getting rid of any distinction between men and women means getting rid of women's sports.
Quote from: Barrister on June 15, 2020, 11:27:48 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 15, 2020, 11:20:20 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 15, 2020, 07:34:30 AM
Also while we are at the topic of sex not determining your gender: should not we just eliminate all genders altogether? What is the point of distinguishing them? Serious question.
If Person X can freely be Gender A, B, C, D, E, F, G, even H regardless of their genetics, and if there should be no discrimination or special rules/laws applicable to an of those genders, then A=B=C=D=E=F=G=H, which means we can just use A in all situations.
We should. We should get rid of M/F bathrooms. We should change shower rooms to be unisex with individual cubbies. We should eliminate any need to differentiate between men and women in any capacity. I've advocated for this for years.
The reality is that in our misogynistic society, men being equated with women is still so highly problematic that it's not going to happen. Women can - and regularly do - dress, talk, and act like men, and that's okay. No one bats an eye at that, really. But the moment that a man does he's either gay (which not all effeminate men are) or trans. He can't just be a guy who likes girlie things because they're fun.
There are some changes happening in that regard. I see men wearing nail polish now, and skirts more often. But I also live in Portland, OR. Those things are more accepted here. I can't imagine those going over so well in Champaign, IL, or Des Moines, IA.
Getting rid of any distinction between men and women means getting rid of women's sports.
But it doesn't mean women can't do sports.
Quote from: Barrister on June 15, 2020, 11:27:48 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 15, 2020, 11:20:20 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 15, 2020, 07:34:30 AM
Also while we are at the topic of sex not determining your gender: should not we just eliminate all genders altogether? What is the point of distinguishing them? Serious question.
If Person X can freely be Gender A, B, C, D, E, F, G, even H regardless of their genetics, and if there should be no discrimination or special rules/laws applicable to an of those genders, then A=B=C=D=E=F=G=H, which means we can just use A in all situations.
We should. We should get rid of M/F bathrooms. We should change shower rooms to be unisex with individual cubbies. We should eliminate any need to differentiate between men and women in any capacity. I've advocated for this for years.
The reality is that in our misogynistic society, men being equated with women is still so highly problematic that it's not going to happen. Women can - and regularly do - dress, talk, and act like men, and that's okay. No one bats an eye at that, really. But the moment that a man does he's either gay (which not all effeminate men are) or trans. He can't just be a guy who likes girlie things because they're fun.
There are some changes happening in that regard. I see men wearing nail polish now, and skirts more often. But I also live in Portland, OR. Those things are more accepted here. I can't imagine those going over so well in Champaign, IL, or Des Moines, IA.
Getting rid of any distinction between men and women means getting rid of women's sports.
That's a good point. But that's already becoming problematic because transwomen are being excluded in many cases. How do we accommodate for that? They are women, though in many cases they had testosterone for long enough to build masculine muscles.
Those kinds of things require careful analysis, discussion, and scientific bases, which the Court of Public Appeal isn't going to give it. For now, it's a wedge issue. But in my opinion, if science says that they don't have a physical advantage, then I have zero problem with them competing with women.
None of this is simple. If it were, we'd have figured it out ages ago. As it is, we're at least having the conversations now. I just wish more people were having it in good faith, and not based on "ew, icky!" or "no change!!"
Quote from: merithyn on June 15, 2020, 11:36:56 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 15, 2020, 11:27:48 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 15, 2020, 11:20:20 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 15, 2020, 07:34:30 AM
Also while we are at the topic of sex not determining your gender: should not we just eliminate all genders altogether? What is the point of distinguishing them? Serious question.
If Person X can freely be Gender A, B, C, D, E, F, G, even H regardless of their genetics, and if there should be no discrimination or special rules/laws applicable to an of those genders, then A=B=C=D=E=F=G=H, which means we can just use A in all situations.
We should. We should get rid of M/F bathrooms. We should change shower rooms to be unisex with individual cubbies. We should eliminate any need to differentiate between men and women in any capacity. I've advocated for this for years.
The reality is that in our misogynistic society, men being equated with women is still so highly problematic that it's not going to happen. Women can - and regularly do - dress, talk, and act like men, and that's okay. No one bats an eye at that, really. But the moment that a man does he's either gay (which not all effeminate men are) or trans. He can't just be a guy who likes girlie things because they're fun.
There are some changes happening in that regard. I see men wearing nail polish now, and skirts more often. But I also live in Portland, OR. Those things are more accepted here. I can't imagine those going over so well in Champaign, IL, or Des Moines, IA.
Getting rid of any distinction between men and women means getting rid of women's sports.
That's a good point. But that's already becoming problematic because transwomen are being excluded in many cases. How do we accommodate for that? They are women, though in many cases they had testosterone for long enough to build masculine muscles.
Those kinds of things require careful analysis, discussion, and scientific bases, which the Court of Public Appeal isn't going to give it. For now, it's a wedge issue. But in my opinion, if science says that they don't have a physical advantage, then I have zero problem with them competing with women.
None of this is simple. If it were, we'd have figured it out ages ago. As it is, we're at least having the conversations now. I just wish more people were having it in good faith, and not based on "ew, icky!" or "no change!!"
:unsure:
Quote from: merithyn on June 15, 2020, 11:36:56 AM
That's a good point. But that's already becoming problematic because transwomen are being excluded in many cases. How do we accommodate for that? They are women, though in many cases they had testosterone for long enough to build masculine muscles.
Those kinds of things require careful analysis, discussion, and scientific bases, which the Court of Public Appeal isn't going to give it. For now, it's a wedge issue. But in my opinion, if science says that they don't have a physical advantage, then I have zero problem with them competing with women.
None of this is simple. If it were, we'd have figured it out ages ago. As it is, we're at least having the conversations now. I just wish more people were having it in good faith, and not based on "ew, icky!" or "no change!!"
And this applies regardless of trans issues - see the incredibly sad story of Caster Semenya on this and, of course, the slightly horrible "debate" about an individual.
If we stop distinguishing between men and women then the trans-women "problem" in sports (I don't see a problem but some people do) will disappear.
Quote from: merithyn on June 15, 2020, 11:36:56 AM
That's a good point. But that's already becoming problematic because transwomen are being excluded in many cases. How do we accommodate for that? They are women, though in many cases they had testosterone for long enough to build masculine muscles.
Those kinds of things require careful analysis, discussion, and scientific bases, which the Court of Public Appeal isn't going to give it. For now, it's a wedge issue. But in my opinion, if science says that they don't have a physical advantage, then I have zero problem with them competing with women.
None of this is simple. If it were, we'd have figured it out ages ago. As it is, we're at least having the conversations now. I just wish more people were having it in good faith, and not based on "ew, icky!" or "no change!!"
But that's where we can circle back to Rowling. She's a pretty "woke" writer, there's no reason to disbelieve her when she says she's generally supportive of trans rights, but has concerns about things like bathrooms and women's shelters. Yet no, she's getting pilloried from the woke twitter brigade.
Basically, Rowling is saying, "You might feel like you're a woman, and you may have the artificially created outward anatomy of a woman - and I'm fine with that. But you will never BE a woman, and we shouldn't treat you like one."
Which has to be one of the most hurtful things for a transitioning person. It's unfortunate Josie doesn't post here anymore, I'm sure she could explain it much better.
Yes Rowling was wrong and shouldn't have said that.
Quote from: Barrister on June 15, 2020, 11:51:09 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 15, 2020, 11:36:56 AM
That's a good point. But that's already becoming problematic because transwomen are being excluded in many cases. How do we accommodate for that? They are women, though in many cases they had testosterone for long enough to build masculine muscles.
Those kinds of things require careful analysis, discussion, and scientific bases, which the Court of Public Appeal isn't going to give it. For now, it's a wedge issue. But in my opinion, if science says that they don't have a physical advantage, then I have zero problem with them competing with women.
None of this is simple. If it were, we'd have figured it out ages ago. As it is, we're at least having the conversations now. I just wish more people were having it in good faith, and not based on "ew, icky!" or "no change!!"
But that's where we can circle back to Rowling. She's a pretty "woke" writer, there's no reason to disbelieve her when she says she's generally supportive of trans rights, but has concerns about things like bathrooms and women's shelters. Yet no, she's getting pilloried from the woke twitter brigade.
Quite. And what Shelf and Tyr have failed to mention is that Rowling and other so called "TERFs" are complaining about UK legislation (which has not yet been brought into force) which determines gender solely on the basis of self-declaration. This is quite obviously open to exploitation by predatory men who are simply lying. It is perfectly legitimate for women to be concerned than men can get access to women's refuges and changing rooms purely on the basis of them self-declaring that they are women and I find it extraordinary that anyone expressing a concern is dogpiled as a fascist or a transphobe by what seems to me to be a movement with a particularly obsessive and nasty element in it.
Quote from: Gups on June 15, 2020, 12:02:05 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 15, 2020, 11:51:09 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 15, 2020, 11:36:56 AM
That's a good point. But that's already becoming problematic because transwomen are being excluded in many cases. How do we accommodate for that? They are women, though in many cases they had testosterone for long enough to build masculine muscles.
Those kinds of things require careful analysis, discussion, and scientific bases, which the Court of Public Appeal isn't going to give it. For now, it's a wedge issue. But in my opinion, if science says that they don't have a physical advantage, then I have zero problem with them competing with women.
None of this is simple. If it were, we'd have figured it out ages ago. As it is, we're at least having the conversations now. I just wish more people were having it in good faith, and not based on "ew, icky!" or "no change!!"
But that's where we can circle back to Rowling. She's a pretty "woke" writer, there's no reason to disbelieve her when she says she's generally supportive of trans rights, but has concerns about things like bathrooms and women's shelters. Yet no, she's getting pilloried from the woke twitter brigade.
Quite. And what Shelf and Tyr have failed to mention is that Rowling and other so called "TERFs" are complaining about UK legislation (which has not yet been brought into force) which determines gender solely on the basis of self-declaration. This is quite obviously open to exploitation by predatory men who are simply lying. It is perfectly legitimate for women to be concerned than men can get access to women's refuges and changing rooms purely on the basis of them self-declaring that they are women and I find it extraordinary that anyone expressing a concern is dogpiled as a fascist or a transphobe by what seems to me to be a movement with a particularly obsessive and nasty element in it.
Careful Gups. Reason will get you hated.
Quote from: Gups on June 15, 2020, 12:02:05 PMQuite. And what Shelf and Tyr have failed to mention is that Rowling and other so called "TERFs" are complaining about UK legislation (which has not yet been brought into force) which determines gender solely on the basis of self-declaration. This is quite obviously open to exploitation by predatory men who are simply lying. It is perfectly legitimate for women to be concerned than men can get access to women's refuges and changing rooms purely on the basis of them self-declaring that they are women and I find it extraordinary that anyone expressing a concern is dogpiled as a fascist or a transphobe by what seems to me to be a movement with a particularly obsessive and nasty element in it.
A cursory glance at Trans rights in Britain in Wiki seems to suggest that it's a bit more than just a "self-declaration":
QuoteSince 4 April 2005, as per the Gender Recognition Act 2004, it is possible for transgender people to change their legal gender in the UK, allowing them to acquire a new birth certificate. Transgender people must present evidence to a Gender Recognition Panel, which considers their case and issues a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC); they must have transitioned two years before a GRC is issued. It is not a requirement for sex reassignment surgery to have taken place. However, such surgery will be accepted as part of the supporting evidence for a case where it has taken place. There is formal approval of medical gender reassignment available either on the National Health Service (NHS) or privately.
In contrast to some systems elsewhere in the world, the gender recognition process does not require applicants to be post-operative. They need only to demonstrate to the Gender Recognition Panel that they have suffered gender dysphoria, have lived as "your new gender" for two years, and intend to continue doing so until death.[6]
In July 2018, the UK government started a public consultation regarding reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004.[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_rights_in_the_United_Kingdom
Are there any cases in which predatory men have abused this law?
Quote from: Syt on June 15, 2020, 12:13:13 PM
Quote from: Gups on June 15, 2020, 12:02:05 PMQuite. And what Shelf and Tyr have failed to mention is that Rowling and other so called "TERFs" are complaining about UK legislation (which has not yet been brought into force) which determines gender solely on the basis of self-declaration. This is quite obviously open to exploitation by predatory men who are simply lying. It is perfectly legitimate for women to be concerned than men can get access to women's refuges and changing rooms purely on the basis of them self-declaring that they are women and I find it extraordinary that anyone expressing a concern is dogpiled as a fascist or a transphobe by what seems to me to be a movement with a particularly obsessive and nasty element in it.
A cursory glance at Trans rights in Britain in Wiki seems to suggest that it's a bit more than just a "self-declaration":
QuoteSince 4 April 2005, as per the Gender Recognition Act 2004, it is possible for transgender people to change their legal gender in the UK, allowing them to acquire a new birth certificate. Transgender people must present evidence to a Gender Recognition Panel, which considers their case and issues a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC); they must have transitioned two years before a GRC is issued. It is not a requirement for sex reassignment surgery to have taken place. However, such surgery will be accepted as part of the supporting evidence for a case where it has taken place. There is formal approval of medical gender reassignment available either on the National Health Service (NHS) or privately.
In contrast to some systems elsewhere in the world, the gender recognition process does not require applicants to be post-operative. They need only to demonstrate to the Gender Recognition Panel that they have suffered gender dysphoria, have lived as "your new gender" for two years, and intend to continue doing so until death.[6]
In July 2018, the UK government started a public consultation regarding reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004.[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_rights_in_the_United_Kingdom
Are there any cases in which predatory men have abused this law?
Isn't it more helpful to talk about the same legislation?
Sorry missed the "not yet come into force" bit. Is the new legislation available online?
No it was a consultation launched in 2018 which proposed that instead of certification by a medical professional, a person could certify their own gender by statutory declaration and amend their birth certificate. A fee of £140 would be payable. The legislation has not been brought forward yet and this weekend past their has been a lot of speculation that the Government is proposing to drop the self-certification proposal (but it all originates from one reporter in the Sunday Times and I think is denied by the Government).
e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jun/14/trans-rights-government-reported-to-be-dropping-gender-self-identifying-plans
Quote from: Syt on June 15, 2020, 12:13:13 PM
Are there any cases in which predatory men have abused this law?
Obviously, the law is not and may not be in place but this is probably the best known example of what is feared by those who oppose self-certification
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/11/transgender-prisoner-who-sexually-assaulted-inmates-jailed-for-life
Quote from: Barrister on June 15, 2020, 11:51:09 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 15, 2020, 11:36:56 AM
That's a good point. But that's already becoming problematic because transwomen are being excluded in many cases. How do we accommodate for that? They are women, though in many cases they had testosterone for long enough to build masculine muscles.
Those kinds of things require careful analysis, discussion, and scientific bases, which the Court of Public Appeal isn't going to give it. For now, it's a wedge issue. But in my opinion, if science says that they don't have a physical advantage, then I have zero problem with them competing with women.
None of this is simple. If it were, we'd have figured it out ages ago. As it is, we're at least having the conversations now. I just wish more people were having it in good faith, and not based on "ew, icky!" or "no change!!"
But that's where we can circle back to Rowling. She's a pretty "woke" writer, there's no reason to disbelieve her when she says she's generally supportive of trans rights, but has concerns about things like bathrooms and women's shelters. Yet no, she's getting pilloried from the woke twitter brigade.
I'm supportive of gay rights but have concerns about gays in the military?
I'm supportive of civil rights but have concerns about black people using the same drinking fountains?
Quote from: Gups on June 15, 2020, 12:02:05 PM
Quite. And what Shelf and Tyr have failed to mention is that Rowling and other so called "TERFs" are complaining about UK legislation (which has not yet been brought into force) which determines gender solely on the basis of self-declaration. This is quite obviously open to exploitation by predatory men who are simply lying. It is perfectly legitimate for women to be concerned than men can get access to women's refuges and changing rooms purely on the basis of them self-declaring that they are women and I find it extraordinary that anyone expressing a concern is dogpiled as a fascist or a transphobe by what seems to me to be a movement with a particularly obsessive and nasty element in it.
Sure - I think the context at the minute is also that the government in England have indefinitely delayed reforms to the Gender Recognition Act and, according to the Times, earlier this year they were polling and focus grouping "culture war" issues like trans rights to see if they could be "weaponised". I don't think it's actually been passed yet.
The old legislation needs updating - you know it requires a medical diagnosis, two years of living with your "acquired gender" pay slips, utility bills etc after which you go to the Gender Recognition Panel (a tribunal of lawyers, psychologists and doctors) for hearings which can run up to 14 days after which they decide whether or not to issue you with a Gender Recognition Certificate. There's also the issue of the spousal veto which is just very, very outdated and still applies in certain cases. But it was groundbreaking at its time, so trans people don't need to have had any hormone treatment or surgery for their gender to be recognised.
The reform is that you will make a statutory declaration - which is the position in, I believe, Spain, Argentina, Ireland, Portugal, Belgium, Norway and Malta. It's not as simple as making a declaration on the spot. But we can look at several years of this sort of law being in place to see if there is a risk. From my understanding that hasn't happened and given the current position includes trans people who've not had surgery or hormones I'm not sure it's a wildly different type of risk.
And it's less relevant from the perspective of changing rooms, but domestic violence shelters already conduct risk assessments on who they will or won't admit - that won't change. They will still be able to conduct those assessments and refuse entry to people they consider a risk to their residents. The vast majority of shelters who replied to the consultation already take in trans women.
I think it is transphobic to fret about the risk from a community when there is no evidence it actually exists - there are individual cases and anecdata but that's it. But my bigger issue is with just approaching this from a theoretical perspective without addressing the practical solution - what changing rooms should trans people use? Or what's the difference between a real trans person (without surgery or hormones in current situation) and who's a risk (under the new law)?
Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2020, 12:39:33 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 15, 2020, 11:51:09 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 15, 2020, 11:36:56 AM
That's a good point. But that's already becoming problematic because transwomen are being excluded in many cases. How do we accommodate for that? They are women, though in many cases they had testosterone for long enough to build masculine muscles.
Those kinds of things require careful analysis, discussion, and scientific bases, which the Court of Public Appeal isn't going to give it. For now, it's a wedge issue. But in my opinion, if science says that they don't have a physical advantage, then I have zero problem with them competing with women.
None of this is simple. If it were, we'd have figured it out ages ago. As it is, we're at least having the conversations now. I just wish more people were having it in good faith, and not based on "ew, icky!" or "no change!!"
But that's where we can circle back to Rowling. She's a pretty "woke" writer, there's no reason to disbelieve her when she says she's generally supportive of trans rights, but has concerns about things like bathrooms and women's shelters. Yet no, she's getting pilloried from the woke twitter brigade.
I'm supportive of gay rights but have concerns about gays in the military?
I'm supportive of civil rights but have concerns about black people using the same drinking fountains?
My impression is that it isn't always the case that having any concern means that a person is anti whatever is discussed.
Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2020, 12:39:33 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 15, 2020, 11:51:09 AM
But that's where we can circle back to Rowling. She's a pretty "woke" writer, there's no reason to disbelieve her when she says she's generally supportive of trans rights, but has concerns about things like bathrooms and women's shelters. Yet no, she's getting pilloried from the woke twitter brigade.
I'm supportive of gay rights but have concerns about gays in the military?
I'm supportive of civil rights but have concerns about black people using the same drinking fountains?
So lets look at those.
Gays in the military in particular. The concern that was expressed was that having gays in the military would affect military cohesion. I've never served so I have no idea how real that thought was, but it was clearly expressed by a number of people who were serving. So under Bill Clinton (who was seen as being fairly gay-friendly) they brought in don't ask, don't tell. That was actually a step forward for gay rights! And by allowing gays to serve in the military (albeit closeted) for a number of years it showed there was no risk to military cohseion, and the policy was lapsed and gays allowed to serve openly with little complaint.
Drinking fountains... I can not for the life of me imagine any rational objection to using the same drinking fountains as a black person.
So the only time I ever dealt with trans rights in a professional capacity it was in the context of a trans woman alleging she had been mistreated in prison because of her transness. I dealt with some higher-ups in the jail who admitted this was a new and growing issue, and that they certainly could do better. For example I actually agreed with her complaint that she should be given women's prison clothing, not men's - there's no operational requirement that would require one over the other.
But they were quite adamant that they would not hose her with the women general population. She was housed in the medical ward (and not in male general population either). They specifically cited the safety and comfort of the other female prisoners.
She ain't transphobic though...
https://metro.co.uk/2020/06/29/jk-rowling-deletes-tweet-praising-stephen-king-12917340/
QuoteJK Rowling deletes tweet praising Stephen King after he says 'trans women are women'
Stephen King has been dragged into the palaver surrounding JK Rowling, after the Harry Potter creator tweeted, then deleted, praise for the It author amid accusations of transphobia. On Sunday, Rowling posted a lengthy thread regarding Labour MP Minister Lloyd Russell-Moyle, who claimed that the author was 'using her sexual assault history to discriminate against transgender people' – which he would later apologise for. It followed a nearly 4,000-word essay, in which Rowling spoke out about her own domestic violence survival while defending earlier tweets in which she outraged the trans community. In retracting his earlier comment, Russell-Moyle, MP for Kemptown and Peacehaven, said: 'Whilst I may disagree with some of her analysis on trans rights, it was wrong of me to suggest that she used her own dreadful experience in anything other than good faith.'
It's a lot to unpack, but amid the thread, Rowling shared a quote from feminist and author Andrea Dworkin, which King would go on to retweet. Rowling wrote: 'Andrea Dworkin wrote: "Men often react to women's words—speaking and writing—as if they were acts of violence; sometimes men react to women's words with violence." It isn't hateful for women speak about their own experiences, nor do they deserve shaming for doing so.' Of this message, King retweeted it to his own feed (where it remained at time of writing), which appeared to set Rowling off to a place of fawning happiness.
In response, she tweeted: 'I've always revered Stephen King, but today my love reached – maybe not Annie Wilkes levels – but new heights. 'It's so much easier for men to ignore women's concerns, or to belittle them, but I won't ever forget the men who stood up when they didn't need to. Thank you, Stephen.' However, her message was hardly given a chance, after she deleted it when one of King's followers asked him to clarify his stance on trans issues, following the re-tweet, and he replied: 'Yes. Trans women are women.'
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/03/define-what-a-woman-is-organise-politically-suzanne-moore
QuoteWhat is a woman?" This was the question asked of the Lib Dem leadership hopeful Layla Moran late last month, on the radio programme Political Thinking with Nick Robinson. "You talked of giving straight answers to straight questions," said Robinson. "Here's a nice one for you, philosophical: what is a woman?"
There was a pause, before an answer that probably wasn't as direct as Robinson had hoped. "Well," said Moran, "a woman is a gender, it is a way to self-identify and there are lots of genders. There is male and that is biological. There is female, which is also biological. A woman is a gender identity which is more akin to being a man. Those are the opposites and then there is also non-binary, which is people who don't identify with either."
This seemed confusing to me. So being a man is akin to being a woman? How does that work? I asked the same question on Twitter – what is a woman? – and Naomi Wolf, no less, the author of The Beauty Myth and Vagina: A New Biography, answered that a woman is anyone who wants to be one. It is a personal choice. "Many men and trans people have thanked me for The Beauty Myth," she wrote. "I didn't write it only for readers born with uteri."
The confusion continued on Twitter with a row over a tweet from Piers Morgan, in response to a CNN tweet reading: "Individuals with a cervix are now recommended to start cervical cancers screening at 25." Morgan replied: "Do you mean women?", and when Rosie Duffield, MP for Canterbury, liked Morgan's tweet, she was accused of being a transphobe. Duffield then tweeted: "I'm a 'transphobe' for knowing that only women have a cervix...?!" Progressives who presumably want to win back those "red wall" seats called for her sacking.
I am dismayed at the persecution of trans people – and also at the bile directed towards women who are questioning a narrative in which our experience, needs and reality are too often overlooked. Why can't we use the word "womxn", someone asked on Twitter. It's obvious, isn't it? To erase the word "woman" means we cannot speak of our biology and our experience. Leftwing feminists, me included, see women as a sex class. American "choice feminism" was a disaster; feminism repackaged as capitalist attainment. The backlash is now here, and in some cases it comes in the form of an ideology that overrides the demands of women.
We don't talk so much now about the terrible violence meted out to women – the appallingly low rate of rape convictions and the huge and growing incidence of domestic violence – because that would be to see women as still oppressed. And there is a popular narrative now that often says we're not. For some people, victimhood has become the preserve of a tiny percentage of the population – trans and other seriously marginalised communities – who do indeed have a very hard time. But while their difficulties are recognised, women's difficulties are considered merely the bleatings of privileged females.
If we cannot define what a woman is or name that experience, we cannot organise politically. As the radical feminist Andrea Dworkin once wrote: "Men have the power of naming, a great and sublime power. This power of naming enables men to define experience, to articulate boundaries and values, to designate to each thing its realm and qualities, to determine what can and cannot be expressed to control perception itself."
For me, the debate around trans issues is not and never has been about toilets or changing rooms. It is about the right of women to define themselves in a system that is afraid we might do just that.
I will happily respect anyone's pronouns and I ask other people, too, to respect the language that defines my life in a female meat suit. Men are never spoken of as prostate owners, or vehicles for their penises or testicles. I have never yet read a definition of "cis" that I identify with, even though, as a female whose gender expression matches her sex, this is apparently what I am. The fact is, when it comes to my appearance, I started wearing drag – makeup, heels, big hair – as soon as I knew that, in order to use my mind, I would have to appear on the outside entirely different to how I felt on the inside. Gender nonconformity has been an essential part of my life, as it is for so many people, whether this is apparent or not. I always liked the way the Stonewall activist Marsha P Johnson chose to call herself a "street transvestite action revolutionary". She thought of herself not as a woman but as "a queen".
All of us are a combination of biology and history, our bodies situated in a time and a place. I neither want to fetishise and essentialise biology nor deny it. It is different for each of us.
It is often argued on Twitter that the struggle for trans rights is the same as the struggle for gay rights. But, crucially, coming out as gay demands nothing from others but equality. There is now a demand from some activists – many of them not trans themselves; many of them men – that the class of women must be renamed.
I reject this. Am I more than a collection of body parts? Am I allowed to talk of my own life? Am I a woman simply out of choice?
What, then, is a woman? These days, I often find it is simply someone who does not agree to let misogynist men speak for us.
We care about a CNN tweet because...?
Quote from: garbon on August 04, 2020, 06:32:15 AM
We care about a CNN tweet because...?
I highlighted one of the stand-out points which in hindsight was a mistake as it gave you an opportunity to ignore the overall point of the article. :P
Although I don't know the details about the example from CNN but the UK language in emails for cervical screening from the NHS are addressed to "all women and people with a cervix" - because trans men, for example, have a cervix. I don't see the issue with that, but as I say I don't know the details of the CNN example - does it not say "women" at all, is it one clinic in one neighbourhood in New York or is it the standard language in the US?
Because without that it just all reminds me of the other culture war stuff - like the Telegraph's stories about campaigns to demolish the statue of Constantine in York because he was a slaveholder, or to remove war memorials in some village because they're imperialist memorials. You dig into either of those stories and they were both about one local crank making a comment/complaint. That one individual then gets a 500 word article about them vaguely described as "campaigners" in a national newspaper and lots of shares all around the world on social media. Except in this case, possibly, replace the Telegraph with Piers Morgan.
That may not be the case with a lot of trans issues, but it's how it feels and I don't think it's particularly healthy for us as a society that the incentives for media companies, social media companies and personalities to share and circulate the most extreme opinions/statements (possibly out of context - as I say I don't know the example from the CNN story) rather than what is representative opinion.
Especially given that opinion in the UK is actually relatively nuanced:
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/07/16/where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights
Sure its culture war but its both sides waging it and it doesn't automatically mean that self-proclaimed progressives are always in the right.
"Persons with a cervix" is saying "I mean women but I don't want to unleash a Twitter shitstorm by saying women". I guess they could have used female but then both sides of the trenches would have unleashed on them, one for not using women and the other for using female instead of person with the applicable internal organ.
And I really do not get how using sex for such a thing is inappropriate. If a tiny minority of transgender people (who are already a tiny minority) are not reasonable enough to realise that writing "female" is more efficient than "person with a cervix" and it is not meant to belittle or insult their own custom-made gender identity, then I don't think it is worth a society-wide effort to accommodate them.
Also, and this does have me puzzled, if sex/gender should be forbidden to be used to identify primary sexual characteristics, then, do tell me, what is their use? When a male identifies as a woman, what does that mean? Is a way of dressing or hairsyle or mannerism? If yes, are we saying that women are defined by the way they look talk or dress? I mean, sure, society have forced men and women to adhere to certain appearance and mannerism, but how can we try to simultaneously move away from that while also applying a far more nuanced and specific meaning to the genders? If at one hand you remove their meaning in terms of identifying sex, but on the other hand, you make them a self-declared but strict, prime core of a person's identity, what are you ending up with?
Transgender people, or at least the activists proclaim to act on their behalf, seek both to blurry the division between genders, while also fighting hard to enforce definitions and thus divisions between them. It's nonsense, and the culture war is increasingly hostage of it.
Don't have time to respond in full but the point of "all women and people with a cervix" is that there are trans men who live as men and present as men, may well have documents as men but are still at risk of cervical cancer. Saying "all women and females" doesn't help with that, so trans men who need cervical cancer screening wouldn't get it/realise they needed to do it. That's why the NHS uses the language it does which I don't have an issue with.
As I say I don't know about the CNN story and I haven't looked into it (again time :() - but my point is I'm not sure I am willing to trust Piers Morgan posting something as accurate because I don't trust Piers Morgan any more than I trust the Telegraph on culture war issues wherre they deliberately promote non-stories - local crank dislikes statue. The NHS language, which is used for millions of people in this country, seems useful to me and a way of reaching everyone who needs cervical cancer screening (it'd be the same as "all men and people with a prostate" need screening).
Edit - I suppose the other point is it does cover off intersex people as well who I think could have a prostate or cervix, but I'm not sure.
I think the Guardian article I quoted goes way past what Morgan thinks and is not in general concerned with that.
Would it really be such an unacceptable state of societal affairs if we assumed that health information for "females" mean those female at birth? Surely you can have equality without pretending that sex is not determined by birth?
Well yes it made me wonder what your angle was.
Quote from: Barrister on June 15, 2020, 11:51:09 AM
But that's where we can circle back to Rowling. She's a pretty "woke" writer, there's no reason to disbelieve her when she says she's generally supportive of trans rights, but has concerns about things like bathrooms and women's shelters. Yet no, she's getting pilloried from the woke twitter brigade.
Competing against women in sports <> being a woman.
But as Sheilbh has said, my points lead to a a very slippery slope. There are "naturally born" women with high levels of testosterone, too. Do we scientifically ban them? I think the answer is no, we don't. And we're back to a woman is a woman.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 15, 2020, 12:45:13 PM
I think it is transphobic to fret about the risk from a community when there is no evidence it actually exists - there are individual cases and anecdata but that's it. But my bigger issue is with just approaching this from a theoretical perspective without addressing the practical solution - what changing rooms should trans people use? Or what's the difference between a real trans person (without surgery or hormones in current situation) and who's a risk (under the new law)?
:yes:
Quote from: Tamas on August 04, 2020, 08:39:01 AM
"Persons with a cervix" is saying "I mean women but I don't want to unleash a Twitter shitstorm by saying women". I guess they could have used female but then both sides of the trenches would have unleashed on them, one for not using women and the other for using female instead of person with the applicable internal organ.
Because it's not "women", it's people with cervixes. I am a woman without a cervix. There are men with cervixes. It is definitely not "women".
QuoteAnd I really do not get how using sex for such a thing is inappropriate. If a tiny minority of transgender people (who are already a tiny minority) are not reasonable enough to realise that writing "female" is more efficient than "person with a cervix" and it is not meant to belittle or insult their own custom-made gender identity, then I don't think it is worth a society-wide effort to accommodate them.
Says the cis het white man who's never not been included in the grand scheme.
QuoteAlso, and this does have me puzzled, if sex/gender should be forbidden to be used to identify primary sexual characteristics, then, do tell me, what is their use? When a male identifies as a woman, what does that mean? Is a way of dressing or hairsyle or mannerism? If yes, are we saying that women are defined by the way they look talk or dress? I mean, sure, society have forced men and women to adhere to certain appearance and mannerism, but how can we try to simultaneously move away from that while also applying a far more nuanced and specific meaning to the genders? If at one hand you remove their meaning in terms of identifying sex, but on the other hand, you make them a self-declared but strict, prime core of a person's identity, what are you ending up with?
How about we not a strict, prime core of a person's identity? That seems like a good start. I've been a huge proponent of this for decades.
Quote from: merithyn on August 04, 2020, 10:52:24 AM
Says the cis het white man who's never not been included in the grand scheme.
:secret:
Actually, Tamas is trans[spoiler]leithanian.[/spoiler] :P
Quote from: merithyn on August 04, 2020, 10:52:24 AM
Quote from: Tamas on August 04, 2020, 08:39:01 AM
"Persons with a cervix" is saying "I mean women but I don't want to unleash a Twitter shitstorm by saying women". I guess they could have used female but then both sides of the trenches would have unleashed on them, one for not using women and the other for using female instead of person with the applicable internal organ.
Because it's not "women", it's people with cervixes. I am a woman without a cervix. There are men with cervixes. It is definitely not "women".
Yeah I think there is a famous example of a trans man who died of ovarian cancer because his doctor didn't examine the possibility of that risk for him (I think he was sent to a psychiatrist instead).
The purpose of "people with ovaries/cervix/prostate" isn't to exclude "men"/"women" but to make sure it includes, for example, intersex people or trans people who may still need to check for prostate cancer/gynaecological care.
QuoteWould it really be such an unacceptable state of societal affairs if we assumed that health information for "females" mean those female at birth? Surely you can have equality without pretending that sex is not determined by birth?
I just don't think it's how we use the word "female". So, it's worse than being unacceptable, it's ineffective. The equality issue here is, I think, ensuring that people who do not identify or present or live their lives as women/men, who may not have told their GP, who may not even have a passport based on their assigned sex at birth still get the right information and access to care that they may need.
And you're right it's a tiny minority, but you know some intersex traits are far more common but a lot are around 1 in 1000 which is not super-super rare.
QuoteI think the Guardian article I quoted goes way past what Morgan thinks and is not in general concerned with that.
You're right - but it is the only piece of evidence.
And again this goes back to my issue with a lot of articles in the UK especially is there is a lack of evidence in them. They tend to be as I say slightly theoretical or based on anecdata like a comment Piers Morgan tweets and the responses to a tweet by Suzanne Moore. And I just don't think many of us would be comfortable with articles in that style about any other minority group. I think they just need to back it up and then go to the next question of what it means in practice? So in this case - from a healthcare perspective how do we get trans men or intersex people to get cervical cancer checks/care they need/mention to their doctor that they have a cervix if they have pain or whatever? And I think the same question goes for trans women needing prostate checks/communicating that risk to doctors.
Honestly coming at it from a healthcare perspective, trans people have researched this stuff for years before surgery (usually). They are very up to date on medical terminology, treatments, check-ups etc.
A trans man knows he still has a cervix. This seems like a tempest in a tea cup.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 04, 2020, 03:59:43 PM
Honestly coming at it from a healthcare perspective, trans people have researched this stuff for years before surgery (usually). They are very up to date on medical terminology, treatments, check-ups etc.
A trans man knows he still has a cervix. This seems like a tempest in a tea cup.
Again, not all women - even those like me born a woman and still a woman - have cervixes and not all men have prostates. It's incorrect language to say "Women should be scanned for...." because it's simply wrong. And we've seen how that plays out with breast cancer, because men can get breast cancer, too, but they won't go in because they don't want to be associated with a "woman's" disease.
So remove gender from the discussion, use correct language, and it works better.
What is the problem with that? Where is there an issue?
There is no issue either way is my point.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 04, 2020, 05:40:59 PM
There is no issue either way is my point.
:mellow:
So, you're just going to ignore my arguments that there are real problems with using gendered language? Yeah, okay. I'm convinced. :rolleyes:
If you've got numbers to show me that gendered language decreases access or usage of healthcare resources, I will gladly agree.
As I said earlier, I see absolutely no problem using non-gendered language either so have at it.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything.
I'm pretty sure a transgender guy has enough common sense to know when there's health advice concerning women that unless he's had the relevant bits removed it applies to him too.
Quote from: Tyr on August 05, 2020, 01:53:39 PM
I'm pretty sure a transgender guy has enough common sense to know when there's health advice concerning women that unless he's had the relevant bits removed it applies to him too.
I had a hysterectomy at 31. I didn't know until I was 40 that I no longer had a cervix.
I'm a pretty savvy patient, and I know my medical history better than most people. Sometimes, you're just not told. If someone had a hysterectomy, they may still have a cervix. They may not know that.
Quote from: merithyn on August 05, 2020, 04:18:50 PM
Quote from: Tyr on August 05, 2020, 01:53:39 PM
I'm pretty sure a transgender guy has enough common sense to know when there's health advice concerning women that unless he's had the relevant bits removed it applies to him too.
I had a hysterectomy at 31. I didn't know until I was 40 that I no longer had a cervix.
I'm a pretty savvy patient, and I know my medical history better than most people. Sometimes, you're just not told. If someone had a hysterectomy, they may still have a cervix. They may not know that.
That's messed up.
But surely in that case saying "people with/without a cervix" would not have helped as you had one idea where the truth was different?
Quote from: Tyr on August 06, 2020, 01:19:16 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 05, 2020, 04:18:50 PM
Quote from: Tyr on August 05, 2020, 01:53:39 PM
I'm pretty sure a transgender guy has enough common sense to know when there's health advice concerning women that unless he's had the relevant bits removed it applies to him too.
I had a hysterectomy at 31. I didn't know until I was 40 that I no longer had a cervix.
I'm a pretty savvy patient, and I know my medical history better than most people. Sometimes, you're just not told. If someone had a hysterectomy, they may still have a cervix. They may not know that.
That's messed up.
But surely in that case saying "people with/without a cervix" would not have helped as you had one idea where the truth was different?
My point is that being a "woman" had zero to do with any of it. It truly is about having or not having a cervix. It's proper language for the task. To use woman is to cater to those with delicate sensibilities over the whole trans thing instead of providing the right words for the right situation.
Transgender folks are estimated at 0.5% of the total population.
I don't think using the term woman has any political undertones. It's not used to cater to delicate snowflakes, come now.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 04, 2020, 08:04:04 PM
If you've got numbers to show me that gendered language decreases access or usage of healthcare resources, I will gladly agree.
As I said earlier, I see absolutely no problem using non-gendered language either so have at it.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything.
Numbers don't belong with language. Using the proper terminology is how communication works. The proper terminology is "persons with cervix" not "woman".
I'm sorry this bothers you, but if you are trying to be correct in your communication, you use the correct language.
Yeah. I don't see the big deal with saying man/woman for this.
Likewise if some doctor who has a lot of trans patients does decide to say "people with a penis" or whatever then that's fine too.
But when speaking generally women /men is fine, no need to dictate a change in standard use.
It's fairly standard that health warnings are targeted at the most likely to be hit groups though they can afflict others. Certainly a heavy case to be made that this is done too much to the extent men just don't consider Breast cancer, colon cancer is dismissed for kids, people won't believe they have lung cancer if they don't smoke, etc.... But that's a more general issue and I don't think it'll hurt transgender people too much and if intersex people aren't aware of their condition then it won't really help to see people with ovaries when they don't know they have them.
Quote from: merithyn on August 06, 2020, 01:05:16 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 04, 2020, 08:04:04 PM
If you've got numbers to show me that gendered language decreases access or usage of healthcare resources, I will gladly agree.
As I said earlier, I see absolutely no problem using non-gendered language either so have at it.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything.
Numbers don't belong with language. Using the proper terminology is how communication works. The proper terminology is "persons with cervix" not "woman".
I'm sorry this bothers you, but if you are trying to be correct in your communication, you use the correct language.
I'm not bothered by this :mellow: I'm more bothered by your apparent need to see conspiracies everywhere.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 06, 2020, 01:10:26 PM
I'm not bothered by this :mellow: I'm more bothered by your apparent need to see conspiracies everywhere.
:mellow:
I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm saying that from a perfectly logical standpoint, using the appropriate language communicates more clearly to those who need the information. Saying "woman" isn't the correct language, can cause ambiguities, and makes zero sense.
The only reason I can see arguing against that is a desire to stick with "the old ways" because it only impacts a very few people who don't really matter. It's completely illogical, so I'm trying to figure out a reason to argue it.
Logically, using the appropriate language makes the most sense.
Quote from: merithyn on August 06, 2020, 01:27:10 PM
Logically, using the appropriate language makes the most sense.
yeah, but...
See, let's say you go to the doctor because you are very sick. Then he tells you, "you have influenza type B". You are saavy enough to know you only have a nasty flu that has lasted 7-8 days and see no signs of diminishing yet, nothing more serious.
However, for many people, and I have real life examples in mind, you tell them they have influenza type B (or A or whatever) instead of "a flu" and they are immediatly convinced they catch something much more worst than a flu.
When you say "people with a cervix", I think many people will have no idea what you talk about. Same as a biologist employing the term "diptera" instead of "fly". More precise, totally appropriate language, but most people have no idea what he's talking about.
In this case, I think the label "women", even if not 100% of women have a cervix is more appropriate, because instinctively, everyone knows whom this refers to.
Quote from: merithyn on August 06, 2020, 01:27:10 PM
I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm saying that from a perfectly logical standpoint, using the appropriate language communicates more clearly to those who need the information. Saying "woman" isn't the correct language, can cause ambiguities, and makes zero sense.
The only reason I can see arguing against that is a desire to stick with "the old ways" because it only impacts a very few people who don't really matter. It's completely illogical, so I'm trying to figure out a reason to argue it.
Logically, using the appropriate language makes the most sense.
Frankly, I don't get it. Why can't people see the simple sense behind this argument?
We have two choices:
Option A: "Individuals with a cervix are now recommended to start cervical cancers screening at 25" which, of course, implies "Individuals without a cervix need not concern themselves."
Option B: "Women are now recommended to start cervical cancers screening at 25" which, of course, implies "Men need not concern themselves."
Option B, of course, tells trans men that they need not concern themselves, and trans women that they need to get cancer screenings starting at 25. Option A contains neither of those falsehoods. Why not go with option A? Who is harmed?
Women who don't know what a cervix is.
Quote from: grumbler on August 06, 2020, 04:23:17 PM
Quote from: merithyn on August 06, 2020, 01:27:10 PM
I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm saying that from a perfectly logical standpoint, using the appropriate language communicates more clearly to those who need the information. Saying "woman" isn't the correct language, can cause ambiguities, and makes zero sense.
The only reason I can see arguing against that is a desire to stick with "the old ways" because it only impacts a very few people who don't really matter. It's completely illogical, so I'm trying to figure out a reason to argue it.
Logically, using the appropriate language makes the most sense.
Frankly, I don't get it. Why can't people see the simple sense behind this argument?
We have two choices:
Option A: "Individuals with a cervix are now recommended to start cervical cancers screening at 25" which, of course, implies "Individuals without a cervix need not concern themselves."
Option B: "Women are now recommended to start cervical cancers screening at 25" which, of course, implies "Men need not concern themselves."
Option B, of course, tells trans men that they need not concern themselves, and trans women that they need to get cancer screenings starting at 25. Option A contains neither of those falsehoods. Why not go with option A? Who is harmed?
:hug: :yes:
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 06, 2020, 05:17:53 PM
Women who don't know what a cervix is.
Those women are already harmed by not knowing what a cervix is. :contract:
Also, pretty much every woman over 18 knows exactly what an annual pap smear is, which is a check on the cervix. It's drilled into us. And you have to have one in order to get a refill on your birth control prescription. So yeah, if they don't know what their cervix is, there are already a lot of issues going on.
Quote from: merithyn on August 06, 2020, 01:27:10 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 06, 2020, 01:10:26 PM
I'm not bothered by this :mellow: I'm more bothered by your apparent need to see conspiracies everywhere.
:mellow:
I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm saying that from a perfectly logical standpoint, using the appropriate language communicates more clearly to those who need the information. Saying "woman" isn't the correct language, can cause ambiguities, and makes zero sense.
The only reason I can see arguing against that is a desire to stick with "the old ways" because it only impacts a very few people who don't really matter. It's completely illogical, so I'm trying to figure out a reason to argue it.
Logically, using the appropriate language makes the most sense.
I mean sure. What I object to is when you seem to think there's a vast resistance to this change as part of some "sticking to the old ways, special snowflakes" cabal.
This is an issue for a subset of a 0.5% population. There's no big scheming to prevent that subset to get treated properly. The "old ways" language is a vastly accurate generalization.
Quote from: merithyn on August 06, 2020, 07:01:24 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 06, 2020, 05:17:53 PM
Women who don't know what a cervix is.
Those women are already harmed by not knowing what a cervix is. :contract:
Also, pretty much every woman over 18 knows exactly what an annual pap smear is, which is a check on the cervix. It's drilled into us. And you have to have one in order to get a refill on your birth control prescription. So yeah, if they don't know what their cervix is, there are already a lot of issues going on.
I've seen women seriously wondering if they would get pregnant after oral sex. And I've seen women seriously asking how they could be sure the baby they just had was theirs.
Nothing would surprise me anymore on the stupiditiy of some people.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 06, 2020, 05:17:53 PM
Women who don't know what a cervix is.
:huh: You are missing at least a verb there, and maybe an object. Maybe you meant to say "Women who don't know what a cervix is don't really exist in any numbers, and are not harmed by using the proper language even if they did exist"?
Quote from: viper37 on August 06, 2020, 11:11:17 PM
I've seen women seriously wondering if they would get pregnant after oral sex. And I've seen women seriously asking how they could be sure the baby they just had was theirs.
Nothing would surprise me anymore on the stupiditiy of some people.
Frankly, you don't seem to be the kind of guy a woman would ask if she didn't know whether she could get pregnant from oral sex. Nor do you seem to be the guy a woman would ask regarding whether the baby she just had was hers. So, no, I don't believe for one second that you have seen either.
Nothing would surprise me anymore on the intellectual dishonesty of some people.
Quote from: grumbler on August 07, 2020, 09:38:42 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 06, 2020, 05:17:53 PM
Women who don't know what a cervix is.
:huh: You are missing at least a verb there, and maybe an object. Maybe you meant to say "Women who don't know what a cervix is don't really exist in any numbers, and are not harmed by using the proper language even if they did exist"?
They don't know they're being told to see a doctor. And I'm quite sure there are more of them than trans-men who don't know they still have one.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 07, 2020, 10:49:58 AM
Quote from: grumbler on August 07, 2020, 09:38:42 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 06, 2020, 05:17:53 PM
Women who don't know what a cervix is.
:huh: You are missing at least a verb there, and maybe an object. Maybe you meant to say "Women who don't know what a cervix is don't really exist in any numbers, and are not harmed by using the proper language even if they did exist"?
They don't know they're being told to see a doctor. And I'm quite sure there are more of them than trans-men who don't know they still have one.
I have no idea what this means. I could as easily say that women who don't know what women means don't know that they are being told to go see a doctor. Especially if they don't know what "doctor" means, either! :lol: We can go down this rabbit hole forever.
People who don't know what words mean are always going to be an issue. No sense advocating the authorities choose the wrong words just because you don't now what the right words mean.
Quote from: grumbler on August 06, 2020, 04:23:17 PM
Quote from: merithyn on August 06, 2020, 01:27:10 PM
I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm saying that from a perfectly logical standpoint, using the appropriate language communicates more clearly to those who need the information. Saying "woman" isn't the correct language, can cause ambiguities, and makes zero sense.
The only reason I can see arguing against that is a desire to stick with "the old ways" because it only impacts a very few people who don't really matter. It's completely illogical, so I'm trying to figure out a reason to argue it.
Logically, using the appropriate language makes the most sense.
Frankly, I don't get it. Why can't people see the simple sense behind this argument?
We have two choices:
Option A: "Individuals with a cervix are now recommended to start cervical cancers screening at 25" which, of course, implies "Individuals without a cervix need not concern themselves."
Option B: "Women are now recommended to start cervical cancers screening at 25" which, of course, implies "Men need not concern themselves."
Option B, of course, tells trans men that they need not concern themselves, and trans women that they need to get cancer screenings starting at 25. Option A contains neither of those falsehoods. Why not go with option A? Who is harmed?
Option C: Why not just say, "Cervical cancer screenings are now recommended to start at 25"?
It is more concise and avoids any controversy (probably the controversy is a feature not a bug, but that aside...).
Quote from: alfred russel on August 07, 2020, 01:21:27 PM(probably the controversy is a feature not a bug, but that aside...).
What's it like living in a world where you suspect everyone to be potentially a Machiavellian schemer? Or are you projecting your own traits on others?
The only Machiavellian around here is BB.
And as I say we're all going off a Guardian article, kicked off by a Piers Morgan tweet, about a CNN story - so I still don't know precisely who is sending what message to whom.
The other option is the NHS message which may not be perfect but avoids the fears of erasing women and is inclusive of others, "all women and people with a cervix" need screening.
Quote
It is more concise and avoids any controversy (probably the controversy is a feature not a bug, but that aside...).
How would that work?
Generally its the transphobes who want to create the controversy. Not those who want to make things more trans-friendly (whether necessary or not)
Quote from: Syt on August 07, 2020, 01:26:56 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 07, 2020, 01:21:27 PM(probably the controversy is a feature not a bug, but that aside...).
What's it like living in a world where you suspect everyone to be potentially a Machiavellian schemer? Or are you projecting your own traits on others?
We live in a world where even the BBC has given in to using clickbait. I don't think I'm way out on a limb on this.
As for whether I am projecting my own traits on others, I absolutely use language in my professional life to virtue signal.
Quote from: grumbler on August 07, 2020, 09:38:42 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 06, 2020, 05:17:53 PM
Women who don't know what a cervix is.
:huh: You are missing at least a verb there, and maybe an object. Maybe you meant to say "Women who don't know what a cervix is don't really exist in any numbers, and are not harmed by using the proper language even if they did exist"?
Maybe not in the demographic watched by CNN, but in a worldwide context, I am fairly certain the number of women who have no idea what a cervix is are WAY higher than those women who know but don't have one and would be confused if heard cervix and women in the same sentence.
Quote from: Valmy on August 07, 2020, 01:28:15 PM
The only Machiavellian around here is BB.
And how.
Quote from: Tyr on August 07, 2020, 01:39:10 PM
the transphobes
Why do the sexual variations get phobe added to them but the races and genders don't?
Quote from: Tamas on August 07, 2020, 02:48:44 PM
Maybe not in the demographic watched by CNN, but in a worldwide context, I am fairly certain the number of women who have no idea what a cervix is are WAY higher than those women who know but don't have one and would be confused if heard cervix and women in the same sentence.
Well, duh! :lol: Most "individuals with a cervix" "in a worldwide context" don't speak English, so no wonder they don't know what a "cervix" is! That's got nothing to do with the topic, of course. The whole argument that "individuals with a cervix" is a contentious word but "women" is not strikes me as completely daft. In fact, it strikes me as "mansplaining" though I once swore a solemn oath that i'd never use that loathsome term.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 07, 2020, 07:19:22 PM
Quote from: Tyr on August 07, 2020, 01:39:10 PM
the transphobes
Why do the sexual variations get phobe added to them but the races and genders don't?
Because "homosexualist" suggests something quite different :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 07, 2020, 07:35:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 07, 2020, 07:19:22 PM
Quote from: Tyr on August 07, 2020, 01:39:10 PM
the transphobes
Why do the sexual variations get phobe added to them but the races and genders don't?
Because "homosexualist" suggests something quite different :P
I don't know why, but to me that sounds like someone who collects and studies homosexuals.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 07, 2020, 07:19:22 PM
Quote from: Tyr on August 07, 2020, 01:39:10 PM
the transphobes
Why do the sexual variations get phobe added to them but the races and genders don't?
I always assumed that it's something to do with the belief that discrimination against sexual variations is based in fear. Afraid of being treated by a man the way that most men treat women. The fear of being less than a man by being perceived as feminine. Afraid of that "variation" rubbing off, etc.
Quote from: grumbler on August 07, 2020, 07:30:29 PM
In fact, it strikes me as "mansplaining" though I once swore a solemn oath that i'd never use that loathsome term.
But maybe now you know where it comes from and why. ;)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 07, 2020, 07:19:22 PM
Quote from: Tyr on August 07, 2020, 01:39:10 PM
the transphobes
Why do the sexual variations get phobe added to them but the races and genders don't?
Sexual variations and....Islam. :hmm:
And xenos.
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 08, 2020, 01:12:23 AM
Sexual variations and....Islam. :hmm:
Good catch. :thumbsup:
We were trying to limit things to human categories. :(
Humans are 60% water.
Then just file that under autophobia. :sleep:
Quote from: HVC on August 07, 2020, 08:50:34 PM
I don't know why, but to me that sounds like someone who collects and studies homosexuals.
I've only ever heard it to mean gay "they're practicing homosexualist" - I think it's from Gore Vidal.
Similarly Islamist carries differnt connotations.
So in both cases adding -ist/-ism doesn't work and you need an alternative.
Homosexualists are the homosexualest.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 08, 2020, 06:41:17 AM
Quote from: HVC on August 07, 2020, 08:50:34 PM
I don't know why, but to me that sounds like someone who collects and studies homosexuals.
I've only ever heard it to mean gay "they're practicing homosexualist" - I think it's from Gore Vidal.
Similarly Islamist carries differnt connotations.
So in both cases adding -ist/-ism doesn't work and you need an alternative.
:secret:
There is always mis(o)-, or even anti, just in case.
I was just thinking about it two thoughts occured. With misognist it feels like -ist is a relatively common suffix for maybe Greek words? Sophist, etymologist, dramatist, all the other logists - psychologist, pathologist etc.
It makes me suspect that it was one of those rules of thumb that Renaissance and 17th century English writers adopted when transferring words from classical languages, which would fit given that I understand misogynist emerges in English in the 17th century - according to Wiki in the Jacobean play Swetnam the Woman-Hater (a critique of anti-feminist/misogynist pamphleteer Joseph Swetnam), which includes a character Misogynos. There was a lot of back and forth on the issue of women in the early Jacobean period when hopes in the new King James were at their highest and the reputation of the old Queen Elizabeth was probably at its lowest.
The other thought is that "ism" normally indicates a political projec/ideology. We talk about "isms" meaning, say, anarchism, communism, fascism, liberalism etc. I feel like in older books there was more use of racialism but I wonder if racism and racialism emerged as words to describe political project/ideologies defined by race especially in the early 20th century, of which there were plenty. As I say that's also present in Islamism as a political project.
:hmm:
-ist as a suffix works for both Latin (artist) and Greek, though it arrived through the Latin -ista from Greek.
Yeah. Interesting, I know nothing about classical languages, but I know there's a huge sweep of them enter English in the 16-7th century and that there were sort of informal rules adopted by different writers bringing those words in which kind of linger.
The problem with -phobia for me is that it seems like a forced attempt to mock those engaged in bigotry. I strongly suspect that a large portion of anti-gay people really aren't afraid that they're secretly gay, or afraid of anything else related to homosexuality. They're just hostile to the lifestyle personally and intolerant enough to project it outward.
What would be a better suffix?
Aggro? Averse?
Quote from: DGuller on August 08, 2020, 12:08:57 PM
The problem with -phobia for me is that it seems like a forced attempt to mock those engaged in bigotry. I strongly suspect that a large portion of anti-gay people really aren't afraid that they're secretly gay, or afraid of anything else related to homosexuality. They're just hostile to the lifestyle personally and intolerant enough to project it outward.
So I hate the whole "homophobes are secretly gay" thing because it sort of suggests that the problem with homophobia is, somehow, gay people.
With homophobia in particular I suspect it's because almost all of the early language around homosexuality - and, indeed, homophobia - come from psychology. I could be wrong, but I think that word is probably a legacy of the medicalisation of gayness or transness or whatever else for most of the 20th century.
Here's an interesting paper on the origins of Islamophobia and the different terms used from the former head of the Runymede Trust (race equality think tank in the UK) and now head of the Institute of Race Relations:
http://www.insted.co.uk/anti-muslim-racism.pdf
Etymologically, homophobia would be fear of the same anyways. :P
PS: in psychology, an irrational fear, of course cf. gynaecophobia.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 08, 2020, 12:27:22 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 08, 2020, 12:08:57 PM
The problem with -phobia for me is that it seems like a forced attempt to mock those engaged in bigotry. I strongly suspect that a large portion of anti-gay people really aren't afraid that they're secretly gay, or afraid of anything else related to homosexuality. They're just hostile to the lifestyle personally and intolerant enough to project it outward.
So I hate the whole "homophobes are secretly gay" thing because it sort of suggests that the problem with homophobia is, somehow, gay people.
With homophobia in particular I suspect it's because almost all of the early language around homosexuality - and, indeed, homophobia - come from psychology. I could be wrong, but I think that word is probably a legacy of the medicalisation of gayness or transness or whatever else for most of the 20th century.
Here's an interesting paper on the origins of Islamophobia and the different terms used from the former head of the Runymede Trust (race equality think tank in the UK) and now head of the Institute of Race Relations:
http://www.insted.co.uk/anti-muslim-racism.pdf
I think the points that paper makes on the "racism" aspect of the debate are interesting...and also difficult. Especially as there are plenty of aspects of the Islamic religion (as there are with any religion, be it Christianity, Judaism, or Buddhism) that can, and should, be debated and criticized, but often cannot be due to the ethnic/religious/cultural borders being so muddied.
Yeah I think the key is there is debate and critique and there is irrational and no debate or critique or amoung of information will shift that person's view.
And also fundamentally I think these terms have a common meaning. Anti-semitism makes no sense. There are plenty of Jews who are not semites, there are plenty of semites who are not Jews. But we all know what it means and if you hear someone going "ackshally Arabs are semites" chances are if you carry on that conversation you're going to find they're pretty anti-semitic.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 08, 2020, 01:32:12 PM
Yeah I think the key is there is debate and critique and there is irrational and no debate or critique or amoung of information will shift that person's view.
And also fundamentally I think these terms have a common meaning. Anti-semitism makes no sense. There are plenty of Jews who are not semites, there are plenty of semites who are not Jews. But we all know what it means and if you hear someone going "ackshally Arabs are semites" chances are if you carry on that conversation you're going to find they're pretty anti-semitic.
I agree...it is very much the same as the "all lives matter" spittle. Yes, of course all lives matter...we all know that, but that rebuke is almost only ever made in order to reject out-of-hand any legitimate grievances of the other side.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 08, 2020, 01:32:12 PM
Yeah I think the key is there is debate and critique and there is irrational and no debate or critique or amoung of information will shift that person's view.
And also fundamentally I think these terms have a common meaning. Anti-semitism makes no sense. There are plenty of Jews who are not semites, there are plenty of semites who are not Jews. But we all know what it means and if you hear someone going "ackshally Arabs are semites" chances are if you carry on that conversation you're going to find they're pretty anti-semitic.
Anti-semitism makes sense once you know the agenda of the people who coined the term ; hostility to Jews based on "racial" grounds, not on religious ones (anti-judaism).
Muddling of ethnic/religious/cultural borders is done for political/communalist reasons as well.
Semitic is a language family; a "semite" is anyone who speaks a semitic language which thus excludes much of diaspora Jewry.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 10, 2020, 10:49:40 AM
Semitic is a language family; a "semite" is anyone who speaks a semitic language which thus excludes much of diaspora Jewry.
The term is not meant to be taken literally. It refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 08, 2020, 12:58:11 PM
I think the points that paper makes on the "racism" aspect of the debate are interesting...and also difficult. Especially as there are plenty of aspects of the Islamic religion (as there are with any religion, be it Christianity, Judaism, or Buddhism) that can, and should, be debated and criticized, but often cannot be due to the ethnic/religious/cultural borders being so muddied.
What is it you wanted to say that you are being prevented from saying?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2020, 12:06:58 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 08, 2020, 12:58:11 PM
I think the points that paper makes on the "racism" aspect of the debate are interesting...and also difficult. Especially as there are plenty of aspects of the Islamic religion (as there are with any religion, be it Christianity, Judaism, or Buddhism) that can, and should, be debated and criticized, but often cannot be due to the ethnic/religious/cultural borders being so muddied.
What is it you wanted to say that you are being prevented from saying?
I guess the point is that you can't say it, which makes it a very frustrating thing to complain about. Everyone supporting the self-censorship can deliver a cheap KO such as this, and now you have to choose between being evasive and being dangerously uncensored.
What is the alternative?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2020, 12:06:58 PM
What is it you wanted to say that you are being prevented from saying?
In the United States? Nothing. I do, however, support the rights of apostates and malcontents in Muslim majority countries though, and they do have serious problems being heard (though less now with the internet). I also slightly resent the tendency of conservative Muslims in western countries to present themselves as speaking for the entire community, but then conservative Christians do the same shit. That probably cannot be helped, that is just how those things tend to work.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2020, 01:00:31 PM
What is the alternative?
Treating freedom of speech as a concept necessary for a free society, not as a narrowly defined constitutional protection. Being more intolerant of suppression of speech than of wrongthink.
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2020, 02:18:58 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2020, 01:00:31 PM
What is the alternative?
Treating freedom of speech as a concept necessary for a free society, not as a narrowly defined constitutional protection. Being more intolerant of suppression of speech than of wrongthink.
I can see a problem here. "We must self-censor our speech or other people will self-censor due to our reaction to their speech.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2020, 05:22:34 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2020, 02:18:58 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2020, 01:00:31 PM
What is the alternative?
Treating freedom of speech as a concept necessary for a free society, not as a narrowly defined constitutional protection. Being more intolerant of suppression of speech than of wrongthink.
I can see a problem here. "We must self-censor our speech or other people will self-censor due to our reaction to their speech.
Such is the paradox of tolerance. In order to truly be tolerant you have to be extremely intolerant of intolerance. The key thing is that it is the one and only thing you can and should be intolerant of.
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2020, 05:29:26 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2020, 05:22:34 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2020, 02:18:58 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2020, 01:00:31 PM
What is the alternative?
Treating freedom of speech as a concept necessary for a free society, not as a narrowly defined constitutional protection. Being more intolerant of suppression of speech than of wrongthink.
I can see a problem here. "We must self-censor our speech or other people will self-censor due to our reaction to their speech.
Such is the paradox of tolerance. In order to truly be tolerant you have to be extremely intolerant of intolerance. The key thing is that it is the one and only thing you can and should be intolerant of.
Doesn't sound like a paradox to me. Sounds like a contradiction.
Quote from: The Brain on August 10, 2020, 05:36:10 PM
Doesn't sound like a paradox to me. Sounds like a contradiction.
Hard to have a paradox without contradiction.
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2020, 05:29:26 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2020, 05:22:34 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2020, 02:18:58 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2020, 01:00:31 PM
What is the alternative?
Treating freedom of speech as a concept necessary for a free society, not as a narrowly defined constitutional protection. Being more intolerant of suppression of speech than of wrongthink.
I can see a problem here. "We must self-censor our speech or other people will self-censor due to our reaction to their speech.
Such is the paradox of tolerance. In order to truly be tolerant you have to be extremely intolerant of intolerance. The key thing is that it is the one and only thing you can and should be intolerant of.
The intolerance of intolerance is what tonitrus was complaining about.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2020, 06:52:06 PM
The intolerance of intolerance is what tonitrus was complaining about.
The intolerance here refers to intolerance of speech, not a class of wrong opinion regarded as intolerant in some way.
Is thinking or talking critically of something the same as intolerance?
Depends on something/someone's minority status
Quote from: Valmy on August 10, 2020, 07:09:12 PM
Is thinking or talking critically of something the same as intolerance?
Depends on the subject. If there is a clearly correct opinion on the subject and a clearly wrong opinion, then talking critically about any aspect related to the correct opinion is intolerant. Thinking critically is fine, as long as you keep these thoughts to yourself.
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2020, 07:06:23 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2020, 06:52:06 PM
The intolerance of intolerance is what tonitrus was complaining about.
The intolerance here refers to intolerance of speech, not a class of wrong opinion regarded as intolerant in some way.
"Yeah, well the political campaign to throw Jews into ovens seems to won over most Americans, but at they still let us complain about it."
Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2020, 07:51:34 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2020, 07:06:23 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2020, 06:52:06 PM
The intolerance of intolerance is what tonitrus was complaining about.
The intolerance here refers to intolerance of speech, not a class of wrong opinion regarded as intolerant in some way.
"Yeah, well the political campaign to throw Jews into ovens seems to won over most Americans, but at they still let us complain about it."
I don't know what point you were trying to make, but I would hazard a guess that whatever it was, it was not made well.
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2020, 07:19:10 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 10, 2020, 07:09:12 PM
Is thinking or talking critically of something the same as intolerance?
Depends on the subject. If there is a clearly correct opinion on the subject and a clearly wrong opinion, then talking critically about any aspect related to the correct opinion is intolerant. Thinking critically is fine, as long as you keep these thoughts to yourself.
Ok, this post seems like satire, while following the same line as your other posts. :yeahright:
It's okay to debate and discuss. What is not okay is creating an environment where contrary statements on certain subjects can't even be brought up, because bringing them up will get you canceled. Not only is it wrong for idealistic reasons, but it's also just idiotic from a pragmatic perspective: you can't solve problems that you can't honestly brainstorm. It's also bad politically, because self-censorship builds resentment, and resentment builds fascism.
Quote from: Valmy on August 10, 2020, 01:07:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2020, 12:06:58 PM
What is it you wanted to say that you are being prevented from saying?
In the United States? Nothing. I do, however, support the rights of apostates and malcontents in Muslim majority countries though, and they do have serious problems being heard (though less now with the internet). I also slightly resent the tendency of conservative Muslims in western countries to present themselves as speaking for the entire community, but then conservative Christians do the same shit. That probably cannot be helped, that is just how those things tend to work.
Like Republicans speaking for the right, or the likes of AOC speaking for the left.
The silent majority is always ignored. :(
Quote from: Valmy on August 10, 2020, 07:09:12 PM
Is thinking or talking critically of something the same as intolerance?
Not at all.
Blacks are an inferior species is intolerance. There is no debate, you are making a baseless affirmation that is as easily disproven as the flat earth theory.
People who menstruate are women is not intolerance. Just as if I was saying "people who speak French in Canada" meaning French Canadians. There are other people than French Canadians who speak french, so if I use the term "French canadians" everyone knows who I'm talking about, and if you are french speaker in Canada who does not identify as French Canadian and you are offended by this, we, as a society, should not bend over this all the way to avoid offending you. Some people are trying on purpose to be offended and they should be disregarded.
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2020, 05:39:13 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 10, 2020, 05:36:10 PM
Doesn't sound like a paradox to me. Sounds like a contradiction.
Hard to have a paradox without contradiction.
A paradox only appears to be a contradiction, it isn't an actual contradiction.
Btw DG, were you spoofing someone when you talked about salary negotiations earlier? :)
Freedom of speech is freedom to say anything you want without being censored in advance. It is not freedom from having to suffer consequences, including social or legal ones, of said speech.
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2020, 08:18:35 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2020, 07:51:34 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2020, 07:06:23 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2020, 06:52:06 PM
The intolerance of intolerance is what tonitrus was complaining about.
The intolerance here refers to intolerance of speech, not a class of wrong opinion regarded as intolerant in some way.
"Yeah, well the political campaign to throw Jews into ovens seems to won over most Americans, but at they still let us complain about it."
I don't know what point you were trying to make, but I would hazard a guess that whatever it was, it was not made well.
Wrong intolerant opinions became wrong intolerant policy.
Quote from: Solmyr on August 11, 2020, 04:03:56 AM
Freedom of speech is freedom to say anything you want without being censored in advance. It is not freedom from having to suffer consequences, including social or legal ones, of said speech.
True. But that does not make all consequences right.
Not sure if this is super-relevant but an interesting podcast with Jacob Levy on his book which is around the (possibly irreconcilable) tension between rationalism and pluralism within liberalism:
https://www.libertarianism.org/media/free-thoughts/rationalism-pluralism-freedom
Quote from: Tamas on August 11, 2020, 07:11:07 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on August 11, 2020, 04:03:56 AM
Freedom of speech is freedom to say anything you want without being censored in advance. It is not freedom from having to suffer consequences, including social or legal ones, of said speech.
True. But that does not make all consequences right.
Yes. A bullet in the head for saying the wrong thing - bad.
Being fired for saying the wrong thing and refusing to apologise - good business sense.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 11, 2020, 07:26:08 AM
Not sure if this is super-relevant but an interesting podcast with Jacob Levy on his book which is around the (possibly irreconcilable) tension between rationalism and pluralism within liberalism:
https://www.libertarianism.org/media/free-thoughts/rationalism-pluralism-freedom
Executive summary?
"He is doing something I don't like, so I will escalate until he stops doing it" is a horrible way to do human interaction in a society.
Quote from: Solmyr on August 11, 2020, 04:03:56 AM
Freedom of speech is freedom to say anything you want without being censored in advance. It is not freedom from having to suffer consequences, including social or legal ones, of said speech.
That's a 1984 definition of freedom. When the "consequences" of exercising freedom are prohibitive, you really do not have freedom.
Quote from: The Brain on August 11, 2020, 08:05:09 AM
Executive summary?
There's a tension between rationalism (which is about protecting the rights of the individual and may enhance the powers of the state to do so at the expense of intermediate societies, like universities, churches, mosques, states, the old corporate bodies) v pluralism (which is about protecting the right to free association/self-governance who may oppress the individual, the intermediary bodies). And this actually runs through the liberal tradition, both in libertarian and more egalitarian liberal views.
Quote from: Solmyr on August 11, 2020, 04:03:56 AM
Freedom of speech is freedom to say anything you want without being censored in advance. It is not freedom from having to suffer consequences, including social or legal ones, of said speech.
for the majority of the populace the result of that is just as much a destruction of freedom of speech as if the censorship came beforehand.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 11, 2020, 08:32:02 AM
Quote from: The Brain on August 11, 2020, 08:05:09 AM
Executive summary?
There's a tension between rationalism (which is about protecting the rights of the individual and may enhance the powers of the state to do so at the expense of intermediate societies, like universities, churches, mosques, states, the old corporate bodies) v pluralism (which is about protecting the right to free association/self-governance who may oppress the individual, the intermediary bodies). And this actually runs through the liberal tradition, both in libertarian and more egalitarian liberal views.
That sounds more like a tension between liberals and leftists, which is real enough but I wouldn't use these terms on them.
Quote from: Tamas on August 11, 2020, 08:52:18 AM
That sounds more like a tension between liberals and leftists, which is real enough but I wouldn't use these terms on them.
It's not - I'm not sure which of that side is liberal or leftist :P
Give it a listen.
Tension? If someone wants to join a cult that (say) takes their entire paycheck and forbids them to masturbate then by all means do so.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 11, 2020, 08:32:02 AM
Quote from: The Brain on August 11, 2020, 08:05:09 AM
Executive summary?
There's a tension between rationalism (which is about protecting the rights of the individual and may enhance the powers of the state to do so at the expense of intermediate societies, like universities, churches, mosques, states, the old corporate bodies) v pluralism (which is about protecting the right to free association/self-governance who may oppress the individual, the intermediary bodies). And this actually runs through the liberal tradition, both in libertarian and more egalitarian liberal views.
I don't think that this is a new idea. We tend to distinguish between "classical liberals" who are all about individual freedoms (i.e. the best decisions are those made by individuals) and "modern liberals" who are more about group rights. Modern liberals would support closed shop trade unions, for instance, whereas a classical liberal probably would not (though there might be extenuating circumstances that would make either group agree to a temporary abandonment of the principal). I don't think even modern liberals, though, would argue for the empowerment of churches or mosques. Religion only abandons reactionary principals when it becomes irrelevant.
Quote from: The Brain on August 11, 2020, 09:41:47 AM
Tension? If someone wants to join a cult that (say) takes their entire paycheck and forbids them to masturbate then by all means do so.
The tension comes when that cult tries to disallow, say, medical treatment for the members' children and use prayer instead. The classical liberal would say the individual right of the child overrules the rules of the cult, whereas a modern liberal might argue that the cult has a right to practice its religion as it wants, so if the parents agree with the cult's rules, the kid only gets faith healing.
Quote from: grumbler on August 11, 2020, 10:34:23 AM
Quote from: The Brain on August 11, 2020, 09:41:47 AM
Tension? If someone wants to join a cult that (say) takes their entire paycheck and forbids them to masturbate then by all means do so.
The tension comes when that cult tries to disallow, say, medical treatment for the members' children and use prayer instead. The classical liberal would say the individual right of the child overrules the rules of the cult, whereas a modern liberal might argue that the cult has a right to practice its religion as it wants, so if the parents agree with the cult's rules, the kid only gets faith healing.
Sounds like a parent thing and not a cult thing. If it's legal to only give your kid faith healing then it is, and if it isn't it isn't.
I'm not sure it's a modern v classical distinction.
So he uses federalism as an example of pluralism in liberalism. That ultimately states rather than a central authority/power are a way of organising a community just as the old corporate rights were.
He talks about one of his pairings being Mill v Acton. Mill is very good on the coercive power of intermediate bodies - family, society, patriarchy - and was quite enthusiastic about the 19th century nationalist ideals which in a way merge the nation and the state. Acton on the other hand thought nationalism was dreadful - that if you merge the nation and the state you will end up destroying minority rights and that protecting intermediate bodies and especially federalism was a key way to stop the state becoming too powerful, too overarching.
And Acton was right on that - especially regarding nationalism in Europe. But Acton wrote these letters to Robert Lee where we said he felt the defeat at Richmond was more catastrophic than victory at Waterloo was beneficial. He absolutely opposed slavery, but his view was almost that slavery is a price worth paying to protect the intermediate bodies and limit the realm of the state.
So to use the cult example - one he uses is Orthodox Jews or Muslims who have separate prayer spaces. Women have basically broken the rules and prayed in the male space - asserting they are just as Orthodox and believing as the people condemning them. Those organisations have called the police who have removed the women for trespassing - so the law enforces the rights of the corporate body, over the sort of self-definitional rights of the individual.
As I say it's worth a listen.
FWIW I think that aspect is largely an illusion. I don't see intermediate levels of the state fundamentally impacting the relationship between the state and the individual. As for the cult example, you may as well view it from the perspective of the other members' individual rights, I don't see how the cult itself fundamentally impacts the question of what you do when different individuals want mutually exclusionary things.
John Stuart Mill thought that nationalism was dreadful - except in the one case where it involved a liberal democratic system and progressive, common, economic values and the greatest possible personal liberty. It is true that he wanted to see the end of the despotic "intermediate bodies" that conservatives used to retain their traditional power, but I don't see how any liberal, classical or modern, would disagree with him on that.
I think that, in the case of, say, a church that discriminates against women when it comes to seating, the church should be free to do so, and the women free to leave that church for one that has more respect for women. Churches shouldn't have any power of compulsion, though, and they shouldn't be supported in any way by the state (other than, as in the example, the state enforcing laws against trespassing).
The case of the cult and the faith-healing of children is different, however. Their stance (even if the parents support it) is harmful to the child. The state has an interest in the welfare of children residing in it, and so the state should have the power to remove the child from unfit parents and place the child in the custody of those more interested in the child's welfare.
Intermediate forms of social organization are easier for people to access and so are valuable as a form of service delivery, but only insofar as the people getting and paying for the service have a voice in saying how and to whom the services are rendered.
Quote from: Solmyr on August 11, 2020, 04:03:56 AM
Freedom of speech is freedom to say anything you want without being censored in advance. It is not freedom from having to suffer consequences, including social or legal ones, of said speech.
So if you are censored afterwards and not in advance it is freedom of speech? What nonsense, they are both censorship with long histories of being used. They are both contrary to freedom of speech.
But in any case I repeat me question, is simply thinking or speaking critically of something mean you do not tolerate it? That seems like a very hostile way to define tolerance. I may say critical things about nationalists but I tolerate their existance.
Speaking of "tolerance", does it strike anyone as a really unfortunate choice of words when referring to groups of people? I would think that "I tolerate black people" doesn't exactly sound like an enlightened thing to say. I would think that "inclusion" would be a much better word and a much better goal; tolerance is something that you live with reluctantly, while inclusion is something that you embrace as your own.
Quote from: Valmy on August 11, 2020, 02:54:07 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on August 11, 2020, 04:03:56 AM
Freedom of speech is freedom to say anything you want without being censored in advance. It is not freedom from having to suffer consequences, including social or legal ones, of said speech.
So if you are censored afterwards and not in advance it is freedom of speech? What nonsense, they are both censorship with long histories of being used. They are both contrary to freedom of speech.
But in any case I repeat me question, is simply thinking or speaking critically of something mean you do not tolerate it? That seems like a very hostile way to define tolerance. I may say critical things about nationalists but I tolerate their existance.
:secret:
Pas de liberté pour les ennemis de la liberté !
Quote from: DGuller on August 11, 2020, 03:08:50 PM
Speaking of "tolerance", does it strike anyone as a really unfortunate choice of words when referring to groups of people? I would think that "I tolerate black people" doesn't exactly sound like an enlightened thing to say. I would think that "inclusion" would be a much better word and a much better goal; tolerance is something that you live with reluctantly, while inclusion is something that you embrace as your own.
FWIW I think that wrongfeel isn't a concept that has a place in a good society.
Tolerance implies disapproval, but also the acknowledgement that other opinions than yours are valid.
Some things should not be tolerated, though, like the unwilling harm of innocents.
Quote from: The Brain on August 11, 2020, 10:45:23 AM
Quote from: grumbler on August 11, 2020, 10:34:23 AM
Quote from: The Brain on August 11, 2020, 09:41:47 AM
Tension? If someone wants to join a cult that (say) takes their entire paycheck and forbids them to masturbate then by all means do so.
The tension comes when that cult tries to disallow, say, medical treatment for the members' children and use prayer instead. The classical liberal would say the individual right of the child overrules the rules of the cult, whereas a modern liberal might argue that the cult has a right to practice its religion as it wants, so if the parents agree with the cult's rules, the kid only gets faith healing.
Sounds like a parent thing and not a cult thing. If it's legal to only give your kid faith healing then it is, and if it isn't it isn't.
what is legal one day might not be the next.
Until 2016, discriminating against sexual orientation was illegal. Now, it isn't really, since there are exemptions on religious grounds.
Quote from: viper37 on August 11, 2020, 05:22:32 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 11, 2020, 10:45:23 AM
Quote from: grumbler on August 11, 2020, 10:34:23 AM
Quote from: The Brain on August 11, 2020, 09:41:47 AM
Tension? If someone wants to join a cult that (say) takes their entire paycheck and forbids them to masturbate then by all means do so.
The tension comes when that cult tries to disallow, say, medical treatment for the members' children and use prayer instead. The classical liberal would say the individual right of the child overrules the rules of the cult, whereas a modern liberal might argue that the cult has a right to practice its religion as it wants, so if the parents agree with the cult's rules, the kid only gets faith healing.
Sounds like a parent thing and not a cult thing. If it's legal to only give your kid faith healing then it is, and if it isn't it isn't.
what is legal one day might not be the next.
Until 2016, discriminating against sexual orientation was illegal. Now, it isn't really, since there are exemptions on religious grounds.
In Sweden decisions about medical procedures for kids are made by the parents. The cult cannot make that kind of decisions. As an aside, my guess is that even parents have less than total control when it comes to life-saving procedures, but I don't know the law regarding this.
I'm okay with the government stepping in and preventing people from inflicting harm on minors.
Quote from: grumbler on August 11, 2020, 02:43:56 PM
I think that, in the case of, say, a church that discriminates against women when it comes to seating, the church should be free to do so, and the women free to leave that church for one that has more respect for women. Churches shouldn't have any power of compulsion, though, and they shouldn't be supported in any way by the state (other than, as in the example, the state enforcing laws against trespassing).
You make it sound so simple. And just like Raz, you totally ignore the concept of peer pressure.
In such cults, women are free to leave it, as long as they accept they never will see the children again, their parents, their family, their friends. Such is the price to pay.
It isn't as simple as changing cable provider because customer service was rude to you. You're not forbidden to see your children because you switch from Verizon to AT&T for your cellphone plan. Your husband does not shun you for such a decision. You aren't force to move out of your house, sometimes your town for such a decision. Changing a Church, though? That often happens.
And we haven't even talked about the cults that will sentence to death those who leave it.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 11, 2020, 06:09:05 PM
I'm okay with the government stepping in and preventing people from inflicting harm on minors.
But only on minors?
Quote from: viper37 on August 11, 2020, 07:08:40 PM
You make it sound so simple. And just like Raz, you totally ignore the concept of peer pressure.
Ah, the old lazy intellectually dishonest use of hyperbole.
Does that actually work for you anywhere?
I'm gonna ignore the rest of the hyperbole because a little bit goes as far as I want to go.
Quote from: viper37 on August 11, 2020, 07:17:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 11, 2020, 06:09:05 PM
I'm okay with the government stepping in and preventing people from inflicting harm on minors.
But only on minors?
Okay, you got me. I would also support government stepping in to stop persecution of anglophones in Quebec.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 11, 2020, 08:08:20 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 11, 2020, 07:17:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 11, 2020, 06:09:05 PM
I'm okay with the government stepping in and preventing people from inflicting harm on minors.
But only on minors?
Okay, you got me. I would also support government stepping in to stop persecution of anglophones in Quebec.
You mean the most protected minority population in the world? Yeah wake me up when that happens.
I have no idea what Viper and Raz are actually talking about since their conversation is entirely in the passive aggressive voice :wacko:
Quote from: DGuller on August 11, 2020, 08:28:04 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on August 11, 2020, 04:03:56 AM
Freedom of speech is freedom to say anything you want without being censored in advance. It is not freedom from having to suffer consequences, including social or legal ones, of said speech.
That's a 1984 definition of freedom. When the "consequences" of exercising freedom are prohibitive, you really do not have freedom.
When your freedom of speech starts infringing on freedoms of others, there should be consequences.
Examples?
Quote from: Valmy on August 11, 2020, 02:54:07 PM
So if you are censored afterwards and not in advance it is freedom of speech? What nonsense, they are both censorship with long histories of being used. They are both contrary to freedom of speech.
You are not censored afterwards. You have said what you wanted to say. If the result of that is that other people no longer want to employ you or have anything to do with you, that's their freedom.
Quote from: Valmy on August 11, 2020, 02:54:07 PM
But in any case I repeat me question, is simply thinking or speaking critically of something mean you do not tolerate it? That seems like a very hostile way to define tolerance. I may say critical things about nationalists but I tolerate their existance.
Nobody has said that. There's a difference between saying that nationalism is a shit ideology and that nationalists are subhuman and should be shot.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 12, 2020, 06:20:47 PM
Examples?
Like if you say that certain people should not receive the same rights as others because of their identity. From the topic of this thread, e.g. trans women not being treated as women because they were not assigned as such at birth.
Quote from: Solmyr on August 12, 2020, 06:22:19 PM
You are not censored afterwards. You have said what you wanted to say. If the result of that is that other people no longer want to employ you or have anything to do with you, that's their freedom.
So it's okay for this kind of freedom to impinge on other people's freedom of speech, just not the other way around?
Quote from: Solmyr on August 12, 2020, 06:24:35 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 12, 2020, 06:20:47 PM
Examples?
Like if you say that certain people should not receive the same rights as others because of their identity. From the topic of this thread, e.g. trans women not being treated as women because they were not assigned as such at birth.
Being treated as a woman isn't a right.
Quote from: chipwich on August 12, 2020, 08:36:09 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on August 12, 2020, 06:24:35 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 12, 2020, 06:20:47 PM
Examples?
Like if you say that certain people should not receive the same rights as others because of their identity. From the topic of this thread, e.g. trans women not being treated as women because they were not assigned as such at birth.
Being treated as a woman isn't a right.
No, too often it is more a combination of right, left, slap.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 11, 2020, 08:08:20 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 11, 2020, 07:17:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 11, 2020, 06:09:05 PM
I'm okay with the government stepping in and preventing people from inflicting harm on minors.
But only on minors?
Okay, you got me. I would also support government stepping in to stop persecution of anglophones in Quebec.
Already done. The Federal govt gives them a fuckton of money while they don't raise a finger for French speakers outside of Quebec :)
Poor oppressed anglos living in squalor on the outskirts of Montreal. :( You should donate to the Red Cross, they probably have a specific fund for the Bronfman family :)
Quote from: PDH on August 12, 2020, 08:56:38 PM
Quote from: chipwich on August 12, 2020, 08:36:09 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on August 12, 2020, 06:24:35 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 12, 2020, 06:20:47 PM
Examples?
Like if you say that certain people should not receive the same rights as others because of their identity. From the topic of this thread, e.g. trans women not being treated as women because they were not assigned as such at birth.
Being treated as a woman isn't a right.
No, too often it is more a combination of right, left, slap.
Ouch.
Quote from: Valmy on August 11, 2020, 10:01:08 PM
I have no idea what Viper and Raz are actually talking about since their conversation is entirely in the passive aggressive voice :wacko:
Raz believes Quebec nationalists like me are sending english speakers and immigrants to work camps in the North and as such feels like he should help these kindred souls to break their chains ;)
Now, the original topic was about peer pressure in religious communities. For certain communities, you will be shunned by your entire family and friends, the only people you know, if you choose to leave that religious community. It's not as easy as switching cable company, like Grumbler seemed to imply when he said a mistreated woman could simply choose to attend another institution.
Would you leave your religion if it meant never seeing your kids again? If it meant your older brothers would kill you for dishonoring them?
That's why the State has a role to play in making sure religious communities don't get to that point, by preventing the rise of extremists in their rangs.
It's distateful, but religions, like any ideology can be extremely dangerous if left uncheck.
I have no problem with someone being a racist, as long as they keep it to themselves. They can also believe women are inferiors and worth less than a male child. I would object to them denying their kids opportunities though, like attending a regular school, or at least following the basic curriculum established by the State, even if that goes against freedom of religion.
Some people believe freedom of religion to be an absolute, and in the words of our former Premier, radicalism is a personal choice. I object to that.
Curbing religious freedoms to preven radicalisation is a necessary infringement on personal freedom.
Just like the stupid mask could possibly be for the pandemic, or just like the speed limits on the highways. They're stupid rules, but necessary, because you can't always trust people to act in their own best interest and in the best interest of others. And a society has the right to protect the collective freedoms of its members, that is why we often have a paradox where we must reduce the personal freedoms of some to protect the liberty of the collectivity.
Hate speech is censored in Canada, and can lead you to prison time. I used to dislike it. I'm now more leaning toward a necessary evil. No matter how much truth you spread, the comforting lies always spread easier and faster.
There's been a few stories of Canadians with asians origins being verbally assaulted by other bystanders. Or arab women being told to go back where they came from.
You could say its only words. But in the words of Garak
but I got off several cutting remarks which no doubt, did serious damage to their egos, I would think that it can hurt a lot. Especially if they are repeated. Sure, on a scale of evilness, it's always worst to be physically attacked than verbally attacked. I'd much prefer being called fucking frog or coonass a few dozen times than being beaten to an inch of my death, like the left currently enjoys a lot.
That is unfortunately why the State has to step in, and prevent an escalation of hostilities. Before someone retaliates with a gun, the perpetrator of the insults would be sent to prison or fined. These act as a deterrent, I suppose. Racial incidents do happen, but they don't seem to appear as often as the left would like us to think. Maybe the anti hate speech laws have a role in this. Maybe other measures, just as distateful from a liberal view are also necessary.
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2020, 08:11:22 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on August 12, 2020, 06:22:19 PM
You are not censored afterwards. You have said what you wanted to say. If the result of that is that other people no longer want to employ you or have anything to do with you, that's their freedom.
So it's okay for this kind of freedom to impinge on other people's freedom of speech, just not the other way around?
How does that impinge on anyone's freedom of speech? Nobody is blocked from saying anything. Or are you essentially arguing for freedom without responsibility? Should one be free to do absolutely anything regardless of the harm it inflicts on others, and suffer no consequences?
Quote from: Solmyr on August 13, 2020, 02:22:37 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2020, 08:11:22 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on August 12, 2020, 06:22:19 PM
You are not censored afterwards. You have said what you wanted to say. If the result of that is that other people no longer want to employ you or have anything to do with you, that's their freedom.
So it's okay for this kind of freedom to impinge on other people's freedom of speech, just not the other way around?
How does that impinge on anyone's freedom of speech? Nobody is blocked from saying anything. Or are you essentially arguing for freedom without responsibility? Should one be free to do absolutely anything regardless of the harm it inflicts on others, and suffer no consequences?
I have no idea what this "debate" is about. Freedom of speech is the freedom to say what you wish (so long as it doesn't directly harm others or directly call for the harm of others), but not the freedom to escape the consequences of that speech. If one of the consequences is that your boss feels the need to fire/transfer/demote you, then he has that freedom (unless contracts or laws prohibit). And those who agree with your original speech have the freedom to decry his actions/boycott his products/whatever.
I don't think that any of those assertions of mine are unreasonable or even controversial. So I agree with Solmyr.
Quote from: viper37 on August 12, 2020, 10:31:38 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 11, 2020, 10:01:08 PM
I have no idea what Viper and Raz are actually talking about since their conversation is entirely in the passive aggressive voice :wacko:
Raz believes Quebec nationalists like me are sending english speakers and immigrants to work camps in the North and as such feels like he should help these kindred souls to break their chains ;)
No, I just want to protect classes of people you don't like.
Quote from: grumbler on August 13, 2020, 12:25:18 PM
I have no idea what this "debate" is about. Freedom of speech is the freedom to say what you wish (so long as it doesn't directly harm others or directly call for the harm of others), but not the freedom to escape the consequences of that speech. If one of the consequences is that your boss feels the need to fire/transfer/demote you, then he has that freedom (unless contracts or laws prohibit). And those who agree with your original speech have the freedom to decry his actions/boycott his products/whatever.
I don't think that any of those assertions of mine are unreasonable or even controversial. So I agree with Solmyr.
I am on board with this. But Solmyr said it does not protect you from legal penalties over your speech, only from pre-publication censorship regimes. As if a post-publication form of censorship has never existed. I fail to see how speech with legal punishments is free.
Quote from: Valmy on August 13, 2020, 01:00:19 PM
I am on board with this. But Solmyr said it does not protect you from legal penalties over your speech, only from pre-publication censorship regimes. As if a post-publication form of censorship has never existed. I fail to see how speech with legal punishments is free.
I don't see anything that indicates that Solmyr believes that the legal system should punish free speech, even post hoc.
Quote from: grumbler on August 13, 2020, 01:17:15 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 13, 2020, 01:00:19 PM
I am on board with this. But Solmyr said it does not protect you from legal penalties over your speech, only from pre-publication censorship regimes. As if a post-publication form of censorship has never existed. I fail to see how speech with legal punishments is free.
I don't see anything that indicates that Solmyr believes that the legal system should punish free speech, even post hoc.
Quote from: Solmyr on August 11, 2020, 04:03:56 AMFreedom of speech is freedom to say anything you want without being censored in advance. It is not freedom from having to suffer consequences, including social or legal ones, of said speech.
Emphasis mine -_-
Quote from: Valmy on August 13, 2020, 01:24:50 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 13, 2020, 01:17:15 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 13, 2020, 01:00:19 PM
I am on board with this. But Solmyr said it does not protect you from legal penalties over your speech, only from pre-publication censorship regimes. As if a post-publication form of censorship has never existed. I fail to see how speech with legal punishments is free.
I don't see anything that indicates that Solmyr believes that the legal system should punish free speech, even post hoc.
Quote from: Solmyr on August 11, 2020, 04:03:56 AMFreedom of speech is freedom to say anything you want without being censored in advance. It is not freedom from having to suffer consequences, including social or legal ones, of said speech.
Emphasis mine -_-
Okay. I didn't see that (or maybe read it properly) but I concede the point. Speech that can be punished by the legal system post-hoc isn't free speech. Libel isn't free speech, for instance, even though it can only be punished post-hoc.
Quote from: grumbler on August 13, 2020, 12:25:18 PM
I have no idea what this "debate" is about. Freedom of speech is the freedom to say what you wish (so long as it doesn't directly harm others or directly call for the harm of others), but not the freedom to escape the consequences of that speech. If one of the consequences is that your boss feels the need to fire/transfer/demote you, then he has that freedom (unless contracts or laws prohibit). And those who agree with your original speech have the freedom to decry his actions/boycott his products/whatever.
I don't think that any of those assertions of mine are unreasonable or even controversial. So I agree with Solmyr.
My argument is that if exercising a freedom brings about prohibitive consequences, to the point than any reasonable person would not exercise that freedom, then you actually do not have that freedom. Prohibitive consequence are exactly what makes for lack of freedom. It seems fairly self-evident to me, so I likewise do not understand why there is even a debate about it.
Having freedom to do something by definition means having the power to do something without hindrance, and it would require a lot of sophistry to claim that prohibitive consequences do not constitute a hindrance. Freedom of speech involves more than just the physical protection of your vocal cords.
Quote from: DGuller on August 13, 2020, 05:52:11 PM
My argument is that if exercising a freedom brings about prohibitive consequences, to the point than any reasonable person would not exercise that freedom, then you actually do not have that freedom. Prohibitive consequence are exactly what makes for lack of freedom. It seems fairly self-evident to me, so I likewise do not understand why there is even a debate about it.
It may be self-evident to you, but is so vague as to be meaningless. The exercise of freedoms will often entail consequences, but whether they are "prohibitive" to "any reasonable person" is largely an entirely subjective judgement, particularly beforehand.
Now, there are some clear exceptions, like exercising the freedom to vote for any presidential candidate but Saddam Hussein during his rule over Iraq or exercising rights under the PRC's constitution stating that "citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession, and of demonstration." But everyone knows that these rights were never meant seriously and were articulated merely to make it easier for outside governments to pretend that the PRC or Iraq were not occupied by governments consisting of the enemies of their peoples.
QuoteHaving freedom to do something by definition means having the power to do something without hindrance, and it would require a lot of sophistry to claim that prohibitive consequences do not constitute a hindrance. Freedom of speech involves more than just the physical protection of your vocal cords.
That definition of freedom does not all all say that freedom only exists were there is no consequences to its exercise. You want to go by dictionary definitions? Then look at the words you are using: hindrance "a thing that provides resistance, delay, or obstruction to something or someone." Consequences do none of those things, so your attempt at sophistry in claiming that consequences are a hindrance is doomed to failure. Some consequences are designed to limit freedoms, that is true. I've mentioned libel before. But not all consequences mean a lack of freedom. Freedom of speech means more than just a freedom from all the consequences of speech.
Nothing obstructed you from voicing a criticism of Stalin in 1937 Soviet Union. The lack of freedom of speech in that case would be manifested in the consequences such criticism would entail, not in the obstruction preventing you from getting that criticism out of your throat.
Quote from: DGuller on August 13, 2020, 08:34:37 PM
Nothing obstructed you from voicing a criticism of Stalin in 1937 Soviet Union. The lack of freedom of speech in that case would be manifested in the consequences such criticism would entail, not in the obstruction preventing you from getting that criticism out of your throat.
Getting shipped off to a gulag is hardly in the same ballpark as getting fired by your boss.
Not to mention that was an actual legal consequence. The government arresting you.
Not your boss using their right to fire somebody for the justifiable reasons that having a loud racist on the team won't sell well with half of the customer base and brought the company into disrepute
The point is that hindrance can be composed entirely of consequences. And technically in Soviet Union it wasn't illegal to criticize Stalin if you were a party member, it's just that other freedoms the party members had have effectively nullified the freedom of speech.
That's the larger point here. There are a lot of freedoms around, not all of them compatible with each other. There can't exist both freedom of speech and freedom to hire a hitman to whack someone that insulted you. For one to exist the other has to go, de jure or de facto. Same applies to a freedom of speech and a freedom to cancel someone.
Quote from: DGuller on August 14, 2020, 08:17:04 AM
The point is that hindrance can be composed entirely of consequences. And technically in Soviet Union it wasn't illegal to criticize Stalin if you were a party member, it's just that other freedoms the party members had have effectively nullified the freedom of speech.
That's the larger point here. There are a lot of freedoms around, not all of them compatible with each other. There can't exist both freedom of speech and freedom to hire a hitman to whack someone that insulted you. For one to exist the other has to go, de jure or de facto. Same applies to a freedom of speech and a freedom to cancel someone.
Well then using your definition no one has ever had or ever will have freedom of speech. Any social interaction has consequences.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 14, 2020, 11:34:58 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 14, 2020, 08:17:04 AM
The point is that hindrance can be composed entirely of consequences. And technically in Soviet Union it wasn't illegal to criticize Stalin if you were a party member, it's just that other freedoms the party members had have effectively nullified the freedom of speech.
That's the larger point here. There are a lot of freedoms around, not all of them compatible with each other. There can't exist both freedom of speech and freedom to hire a hitman to whack someone that insulted you. For one to exist the other has to go, de jure or de facto. Same applies to a freedom of speech and a freedom to cancel someone.
Well then using your definition no one has ever had or ever will have freedom of speech. Any social interaction has consequences.
I don't think either of you are wrong here. It is a balance.
I do not think it is as simple as: well we didn't stop you from speaking out beforehand so you have freedom of speech.
Not to mention that checking what you say before you say it is actually good practice. We all do it in all sorts of social situations.
The blind spot of "Freedom of speech" is the issue of power. To be fair, it's not entirely a blind spot: freedom of speech is usually defined in relations to one very specific power, that of the state. It is perfectly fine with the inequality of power being expressed in the rest of society, with certain people having power to censor others, and with certain people having a lot more power to broadcast their ideas than others.
That is what critics want to bring attention to. People who want others to suffer consequences for their speech do so with the understanding that, for some individuals and some groups, the consequences were infinitely less than for others. Some speech uttered by Black people cost them their lives, while the same, in the same context, by white people, did not.
I am obviously sympathetic to that aim, if only because it brings attention to the tacit imbalance of power embedded in a principle that people have been taught to see as "neutral". But what *should* be the consequences of bad speech? That's the part that is usually left unsaid, and I am uncomfortable with this blind spot. Because "social consequences" of speech is not a unequivocally positive things. It can lead to ostracism, isolation, and violence. It's dangerous to replace something that is blind to imbalance of power, with something that is agnostic towards its consequences, or the mechanisms of its enforcement. In promoting the "social consequences of speech", many are reinforcing either the power of private entities (employers firing employees at will), of institutions (university hierarchies deciding for the good of all), or of group momentum. "Social consequences of speech" may work well where there is a healthy sense of society, and where it also includes strong mechanisms of protection, and reintegration. Villagers cast out some people who were deemed unfit for living within the community; but they also had a high threshold for morons, because a) they usually were related to you, and b) you just couldn't survive if you cast out everyone. I am not sure it is our moment, right now, and thus, I think it feeds more into the neoliberal moment than what its promoters have realized.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 14, 2020, 11:34:58 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 14, 2020, 08:17:04 AM
The point is that hindrance can be composed entirely of consequences. And technically in Soviet Union it wasn't illegal to criticize Stalin if you were a party member, it's just that other freedoms the party members had have effectively nullified the freedom of speech.
That's the larger point here. There are a lot of freedoms around, not all of them compatible with each other. There can't exist both freedom of speech and freedom to hire a hitman to whack someone that insulted you. For one to exist the other has to go, de jure or de facto. Same applies to a freedom of speech and a freedom to cancel someone.
Well then using your definition no one has ever had or ever will have freedom of speech. Any social interaction has consequences.
Hence why I used "prohibitive" in front of consequences, even though grumbler finds that vague. The set of possible freedoms that exist is much larger than any set of freedoms that can all co-exist at the same time in society, hence why we choose which freedoms we have and which we don't, and which freedoms need to have a limit placed on them in order for other conflicting freedoms to not be eliminated in practice. I argue that a freedom of speech cannot exist with the freedom to cancel without one of them getting the short end of the stick.
The freedom to cancel is freedom speech. Your argument isn't that freedom of speech can't survive while there are prohibitive consequences, your argument boils down to "freedom of speech is incoherent."
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 14, 2020, 12:19:18 PM
The blind spot of "Freedom of speech" is the issue of power. To be fair, it's not entirely a blind spot: freedom of speech is usually defined in relations to one very specific power, that of the state. It is perfectly fine with the inequality of power being expressed in the rest of society, with certain people having power to censor others, and with certain people having a lot more power to broadcast their ideas than others.
That is what critics want to bring attention to. People who want others to suffer consequences for their speech do so with the understanding that, for some individuals and some groups, the consequences were infinitely less than for others. Some speech uttered by Black people cost them their lives, while the same, in the same context, by white people, did not.
I am obviously sympathetic to that aim, if only because it brings attention to the tacit imbalance of power embedded in a principle that people have been taught to see as "neutral". But what *should* be the consequences of bad speech? That's the part that is usually left unsaid, and I am uncomfortable with this blind spot. Because "social consequences" of speech is not a unequivocally positive things. It can lead to ostracism, isolation, and violence. It's dangerous to replace something that is blind to imbalance of power, with something that is agnostic towards its consequences, or the mechanisms of its enforcement. In promoting the "social consequences of speech", many are reinforcing either the power of private entities (employers firing employees at will), of institutions (university hierarchies deciding for the good of all), or of group momentum. "Social consequences of speech" may work well where there is a healthy sense of society, and where it also includes strong mechanisms of protection, and reintegration. Villagers cast out some people who were deemed unfit for living within the community; but they also had a high threshold for morons, because a) they usually were related to you, and b) you just couldn't survive if you cast out everyone. I am not sure it is our moment, right now, and thus, I think it feeds more into the neoliberal moment than what its promoters have realized.
Well said. Another problem with Solmyr's point of view is that it can be applied to other things such as homosexuality, and they have been not too long ago. Want to be gay? Fine, you're free to be gay, but that doesn't mean that you're free from the consequences of being gay. Our customers get weirded out by gays, sorry, you're fired.
I think Solmyr's attitude towards freedom of speech is conditional on the "consequences" being directed against the people he disapproves of. We didn't always live in the times when employers were tripping over each other to virtue signal, and there is no guarantee that it will be that way in the future.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 14, 2020, 12:19:18 PM
I am obviously sympathetic to that aim, if only because it brings attention to the tacit imbalance of power embedded in a principle that people have been taught to see as "neutral". But what *should* be the consequences of bad speech? That's the part that is usually left unsaid, and I am uncomfortable with this blind spot. Because "social consequences" of speech is not a unequivocally positive things. It can lead to ostracism, isolation, and violence. It's dangerous to replace something that is blind to imbalance of power, with something that is agnostic towards its consequences, or the mechanisms of its enforcement. In promoting the "social consequences of speech", many are reinforcing either the power of private entities (employers firing employees at will), of institutions (university hierarchies deciding for the good of all), or of group momentum. "Social consequences of speech" may work well where there is a healthy sense of society, and where it also includes strong mechanisms of protection, and reintegration. Villagers cast out some people who were deemed unfit for living within the community; but they also had a high threshold for morons, because a) they usually were related to you, and b) you just couldn't survive if you cast out everyone. I am not sure it is our moment, right now, and thus, I think it feeds more into the neoliberal moment than what its promoters have realized.
I agree with this and in terms of its opponents especially, I'm always very unclear on what "cancelling" means - what is the consequence.
But this also links to a question of what free speech is in an age of social media platforms and what role they play in it. Because if we imagine a past when people had freedom of speech they also had rigorous gatekeepers on the way to a mass platform, the newspapers would publish and the TV wouldn't broadcast people outside of a sort-of agreed range of views. So freedom of speech was maybe bigger in the sense of what you could say or talk about, but the audience was smaller. There'd be kooks on Speakers' Corner or you'd have to self-publish pamphlets.
The other side of that is that I think there are genuine questions of whether there's almost a right to access/use those social media platforms. It basically is the question of are they publishers or just dumb pipes - closer to the NYT or the telephone network (and this is an argument the tech companies haven't answered themselves because their revenue depends on them reading what we do, their regulatory/liability safety depends on them just being a dumb pipe).
And in my head that is the clearest sense of cancelling someone - it's trying to get the alt-right/anti-semites/racists off Twitter, YouTube etc. We've seen the impact it has on someone like Yiannopoulos when his Twitter platform's gone.
Quote from: DGuller on August 14, 2020, 03:44:00 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 14, 2020, 11:34:58 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 14, 2020, 08:17:04 AM
The point is that hindrance can be composed entirely of consequences. And technically in Soviet Union it wasn't illegal to criticize Stalin if you were a party member, it's just that other freedoms the party members had have effectively nullified the freedom of speech.
That's the larger point here. There are a lot of freedoms around, not all of them compatible with each other. There can't exist both freedom of speech and freedom to hire a hitman to whack someone that insulted you. For one to exist the other has to go, de jure or de facto. Same applies to a freedom of speech and a freedom to cancel someone.
Well then using your definition no one has ever had or ever will have freedom of speech. Any social interaction has consequences.
Hence why I used "prohibitive" in front of consequences, even though grumbler finds that vague. The set of possible freedoms that exist is much larger than any set of freedoms that can all co-exist at the same time in society, hence why we choose which freedoms we have and which we don't, and which freedoms need to have a limit placed on them in order for other conflicting freedoms to not be eliminated in practice. I argue that a freedom of speech cannot exist with the freedom to cancel without one of them getting the short end of the stick.
I mean, yeah, sure. Not sure what the point of your line of thought is. We should call it differently?
Quote from: DGuller on August 14, 2020, 03:44:00 PM
Hence why I used "prohibitive" in front of consequences, even though grumbler finds that vague.
I find it a circular argument. "Prohibitive things prohibit things" isn't an argument.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 13, 2020, 12:28:32 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 12, 2020, 10:31:38 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 11, 2020, 10:01:08 PM
I have no idea what Viper and Raz are actually talking about since their conversation is entirely in the passive aggressive voice :wacko:
Raz believes Quebec nationalists like me are sending english speakers and immigrants to work camps in the North and as such feels like he should help these kindred souls to break their chains ;)
No, I just want to protect classes of people you don't like.
So you want to protect terrorists and neo-nazi scums? good. You have a future waiting for you at the end of law school.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 14, 2020, 03:53:32 PM
The freedom to cancel is freedom speech. Your argument isn't that freedom of speech can't survive while there are prohibitive consequences, your argument boils down to "freedom of speech is incoherent."
like planting a fire cross in front of your new neighbours to welcome them in town. It's freedom of expression.
A short story in 3 slides on the consequences of your actions:
(https://i.imgur.com/Usb4pec.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/CcCKWWz.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/yL536UT.jpg)
Assault is illegal so not really applicable to this discussion.
Though I appreciate the imagery :P
Neo-nazis should really start to concealed carry at these rallies.
Quote from: chipwich on August 15, 2020, 12:35:37 AM
Neo-nazis should really start to concealed carry at these rallies.
And why is that exactly?
They will be able to legally murder their enemies, at least with US self-defense laws.. A good bloodbath might give the left some pause in glorifying violence as you do. Consequences of your actions and all that.
So edgy.
Quote from: viper37 on August 14, 2020, 11:12:58 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 14, 2020, 03:53:32 PM
The freedom to cancel is freedom speech. Your argument isn't that freedom of speech can't survive while there are prohibitive consequences, your argument boils down to "freedom of speech is incoherent."
like planting a fire cross in front of your new neighbours to welcome them in town. It's freedom of expression.
It is.
Quote from: chipwich on August 15, 2020, 12:50:55 AM
They will be able to legally murder their enemies, at least with US self-defense laws.. A good bloodbath might give the left some pause in glorifying violence as you do. Consequences of your actions and all that.
Yeah, that already happened. Try again.
I think as usual the optimum is somewhere in the middle, but it might be interesting to note that "cancel culture" was how the communist regime maintained control of Hungary from roughly 1960 onwards.
For dissent they usually didn't imprison you, but rather made it impossible to work in your field or get anywhere in life. Worked great to keep educated people in line and to easily recruit people to be informants. But as long as you kept your mouth shut and your opinion to yourself, you were left largely alone.
The same system is being built in Hungary again and I would imagine is how Russia and similar regimes operate as well.
Quote from: chipwich on August 15, 2020, 12:50:55 AM
They will be able to legally murder their enemies, at least with US self-defense laws.. A good bloodbath might give the left some pause in glorifying violence as you do. Consequences of your actions and all that.
Look at you all cute, defending Nazis on the internet. Edgy, as garb said.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2020, 01:10:15 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 14, 2020, 11:12:58 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 14, 2020, 03:53:32 PM
The freedom to cancel is freedom speech. Your argument isn't that freedom of speech can't survive while there are prohibitive consequences, your argument boils down to "freedom of speech is incoherent."
like planting a fire cross in front of your new neighbours to welcome them in town. It's freedom of expression.
It is.
Also trespassing, destruction of private property, arguably arson.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 15, 2020, 03:08:46 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2020, 01:10:15 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 14, 2020, 11:12:58 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 14, 2020, 03:53:32 PM
The freedom to cancel is freedom speech. Your argument isn't that freedom of speech can't survive while there are prohibitive consequences, your argument boils down to "freedom of speech is incoherent."
like planting a fire cross in front of your new neighbours to welcome them in town. It's freedom of expression.
It is.
Also trespassing, destruction of private property, arguably arson.
If it's on their property. If it's on your own property, and directed as a welcome to your neighbor, there is still reckless burning and disorderly conduct (and with perhaps the irony of actually being used appropriately instead of as a catch-all excuse to pick someone up).
Quote from: viper37 on August 14, 2020, 11:06:15 PM
So you want to protect terrorists and neo-nazi scums? good. You have a future waiting for you at the end of law school.
I'm not sure how you intended me to respond to this but being a lawyer working for the ACLU is not a terrible fate.
Quote from: chipwich on August 15, 2020, 12:50:55 AM
They will be able to legally murder their enemies, at least with US self-defense laws.. A good bloodbath might give the left some pause in glorifying violence as you do. Consequences of your actions and all that.
You're a special kind of person, aren't you?
Yet Trump is still being shut out by Kanye :hmm:
Quote from: chipwich on August 15, 2020, 12:50:55 AM
They will be able to legally murder their enemies, at least with US self-defense laws.. A good bloodbath might give the left some pause in glorifying violence as you do. Consequences of your actions and all that.
Yeah nobody else glorifies violence except people with very specific political opinions :hmm:
Anyway I think most left wing people are as against violence as anybody else. Get your head out of your propaganda for a second.
Quote from: Valmy on August 15, 2020, 02:51:51 PM
Quote from: chipwich on August 15, 2020, 12:50:55 AM
They will be able to legally murder their enemies, at least with US self-defense laws.. A good bloodbath might give the left some pause in glorifying violence as you do. Consequences of your actions and all that.
Yeah nobody else glorifies violence except people with very specific political opinions :hmm:
Anyway I think most left wing people are as against violence as anybody else. Get your head out of your propaganda for a second.
You know, he might have been talking about just Zoupa.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 15, 2020, 03:18:33 PM
You know, he might have been talking about just Zoupa.
Maybe but Zoupa wouldn't be caught dead in America. :frog:
Quote from: Valmy on August 15, 2020, 03:19:24 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 15, 2020, 03:18:33 PM
You know, he might have been talking about just Zoupa.
Maybe but Zoupa wouldn't be caught dead in America. :frog:
Who says we want him... :P
Quote from: 11B4V on August 15, 2020, 03:42:49 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 15, 2020, 03:19:24 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 15, 2020, 03:18:33 PM
You know, he might have been talking about just Zoupa.
Maybe but Zoupa wouldn't be caught dead in America. :frog:
Who says we want him... :P
He is already in [spoiler]North[/spoiler] America. :P
Quote from: Valmy on August 15, 2020, 02:51:51 PM
Anyway I think most left wing people are as against violence as anybody else. Get your head out of your propaganda for a second.
And of course that's not true, since Zoupa, generally a left winger, threatened violence. You illiterate dipshit.
Has Chipwich always been crazy and nasty, and I just don't remember that because he posts so rarely?
His posts in this thread seem almost like they are from some badly-programmed fascist bot. They make no sense and are full of gratuitous insults. "Your Zoupa was a hamster, and your Valmy smelt of elderberries!"
Chip has always posted stupid shit, but his posts have generally been so short and inscrutable that it's been hard to read the tea leaves. Nice of him to come out as an alt-righter and make it easier to ignore him in the future though.
Quote from: chipwich on August 15, 2020, 07:38:59 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 15, 2020, 02:51:51 PM
Anyway I think most left wing people are as against violence as anybody else. Get your head out of your propaganda for a second.
And of course that's not true, since Zoupa, generally a left winger, threatened violence. You illiterate dipshit.
I don't think that is what he was doing :lol:
But in any case one guy posting a picture doesn't mean everybody left of center wants to punch people.
Maybe Zoupa wasn't threatening violence, but he sure was condoning it. It definitely wasn't the best argument to make if whitewashing "consequences" was the goal.
Quote from: DGuller on August 15, 2020, 11:32:14 PM
Maybe Zoupa wasn't threatening violence, but he sure was condoning it. It definitely wasn't the best argument to make if whitewashing "consequences" was the goal.
He was just posting that for the lulz I think,
As I said, it was not even relevent since assault is already illegal.
Quote from: Valmy on August 16, 2020, 12:03:27 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 15, 2020, 11:32:14 PM
Maybe Zoupa wasn't threatening violence, but he sure was condoning it. It definitely wasn't the best argument to make if whitewashing "consequences" was the goal.
He was just posting that for the lulz I think,
As I said, it was not even relevent since assault is already illegal.
Depends on the jury.
Quote from: DGuller on August 15, 2020, 11:32:14 PM
Maybe Zoupa wasn't threatening violence, but he sure was condoning it. It definitely wasn't the best argument to make if whitewashing "consequences" was the goal.
I will condone violence against nazis every day of the week. Didn't we fight a war about his, and killed a bunch of them? How is this controversial?
I posted the 3 pics coz they made me laugh. Now of course, the idiot being punched seems young, and it's quite possible with enough talking and re-wiring, his MAGA brain might accept that nazism is wrong. Then again, it's 2020, the situation is kinda dire and this idiot is throwing the nazi salute at a BLM rally. The talking and re-wiring will have to wait, sometimes a nice punch gets the point across.
And here comes a train of people saying that standing up to violence makes you an alt-righter.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 16, 2020, 02:09:18 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 15, 2020, 11:32:14 PM
Maybe Zoupa wasn't threatening violence, but he sure was condoning it. It definitely wasn't the best argument to make if whitewashing "consequences" was the goal.
I will condone violence against nazis every day of the week. Didn't we fight a war about his, and killed a bunch of them? How is this controversial?
I posted the 3 pics coz they made me laugh. Now of course, the idiot being punched seems young, and it's quite possible with enough talking and re-wiring, his MAGA brain might accept that nazism is wrong. Then again, it's 2020, the situation is kinda dire and this idiot is throwing the nazi salute at a BLM rally. The talking and re-wiring will have to wait, sometimes a nice punch gets the point across.
will you condone violence against commies, as they're also wrong?
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 16, 2020, 03:23:27 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 16, 2020, 02:09:18 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 15, 2020, 11:32:14 PM
Maybe Zoupa wasn't threatening violence, but he sure was condoning it. It definitely wasn't the best argument to make if whitewashing "consequences" was the goal.
I will condone violence against nazis every day of the week. Didn't we fight a war about his, and killed a bunch of them? How is this controversial?
I posted the 3 pics coz they made me laugh. Now of course, the idiot being punched seems young, and it's quite possible with enough talking and re-wiring, his MAGA brain might accept that nazism is wrong. Then again, it's 2020, the situation is kinda dire and this idiot is throwing the nazi salute at a BLM rally. The talking and re-wiring will have to wait, sometimes a nice punch gets the point across.
will you condone violence against commies, as they're also wrong?
Careful, you're going to be branded an alt-righter!
Quote from: Zoupa on August 16, 2020, 02:09:18 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 15, 2020, 11:32:14 PM
Maybe Zoupa wasn't threatening violence, but he sure was condoning it. It definitely wasn't the best argument to make if whitewashing "consequences" was the goal.
I will condone violence against nazis every day of the week. Didn't we fight a war about his, and killed a bunch of them? How is this controversial?
Oderint dum metuant is a good slogan in times like these.
Quote from: chipwich on August 15, 2020, 12:50:55 AM
They will be able to legally murder their enemies, at least with US self-defense laws.. A good bloodbath might give the left some pause in glorifying violence as you do. Consequences of your actions and all that.
Yeah, this looks like a really strong stand against violence.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 16, 2020, 02:09:18 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 15, 2020, 11:32:14 PM
Maybe Zoupa wasn't threatening violence, but he sure was condoning it. It definitely wasn't the best argument to make if whitewashing "consequences" was the goal.
I will condone violence against nazis every day of the week. Didn't we fight a war about his, and killed a bunch of them? How is this controversial?
There are so many things wrong with this. Do you actually think this way?
Quote from: The Brain on August 16, 2020, 09:13:55 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 16, 2020, 02:09:18 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 15, 2020, 11:32:14 PM
Maybe Zoupa wasn't threatening violence, but he sure was condoning it. It definitely wasn't the best argument to make if whitewashing "consequences" was the goal.
I will condone violence against nazis every day of the week. Didn't we fight a war about his, and killed a bunch of them? How is this controversial?
There are so many things wrong with this. Do you actually think this way?
YOU ALT-RIGHT MONSTER
Quote from: The Brain on August 16, 2020, 09:46:40 AM
Quote from: Maximus on August 16, 2020, 09:44:40 AM
Quote from: The Brain on August 16, 2020, 09:13:55 AM
There are so many things wrong with this.
Such as?
Are you kidding me?
I don't think Zoupa said that.
If there are "so many things wrong" with what he said, surely you can name at least one.
Well, nobody here is a WW2 vet.
I think some here have been gazing a little too long into the abyss.
Quote from: The Brain on August 16, 2020, 09:13:55 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 16, 2020, 02:09:18 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 15, 2020, 11:32:14 PM
Maybe Zoupa wasn't threatening violence, but he sure was condoning it. It definitely wasn't the best argument to make if whitewashing "consequences" was the goal.
I will condone violence against nazis every day of the week. Didn't we fight a war about his, and killed a bunch of them? How is this controversial?
There are so many things wrong with this. Do you actually think this way?
Ah, I forgot you're Swedish.
He just sells iron ore to the alt-right.
Quote from: chipwich on August 16, 2020, 02:44:28 AM
And here comes a train of people saying that standing up to violence makes you an alt-righter.
What would identify someone as an alt-righter is not standing up to violence, but rather setting forth a revenge fantasy of retaliatory violence.
Something like
QuoteNeo-nazis should really start to concealed carry at these rallies . . .They will be able to legally murder their enemies, at least with US self-defense laws.. A good bloodbath might give the left some pause in glorifying violence as you do. Consequences of your actions and all that.
Quote from: Maximus on August 16, 2020, 10:24:48 AM
Quote from: The Brain on August 16, 2020, 09:46:40 AM
Quote from: Maximus on August 16, 2020, 09:44:40 AM
Quote from: The Brain on August 16, 2020, 09:13:55 AM
There are so many things wrong with this.
Such as?
Are you kidding me?
I don't think Zoupa said that.
If there are "so many things wrong" with what he said, surely you can name at least one.
Violence against political opponents is antidemocratic and incompatible with an open society. WW2 wasn't fought about the right of people in Western democracies to use violence against political opponents.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 16, 2020, 11:55:18 AM
What would identify someone as an alt-righter is not standing up to violence, but rather setting forth a revenge fantasy of retaliatory violence.
If the objective principle that differentiates "standing up to violence" and "revenge fantasies of retaliatory violence" is proportionality, that by itself shouldn't be enough to identify someone as alt-right.
Quote from: chipwich on August 16, 2020, 09:52:12 AM
Quote from: The Brain on August 16, 2020, 09:13:55 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 16, 2020, 02:09:18 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 15, 2020, 11:32:14 PM
Maybe Zoupa wasn't threatening violence, but he sure was condoning it. It definitely wasn't the best argument to make if whitewashing "consequences" was the goal.
I will condone violence against nazis every day of the week. Didn't we fight a war about his, and killed a bunch of them? How is this controversial?
There are so many things wrong with this. Do you actually think this way?
YOU ALT-RIGHT MONSTER
What The Brain said is not even in the same universe with the stupid shit you were saying. Don't dishonestly try to equivocate.
Quote from: The Brain on August 16, 2020, 11:59:00 AM
Quote from: Maximus on August 16, 2020, 10:24:48 AM
Quote from: The Brain on August 16, 2020, 09:46:40 AM
Quote from: Maximus on August 16, 2020, 09:44:40 AM
Quote from: The Brain on August 16, 2020, 09:13:55 AM
There are so many things wrong with this.
Such as?
Are you kidding me?
I don't think Zoupa said that.
If there are "so many things wrong" with what he said, surely you can name at least one.
Violence against political opponents is antidemocratic and incompatible with an open society. WW2 wasn't fought about the right of people in Western democracies to use violence against political opponents.
I agree. And I am kind of annoyed we got here. I thought we were talking about cancel culture stuff not straight up illegal retaliation.
Quote from: The Brain on August 16, 2020, 11:59:00 AM
Quote from: Maximus on August 16, 2020, 10:24:48 AM
Quote from: The Brain on August 16, 2020, 09:46:40 AM
Quote from: Maximus on August 16, 2020, 09:44:40 AM
Quote from: The Brain on August 16, 2020, 09:13:55 AM
There are so many things wrong with this.
Such as?
Are you kidding me?
I don't think Zoupa said that.
If there are "so many things wrong" with what he said, surely you can name at least one.
Violence against political opponents is antidemocratic and incompatible with an open society. WW2 wasn't fought about the right of people in Western democracies to use violence against political opponents.
Fascism is also antidemocratic and incompatible with an open society. Fascism isn't merely political opposition: it's opposition to democracy itself. It's an ideology designed to use democratic norms to undermine them. It builds using displays of "strength" through threats and violence. I have no problem with someone showing the lie in that.
Quote from: Maximus on August 16, 2020, 04:34:12 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 16, 2020, 11:59:00 AM
Quote from: Maximus on August 16, 2020, 10:24:48 AM
Quote from: The Brain on August 16, 2020, 09:46:40 AM
Quote from: Maximus on August 16, 2020, 09:44:40 AM
Quote from: The Brain on August 16, 2020, 09:13:55 AM
There are so many things wrong with this.
Such as?
Are you kidding me?
I don't think Zoupa said that.
If there are "so many things wrong" with what he said, surely you can name at least one.
Violence against political opponents is antidemocratic and incompatible with an open society. WW2 wasn't fought about the right of people in Western democracies to use violence against political opponents.
Fascism is also antidemocratic and incompatible with an open society. Fascism isn't merely political opposition: it's opposition to democracy itself. It's an ideology designed to use democratic norms to undermine them. It builds using displays of "strength" through threats and violence. I have no problem with someone showing the lie in that.
So the way to "show the lie" about "displays of 'strength' through threats and violence" is to display your 'strength' through threats and violence?
Maybe you should rethink this "violence to solve violence" stance.
Quote from: grumbler on August 16, 2020, 04:48:22 PM
Quote from: Maximus on August 16, 2020, 04:34:12 PM
Fascism is also antidemocratic and incompatible with an open society. Fascism isn't merely political opposition: it's opposition to democracy itself. It's an ideology designed to use democratic norms to undermine them. It builds using displays of "strength" through threats and violence. I have no problem with someone showing the lie in that.
So the way to "show the lie" about "displays of 'strength' through threats and violence" is to display your 'strength' through threats and violence?
Maybe you should rethink this "violence to solve violence" stance.
Of course it's astonishing that after the violence in the Unite the Right rally, the violence by these Boogaloo supporters, two attacks on Synagogues, the El PAso shooting etc that we are talking about left-wing violence. In relation to fascism that's one of the striking things from Richard Evans' (really excellent) books on the rise of the Third Reich and the Third Reich in power is that the Nazis cause far, far more violence than any of their opponents, including the Communists, but are able to portray themselves as the defenders/restorers of order.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 16, 2020, 05:13:27 PM
Of course it's astonishing that after the violence in the Unite the Right rally, the violence by these Boogaloo supporters, two attacks on Synagogues, the El PAso shooting etc that we are talking about left-wing violence. In relation to fascism that's one of the striking things from Richard Evans' (really excellent) books on the rise of the Third Reich and the Third Reich in power is that the Nazis cause far, far more violence than any of their opponents, including the Communists, but are able to portray themselves as the defenders/restorers of order.
Yep. Violence creates chaos, and chaos is a ladder.
Nazis are better Littlefingers than democrats. Why anyone thinks that increasing the level of violence will hurt the Nazis more than democracy, I don't know. But, here we are.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 16, 2020, 05:13:27 PM
Of course it's astonishing that after the violence in the Unite the Right rally, the violence by these Boogaloo supporters, two attacks on Synagogues, the El PAso shooting etc that we are talking about left-wing violence. In relation to fascism that's one of the striking things from Richard Evans' (really excellent) books on the rise of the Third Reich and the Third Reich in power is that the Nazis cause far, far more violence than any of their opponents, including the Communists, but are able to portray themselves as the defenders/restorers of order.
You mentioned in this thread or another the conflict between individual and group rights: this is an example.
I don't think various acts of violence at Charlottesville committed by alt-righters or elsewhere make violence against some other alt-righter acceptable. Either it's acceptable to punch a guy who gives the Nazi salute or it isn't. Association with the beliefs of others who have committed violence does not in my book make one an acceptable target of violence.
e
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 16, 2020, 06:24:58 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 16, 2020, 05:13:27 PM
Of course it's astonishing that after the violence in the Unite the Right rally, the violence by these Boogaloo supporters, two attacks on Synagogues, the El PAso shooting etc that we are talking about left-wing violence. In relation to fascism that's one of the striking things from Richard Evans' (really excellent) books on the rise of the Third Reich and the Third Reich in power is that the Nazis cause far, far more violence than any of their opponents, including the Communists, but are able to portray themselves as the defenders/restorers of order.
You mentioned in this thread or another the conflict between individual and group rights: this is an example.
I don't think various acts of violence at Charlottesville committed by alt-righters or elsewhere make violence against some other alt-righter acceptable. Either it's acceptable to punch a guy who gives the Nazi salute or it isn't. Association with the beliefs of others who have committed violence does not in my book make one an acceptable target of violence.
Isn't this showing the attitude he was talking about?
The nazis are literally murdering people.
But we talk about whether it's OK that sometimes they get punched.
Quote from: Tyr on August 16, 2020, 06:29:15 PM
Isn't this showing the attitude he was talking about?
The nazis are literally murdering people.
But we talk about whether it's OK that sometimes they get punched.
So what? Should I save my key stroke quota?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 16, 2020, 06:24:58 PM
You mentioned in this thread or another the conflict between individual and group rights: this is an example.
I mean it was a more about a podcast I think by the Cato Society with a (liberal) political philosophy professor on the tension within liberalism between rationality (enforcing the rights of individuals) and pluralism (respecting the rights of individuals to freely associate). My exec summary was shit and lead to a lot of posts that were actually quite interestingly addressed by the professor at the time.
QuoteI don't think various acts of violence at Charlottesville committed by alt-righters or elsewhere make violence against some other alt-righter acceptable. Either it's acceptable to punch a guy who gives the Nazi salute or it isn't. Association with the beliefs of others who have committed violence does not in my book make one an acceptable target of violence.
That's not the point I was making. The point I'm amking is that in our discourse and this thread there's a lot of chat about left-wing violence while in the US there's been several far-right terrorist attacks, in the UK the police have said that the far-right is the fast growing and in some areas most dangerous counter-terrorist threat. It seems weird the number of posts etc about punching a Nazi v dealing with far-right terrorism. It's criticism of the discourse around political violence, not about that guy.
It's discoursable because it's controversial. If I were to post "Neo Nazis should not run over or gun down peaceful protestors" it would not generate a very vibrant discussion.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 16, 2020, 06:37:15 PM
It's discoursable because it's controversial. If I were to post "Neo Nazis should not run over or gun down peaceful protestors" it would not generate a very vibrant discussion.
Yep. We're talking about leftwing violence because it has defenders.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 16, 2020, 06:37:15 PM
It's discoursable because it's controversial. If I were to post "Neo Nazis should not run over or gun down peaceful protestors" it would not generate a very vibrant discussion.
I mean it would be nice if the President were that clear. The President and the Attorney General have made very clear repeatedly that their focus is on "left-wing violence". I don't know if they've ever mentioned the boogaloo murders etc.
And also I don't think general condemnation stopped the discourse around Islamic terrorism. Even if you condemned the action the next stage was how do you counter radicalism, which focused on things like education, community leaders etc. I feel like that's probably something worth talking about here too - there are clear international links between right-wing terrorists linking to similar people and communicating online. How do we address the networks and the radicalisers? Part of the reason that I think we don't is that a number of those figures repeatedly cited by the Christchurch terrorist for example have been re-tweeted by the President.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 16, 2020, 06:55:11 PM
I mean it would be nice if the President were that clear. The President and the Attorney General have made very clear repeatedly that their focus is on "left-wing violence". I don't know if they've ever mentioned the boogaloo murders etc.
"Trump sucks." Now there's an inflammatory statement.
QuoteAnd also I don't think general condemnation stopped the discourse around Islamic terrorism. Even if you condemned the action the next stage was how do you counter radicalism, which focused on things like education, community leaders etc. I feel like that's probably something worth talking about here too - there are clear international links between right-wing terrorists linking to similar people and communicating online. How do we address the networks and the radicalisers? Part of the reason that I think we don't is that a number of those figures repeatedly cited by the Christchurch terrorist for example have been re-tweeted by the President.
Sure, we could try to toss some theories about sexual insecurity and lack of breast feeding or whatnot. I'm guessing we'd still have a few minutes left in the day to discuss left wing violence.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 16, 2020, 06:45:31 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 16, 2020, 06:37:15 PM
It's discoursable because it's controversial. If I were to post "Neo Nazis should not run over or gun down peaceful protestors" it would not generate a very vibrant discussion.
Yep. We're talking about leftwing violence because it has defenders.
This. ^
There's nothing controversial here about right-wing violence, hence nothing really worth saying about it, other than "yeah, but who doesn't condemn it, here?"
That people here think that left-wing violence is somehow acceptable whereas right-wing violence is not is a controversy amenable to discussion.
Double standards have been the meat and potatoes of this forum since forever.
Oh cry me a river. In any case let's not exagerate, I'm the only poster who said I'm fine with punching a nazi occasionally if he's throwing a sieg heil at a blm rally. I'm not saying I'm ok with hanging him from the nearest tree. Jesus, the guy's a douche looking to provoke people.
He got a reaction alright. Hopefully he'll rethink his positions after that fistful of wisdom. I'm not losing any sleep over it.
I think the one situation where punching is acceptable is if you're Buzz Aldrin and the other guy is a moon landings hoaxer harassing you.
Quote from: DGuller on August 16, 2020, 09:47:25 PM
I think the one situation where punching is acceptable is if you're Buzz Aldrin and the other guy is a moon landings hoaxer harassing you.
Sorry, slippery slope. Next it's punching QAnon idiots....then birthers. The next thing you know, 40% of the American populace will deserve to be punched.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 16, 2020, 09:28:55 PM
Oh cry me a river. In any case let's not exagerate, I'm the only poster who said I'm fine with punching a nazi occasionally if he's throwing a sieg heil at a blm rally. I'm not saying I'm ok with hanging him from the nearest tree. Jesus, the guy's a douche looking to provoke people.
He got a reaction alright. Hopefully he'll rethink his positions after that fistful of wisdom. I'm not losing any sleep over it.
Not a very suble moving of the goal posts. Back when you were full of self-righteousness, you claimed "I will condone violence against nazis
every day of the week." Now that you find the people aren't jizzing themselves in support of that position, you claim that your position is
actually " I'm fine with punching a nazi
occasionally if he's
throwing a sieg heil at a
blm rally." (my bold)
The only thing more disgusting than a would-be internet tough guy is a would-be internet tough guy who is a total coward when challenged.
Quote from: PDH on August 16, 2020, 10:02:28 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 16, 2020, 09:47:25 PM
I think the one situation where punching is acceptable is if you're Buzz Aldrin and the other guy is a moon landings hoaxer harassing you.
Sorry, slippery slope. Next it's punching QAnon idiots....then birthers. The next thing you know, 40% of the American populace will deserve to be punched.
Wadda ya mean, "next thing?" 40% of the American populace
are moon landing hoaxers harassing Buzz Aldrin. Haven't you been reading Meri's posts about how the US sucks, etc?
Quote from: grumbler on August 16, 2020, 10:07:53 PM
Quote from: PDH on August 16, 2020, 10:02:28 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 16, 2020, 09:47:25 PM
I think the one situation where punching is acceptable is if you're Buzz Aldrin and the other guy is a moon landings hoaxer harassing you.
Sorry, slippery slope. Next it's punching QAnon idiots....then birthers. The next thing you know, 40% of the American populace will deserve to be punched.
Wadda ya mean, "next thing?" 40% of the American populace are moon landing hoaxers harassing Buzz Aldrin. Haven't you been reading Meri's posts about how the US sucks, etc?
I have been closely following American polling and 40% of the American populace approve of Donald Trump. America has worked hard to break my heart and show me that it does suck, at least 40% of them. I don't need Meri to say anything, the people of the United States are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves. They say that they approve and I will take them at their word.
Quote from: grumbler on August 16, 2020, 10:05:19 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 16, 2020, 09:28:55 PM
Oh cry me a river. In any case let's not exagerate, I'm the only poster who said I'm fine with punching a nazi occasionally if he's throwing a sieg heil at a blm rally. I'm not saying I'm ok with hanging him from the nearest tree. Jesus, the guy's a douche looking to provoke people.
He got a reaction alright. Hopefully he'll rethink his positions after that fistful of wisdom. I'm not losing any sleep over it.
Not a very suble moving of the goal posts. Back when you were full of self-righteousness, you claimed "I will condone violence against nazis every day of the week." Now that you find the people aren't jizzing themselves in support of that position, you claim that your position is actually " I'm fine with punching a nazi occasionally if he's throwing a sieg heil at a blm rally." (my bold)
The only thing more disgusting than a would-be internet tough guy is a would-be internet tough guy who is a total coward when challenged.
:D
Riiiiiiight. Go feel all good about yourself. You sure showed me!
People who say it's not ok to punch Nazis: Do you think it's ok to fight against Islamist terrorists?
Quote from: Zoupa on August 16, 2020, 09:28:55 PM
Oh cry me a river. In any case let's not exagerate, I'm the only poster who said I'm fine with punching a nazi occasionally if he's throwing a sieg heil at a blm rally.
No, you aren't.
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/proxy/9p9HXNckTWgB7PXKBN16GPu8rJQd75Yo5sc5gxJjiBR6wp_NTazYr2w=s0-d)
This guy was one of the first victims of the English speaking modern Left's cancel culture. Remember him? Now why any organization would outsource it's HR department to vicious, mentally disturbed bluehairs on Twitter will always remain a mystery to me but here we are. Now these deranged vermin have migrated off of their sad Tumblr blogs and into meatspace and want accolades for beating people up in the street.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
That's not Colin Kaepernick...
I remember a tempest in a teapot was made about that but I don't remember anything bad happening to that dude.
Just "THIS SHOWS WHY NO WOMEN GO INTO SCIENCE BECAUSE MEN WEAR NASTY SHIRTS" and then it turned out a woman gave the dude the shirt and some other stupid things happened. But it wasn't like the guy lost his job or something.
Legbiter lives in his own little world. "Islamoids" and "bluehairs" roam the street looking for innocent Lutherans to devour.
Quote from: Valmy on August 17, 2020, 10:00:48 AM
I remember a tempest in a teapot was made about that but I don't remember anything bad happening to that dude.
Just "THIS SHOWS WHY NO WOMEN GO INTO SCIENCE BECAUSE MEN WEAR NASTY SHIRTS" and then it turned out a woman gave the dude the shirt and some other stupid things happened. But it wasn't like the guy lost his job or something.
I would like to point out I know one friend that worked in a generally dressed down company (but always an implied "office appropriate"/"business casual" rule). Which was great until one guy in IT ruined it for everyone by wearing flip-flops, jorts and a silk red dragon short-sleeved shirt.
Apparently that very afternoon an email went round that they were formally moving their policy from always dressed down to always "business casual" and they specified that you were expected to wear shoes :lol:
Quote from: Legbiter on August 17, 2020, 09:36:04 AM
This guy was one of the first victims of the English speaking modern Left's cancel culture. Remember him?
Someone whose name is now long forgotten was the first victim of the transatlantic slave trade; some unknown person was the first victim of Nazi tyranny, another of Stalin's purges and gulags, and another of Pol Pot's genocide.
But their fates pale before the horrors meted out to poor Matt Taylor, an ESA scientist who, after wearing a garish and obviously inappropriate shirt in broadcasting to the world a major achievement of an ESA mission, thus detracting from the significance of said mission, had to suffer the horrible indignity of not getting fired from his job, and maintaining his employment and position at the ESA as usual.
https://blogs.egu.eu/geolog/2016/07/15/geotalk-matt-taylor-of-esas-rosetta-mission/
https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/personal-profiles/matt-taylor
Quote from: Solmyr on August 17, 2020, 09:21:08 AM
People who say it's not ok to punch Nazis: Do you think it's ok to fight against Islamist terrorists?
No one claims that, and the comparison is absurd. If you think that you can punch Nazis, do you think it's okay to punch anyone whose political views you vehemently disagree with? Or is the term "Nazi" so magical in your mind that it negates freedom of speech (not that any of these people actually are Nazis, of course)?
I am as much in favor of fighting against Nazi terrorists as I am against Islamist terrorists.
But that does not mean I am going to go up to every extremist Islamist preacher I can find and punch him in the face, any more than I am going to punch every dork doing a heil Hitler salute.
I will just say, that if I were in were in house-to-house combat in Normandy 1944...I might punch a Nazi.
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 17, 2020, 12:46:54 PM
I will just say, that if I were in were in house-to-house combat in Normandy 1944...I might punch a Nazi.
I feel like Battle of Cable Street is also okay to punch a Nazi.
I should be clear I would never punch a Nazi but that's because I'm weak and have never been in a fight more than any overwhelming principle :P
Quote from: grumbler on August 16, 2020, 10:07:53 PM
Quote from: PDH on August 16, 2020, 10:02:28 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 16, 2020, 09:47:25 PM
I think the one situation where punching is acceptable is if you're Buzz Aldrin and the other guy is a moon landings hoaxer harassing you.
Sorry, slippery slope. Next it's punching QAnon idiots....then birthers. The next thing you know, 40% of the American populace will deserve to be punched.
Wadda ya mean, "next thing?" 40% of the American populace are moon landing hoaxers harassing Buzz Aldrin. Haven't you been reading Meri's posts about how the US sucks, etc?
Yeah, well, when 40% of the country thinks that Trump is A-okay, that's a problem. I hate that so many in my country accepts his style of governing as perfectly fine and worth having for another four years. I hate that so many in my country have no issue with what he's doing to democracy here.
If that offends you, sorry not sorry.
I though he might have been confusing you with CC. :hmm:
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 17, 2020, 01:11:14 PM
I though he might have been confusing you with CC. :hmm:
Nah. I regularly say that the US sucks, because it does right now. *shrugs*
This election shouldn't even be a contest. Biden should be up by 50% of the voters. He's not, and that makes me angry. It makes me embarrassed for my country. And yeah, it means that to me, right now, my country fucking sucks.
I'm okay with owning that.
It sort of makes me realize that all the internet jerks telling me how shitty the US is might not have been wrong. :(
Thanks America.
Quote from: merithyn on August 17, 2020, 01:08:41 PM
Yeah, well, when 40% of the country thinks that Trump is A-okay, that's a problem. I hate that so many in my country accepts his style of governing as perfectly fine and worth having for another four years. I hate that so many in my country have no issue with what he's doing to democracy here.
If that offends you, sorry not sorry.
Hyperbole has never been convincing. It doesn't offend me, it amuses me. You and Zoupa are a couple of stuck records, wallowing in the emo.
Quote from: Valmy on August 17, 2020, 01:28:48 PM
It sort of makes me realize that all the internet jerks telling me how shitty the US is might not have been wrong. :(
Thanks America.
There are some shitty things happening in the US, but to argue that the country as a whole is shitty is infantile. Infants think that the only thing that exists is the thing they are concentrating on at any given moment. The "shitty America" people are the same: if what they are focused on this second is shitty (like a poll), then the whole country is shitty.
Cry me a river.
It is a little annoying that some of our friends enjoy kicking dirt in our faces while we are down.
Quote from: Solmyr on August 17, 2020, 09:21:08 AM
People who say it's not ok to punch Nazis: Do you think it's ok to fight against Islamist terrorists?
Of course. :huh:
Quote from: grumbler on August 17, 2020, 06:53:06 PM
Quote from: merithyn on August 17, 2020, 01:08:41 PM
Yeah, well, when 40% of the country thinks that Trump is A-okay, that's a problem. I hate that so many in my country accepts his style of governing as perfectly fine and worth having for another four years. I hate that so many in my country have no issue with what he's doing to democracy here.
If that offends you, sorry not sorry.
Hyperbole has never been convincing. It doesn't offend me, it amuses me. You and Zoupa are a couple of stuck records, wallowing in the emo.
:rolleyes:
Okay, grumbler
Quote from: grumbler on August 17, 2020, 06:58:15 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 17, 2020, 01:28:48 PM
It sort of makes me realize that all the internet jerks telling me how shitty the US is might not have been wrong. :(
Thanks America.
There are some shitty things happening in the US, but to argue that the country as a whole is shitty is infantile. Infants think that the only thing that exists is the thing they are concentrating on at any given moment. The "shitty America" people are the same: if what they are focused on this second is shitty (like a poll), then the whole country is shitty.
Cry me a river.
Saying some claims might not be as wrong as I thought, based on recent evidence, is not even remotely close to how you are characterizing what I am saying.
I am not saying the whole country is shitty. I don't think that. I was simply saying that a lot of the horrible things I have heard about my country seem to be bearing themselves out and I find that depressing. And those polls have, and will be, born out in election results and political policies and cultural issues. They are hardly some outlier by some random poll.
Also I am upset because I do love my country and its people, but you seem to be attacking me for hating it? Very odd. If I really thought America was shitty I would not find what is going on very upsetting, it would fit my preconcieved notions.
But hey you say I am wrong and I hope you are right. May events bear your perspective out and not my concerns.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 17, 2020, 07:03:41 PM
It is a little annoying that some of our friends enjoy kicking dirt in our faces while we are down.
No one's enjoying this, trust me.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 17, 2020, 07:04:51 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on August 17, 2020, 09:21:08 AM
People who say it's not ok to punch Nazis: Do you think it's ok to fight against Islamist terrorists?
Of course. :huh:
So why is it ok to use violence against Islamists but not against Nazis?
Quote from: Solmyr on August 18, 2020, 03:50:56 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 17, 2020, 07:04:51 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on August 17, 2020, 09:21:08 AM
People who say it's not ok to punch Nazis: Do you think it's ok to fight against Islamist terrorists?
Of course. :huh:
So why is it ok to use violence against Islamists but not against Nazis?
Beats me. You asked about Islamic terrorists. That's what I answered.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 18, 2020, 06:47:27 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on August 18, 2020, 03:50:56 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 17, 2020, 07:04:51 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on August 17, 2020, 09:21:08 AM
People who say it's not ok to punch Nazis: Do you think it's ok to fight against Islamist terrorists?
Of course. :huh:
So why is it ok to use violence against Islamists but not against Nazis?
Beats me. You asked about Islamic terrorists. That's what I answered.
Okay. :huh:
Terrorists is a pretty big distinction.
Quote from: Valmy on August 17, 2020, 10:55:46 PM
I am not saying the whole country is shitty. I don't think that. I was simply saying that a lot of the horrible things I have heard about my country seem to be bearing themselves out and I find that depressing. And those polls have, and will be, born out in election results and political policies and cultural issues. They are hardly some outlier by some random poll.
You aren't saying that "the whole country is shitty," but instead talking about "how shitty the US is?"
I don't see the distinction that you are making.
QuoteAlso I am upset because I do love my country and its people, but you seem to be attacking me for hating it? Very odd. If I really thought America was shitty I would not find what is going on very upsetting, it would fit my preconcieved notions.
I never said that you hate America? What words did I use that you interpreted as such?
What I chide people on is this simplistic "I don't like something that happened in the US so the US sucks" approach that completely ignores all nuances.
QuoteBut hey you say I am wrong and I hope you are right. May events bear your perspective out and not my concerns.
I'm pretty sure that events will show that lots of things about the US do not suck, and that a characterization of "the US sucks" is childish hyperbole.
Quote from: Solmyr on August 18, 2020, 07:50:21 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 18, 2020, 06:47:27 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on August 18, 2020, 03:50:56 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 17, 2020, 07:04:51 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on August 17, 2020, 09:21:08 AM
People who say it's not ok to punch Nazis: Do you think it's ok to fight against Islamist terrorists?
Of course. :huh:
So why is it ok to use violence against Islamists but not against Nazis?
Beats me. You asked about Islamic terrorists. That's what I answered.
Okay. :huh:
:huh: Do you really believe that the same actions should be taken against people whose speech you dislike as should be taken against
terrorists? That's crazy-man talk.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/aug/28/jk-rowling-robert-f-kennedy-human-rights-award-trans-views
QuoteJK Rowling returns human rights award to group that denounces her trans views
JK Rowling is returning the Ripple of Hope award given to her last year by the Robert F Kennedy Human Rights (RFKHR) organisation after its president, Kennedy's daughter, criticised her views on transgender issues.
The award, which is for people who have shown a "commitment to social change", was presented to Rowling in December for her work with her children's charity, Lumos. On receiving the award, Rowling called it "one of the highest honours I've ever been given" and said "Robert Kennedy embodied everything I most admire in a human being". Previous winners include Barack Obama, archbishop Desmond Tutu and Joe Biden.
But earlier this month, Kerry Kennedy, a lawyer and president of RFKHR, put out a statement describing her "dismay" over what "deeply troubling transphobic tweets and statements" made by the Harry Potter author.
In early June, the author wrote a series of comments on Twitter laying out her views on gender identity, including one that said: "If sex isn't real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives." These comments were condemned by LGBT charities, as well as several actors who have worked in the Harry Potter franchise. Rowling then wrote a highly personal essay revealing her experience of domestic abuse and sexual assault, in which she argued that trans women who have not undergone hormone therapy or surgical transition should not have access to single-sex spaces.
In her statement Kennedy said that Rowling's comments "had the effect of degrading trans people's lived experiences", and that her "attacks upon the transgender community are inconsistent with the fundamental beliefs and values of RFKHR and represent a repudiation of my father's vision".
"The science is clear and conclusive: sex is not binary," wrote Kennedy, adding that she had spoken with the author to express her "profound disappointment that she has chosen to use her remarkable gifts to create a narrative that diminishes the identity of trans and nonbinary people, undermining the validity and integrity of the entire transgender community".
On Thursday, Rowling announced on her website that she would be returning the award.
"Because of the very serious conflict of views between myself and RFKHR, I feel I have no option but to return the Ripple of Hope award bestowed upon me last year," Rowling wrote. "I am deeply saddened that RFKHR has felt compelled to adopt this stance, but no award or honour, no matter my admiration for the person for whom it was named, means so much to me that I would forfeit the right to follow the dictates of my own conscience."
Rowling said that Kennedy's statement "incorrectly implied that I was transphobic, and that I am responsible for harm to trans people".
...
I'm shocked that a lawyer would make "sex is real" into "sex is binary".
Doesn't she have a book to write or something? This woman just cannot keep out of the social media buzz.
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2020, 08:36:41 AM
Doesn't she have a book to write or something? This woman just cannot keep out of the social media buzz.
Yeah, how dare someone express an opinion when the correct opinion has already been decided on. Why does she worry her pretty little head about it?
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2020, 08:36:41 AM
Doesn't she have a book to write or something? This woman just cannot keep out of the social media buzz.
You have nearly 50k posts here and fault her for speaking her mind?
The buzz is stupid, but blame it on the bees.
Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2020, 10:07:25 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2020, 08:36:41 AM
Doesn't she have a book to write or something? This woman just cannot keep out of the social media buzz.
Yeah, how dare someone express an opinion when the correct opinion has already been decided on. Why does she worry her pretty little head about it?
I think its more like why does she want this to continue?
Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2020, 10:07:25 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2020, 08:36:41 AM
Doesn't she have a book to write or something? This woman just cannot keep out of the social media buzz.
Yeah, how dare someone express an opinion when the correct opinion has already been decided on. Why does she worry her pretty little head about it?
Well that is your opinion on the matter but not one I expressed so I am not sure why you said "yeah".
I mean she expressed her opinion. I don't see why that requires months of needing some kind of affirmation for it or just to keep going over it again and again and again. She went on similar weird social media things in the past several years. Just going "oh Hermione is black now!" or whatever years and years after she finished her books. What even is she doing? Just fighting the good fight over various issues until she wins praise? Because that is a good use of ones time.
I just don't understand what she is going for with all this. This trans business is hardly the first time she has engaged with her social media in this way. She just keeps it going and going and keeping her name in various discussions for some reason.
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2020, 10:14:57 AM
I mean she expressed her opinion. I don't see why that requires months of needing some kind of affirmation for it or just to keep going over it again and again and again. She went on similar weird social media things in the past several years. Just going "oh Hermione is black now!" or whatever years and years after she finished her books. What even is she doing? Just fighting the good fight over various issues until she wins praise? Because that is a good use of ones time.
I actually don't think that was her - I think The Cursed Child cast a black actor as Hermione and Rowling didn't have an issue with it (though in the books Hermione's race is never specified, just that she has curly hair and I know a few people who always thought she was black until the films came out). She did come out and say Dumbledore was gay though.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 28, 2020, 10:17:35 AM
I actually don't think that was her - I think The Cursed Child cast a black actor as Hermione and Rowling didn't have an issue with it (though in the books Hermione's race is never specified, just that she has curly hair and I know a few people who always thought she was black until the films came out). She did come out and say Dumbledore was gay though.
I understood that was done at her request because she decided she was supposed to be black for some reason.
I mean she had full casting power on the films, if she wanted Hermione to be black she could have established that at the time.
But if I was mistaken about that I withdraw the example -_-
the weirdest one is she described how wizards poop.
Quote from: HVC on August 28, 2020, 10:20:19 AM
the weirdest one is she described how wizards poop.
Yeah that was bizarre.
How about if she wants things to be a certain way in her world she write books and put those aspects in her stories instead of just babbling on social media?
I mean she can say what she wants, I just sense she is acting erratically and it confuses me. Not that it is really any of my business but so long as the topic is being brought up here :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 28, 2020, 10:17:35 AMShe did come out and say Dumbledore was gay though.
But it's not mentioned in the books or movies, I believe? So it kind of feels a bit hollow.
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2020, 10:19:22 AM
I understood that was done at her request because she decided she was supposed to be black for some reason.
I mean she had full casting power on the films, if she wanted Hermione to be black she could have established that at the time.
But if I was mistaken about that I withdraw the example -_-
No it was colour-blind casting call and the director made the decision. Rowling approved it but just noted the book never specified so she could be white or black, and as I say there's apparently always been a stream of fans who thought Hermione was black.
Incidentally we definitely need more colour-blind casting especially in the UK given how much of our cultural production is period drama/adaptation. See Armando Ianucci's incredible recent David Copperfield, starring Dev Patel.
Quote from: Syt on August 28, 2020, 10:23:43 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 28, 2020, 10:17:35 AMShe did come out and say Dumbledore was gay though.
But it's not mentioned in the books or movies, I believe? So it kind of feels a bit hollow.
Yeah (God this is aging me as the generation that bore the full brunt of Potter books :lol:). I agree. In the books it is mentioned that in the past he was obsessed with Grindelwald and they were very, very close but that's it. So arguably it's implied in the books and might be depicted in new prequel films - not sure, haven't seen them?
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2020, 10:14:57 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2020, 10:07:25 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2020, 08:36:41 AM
Doesn't she have a book to write or something? This woman just cannot keep out of the social media buzz.
Yeah, how dare someone express an opinion when the correct opinion has already been decided on. Why does she worry her pretty little head about it?
Well that is your opinion on the matter but not one I expressed so I am not sure why you said "yeah".
I mean she expressed her opinion. I don't see why that requires months of needing some kind of affirmation for it or just to keep going over it again and again and again. She went on similar weird social media things in the past several years. Just going "oh Hermione is black now!" or whatever years and years after she finished her books. What even is she doing? Just fighting the good fight over various issues until she wins praise? Because that is a good use of ones time.
I just don't understand what she is going for with all this. This trans business is hardly the first time she has engaged with her social media in this way. She just keeps it going and going and keeping her name in various discussions for some reason.
So if you an express an opinion, and a cancel culture mob converges and calls you a transophobe, the appropritate response is "point taken, let's move on"? Seething resentment is an entirely predictable outcome of an environment where people are shamed for expressing opinions that are currently incorrect.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 28, 2020, 10:25:03 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2020, 10:19:22 AM
I understood that was done at her request because she decided she was supposed to be black for some reason.
I mean she had full casting power on the films, if she wanted Hermione to be black she could have established that at the time.
But if I was mistaken about that I withdraw the example -_-
No it was colour-blind casting call and the director made the decision. Rowling approved it but just noted the book never specified so she could be white or black, and as I say there's apparently always been a stream of fans who thought Hermione was black.
Incidentally we definitely need more colour-blind casting especially in the UK given how much of our cultural production is period drama/adaptation. See Armando Ianucci's incredible recent David Copperfield, starring Dev Patel.
And I think color blind casting is great, especially in stage plays where everything is not literal anyway. Though by also casting her children black it kind of suggested she the character was being made black retroactively. I mean the potters were not all color blind casted.
But it seemed to fit a pattern of her wanting to go back and make her work retroactively socially relevent to receive praise, which kind of fit a pattern of her needing praise and relevency...or at least that is the sense.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 28, 2020, 10:27:18 AM
Quote from: Syt on August 28, 2020, 10:23:43 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 28, 2020, 10:17:35 AMShe did come out and say Dumbledore was gay though.
But it's not mentioned in the books or movies, I believe? So it kind of feels a bit hollow.
Yeah (God this is aging me as the generation that bore the full brunt of Potter books :lol:). I agree. In the books it is mentioned that in the past he was obsessed with Grindelwald and they were very, very close but that's it. So arguably it's implied in the books and might be depicted in new prequel films - not sure, haven't seen them?
I believe she's only just ever said it but such leanings never made it into the films.
Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2020, 10:31:05 AM
So if you an express an opinion, and a cancel culture mob converges and calls you a transophobe, the appropritate response is "point taken, let's move on"? Seething resentment is an entirely predictable outcome of an environment where people are shamed for expressing opinions that are currently incorrect.
I mean it took a pretty long time and effort to get the cancel mob really going. At first I think most people tried to ignore it outside a few fanatics because her stories are so beloved. But is she really being cancelled? Her books and movies came out years ago. There is nothing to boycott. She is already a billionaire. Why does she care if some people think her opinions suck?
And of course her primary reading audience is millenials who tend to feel strongly about this so even those who are not cancel types, this is bad for business.
I don't think people stop having feelings when they get rich.
Quote from: The Brain on August 28, 2020, 10:40:28 AM
I don't think people stop having feelings when they get rich.
I was addressing the claim she was being cancelled.
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2020, 10:42:07 AM
Quote from: The Brain on August 28, 2020, 10:40:28 AM
I don't think people stop having feelings when they get rich.
I was addressing the claim she was being cancelled.
OK. I was addressing "Why does she care if some people think her opinions suck?".
Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2020, 10:31:05 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2020, 10:14:57 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2020, 10:07:25 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2020, 08:36:41 AM
Doesn't she have a book to write or something? This woman just cannot keep out of the social media buzz.
Yeah, how dare someone express an opinion when the correct opinion has already been decided on. Why does she worry her pretty little head about it?
Well that is your opinion on the matter but not one I expressed so I am not sure why you said "yeah".
I mean she expressed her opinion. I don't see why that requires months of needing some kind of affirmation for it or just to keep going over it again and again and again. She went on similar weird social media things in the past several years. Just going "oh Hermione is black now!" or whatever years and years after she finished her books. What even is she doing? Just fighting the good fight over various issues until she wins praise? Because that is a good use of ones time.
I just don't understand what she is going for with all this. This trans business is hardly the first time she has engaged with her social media in this way. She just keeps it going and going and keeping her name in various discussions for some reason.
So if you an express an opinion, and a cancel culture mob converges and calls you a transophobe, the appropritate response is "point taken, let's move on"? Seething resentment is an entirely predictable outcome of an environment where people are shamed for expressing opinions that are currently incorrect.
I am not sure why you think the expression of ideas should be immune from criticism. About 30 or so pages ago Grumbler correctly described what freedom of expression is. I suggest you go back and read it.
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2020, 10:42:07 AM
Quote from: The Brain on August 28, 2020, 10:40:28 AM
I don't think people stop having feelings when they get rich.
I was addressing the claim she was being cancelled.
It's possible to have failed attempted at cancelling. Thankfully. Just because you're being cancelled unsuccessfully doesn't mean that you're not allowed to have feelings about that.
Gotcha. But needing social media praise is very unwise, which goes back to other things I was saying. She needs or wants affirmation for her unpopular opinions and that path leads to madness.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 28, 2020, 10:45:58 AM
I am not sure why you think the expression of ideas should be immune from criticism. About 30 or so pages ago Grumbler correctly described what freedom of expression is. I suggest you go back and read it.
I suggest you drop your smarmy patronizing attitude. You haven't earned the right to apply it, and you definitely earned the right to have it applied to you many times over.
Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2020, 10:46:29 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2020, 10:42:07 AM
Quote from: The Brain on August 28, 2020, 10:40:28 AM
I don't think people stop having feelings when they get rich.
I was addressing the claim she was being cancelled.
It's possible to have failed attempted at cancelling. Thankfully. Just because you're being cancelled unsuccessfully doesn't mean that you're not allowed to have feelings about that.
She can feel any way she wants. Cancel culture is bad.
Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2020, 10:49:11 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 28, 2020, 10:45:58 AM
I am not sure why you think the expression of ideas should be immune from criticism. About 30 or so pages ago Grumbler correctly described what freedom of expression is. I suggest you go back and read it.
I suggest you drop your smarmy patronizing attitude. You haven't earned the right to apply it, and you definitely earned the right to have it applied to you many times over.
Your position still makes no sense. Bad ideas should be criticized. That is how it is supposed to work. You have not earned the right to re-imagine this fundamental element of Liberal Democracy.
i am all for colour blind casting because at some point people will need to get over the fact that the range of skin/hair/eye colour range of people living in their countries have expanded since whatever period a movie represents, but you could walk into a right Twitter storm if you ended up colourblind-casting in the wrong colour direction.
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2020, 10:51:41 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2020, 10:46:29 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2020, 10:42:07 AM
Quote from: The Brain on August 28, 2020, 10:40:28 AM
I don't think people stop having feelings when they get rich.
I was addressing the claim she was being cancelled.
It's possible to have failed attempted at cancelling. Thankfully. Just because you're being cancelled unsuccessfully doesn't mean that you're not allowed to have feelings about that.
She can feel any way she wants. Cancel culture is bad.
I fail to see how Mrs Rowling is "canceled."
Quote from: Syt on August 28, 2020, 10:55:34 AM
I fail to see how Mrs Rowling is "canceled."
She wasn't.
Here is my last take on this:
She has been a little odd in wanting to insert herself into social issues and wanting to somehow update her series to be more socially relevent (or express odd or weird concepts like the poop thing or all the weird retcons she put in that last movie) after it completed all the way back in 2007. Now she has an opinion that is generally unpopular with her largely millenial audience and just needs to make that as public as possible by continuing to make noise about it. She is free to do those things, I just don't understand why she is doing either of them it seems all rather unhealthy and erratic.
But hey she can do what she wants, it is really not my business.
Oh and her opinions on trans issues are misguieded if that needs to be said. I don't find her opinions on this matter particularly convincing.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 28, 2020, 10:53:27 AM
Your position still makes no sense. Bad ideas should be criticized. That is how it is supposed to work.
There is a huge difference between criticism and boycott intended to suppress speech being criticized. And that was originally my response to grumbler's arguments that you so pleasantly suggested I read.
The concept of free speech extends beyond the constitution. Having a boss fire employees who do anything other than unconditionally agree with him is not unconstitutional, but it sure is an authoritarian manner of behavior that suppresses free expression of ideas and is worthy of disdain. There are behaviors worthy of disdain that do not violate the constitution, but we nevertheless should strive to avoid them in ourselves and discourage them in others if we want to live in a truly civil society.
Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2020, 10:31:05 AM
So if you an express an opinion, and a cancel culture mob converges and calls you a transophobe, the appropritate response is "point taken, let's move on"? Seething resentment is an entirely predictable outcome of an environment where people are shamed for expressing opinions that are currently incorrect.
What is your alternative? I don't think anyone alive today has ever lived in a period where people aren't shamed from expressing opinions that are currently incorrect. It's like a keystone of all society.
Hell, I know for a fact that this concept exists even where you came from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYqCi6o5r5I (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYqCi6o5r5I)
Quote from: Razgovory on August 28, 2020, 11:03:58 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2020, 10:31:05 AM
So if you an express an opinion, and a cancel culture mob converges and calls you a transophobe, the appropritate response is "point taken, let's move on"? Seething resentment is an entirely predictable outcome of an environment where people are shamed for expressing opinions that are currently incorrect.
What is your alternative? I don't think anyone alive today has ever lived in a period where people aren't shamed from expressing opinions that are currently incorrect. It's like a keystone of all society.
Hell, I know for a fact that this concept exists even where you came from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYqCi6o5r5I (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYqCi6o5r5I)
I already said that my alternative is for everyone to consider cancelling a worse sin than anything that brings about canceling. We already consider vigilante justice to be a worse sin than anything that brings about vigilantism, so it's not a reach to extend that mindset a little bit to cover vigilantism that targets reputations rather than lives.
The problem is that by being a mob they can hide behind their anonymity. If you put yourself out there complete with blue checkmark you are vulnerable. Just as if you leave your front door open, obviously stealing somebody's shit is far worse than leaving your front door open but doing that is still unwise.
Twitter is the law of all against all as leviathan only rarely intervenes. There is a reason I got off.
Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2020, 11:08:28 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 28, 2020, 11:03:58 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2020, 10:31:05 AM
So if you an express an opinion, and a cancel culture mob converges and calls you a transophobe, the appropritate response is "point taken, let's move on"? Seething resentment is an entirely predictable outcome of an environment where people are shamed for expressing opinions that are currently incorrect.
What is your alternative? I don't think anyone alive today has ever lived in a period where people aren't shamed from expressing opinions that are currently incorrect. It's like a keystone of all society.
Hell, I know for a fact that this concept exists even where you came from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYqCi6o5r5I (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYqCi6o5r5I)
I already said that my alternative is for everyone to consider cancelling a worse sin than anything that brings about canceling. We already consider vigilante justice to be a worse sin than anything that brings about vigilantism, so it's not a reach to extend that mindset a little bit to cover vigilantism that targets reputations rather than lives.
Maybe they did consider it and felt that being a Nazi was worse than asking someone not to be a Nazi.
Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2020, 11:02:09 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 28, 2020, 10:53:27 AM
Your position still makes no sense. Bad ideas should be criticized. That is how it is supposed to work.
There is a huge difference between criticism and boycott intended to suppress speech being criticized.
Rather than just asserting it, explain why boycotting is wrong. And perhaps more importantly, how do you reconcile freedom of expression with your denunciation of boycotts as a form of expression?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 28, 2020, 11:18:02 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2020, 11:08:28 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 28, 2020, 11:03:58 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2020, 10:31:05 AM
So if you an express an opinion, and a cancel culture mob converges and calls you a transophobe, the appropritate response is "point taken, let's move on"? Seething resentment is an entirely predictable outcome of an environment where people are shamed for expressing opinions that are currently incorrect.
What is your alternative? I don't think anyone alive today has ever lived in a period where people aren't shamed from expressing opinions that are currently incorrect. It's like a keystone of all society.
Hell, I know for a fact that this concept exists even where you came from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYqCi6o5r5I (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYqCi6o5r5I)
I already said that my alternative is for everyone to consider cancelling a worse sin than anything that brings about canceling. We already consider vigilante justice to be a worse sin than anything that brings about vigilantism, so it's not a reach to extend that mindset a little bit to cover vigilantism that targets reputations rather than lives.
Maybe they did consider it and felt that being a Nazi was worse than asking someone not to be a Nazi.
He just equated expressing condemnation of an idea with vigilante justice. Not sure how you reason with that.
Quote from: garbon on August 28, 2020, 07:11:51 AM
In early June, the author wrote a series of comments on Twitter laying out her views on gender identity, including one that said: "If sex isn't real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives."
This confuses me. How does the way that one person views his/herself in anyway impinge on "the lived reality of women"?
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 28, 2020, 11:19:06 AM
Rather than just asserting it, explain why boycotting is wrong.
They're wrong in free speech cases for the same reasons they're wrong in commerce: they are coercive and suppress freedom. In commerce, boycotts result in a market that is not free, hence why they've been illegal for a century now. They have the same effect in the marketplace of ideas.
Quote
And perhaps more importantly, how do you reconcile freedom of expression with your denunciation of boycotts as a form of expression?
I reconcile it in a way that maximally preserves it: being intolerant of free speech that destroys free speech, and being intolerant of no other kind of speech.
Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2020, 11:24:48 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 28, 2020, 07:11:51 AM
In early June, the author wrote a series of comments on Twitter laying out her views on gender identity, including one that said: "If sex isn't real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives."
This confuses me. How does the way that one person views his/herself in anyway impinge on "the lived reality of women"?
What she said was "If sex isn't real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives."
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 28, 2020, 11:22:28 AM
He just equated expressing condemnation of an idea with vigilante justice. Not sure how you reason with that.
And I'm done here. Thank you for revealing your colors early before I wasted a lot of time here under a misconception that you intended to have an honest conversation.
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2020, 10:47:31 AM
Gotcha. But needing social media praise is very unwise, which goes back to other things I was saying. She needs or wants affirmation for her unpopular opinions and that path leads to madness.
She's very clearly a seriously insecure person who is desperate for the adulation of her fans. She will do this no matter what her opinion is. Unless she's universally loved, she will fight the fight. Unfortunately, no one is universally loved.
Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2020, 11:33:28 AM
being intolerant of free speech that destroys free speech, and being intolerant of no other kind of speech.
Ok but you strongly disagree and are angered by many opinions you see expressed. If you were to express your feelings about that to the people expressing the opinions would that be being intolerant? Or would it be allowing those opinions impact your relationship with that person in any way?
Where would you consider the line crossed?
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2020, 10:32:27 AM
And I think color blind casting is great, especially in stage plays where everything is not literal anyway. Though by also casting her children black it kind of suggested she the character was being made black retroactively. I mean the potters were not all color blind casted.
But it seemed to fit a pattern of her wanting to go back and make her work retroactively socially relevent to receive praise, which kind of fit a pattern of her needing praise and relevency...or at least that is the sense.
Sure I mean her children would be mixed race if Hermione's black, no?
I agree and I think there's an argument around how much authority an author continues to have over their work and also the sort of sources of authority. My read on this is that they're all valid. From memory Harry and his family are white in the books, I think he's described as pallid from living under the stairs etc. Similarly the Weasleys are pretty white. But Hermione isn't described in that way which is why, before the films, I know people saw her as black and there's always been fans who read her that way. That only changed after the films - so I don't think it's retroactive to basically revert to the book's ambiguity when casting the play rather than treating the play as a sequel of the films.
But all of those are valid - I feel like Harry Potter's sort of the opposite of Star Wars right, the original work are these books and then there's various film adaptations, spin-offs plays etc. The film may depict a certain, but that's just an interpretation, albeit an authorised one. So the books have always been ambiguous about Hermione's race - so she could be white or black. Similarly I think the books do imply something in Dumbledore's obsession with and closeness to Grindelwald - my annoyance with that is her coming out afterwards and saying he's gay, because I'd argue that's just one interpretation of an ambiguity and she's got no more right to define that than I do or the films do. As Roland Barthes famously wrote, JK Rowling is dead.
QuoteI believe she's only just ever said it but such leanings never made it into the films.
As I think the books imply a very close relationship that could be gay. But yeah that's definitely her retroactively stating something she didn't explicitly include and it's not in the films.
Quote
i am all for colour blind casting because at some point people will need to get over the fact that the range of skin/hair/eye colour range of people living in their countries have expanded since whatever period a movie represents, but you could walk into a right Twitter storm if you ended up colourblind-casting in the wrong colour direction.
Yeah and I sort of feel that's fair. Part of this is because of my ongoing rage at the amount of British talent that has to go to the US to get good roles. Daniel Kaluuya, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Kingsley Ben-Adir, Thandie Newton, Idris Elba, David Oyelowo, Riz Ahmed etc have all said they went to America in large part because they did not get interesting roles in the UK (and there's a controversy around black Brits playing iconic African-Americans). So Ben-Adir said he'd get basically a lot of scripts for things like Gangs of London, Riz Ahmed similarly got scripts to play a terrorist.
A big issue in the UK, I think, is the dominance of period dramas and adaptations. So my approach would be that unless race is in some way central to the story like, say, a life of Olaudah Equiano, then the casting should be colour-blind. Completely unrelatedly and I know he's not British - but I think Jeffrey Wright would be a fantastic Poirot and I just want that to happen. And again - can't recommend the new David Copperfield enough as an example of how good this could be. I also think Andrea Arnold's adaptation of Wuthering Heights were she cast Heathcliff as mixed race, that decision actually added to the text (in the book Heathcliff is racially very ambiguous - he's picked up in a port city and I think described as having black curly hair and as looking like a "dark-skinned gipsy" or a "little Lascar" - most adaptations haven't really explored that angle).
But my issue is the lack of opportunities non-white actors get so I do think it's kind of fair to have an issue with non-white characters being played by white actors, becuase you're reducing an already limited pool of roles for no good reason.
It's a bit like with Milk I found it really annoying how few gay actors there were. And it's not because only gays can play gay, but it feels like Hollywood and professional sports are the last almost entirely straight parts of the entertainment industry. There are loads of LGBT actors in the theatre and in TV, I couldn't off the top of my head think of anyone who's a Hollywood star - maybe Kristen Stewart. And she was warned not to be seen publicly with her girlfriend or she might lose certain roles. Similarly I can think of at least one British actor who is gay and was always seen with his boyfriend while he worked in theatres in London who has basically gone back in the closet when he started doing films. So it's more that I just think if LGBT actors can't even get a chance in films about, say, Harvey Milk it feels like we're not going to reach the point where they get a chance to do anything else either.
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2020, 11:37:16 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2020, 11:33:28 AM
being intolerant of free speech that destroys free speech, and being intolerant of no other kind of speech.
Ok but you strongly disagree and are angered by many opinions you see expressed. If you were to express your feelings about that to the people expressing the opinions would that be being intolerant? Or would it be allowing those opinions impact your relationship with that person in any way?
Where would you consider the line crossed?
As I already said, the line is crossed where disapproval turns into suppression. Thinking less of a person because they said something is okay, and in fact necessary if they said something dumb. Banding with other people to destroy the person for saying something and to set an example is extremely authoritarian.
Quote from: The Brain on August 28, 2020, 11:34:14 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2020, 11:24:48 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 28, 2020, 07:11:51 AM
In early June, the author wrote a series of comments on Twitter laying out her views on gender identity, including one that said: "If sex isn't real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives."
This confuses me. How does the way that one person views his/herself in anyway impinge on "the lived reality of women"?
What she said was "If sex isn't real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives."
Yes, I know. Doesn't make sense to me.
The application of attitude doesn't change because the concept of gender identity has. Women have still been abused and negated, even if the concept of what "woman" is has changed. One doesn't directly apply to the other. It's a weird way to see it.
Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2020, 11:41:06 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2020, 11:37:16 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2020, 11:33:28 AM
being intolerant of free speech that destroys free speech, and being intolerant of no other kind of speech.
Ok but you strongly disagree and are angered by many opinions you see expressed. If you were to express your feelings about that to the people expressing the opinions would that be being intolerant? Or would it be allowing those opinions impact your relationship with that person in any way?
Where would you consider the line crossed?
As I already said, the line is crossed where disapproval turns into suppression. Thinking less of a person because they said something is okay, and in fact necessary if they said something dumb. Banding with other people to destroy the person for saying something and to set an example is extremely authoritarian.
Does this apply to personal boycotting?
For instance, I have a list of stores that I won't shop at because I don't want my money supporting their causes. If asked, I'll explain why I won't go there, but I haven't gone online and advocated for others to do the same. Again, if asked, I'll explain on Facebook or Twitter, but it's not something I'm actively pushing on others. I have also let those businesses know why I won't be spending my money in their stores.
That, to me, is perfectly valid. But it appears that you don't consider it so. Am I mistaken on your opinion on this?
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 28, 2020, 11:39:05 AM
Sure I mean her children would be mixed race if Hermione's black, no?
Right. But if it was colorblind casting accounting for that kind of thing wouldn't be needed and surely not just Hermione would be different races as well yes?
Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2020, 11:41:06 AM
As I already said, the line is crossed where disapproval turns into suppression. Thinking less of a person because they said something is okay, and in fact necessary if they said something dumb. Banding with other people to destroy the person for saying something and to set an example is extremely authoritarian.
But personally deciding to just not read or support JK Rowling anymore is fine? Just deciding to not associate with another person anymore is fine? Is it only if you seek to enroll others in your action does it cross a line? Do I have that right?
Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2020, 11:46:18 AM
Does this apply to personal boycotting?
There is no such thing as personal boycotting, just like there is no personal strike. Boycott is by definition a collective behavior.
Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2020, 11:52:31 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2020, 11:46:18 AM
Does this apply to personal boycotting?
There is no such thing as personal boycotting, just like there is no personal strike. Boycott is by definition a collective behavior.
So I no longer shop at Hobby Lobby because they fucked me over 9 years ago, yes I hold grudges. Is that a boycott or something else?
Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2020, 11:52:31 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2020, 11:46:18 AM
Does this apply to personal boycotting?
There is no such thing as personal boycotting, just like there is no personal strike. Boycott is by definition a collective behavior.
:hmm:
Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2020, 11:42:27 AM
Quote from: The Brain on August 28, 2020, 11:34:14 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2020, 11:24:48 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 28, 2020, 07:11:51 AM
In early June, the author wrote a series of comments on Twitter laying out her views on gender identity, including one that said: "If sex isn't real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives."
This confuses me. How does the way that one person views his/herself in anyway impinge on "the lived reality of women"?
What she said was "If sex isn't real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives."
Yes, I know. Doesn't make sense to me.
The application of attitude doesn't change because the concept of gender identity has. Women have still been abused and negated, even if the concept of what "woman" is has changed. One doesn't directly apply to the other. It's a weird way to see it.
If sex is real and only gender concepts and attitudes have changed, then she doesn't say anything. It starts "If sex isn't real...". My guess would be that someone claimed that sex isn't real (which wouldn't surprise me since many people can't grasp that something can exist without being binary), and that this triggered her statement.
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2020, 11:53:55 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2020, 11:52:31 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2020, 11:46:18 AM
Does this apply to personal boycotting?
There is no such thing as personal boycotting, just like there is no personal strike. Boycott is by definition a collective behavior.
So I no longer shop at Hobby Lobby because they fucked me over 9 years ago, yes I hold grudges. Is that a boycott or something else?
Something else. A boycott would be if you join a movement to not shop at Hobby Lobby, and also hassle others to not shop there either.
If my company does something unethical and I resign in protest, I'm not going on strike. I'm doing something, but striking is not it. If I get 75% of my colleagues to walk out of a job and demand changes, then I'm striking. Boycott is more or less a strike by commercial counter-parties (not necessarily customers).
And you see that as "bad" across the board?
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2020, 11:48:10 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 28, 2020, 11:39:05 AM
Sure I mean her children would be mixed race if Hermione's black, no?
Right. But if it was colorblind casting accounting for that kind of thing wouldn't be needed and surely not just Hermione would be different races as well yes?
Well as I say I think there's an open question in the book - I just looked at something on this and she's mainly described as having bushy hair and buck-teeth, that's it physically. The only mention of her skin, apparently, is of her and Ron: "they were there, both of them, sitting outside Florean Fortescue's Ice Cream Parlor — Ron looking incredibly freckly, Hermione very brown, both waving frantically at him." The only reason we think of Hermione as white is because of the films. So I don't see this as a kind of retro-fit dictated by Rowling in the way the "Dumbledore is gay" stuff sort of is.
I don't know if the other roles went through colour-blind casting. I think it's fair that you then cast mixed race kids. The play creates a world in its own way. But the other point is theatre especially tends to be the most fluid and the most adaptive - so in loads of productions where this isn't the point you'll see colour and gender blind casting - so you know I think the actor who played Hermione had previously been working on a new piece in the Royal Court (theatre for new writing) where she'd replace Kim Cattrall. And then there are some where it very much is the point - I've seen all female productions of Julius Caesar, all male A Midsummer Knight's Dream, famously there was a race-reversed production of Othello starring Patrick Stewart as Othello.
Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2020, 12:02:02 PM
And you see that as "bad" across the board?
I see that as highly dangerous. Sure, it's warm and fuzzy when "bad guys" are on the receiving end, but who defines who the "bad guys" are? Redlining was also a boycott, and people engaging in it thought they were doing the right thing for the right reasons.
Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2020, 12:07:09 PM
Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2020, 12:02:02 PM
And you see that as "bad" across the board?
I see that as highly dangerous. Sure, it's warm and fuzzy when "bad guys" are on the receiving end, but who defines who the "bad guys" are? Redlining was also a boycott, and people engaging in it thought they were doing the right thing for the right reasons.
Okay, yes things can be used for good and bad.
In 2008, voters in California voted to get rid of gay marriage. Is democratic participation then a highly dangerous thing?
Quote from: garbon on August 28, 2020, 12:10:40 PM
In 2008, voters in California voted to get rid of gay marriage. Is democratic participation then a highly dangerous thing?
Democratic participation can absolutely be a highly dangerous thing. That's why we have a very elaborate system of limits on what the majority can impose on minority, and why democracies without those limits often degenerate into extremely autocratic regimes.
The Soviet Union during Stalin's times is thought of as a totalitarian place, and it was, but how it got there was by democratic process within the Communist Party. The winning majority within the party essentially voted to have the losing minority shot. Pretty soon everyone within the surviving majority realized that they would never ever want to wind up in minority, so every decision was unanimous (as lampooned in "The Death of Stalin").
I see it as an option for the "silent majority" to make their voices heard through their pocketbook/stated opinion. :)
No matter how I vote in my current state, Republicans will be elected to the East, and Democrats to the West. I can't influence that in any way. But I can say, "I don't approve of this way of thinking." It's happened the other direction for years, repressing "others" for as long as this country has been around. Are we now going to say this is a problem because the "others" are finally using it to get those rights?
Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2020, 12:16:05 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 28, 2020, 12:10:40 PM
In 2008, voters in California voted to get rid of gay marriage. Is democratic participation then a highly dangerous thing?
Democratic participation can absolutely be a highly dangerous thing. That's why we have a very elaborate system of limits on what the majority can impose on minority, and why democracies without those limits often degenerate into extremely autocratic regimes.
The Soviet Union during Stalin's times is thought of as a totalitarian place, and it was, but how it got there was by democratic process within the Communist Party. The winning majority within the party essentially voted to have the losing minority shot. Pretty soon everyone within the surviving majority realized that they would never ever want to wind up in minority, so every decision was unanimous (as lampooned in "The Death of Stalin").
Well there are limits to what you can do on social media too. Death threats and real life harassment can end in prosecution.
I'm not sure it makes to have limits on what can happen to a brand/company or livelihood though as far as job being lost or company going out of business.
Also what about the flipside where we have that hashtag about standing with Rowling and that mob is saying truly vile/transphobic things to trans people. Do we not care about their mental health because some people are "cancelling" Rowling?
Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2020, 11:33:28 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 28, 2020, 11:19:06 AM
Rather than just asserting it, explain why boycotting is wrong.
They're wrong in free speech cases for the same reasons they're wrong in commerce: they are coercive and suppress freedom. In commerce, boycotts result in a market that is not free, hence why they've been illegal for a century now. They have the same effect in the marketplace of ideas.
Quote
And perhaps more importantly, how do you reconcile freedom of expression with your denunciation of boycotts as a form of expression?
I reconcile it in a way that maximally preserves it: being intolerant of free speech that destroys free speech, and being intolerant of no other kind of speech.
boycotts have been illegal for a century? Please indicate the criminal or civil code sections which make it illegal for a consumer to decide not to purchase a product or service?
Also, how do you preserve free speech by restricting its use to criticize or express opposition. You brought up 1984. You should think about your own double meaning.
Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2020, 11:46:18 AM
Does this apply to personal boycotting?
For instance, I have a list of stores that I won't shop at because I don't want my money supporting their causes. If asked, I'll explain why I won't go there, but I haven't gone online and advocated for others to do the same. Again, if asked, I'll explain on Facebook or Twitter, but it's not something I'm actively pushing on others. I have also let those businesses know why I won't be spending my money in their stores.
If you are protesting in front of the store, harrassing customers, it's a step too far. If you convince some of your friends to do it with you, enough so that you blockade entry to the store, it is beyond harrassment. In the real world, they could sue you, or ask the police to clear you from their front lawn. On the internet, even if it goes to death threat, it's unlikely anything would happen, unless you're alone and you are targetting a visible minority group or individual, or someone influent/rich enough to afford lawyers to draft a formal complaint against you. Otherwise, it will be lost in the noise.
If, like some vegan activists, you enter a slaughterhouse to film yourself mistreating animals then post it online saying this is the animal cruelty you witnessed at this place, it is, at the very least, libel.
Again, in the real world, if they identify you, you are in trouble. On the internet, if you create a fake video, post it on the darkweb behind a vpn, it's highly unlikely you'll be traced, and then the thing goes viral and the company suffers bad publicity for something undeserved. This is the equivalent of cancel culture: you don't like something X does or say, so you destroy their reputation and the truth gets lost in the war.
That would be no different than what we all complain about coming from Fox News, Breitbart and the likes.
Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2020, 12:01:01 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2020, 11:53:55 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2020, 11:52:31 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2020, 11:46:18 AM
Does this apply to personal boycotting?
There is no such thing as personal boycotting, just like there is no personal strike. Boycott is by definition a collective behavior.
So I no longer shop at Hobby Lobby because they fucked me over 9 years ago, yes I hold grudges. Is that a boycott or something else?
Something else. A boycott would be if you join a movement to not shop at Hobby Lobby, and also hassle others to not shop there either.
If my company does something unethical and I resign in protest, I'm not going on strike. I'm doing something, but striking is not it. If I get 75% of my colleagues to walk out of a job and demand changes, then I'm striking. Boycott is more or less a strike by commercial counter-parties (not necessarily customers).
So basically, you see organizing mass protests against a company acting unethically as very bad and unacceptable. Does this apply only to companies? Can you organize mass protests against a government acting unethically?
Well, he's on record as disliking organized mass protests against individuals like JK Rowling, too.
1) Was Hermione shown (and as such her apparent race) on any book covers or official materials prior to her casting? I honestly don't know. I never read the books and only saw pieces of the movies when I worked at a movie theater. I was just starting the first book recently when Rowling's TERF bullshit went from a "maybe" to 100% confirmed. I decided to stop reading it immediately.
2) Was boycotting South Africa during the Apartheid era a bad thing? Was the Anti-Apartheid Movement/Boycott Movement evil and an abuse of free speech?
3) The TERF Movement seems to be focused primarily in Britain. Personally, I'd like to see it contained and eliminated there before it spreads. Even now though, anti-trans arguments are being injected globally by the Right.
4) So many of the anti-trans arguments are literal recycling of prior anti-gay and racist arguments just brought back from the dead like the product of a hate necromancer.
5) Thank you to those individuals who stand in support of Trans Rights.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on August 29, 2020, 02:31:45 PM
1) Was Hermione shown (and as such her apparent race) on any book covers or official materials prior to her casting? I honestly don't know. I never read the books and only saw pieces of the movies when I worked at a movie theater. I was just starting the first book recently when Rowling's TERF bullshit went from a "maybe" to 100% confirmed. I decided to stop reading it immediately.
Yes. Here she is on the the original cover of Prisoner of Azkaban from 1999, prior to the first film.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a0/Harry_Potter_and_the_Prisoner_of_Azkaban.jpg)
I must admit that seeing the pro-trans community tear itself apart (going so far as to label a person who has vehemently supported trans rights a "TERF") is pretty bizarre. People on both sides seem absolutely determined to misread and twist the statements of the "other side" (which is really the same side) to create a crisis that only the actual anti-trans types will benefit from.
I guess this is just another example of the radical driving out the rational.
It is a very emotional issue. We see that kind of thing in many of these identity deals
I don't think you're as well informed as you think, grumbler. Rowling is most assuredly not a "vehement supporter of trans rights" if that is what you're suggesting. That's like saying people who supported Jim Crow laws and separate but "equal" treatment for African Americans were vehement equal rights supporters. Her words and actions have made it very clear where she stands when it comes to Trans Rights and what she honestly things of trans people. She is, properly, labeled a TERF for a reason. She may not be calling for trans people to be killed, but she most assuredly is not calling for them to be treated well, treated how they wish to be treated, or given equality. The pro-Trans Rights community isn't tearing itself apart at all from what I've seen. Maybe to a misinformed and clueless moderate who is way out of his league it appears that way, but I think it might just be an issue on your end. Ultimately though, your pontificating on a partial or incorrect understanding of the issue is both pretty fucking annoying and condescending.
Yeah, I don't think simply saying you are an ally, qualifies you as one. And certainly not when you parrot anti-trans rhetoric and trans people tell you that your words hurt them.
Again, simply declaring that Rowling is evil doesn't make her evil, nor is she required to have only make statements that not even the most sensitive trans person would feel hurt by. Rowling's statement that "I respect every trans person's right to live any way that feels authentic and comfortable to them" is taken by the trans fanatics to be hate speech, but it seems to me that that's a problem for the trans fanatics to fix in themselves.
Now, the issue of using "people who menstruate" or "women" is a case of her just being wrong. Not evil, not radical, just wrong. There's a small community for whom "people who menstruate" does not mean "women," and Rowling is wrong to think that the nearly-correct term is better than the correct term. Not evil, not radical, just wrong. Just as the people who call her ideas "TERF" ideas are wrong. Not evil, just wrong. Rowling can be a woman without that idea being hateful.
Just stop. Do more research. Come back and make comments at that point. Right now you're just flaunting your ignorance. It is sad and embarrassing.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on August 29, 2020, 05:30:17 PM
Just stop. Do more research. Come back and make comments at that point. Right now you're just flaunting your ignorance. It is sad and embarrassing.
He doesn't really need to do research. He could read the first post of this thread. :hmm:
Interesting piece in the Indy:
QuoteI sympathised with gender-critical campaigners – until my nephew came out as trans
I clutched at everything I could find to validate my instinct that transgender identities were a millennial fad. But when I stopped to listen to my trailblazing sister, I saw that her son was thriving
Nora Mulready
2 days ago
In the last 18 months, I have experienced a powerful and precious thing – a sincere change of mind. In 2017, my nephew came out as transgender. Although I was in some ways supportive, changing pronouns and the name I called him, inside I found it challenging and hoped this "phase" would pass.
The idea that you could be "born in the wrong body", as some people frame it, or that your consciousness could be gendered, or that you could physically change your body to match your mind was far beyond my understanding and my experience of life. The rise in prominence of transgender voices awoke in me what I thought at the time was a protective rejection of a new "woke" orthodoxy, but what I now see was simply the same deep-rooted conservatism that has made human beings resistant to change throughout so much of our history.
At first, I sought out stories about de-transitioning and regret, I read the obscure paper on the so-called "Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria", a popular term in gender-critical circles used to dispute the identities of transgender people. I read everything I could find that validated my instinct that the increase in transgender identity was a millennial fad, mental health issues, trauma, social contagion, fashion, patriarchy, you name it, I clutched at it. However, I did not join in the public debates because I had a family connection to a child I adore and a sister, his mother, who I love beyond words. Instead, I stayed quiet, I watched and I waited, I saw my nephew thrive, I met many wonderful trans people who simply wanted to live their lives, I listened, and I learned, a lot. Over time my views changed.
As well as my growing understanding of trans people, by taking a step back from the freneticism of the "trans debate", the contradictions in the trans-sceptic arguments became more apparent to me. On trans children, I started to struggle with reconciling the arguments that the increasing numbers of trans boys coming out was due to misogyny in our society, yet the increasing number of trans girls was despite the same misogyny. The argument is that girls feel so worthless that they opt to be boys, yet when talking about trans girls, this argument disappeared in an instant.
Another example is the debate about when someone should be legally recognised as their non-biological gender. Gender-critical campaigners are fighting to ensure that the government insists on medical, not just social, transition for gender identity to be legally recognised. They simultaneously accuse trans activists and even parents of trans children of "shunting them" down a medical route. This is both wildly different from the lived experience of these families, who tread carefully, sensitively, and cautiously with their children, as well as deeply hypocritical by the gender-critical campaigners who both insist on medical transition, whilst also condemning it. Again, trans people cannot win.
The final end to my sympathy for gender-critical campaigners was the collective punishment approach to trans women. All trans women are held accountable for any misdemeanour by any trans woman. This is the very epitome of prejudice. "You cannot share our toilets, you cannot share our spaces, because you might be all the same." It is a heart-breaking act of cruelty towards trans women and is reminiscent of the very worst of the American deep south attitudes towards racial integration.
My sister has said to me right from the start that this is not a free speech issue but an issue of kindness and humanity towards a group of people who are mocked and maligned daily. She would never argue that JK Rowling and Piers Morgan do not have the right to say what they think about trans identity, but would simply ask them to think about the impact of what they are saying when, for example, they mock inclusive language about menstruation, on an already very marginalised group. Instead of mocking the idea of tampon dispensers in male bathrooms, think of the trans boys and men whose lives would be made a tiny bit easier by this becoming standard. Something I now see as extremely sad about this debate is that decent high-profile people who could do so much good by standing with trans people are instead making their lives harder.
This month, we saw the death of the great Irish peacemaker, John Hume. Hume said, "Difference is the essence of humanity. Difference is an accident of birth, and it should therefore never be the source of hatred or conflict. Therein lies a most fundamental principle of peace: respect for diversity." I now hold this quote as a challenge to myself, and to us all.
We may not understand each other, we may not always feel comfortable with each other, but the peaceful coexistence of difference is humanity's greatest goal, and where it happens, it is our greatest achievement. Seeing this issue unfold within my own family taught me a profound lesson: the importance of humility in the face of something you do not understand. I am now a full trans ally, a proud aunt to a courageous 14-year-old boy, and a proud sister to his trailblazing mother who has become one of the most vocal campaigners for kindness and understanding for trans children in the UK. I now see trans acceptance as a civil rights issue, and I hope more and more people will stand with trans people in this fight.
Nora Mulready is co-director of an advocacy charity in London
Quote from: grumbler on August 29, 2020, 05:27:43 PMRowling's statement that "I respect every trans person's right to live any way that feels authentic and comfortable to them" is taken by the trans fanatics to be hate speech
Erm, no. My reading is that the trans community takes issue with her not wanting to allow trans women into ladies' restrooms, changing rooms or women refuges, because they are, after all, actually men and therefore create unsafe spaces for women.
This was a pretty good look at transphobia. It explains from shortly after the linked point the problem people see in the "Let people do what they want" sort of thinking.
https://youtu.be/yCxqdhZkxCo?t=186
Basically "Let people live how they want to live" is saying trans people aren't really trans, they're just guys deciding to wear a dress for fun (and thats fine!), hence don't deserve the rights of cis-women.
Men already have all the rights of women. :mellow:
Quote from: Syt on August 30, 2020, 12:19:41 AM
Quote from: grumbler on August 29, 2020, 05:27:43 PMRowling's statement that "I respect every trans person's right to live any way that feels authentic and comfortable to them" is taken by the trans fanatics to be hate speech
Erm, no. My reading is that the trans community takes issue with her not wanting to allow trans women into ladies' restrooms, changing rooms or women refuges, because they are, after all, actually men and therefore create unsafe spaces for women.
Erm, no. That's not her position at all. If that's the position that the trans community objects to, they are objecting to a strawman.
What she has said is that she thinks it unsafe for women if a person can simply access women's restrooms, changing rooms, and refuges simply by stating that they are a trans woman. She believes that there should be a process to distinguish between actual trans women and predatory men merely claiming to be trans women. If
that's the position that the trans community finds hateful, then the trans community needs to reconsider.
Quote from: grumbler on September 02, 2020, 09:05:54 AM
Quote from: Syt on August 30, 2020, 12:19:41 AM
Quote from: grumbler on August 29, 2020, 05:27:43 PMRowling's statement that "I respect every trans person's right to live any way that feels authentic and comfortable to them" is taken by the trans fanatics to be hate speech
Erm, no. My reading is that the trans community takes issue with her not wanting to allow trans women into ladies' restrooms, changing rooms or women refuges, because they are, after all, actually men and therefore create unsafe spaces for women.
Erm, no. That's not her position at all. If that's the position that the trans community objects to, they are objecting to a strawman.
What she has said is that she thinks it unsafe for women if a person can simply access women's restrooms, changing rooms, and refuges simply by stating that they are a trans woman. She believes that there should be a process to distinguish between actual trans women and predatory men merely claiming to be trans women. If that's the position that the trans community finds hateful, then the trans community needs to reconsider.
Perhaps we could look at her own words:
QuoteAt the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he's a woman – and, as I've said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth.
Inference seems to be if they get a gender confirmation certificate then it is okay for them to use the restroom. Not sure how that works in practice though, do you wear it or provide it on demand when questioned by authorities/members of the public?
Of course, I'm not sure why the mental gymnastics is needed given it doesn't appear to be illegal for a cis-man to enter a woman's bathroom. Do we have any evidence that there's a high number of occurrences of cis-men pretending to be trans for the purposes of entering a woman's bathroom?
Shouldn't the burden of proof fall on those who want to restrict a right?
Quote from: garbon on September 02, 2020, 09:38:06 AM
Perhaps we could look at her own words:
QuoteAt the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he's a woman – and, as I've said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth.
Inference seems to be if they get a gender confirmation certificate then it is okay for them to use the restroom. Not sure how that works in practice though, do you wear it or provide it on demand when questioned by authorities/members of the public?
Looking at her words, it is clear that my summary of her position is correct, and that the argument that she is "not wanting to allow trans women into ladies' restrooms, changing rooms or women refuges, because they are, after all, actually men and therefore create unsafe spaces for women" is untrue.
QuoteOf course, I'm not sure why the mental gymnastics is needed given it doesn't appear to be illegal for a cis-man to enter a woman's bathroom.
Interesting. In Virginia, that would be trespassing, but UK law is different. Do bathrooms in the UK still have labels of mens' and womens'?
QuoteDo we have any evidence that there's a high number of occurrences of cis-men pretending to be trans for the purposes of entering a woman's bathroom?
Shouldn't the burden of proof fall on those who want to restrict a right?
Do we have a legal definition of "high number?" What "right" is being restricted here?
Quote from: garbon on September 02, 2020, 09:38:06 AM
Inference seems to be if they get a gender confirmation certificate then it is okay for them to use the restroom. Not sure how that works in practice though, do you wear it or provide it on demand when questioned by authorities/members of the public?
Of course, I'm not sure why the mental gymnastics is needed given it doesn't appear to be illegal for a cis-man to enter a woman's bathroom. Do we have any evidence that there's a high number of occurrences of cis-men pretending to be trans for the purposes of entering a woman's bathroom?
Shouldn't the burden of proof fall on those who want to restrict a right?
a) there have been cases of predatory trans persons rejected from refuge for their predatory behaviour
b) the way I see it, to be declared trans, you'd have to be at least willing to live as a (in this case) female all the time, not just when it suits you. I believe there is a lenghty process involved and hormones or no hormones, you have to dress and identify as a woman first before you are declared a woman. I believe that is what JK Rowling is hinting at in her post. Otherwise, any abuser could just come knocking at the door, say he's a woman and come to harrass his prey.
Sort of. The first thing to note is that domestic violence centres already have a legal obligation to risk assess any person they take in and that doesn't change because of changes to the laws around gender recognition, it's a separate issue around their duty of care. So on a practical level most women's domestic violence shelters already take trans women with, it should be noted, few incidents.
The second is the current, lengthy process is as you say that you have to live in the gender you identify for a two year period. There's lots of evidence you need to gather, including a diagnosis by two doctors. It then gets adjudicated by a legal and medical panel. I'm not sure if it's been removed but the also had a spousal veto - even if a couple was separated (the UK doesn't have no-fault divorce I don't think). Obviously that's particularly an issue if there's also domestic violence.
But the effect of that isn't that you suddenly get access to all of these hitherto banned spaces - it's that the sex on your birth certificate and passport gets changed. It should be noted that the proposal to change the law would move us to the position in Ireland, Belgium, Spain, Argentina and other countries - so in terms of risks from this I think we can look at those countries and see their experience rather than just spitball concerns, when that has a direct effect on people's lives.
Now the practical issue is presumably until then a transwoman, living as a woman who hasn't been approved yet - or maybe just vetoed by her spouse - should continue to use the men's bathroom? Or the disabled loo? Or is it okay for her to use the woman's loo?
The bathroom always seems like such a non-issue. I think everyone is okay that if you more-or-less look and dress like a woman you can use the woman's washroom. It seems like it would be more disruptive to everyone to have a trans man (maybe with facial hair) using a women's bathroom. If you do not attempt to "pass" however you use the bathroom that corresponds to your appearance.
The bigger questions to me revolve around prisons, women's shelters and athletics.
I think there are issues around sports. But they are complicated, nuanced, highly personal and deserving of sensitive treatment. Sadly, I can't think of worse bodies to be handling that sensitively than international sports' governing authorities :bleeding:
See the, I think disgraceful, treatment of Caster Semenya.
Quote from: grumbler on September 02, 2020, 03:41:02 PMLooking at her words, it is clear that my summary of her position is correct, and that the argument that she is "not wanting to allow trans women into ladies' restrooms, changing rooms or women refuges, because they are, after all, actually men and therefore create unsafe spaces for women" is untrue.
Fair enough though it appears that she does think unless you've been granted government license, you aren't really of the opposite gender.
Quote from: grumbler on September 02, 2020, 03:41:02 PM
Interesting. In Virginia, that would be trespassing, but UK law is different. Do bathrooms in the UK still have labels of mens' and womens'?
Does that mean if a woman in Virginia decides she doesn't want to wait in the long line for women's bathroom and goes in the men's, that she could be brought up on trespassing? What about a janitor cleaning a bathroom not of their gender?
QuoteDo we have a legal definition of "high number?" What "right" is being restricted here?
Any evidence then beyond say the anecdotal cases that viper wants to cite? And the right to use a bathroom that feels comfortable for them?
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/discrimination-in-the-provision-of-goods-and-services/discrimination-in-the-provision-of-goods-and-services1/goods-and-services-what-are-the-different-types-of-discrimination/what-doesn-t-count-as-unlawful-discrimination-in-goods-and-services/single-sex-and-separate-services-for-men-and-women-when-discrimination-is-allowed/
QuoteTransgender people mustn't be excluded from separate or single sex services provided to people of their acquired gender, unless there's a good enough reason. This can be the case whether or not they have a gender recognition certificate. A gender recognition certificate is a document which allows you to be legally recognised in your acquired gender.
Quote from: Barrister on September 02, 2020, 04:40:39 PM
The bathroom always seems like such a non-issue.
Correction, it seems like it should be a non-issue.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 02, 2020, 04:42:49 PM
See the, I think disgraceful, treatment of Caster Semenya.
How should you treat her? The reason women's sports exist is because women will not be competitive on the same field as men in the vast majority of sports. There is a demand to see women competing, so hence we have a category where participants are restricted in order to protect the target demographic from being competed out of the sport. I find it disgraceful that we can't have an open discussion as to where exactly the cut-off should be before the intent of have womens' sports is mooted, and that people like Martina Navratilova are getting the cancel culture treatment for bringing it up.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 02, 2020, 04:42:49 PM
I think there are issues around sports. But they are complicated, nuanced, highly personal and deserving of sensitive treatment. Sadly, I can't think of worse bodies to be handling that sensitively than international sports' governing authorities :bleeding:
See the, I think disgraceful, treatment of Caster Semenya.
What exactly are the issues around sports?
Quote from: DGuller on September 02, 2020, 05:01:52 PM
How should you treat her? The reason women's sports exist is because women will not be competitive on the same field as men in the vast majority of sports. There is a demand to see women competing, so hence we have a category where participants are restricted in order to protect the target demographic from being competed out of the sport. I find it disgraceful that we can't have an open discussion as to where exactly the cut-off should be before the intent of have womens' sports is mooted, and that people like Martina Navratilova are getting the cancel culture treatment for bringing it up.
They told her she was needed for a doping monitoring test and then actually ran a lot of tests on different hormones to establish biological sex (the IAAF moved from sex to gender as the criteria in the 90s). The nature of the testing and the results which indicated she was intersex then leaked to the media. It's not actually clear whether Semenya knew that before the IAAF stepped in, you know she was Caster Semenya was assigned female gender at birth, she identifies and has lived all her life as a woman and competed as a woman.
I mean I think it's a pretty disgraceful way to handle an issue - but more important than an issue it's a disgraceful way to treat a person who, let's not forget, has not been accused of cheating or of entering illegally. So you don't treat her like that, for example.
There are complicated issues around sport that definitely deserve consideration. I'm not sure that I'd trust, say, FIFA to handle any of them.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 02, 2020, 05:23:54 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 02, 2020, 05:01:52 PM
How should you treat her? The reason women's sports exist is because women will not be competitive on the same field as men in the vast majority of sports. There is a demand to see women competing, so hence we have a category where participants are restricted in order to protect the target demographic from being competed out of the sport. I find it disgraceful that we can't have an open discussion as to where exactly the cut-off should be before the intent of have womens' sports is mooted, and that people like Martina Navratilova are getting the cancel culture treatment for bringing it up.
They told her she was needed for a doping monitoring test and then actually ran a lot of tests on different hormones to establish biological sex (the IAAF moved from sex to gender as the criteria in the 90s). The nature of the testing and the results which indicated she was intersex then leaked to the media. It's not actually clear whether Semenya knew that before the IAAF stepped in, you know she was Caster Semenya was assigned female gender at birth, she identifies and has lived all her life as a woman and competed as a woman.
I mean I think it's a pretty disgraceful way to handle an issue - but more important than an issue it's a disgraceful way to treat a person who, let's not forget, has not been accused of cheating or of entering illegally. So you don't treat her like that, for example.
There are complicated issues around sport that definitely deserve consideration. I'm not sure that I'd trust, say, FIFA to handle any of them.
Ok, definitely the medical issues have to handled with respect and privacy, no argument there. What I find nuts is considering it off-limits to discuss whether intersex or transgender athletes qualify to compete in women's sport.
Quote from: DGuller on September 02, 2020, 05:36:00 PM
Ok, definitely the medical issues have to handled with respect and privacy, no argument there. What I find nuts is considering it off-limits to discuss whether intersex or transgender athletes qualify to compete in women's sport.
Right - but I've not said that. I've said given the record at FIFA and IAAF etc I have questions about their ability or even will to discuss that in any way that shows respect for the individuals involved like Semenya. It was handled very, very badly with her. Even the rule change by IAAF because of Semenya was done without sort of consultation etc (CAS found it was discriminatory but proportionate) and I think someone on the IAFF board said there was an easy option: Semenya could take hormone-lowering drugs or have elective surgery). We're not very far from Sepp Blatter (whose idea to improve women's sports: tighter tops and shorter shorts).
I'm sure if gender issues were somehow linked to tax exempt status or a way of evading the jurisdiction of any countries courts that international sporting bodies would be all over it :lol: :weep: <_<
Intersex and transgender people in sport is a valid and complex topic of discussion with no easier answers.
Alas all too often it's just used as a crowbar by those opposed to transgender rights in general to try and push their agenda which goes way beyond what level of sport a transexual person should be able to compete in and under what criteria.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 02, 2020, 04:28:29 PM
Sort of. The first thing to note is that domestic violence centres already have a legal obligation to risk assess any person they take in and that doesn't change because of changes to the laws around gender recognition, it's a separate issue around their duty of care. So on a practical level most women's domestic violence shelters already take trans women with, it should be noted, few incidents.
The second is the current, lengthy process is as you say that you have to live in the gender you identify for a two year period. There's lots of evidence you need to gather, including a diagnosis by two doctors. It then gets adjudicated by a legal and medical panel. I'm not sure if it's been removed but the also had a spousal veto - even if a couple was separated (the UK doesn't have no-fault divorce I don't think). Obviously that's particularly an issue if there's also domestic violence.
But the effect of that isn't that you suddenly get access to all of these hitherto banned spaces - it's that the sex on your birth certificate and passport gets changed. It should be noted that the proposal to change the law would move us to the position in Ireland, Belgium, Spain, Argentina and other countries - so in terms of risks from this I think we can look at those countries and see their experience rather than just spitball concerns, when that has a direct effect on people's lives.
Now the practical issue is presumably until then a transwoman, living as a woman who hasn't been approved yet - or maybe just vetoed by her spouse - should continue to use the men's bathroom? Or the disabled loo? Or is it okay for her to use the woman's loo?
Again, I am not aware of the law in the UK. Garbon seems to think that it is perfectly legal for men to use the women's loo right now, so there doesn't seem to be an issue.
In a state like Virginia, where it is primarily addressed as a trespassing issue, the question of an XY in an XX bathroom would be their intent. If they believed themselves to be a woman able to rightly use that space, then it wouldn't matter if they were trans or cis. That's why conservatives keep trying to get laws passed to specify that trans women cannot use women's restrooms - its because the law currently allows it.
I don't think that it is hateful for Rowling to suggest that an XY who wants to enter a space for women to be sincere in their belief that they are women. Maybe the details of how to go about that are more complex than she believes, but the venom spewed on her seems to this outsider to be wholly unwarranted.
Quote from: garbon on September 02, 2020, 04:56:21 PM
Fair enough though it appears that she does think unless you've been granted government license, you aren't really of the opposite gender.
It probably appears that way to you if you are looking to be offended by what she said. She never said that, of course.
QuoteDoes that mean if a woman in Virginia decides she doesn't want to wait in the long line for women's bathroom and goes in the men's, that she could be brought up on trespassing?
She probably could be.
QuoteWhat about a janitor cleaning a bathroom not of their gender?
If the owner of the property has forbidden it, then yes, the janitor would be trespassing. if the owner allowed it, then it wouldn't. Trespassing in this context is "to enter unlawfully upon the land of another."
QuoteAny evidence then beyond say the anecdotal cases that viper wants to cite?
Ask Viper. I have no idea, and the issue isn't relevant to my argument.
QuoteAnd the right to use a bathroom that feels comfortable for them?
From whence comes this "right?" If I would feel most comfortable coming into your house or business to use your bathroom, can you deny me that right?
QuoteTransgender people mustn't be excluded from separate or single sex services provided to people of their acquired gender, unless there's a good enough reason. This can be the case whether or not they have a gender recognition certificate. A gender recognition certificate is a document which allows you to be legally recognised in your acquired gender.
And the whole issue Rowlings is raising is whether or not someone is transgender when they claim to be, and what dangers await women if males can access women's spaces just by stating that they are transgender. If being concerned for women's safety makes one a TERF, then I think trans people have lost the war because of self-inflicted wounds.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 02, 2020, 04:42:49 PM
I think there are issues around sports. But they are complicated, nuanced, highly personal and deserving of sensitive treatment. Sadly, I can't think of worse bodies to be handling that sensitively than international sports' governing authorities :bleeding:
See the, I think disgraceful, treatment of Caster Semenya.
:yes:
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 02, 2020, 04:42:49 PM
I think there are issues around sports. But they are complicated, nuanced, highly personal and deserving of sensitive treatment. Sadly, I can't think of worse bodies to be handling that sensitively than international sports' governing authorities :bleeding:
See the, I think disgraceful, treatment of Caster Semenya.
While I agree about shitting all over international sports governing bodies, Caster Semenya is a tough case.
I used to think that 'well, her body just produces more testosterone than normal - elite athletes are almost always a bit unusual in their physiology anyways'.
I was listening to a podcast that interviewed an evolutionary biologist talking on the issue of transgenderism, and in particular got into intersex. His comments were that while yes individuals can physically appear to be somewhere in the middle, fundamentally every person (and animal) can be categorized into one of two categories - people whose bodies are organized around the production of large gametes (eggs), and people whose bodies are organized around the production of small gametes (sperm). No body in all of the scientific literature has ever been able to produce both large and small gametes.
Caster Semenya has 46,XY DSD. That is she has a XY chromosones. People with 46,XY DSD typically have female-appearing genitalia, but have male gonads - that is their bodies are designed around producing small gametes.
Semenya was raised as a woman, should absolutely be called she/her, should use female bathrooms, etc. But when it comes to elite world class athletics, I'm not sure it's fair to have someone with testes (even if internal) competing as a woman.
Quote from: Tyr on September 02, 2020, 05:50:10 PM
Intersex and transgender people in sport is a valid and complex topic of discussion with no easier answers.
What are the problems?
Well we have kept sports segregated by sex because it would not be fair to put women up against men because they would have a disadvantage that would be difficult to overcome, all things being equal. If we make it about gender, as it seems to be now, then suddenly that segregation make a lot less sense and becomes a lot more difficult to manage the fairness issue.
But how big of an issue this is, in practice, I am unclear on. I do know that many athletes are insanely competitive and, particularly in something like the Olympics. They might do anything to get an advantage. I wouldn't be suprised to see this issue leveraged for rampant cheating at some point if not done correctly. But I could be wrong. But hey it is not like there is not already rampant cheating at many of these high end sports.
I don't fully understand how having concerns about safety/security means that a person is transphobic, while having concerns about something as unimportant as the egos of high end athletes does not. Why not simply accept transwomen as women?
Quote from: Valmy on September 03, 2020, 12:54:45 AM
Well we have kept sports segregated by sex because it would not be fair to put women up against men because they would have a disadvantage that would be difficult to overcome, all things being equal. If we make it about gender, as it seems to be now, then suddenly that segregation make a lot less sense and becomes a lot more difficult to manage the fairness issue.
Obviously it depends on which sport but my understanding from the Semenya case is the IAAF moved to gender with sex verification if there are doubts in the 90s (there is also a racial element to this as the women who have had to undergo sex verification since those rules were introduced are basically all non-white - so query if the standard is about how they look not how they're performing). Edit: They then changed position after Semenya's success and allegations in 2008 and 2012 (because, based on their sex verification she was female - so they changed their definition of sex). As I say the whole thing leaves me really uncomfotable because it feels like this entire debate pivoted around one athlete who did nothing wrong and I just think it's incredibly sad.
And it is worth saying all the stuff we're talking about is separate from the transgender debate about sports - this is all about largely intersex or people with genetic conditions.
The other reason I think it needs more careful handling than I think sport governing bodies have given it is countries will work to the test, if you know what I mean. So if we say the key trigger is x then countries will "help" their athletes get on the right side of that and we need to be mindful that there are human beings at the end of this - even if they are super-freaks like elite athletes. So there's been an example of a number of women competing who had forced gonadectomies and have their genitals mutilated to compete and get on the "right" side of the line.
Quote from: Tyr on September 02, 2020, 05:50:10 PM
Intersex and transgender people in sport is a valid and complex topic of discussion with no easier answers.
Alas all too often it's just used as a crowbar by those opposed to transgender rights in general to try and push their agenda which goes way beyond what level of sport a transexual person should be able to compete in and under what criteria.
I don't think separate male and female sporting events can survive the removal of differentiation between male and female, how could they? We should just have sporting events period, everyone will reach as high a level as they are capable physically, and then it won't matter who identifies as what.
Except there are women who would like to compete with each other, and a market willing to pay to see those contests. It's like weight classes, 100 pound dudes can call themselves world champion boxers.
Quote from: Tamas on September 03, 2020, 04:36:22 AM
Quote from: Tyr on September 02, 2020, 05:50:10 PM
Intersex and transgender people in sport is a valid and complex topic of discussion with no easier answers.
Alas all too often it's just used as a crowbar by those opposed to transgender rights in general to try and push their agenda which goes way beyond what level of sport a transexual person should be able to compete in and under what criteria.
I don't think separate male and female sporting events can survive the removal of differentiation between male and female, how could they? We should just have sporting events period, everyone will reach as high a level as they are capable physically, and then it won't matter who identifies as what.
Possible. Though I doubt that will be popular with female athletes.
Even if women's sport becomes devalued as one united game takes over (dominated by men) I can't see women's sport going away completely. It'll still exist even at some low amateur level. Just look at all the variations that exist today for people of certain ages, with disabilities, being from the same minority group, etc...
At which the debate will remain over who can take part.
Ok but then it is an entirely artificial debate then. The weight classes are a good example. Nobody is trying to get offended for being left out of the lighter classes on account of labelled to big/fat, so there's no reason to get offended for being left out of a competition due to your chromosomes.
And for the 1 in 6 billion cases like that South African person, good for them, they get to have a male physique with a female's biology, they'll dominate the sport then retire and things go back to normal.
Theres quite a big difference between telling someone "you're 5kg too big for middle weight. You have to compete in heavy weight" and "you're not a woman. You have to start all over again and compete as a man".
Remember it's not just competing in top level sport with big money on the line we are talking about here. It goes right down to dinky little local amateur level.
To me it seems a no brainer that merely identifying as a woman should exclude you from the highest level of women's sport but a little local football league where none of the teams even bother training and just play for fun? Seems equally daft to exclude a trans person there. The difficult question then becomes where is the line and how is it defined.
Shouldn't that be up to the organization running the games?
Quote from: Eddie Teach on September 03, 2020, 06:41:01 AM
Shouldn't that be up to the organization running the games?
I don't get your point
It would be up to the participants what type of league they joined.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on September 03, 2020, 06:50:52 AM
It would be up to the participants what type of league they joined.
Yes?
That's what we are discussing here. It's not something any of us would ever get to make a decision on but someone has to and its not an easy one to make.
So why are you deciding for them that not wanting to compete with trans-women is daft?
Quote from: Eddie Teach on September 03, 2020, 07:12:15 AM
So why are you deciding for them that not wanting to compete with trans-women is daft?
Why do we discuss anything? E.g. Its down to the US government to decide on American policy. Doesnt mean we can't dream and discuss what we reckon they should be doing.
Ok. I think practical considerations are likely to trump ideological ones for actual participants.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 02, 2020, 04:28:29 PM
Sort of. The first thing to note is that domestic violence centres already have a legal obligation to risk assess any person they take in and that doesn't change because of changes to the laws around gender recognition, it's a separate issue around their duty of care. So on a practical level most women's domestic violence shelters already take trans women with, it should be noted, few incidents.
I agree to that, but we're back at the cancellers attacking said refuges for transphobia if they ever shut their doors to transexuals out of concern for their primary population.
Quote
I'm not sure if it's been removed but the also had a spousal veto - even if a couple was separated (the UK doesn't have no-fault divorce I don't think). Obviously that's particularly an issue if there's also domestic violence.
I was unaware of that. I don't think it's an issue in Quebec or Canada. Obviously, in societies with these kind of laws, I believe it should be changed.
Quote
Now the practical issue is presumably until then a transwoman, living as a woman who hasn't been approved yet - or maybe just vetoed by her spouse - should continue to use the men's bathroom? Or the disabled loo? Or is it okay for her to use the woman's loo?
I see this as a ridiculous issue, honestly. FFS, people should use any bathroom they want. I don't care if a biological woman or a trans woman or a trans man comes into the bathroom space while I'm there.
While in general yes the issue is ridiculous, I think the problem is for women who worry about this is that it is a setting where they can find themselves isolated and locked in and thus exposed/vulnerable to a man. Of course viper would not worry because it is unlikely a woman entering the public toilet he is using would have both the physical strength and desire to harass him. :p
But seeing how plenty of men behave with women the moment they feel they can get away with being domineering (and that usually means the physical setting prevents the women from avoiding or socially shaming them), I can understand why some women do not want to lose the option to prevent men from entering what can become an isolated setting.
Nobody wants men in women's loos. That's a strawman that has been put up. The problem is a lot deeper than this with people who refuse to recognise trans women as women. The toilet thing is the utterly ridiculous way it has shown on the surface
Quote from: Eddie Teach on September 03, 2020, 07:38:02 AM
Ok. I think practical considerations are likely to trump ideological ones for actual participants.
I hope so. Alas this past few years the trans panic ideology has really flourished.
So her new crime book "Troubled Blood", written under her pseudonym Robert Galbraith, is about a man who dresses up as woman to kill other women. Besides the premise not being original (see: Dressed to Kill), I assume she's just trolling at this point?
Quote from: Syt on September 14, 2020, 12:01:30 PM
So her new crime book "Troubled Blood", written under her pseudonym Robert Galbraith, is about a man who dresses up as woman to kill other women. Besides the premise not being original (see: Dressed to Kill), I assume she's just trolling at this point?
So I think that ends that discussion.
Quote from: Syt on September 14, 2020, 12:01:30 PM
So her new crime book "Troubled Blood", written under her pseudonym Robert Galbraith, is about a man who dresses up as woman to kill other women. Besides the premise not being original (see: Dressed to Kill), I assume she's just trolling at this point?
Other women?
Home wreckers.
Quote from: Syt on September 14, 2020, 12:01:30 PM
So her new crime book "Troubled Blood", written under her pseudonym Robert Galbraith, is about a man who dresses up as woman to kill other women. Besides the premise not being original (see: Dressed to Kill), I assume she's just trolling at this point?
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/09/14/jk-rowling-new-book-cormoran-strike-troubled-blood-killer-dresses-woman/?fbclid=IwAR0SHU53C4qxkZ_wqVv5iT-ywuWOSNeo1JV2W9vhPYI35kuokbwOhY2zxCI
Pink News is normally pretty reputable.
Wow. :blink:
They are reporting what the Telegraph says though so hopefully she isn't that insane.
It's a real book. She is that insane.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 15, 2020, 09:26:58 AM
It's a real book. She is that insane.
Well he is right in noting that it looks like all outlets reporting who the killer is are relying on that Telegraph review. Looking quickly, I couldn't find an independent source that didn't mention the Telegraph review when noting that detail.
However, it does seem like in very short order we'll know whether or not the Telegraph book reviewer decided to lie.
Quote from: garbon on September 14, 2020, 12:11:11 PM
Quote from: Syt on September 14, 2020, 12:01:30 PM
So her new crime book "Troubled Blood", written under her pseudonym Robert Galbraith, is about a man who dresses up as woman to kill other women. Besides the premise not being original (see: Dressed to Kill), I assume she's just trolling at this point?
So I think that ends that discussion.
Why? :)
Why is having a serial killer book so bad if it's a transvestite? Is it worst than having a white hetero serial killer? A gay black serial killer would indicate homophobia and racism? Does a book about muslim terrorists attacking the US means the author is islamophobic and want to convince you of his opinion?
Quote from: viper37 on September 16, 2020, 04:49:46 PM
Why? :)
Why is having a serial killer book so bad if it's a transvestite? Is it worst than having a white hetero serial killer? A gay black serial killer would indicate homophobia and racism? Does a book about muslim terrorists attacking the US means the author is islamophobic and want to convince you of his opinion?
Because it's a thing. Psycho. Silence of the Lambs.
When there's never been a transgendered or cross-dressing serial killer that I'm aware of.
Plus Rowling has been under this cloud for a few years now. She has to know how this would be taken.
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2020, 04:52:58 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 16, 2020, 04:49:46 PM
Why? :)
Why is having a serial killer book so bad if it's a transvestite? Is it worst than having a white hetero serial killer? A gay black serial killer would indicate homophobia and racism? Does a book about muslim terrorists attacking the US means the author is islamophobic and want to convince you of his opinion?
Because it's a thing. Psycho. Silence of the Lambs.
When there's never been a transgendered or cross-dressing serial killer that I'm aware of.
Plus Rowling has been under this cloud for a few years now. She has to know how this would be taken.
You've really never heard of Ed Gein?
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2020, 04:52:58 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 16, 2020, 04:49:46 PM
Why? :)
Why is having a serial killer book so bad if it's a transvestite? Is it worst than having a white hetero serial killer? A gay black serial killer would indicate homophobia and racism? Does a book about muslim terrorists attacking the US means the author is islamophobic and want to convince you of his opinion?
Because it's a thing. Psycho. Silence of the Lambs.
When there's never been a transgendered or cross-dressing serial killer that I'm aware of.
Plus Rowling has been under this cloud for a few years now. She has to know how this would be taken.
It is also because that particular scenario, a male predator passing as a woman in order to prey on other women with ease, is precisely one of the reasons she puts forward so bathroom laws and the like are not enacted.
Quote from: chipwich on September 17, 2020, 05:16:09 AM
You've really ever heard of Ed Gein?
Yeah - that's the inspiration for Psycho and Texas Chainsaw Massacre. But there's so many others - Dressed to Kill, obviously Silence of the Lambs, there's a few Giallo and video nasties with it too. It's so much a trope that I think it's actually one of the gags in Scary Movie. Obviously doesn't mean the films are bad - Psycho, Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Silence of the Lambs are absolute classics. Edit: God I forgot The Skin I Live In - not sure if that's necessarily horror though, but probably given clear links with Eyes Without A Face...
The description of this aspect of Rowling's book is being disputed. The whole scandal comes from one review in the Telegraph and other people who've read the book are saying it's not a major plot point and it actually barely features. So we don't know yet - more shockingly this book (a detective novel) is over 900 pages which is outrageous. I mean I love detective fiction but that is excessive <_<
Edit: Of course there's a wider and really rich queer critical theory with horror films especially (similarly feminist criticism of horror is almost always worth reading/interesting) because so much of horror rests on subversion of expectations/norms that's precisely what is used to make things unsettling. So obviously given general society queerness has been part of that. Also, in the US especially, there is typically some sort of "justice" to the horror (again - this is sent up in Scary Movie). It's a bit less common in European horror traditions. Also thre is an emphasis on physicality and the body in horror films which probably also helps explain some of the recurance.
Edit: Also - there's even an element of transvestism in Theatre of Blood (obviously Vincent Price has a queer moment as the hairdresser for the Henry VI murder) but I think there's a fair few cross-dressing moments from Dame Diana Rigg.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 17, 2020, 05:44:59 AM
The description of this aspect of Rowling's book is being disputed. The whole scandal comes from one review in the Telegraph and other people who've read the book are saying it's not a major plot point and it actually barely features. So we don't know yet - more shockingly this book (a detective novel) is over 900 pages which is outrageous. I mean I love detective fiction but that is excessive <_<
Guardian review suggests it is just one of the known killers that the detective considers. They also say this (in a brief pause from being outraged about how new outlets might base reporting on just one source):
QuotePerhaps some will still consider this depiction transphobic, given Rowling's rightly widely criticised views on trans people. It is, at best, an utterly tone-deaf decision to include an evil man who cross-dresses after months of pain among trans people and their allies.
What has happened that brought pain to trans people and their allies?
Quote from: The Brain on September 17, 2020, 06:23:15 AM
What has happened that brought pain to trans people and their allies?
:lol:
Quote from: viper37 on September 16, 2020, 04:49:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 14, 2020, 12:11:11 PM
Quote from: Syt on September 14, 2020, 12:01:30 PM
So her new crime book "Troubled Blood", written under her pseudonym Robert Galbraith, is about a man who dresses up as woman to kill other women. Besides the premise not being original (see: Dressed to Kill), I assume she's just trolling at this point?
So I think that ends that discussion.
Why? :)
Why is having a serial killer book so bad if it's a transvestite? Is it worst than having a white hetero serial killer? A gay black serial killer would indicate homophobia and racism? Does a book about muslim terrorists attacking the US means the author is islamophobic and want to convince you of his opinion?
Write a book with a transvestite serial killer- that's fine. No issues there.
Write a book with a transvestite serial killer at the same time as you're making headlines by insisting transexuals aren't real and general transphobic comments..... There's a pattern there.
JK Rowling never said transexuals aren't real you damn lair.
Quote from: chipwich on September 17, 2020, 07:13:51 AM
JK Rowling never said transexuals aren't real you damn lair.
Denying that transsexual women are women= essentially saying transsexuals aren't real.
What makes vermin like Tyr think it's acceptable to brazenly lie? Did his mother raise him like that?
True, she said that she fears many individuals who label themselves as transgender may have felt pressured to adopt that label by current trans activism.
Quote from: Tyr on September 17, 2020, 07:20:42 AM
Quote from: chipwich on September 17, 2020, 07:13:51 AM
JK Rowling never said transexuals aren't real you damn lair.
Denying that transsexual women are women= essentially saying transsexuals aren't real.
Not the same thing at all.
Quote from: chipwich on September 17, 2020, 07:23:24 AM
What makes vermin like Tyr think it's acceptable to brazenly lie? Did his mother raise him like that?
Have you never read a post by Tyr before? His perspective on things is rather unique, just because his views seem odd or mistaken to you doesn't mean he is "vermin" or lying. Come on man we have all been here for 14 years, no need for this posturing and pearl clutching. None of us are impressed.
Weird, I don't remember Valmy taking 3 years off. :hmm:
Quote from: The Larch on September 17, 2020, 05:36:28 AM
It is also because that particular scenario, a male predator passing as a woman in order to prey on other women with ease, is precisely one of the reasons she puts forward so bathroom laws and the like are not enacted.
we know she has issues with that, a constant fear that she will be assaulted again, and her only safe place could be compromised by an ennemy in disguise.
this her rational, not totally devoid of sence, but not exactly a realistic fear either. But she was a victim of sexual assault, and such things can warp perspectives.
I don't see such particular novels as being transphobic, no more than gay killers in movies are homophobic. There have been a few transgendered serial killer in the past, so it's not exactly inexistant. No one would bat an eye if the serial killer was a white heteronormative man, even if serial killers are kinda rare compared to their appearance in novels, movies and tv shows.
Since there are a lot more serial killers in the media than in reality, it stands to reason that there would be more transgendered or gay serial killers in medias than in reality.
A crime novel where a jealous man kills his wife and kids would be short, boring, and badly received, even though that's probably the majority of murders in our countries.
A novel picturing white police officers kiling a black man with 16 bullets in his back would equally be badly received, even if it's a very plausible thing.
Quote from: Tyr on September 17, 2020, 07:04:38 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 16, 2020, 04:49:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 14, 2020, 12:11:11 PM
Quote from: Syt on September 14, 2020, 12:01:30 PM
So her new crime book "Troubled Blood", written under her pseudonym Robert Galbraith, is about a man who dresses up as woman to kill other women. Besides the premise not being original (see: Dressed to Kill), I assume she's just trolling at this point?
So I think that ends that discussion.
Why? :)
Why is having a serial killer book so bad if it's a transvestite? Is it worst than having a white hetero serial killer? A gay black serial killer would indicate homophobia and racism? Does a book about muslim terrorists attacking the US means the author is islamophobic and want to convince you of his opinion?
Write a book with a transvestite serial killer- that's fine. No issues there.
Write a book with a transvestite serial killer at the same time as you're making headlines by insisting transexuals aren't real and general transphobic comments..... There's a pattern there.
do you think she wrote the book and had it corrected in two months?
Quote from: Eddie Teach on September 17, 2020, 11:11:23 AM
Weird, I don't remember Valmy taking 3 years off. :hmm:
He was laying low during the Consulate I think.
Quote from: Valmy on September 17, 2020, 11:09:37 AM
Quote from: chipwich on September 17, 2020, 07:23:24 AM
What makes vermin like Tyr think it's acceptable to brazenly lie? Did his mother raise him like that?
Have you never read a post by Tyr before? His perspective on things is rather unique, just because his views seem odd or mistaken to you doesn't mean he is "vermin" or lying. Come on man we have all been here for 14 years, no need for this posturing and pearl clutching. None of us are impressed.
I honestly can't tell the Anglo-Canadian Woke Squad apart so I don't have a good read on Tyr's not-so-unique posing style. We've all been in Trumpworld for 4 years and I am absolutely sick of these vermin who have made lying into a religion. And it is not out of line to call them vermin- it's what they are, a swarm of disease carriers.
edit: I will cop to pearl-clutching. There's no other type of discussion to be had with someone who just makes shit up. It's no different than communicating with a Trump voter.
Quote from: Tyr on September 17, 2020, 07:20:42 AM
Quote from: chipwich on September 17, 2020, 07:13:51 AM
JK Rowling never said transexuals aren't real you damn lair.
Denying that transsexual women are women= essentially saying transsexuals aren't real.
not really, no.
Quote from: garbon on September 17, 2020, 07:29:05 AM
True, she said that she fears many individuals who label themselves as transgender may have felt pressured to adopt that label by current trans activism.
pointing the finger toward current trans activism may be going a step too far, but do you sometimes question yourself as to why there are so many transgendered people lately? How is it possible that so many people are convinced to be born in the wrong physical body? Why is that condition so prevalent now?
I think psychology and psychiatry still have a lot of work to do on this subject, and I think that psychology in particular is not confrontational enough on the subject of gender dysphoria, accepting instead at face value that so many people believe to be of the opposite sex.
That a few individuals are outside the normal spectrum (hetero-normative, so the species can keep going) is kinda worrying me. It ain't homophobic or transphobic, I just think science should look more at that without fear of being "cancelled" for it.
If it's genetic, I'd like to understand why that particular gene or genes are triggered.
I respect individual choices (even if not really a choice, I know), and will always support them, but that does not mean I am not worried (actually, more like inquisitive) of a growing trend.
Quote from: chipwich on September 17, 2020, 11:37:23 AM
I honestly can't tell the Anglo-Canadian Woke Squad apart
Tyr is British.
And calm down. We all have different views on many subjects, and in this particular case, different interpretation of what she meant.
Quote from: viper37 on September 17, 2020, 11:39:36 AM
Quote from: chipwich on September 17, 2020, 11:37:23 AM
I honestly can't tell the Anglo-Canadian Woke Squad apart
Tyr is British.
And calm down. We all have different views on many subjects, and in this particular case, different interpretation of what she meant.
It's not different, it's a lie.
Quote from: viper37 on September 17, 2020, 11:38:00 AM
pointing the finger toward current trans activism may be going a step too far, but do you sometimes question yourself as to why there are so many transgendered people lately? How is it possible that so many people are convinced to be born in the wrong physical body? Why is that condition so prevalent now?
I think psychology and psychiatry still have a lot of work to do on this subject, and I think that psychology in particular is not confrontational enough on the subject of gender dysphoria, accepting instead at face value that so many people believe to be of the opposite sex.
That a few individuals are outside the normal spectrum (hetero-normative, so the species can keep going) is kinda worrying me. It ain't homophobic or transphobic, I just think science should look more at that without fear of being "cancelled" for it.
Well let's be quite honest here - the most likely explanation is that there were always people with gender dysphoria, and its only now that transgenderism is becoming a little bit more acceptable that people are more comfortable to come out of the closet.
Now that being said there has been proposed an idea of theory called Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria. It looks at some situations where adolescents, largely females, are in peer groups where suddenly several of them all come out as having gender dysphoria at the same time. It's a hypothesis that probably warrants further investigation but of course this area is highly political.
There's also the issue of detransitioners - people (again largely women) who start taking hormones and asserting a male identity, but who eventually stop and go back to their prior female identity. It doesn't appear to be a huge number of such people, but they are very real.
And really - I think we're a long way away from transgendered people being a threat to our survival as a species. I'd be far more worried about the large number of heteronormative people out there not having kids by choice.
Quote from: Barrister on September 17, 2020, 12:00:04 PM
And really - I think we're a long way away from transgendered people being a threat to our survival as a species. I'd be far more worried about the large number of heteronormative people out there not having kids by choice.
Quite. I am determined to retire and collect my state pension :contract:
Edit: It occurs to me this may not be what you meant by an existential threat....:mellow:
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 17, 2020, 12:03:22 PM
Edit: It occurs to me this may not be what you meant by an existential threat....:mellow:
It was kind of a relief to me. I always wanted three kids but felt bad because of the overpopulation issue...but when I realized tons of people were having zero kids I went ahead. Thanks for enabling me zero kid people.
Quote from: Valmy on September 17, 2020, 12:09:22 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 17, 2020, 12:03:22 PM
Edit: It occurs to me this may not be what you meant by an existential threat....:mellow:
It was kind of a relief to me. I always wanted three kids but felt bad because of the overpopulation issue...but when I realized tons of people were having zero kids I went ahead. Thanks for enabling me zero kid people.
:yes:
I always said I wanted 2.5, so I was okay with three. And cert
Honestly if we had started earlier I might have gone for 4, but I said I didn't want to be 40+ and having a new baby, because like Sheilbh I do want to be able to retire some day.
Did you give serious consideration to that half child?
Chip is starting to sound like Mono. Take a chill pill, man.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on September 17, 2020, 12:36:16 PM
Chip is starting to sound like Mono. Take a chill pill, man.
Mono was never as bad as Chip has always been.
Mono is a different kind of fascist. They're both bad, but who's worse?
The answer is who cares.
Nuh Uh you're the fascist
Quote from: Zoupa on September 17, 2020, 12:42:48 PM
Mono is a different kind of fascist. They're both bad, but who's worse?
The answer is who cares.
Mono isn't a fascist. He would have to have an ideology beyond sucking up to whoever is in power for that. If Hong Kong had a strong democratic government you would be seeing very different posts from him.
Chip on the other hand is ideological.
I am an Obama liberal forced to watch in horror as conservatives became demons of plague, greed, and hate while liberals abandon their principles and adopt a bizzare totalitarian attitude when gender politics occurs.
Quote from: chipwich on September 17, 2020, 01:12:20 PM
I am an Obama liberal forced to watch in horror as conservatives became demons of plague, greed, and hate while liberals abandon their principles and adopt a bizzare totalitarian attitude when gender politics occurs.
Well it is a weird balance because you want to support people's autonomy to live their lives and since they are a tiny minority they are vulnerable. I don't necessarily want some kind of gender dictatorship though.
Quote from: chipwich on September 17, 2020, 01:12:20 PM
I am an Obama liberal forced to watch in horror as conservatives became demons of plague, greed, and hate while liberals abandon their principles and adopt a bizzare totalitarian attitude when gender politics occurs.
...wut? :unsure:
As an Obama liberal myself, I just kind of subscribe to a live-and-let-live attitude. Letting someone use the bathroom they're most comfortable with doesn't impede me from using the bathroom, too. Let them be them, I'll be me, and in the end, the world is a better place.
That is not JKR's stance. She was traumatized in her life (as have probably half of the women in the Western World, fwiw), and she's using that as a reason to deny other's the opportunity to live their lives in their own truths. Okay, so JKR doesn't use a public bathroom. That's how that should play out. Instead, she's insisting that those other people should accommodate her rather than the other way around.
That's pretty problematic, in my opinion.
Quote from: merithyn on September 17, 2020, 01:42:13 PM
As an Obama liberal myself, I just kind of subscribe to a live-and-let-live attitude.
If you had a live and let live attitude, you would have objected to Tyr's lies.
Quote from: merithyn on September 17, 2020, 01:42:13 PM
Quote from: chipwich on September 17, 2020, 01:12:20 PM
I am an Obama liberal forced to watch in horror as conservatives became demons of plague, greed, and hate while liberals abandon their principles and adopt a bizzare totalitarian attitude when gender politics occurs.
...wut? :unsure:
As an Obama liberal myself, I just kind of subscribe to a live-and-let-live attitude. Letting someone use the bathroom they're most comfortable with doesn't impede me from using the bathroom, too. Let them be them, I'll be me, and in the end, the world is a better place.
That is not JKR's stance. She was traumatized in her life (as have probably half of the women in the Western World, fwiw), and she's using that as a reason to deny other's the opportunity to live their lives in their own truths. Okay, so JKR doesn't use a public bathroom. That's how that should play out. Instead, she's insisting that those other people should accommodate her rather than the other way around.
That's pretty problematic, in my opinion.
Okay, so I'm not quite sure what Chip is talking about when he talks about a "bizarre totalitarian attitude", but I'm equally confused when you say JK Rowling is trying to "deny other's the opportunity to live their lives in their own truths". That doesn't track with anything she has said.
Quote from: chipwich on September 17, 2020, 01:48:46 PM
Quote from: merithyn on September 17, 2020, 01:42:13 PM
As an Obama liberal myself, I just kind of subscribe to a live-and-let-live attitude.
If you had a live and let live attitude, you would have objected to Tyr's lies.
You clearly don't understand what "live-and-let-live" entails.
A simple, "Hey, that's not what she said. This is what she said. Do you still feel that way?" would have gone a lot further than your attitude. And if he still believes what he believes, well, that's on him. My job isn't to change his opinion. My job is to make sure that the facts are known. Then I go on with my life and he goes on with his, and I pray that his attitude - with more exposure and education - will change.
I can't make people listen. I can't make people hear. I can just present what I know to be true and hope that they do both.
Meri, do you think there are any potential problems with transwomen in women's sports? I ask because I didn't really understand people's positions when sports came up earlier in the thread.
Quote from: merithyn on September 17, 2020, 01:54:54 PM
Quote from: chipwich on September 17, 2020, 01:48:46 PM
Quote from: merithyn on September 17, 2020, 01:42:13 PM
As an Obama liberal myself, I just kind of subscribe to a live-and-let-live attitude.
If you had a live and let live attitude, you would have objected to Tyr's lies.
You clearly don't understand what "live-and-let-live" entails.
A simple, "Hey, that's not what she said. This is what she said. Do you still feel that way?" would have gone a lot further than your attitude. And if he still believes what he believes, well, that's on him. My job isn't to change his opinion. My job is to make sure that the facts are known. Then I go on with my life and he goes on with his, and I pray that his attitude - with more exposure and education - will change.
I can't make people listen. I can't make people hear. I can just present what I know to be true and hope that they do both.
Don't coddle lairs. They know that what they are doing is wrong. Anyone who has watched a Trump press conference knows that lairs are maggots eating at human civilization and should be treated as vermin.
Yikes.
Remember to take your meds dude.
Quote from: Barrister on September 17, 2020, 01:52:59 PM
Okay, so I'm not quite sure what Chip is talking about when he talks about a "bizarre totalitarian attitude", but I'm equally confused when you say JK Rowling is trying to "deny other's the opportunity to live their lives in their own truths". That doesn't track with anything she has said.
https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/ (https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/)
QuoteSo I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he's a woman – and, as I've said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth. - JK Rowling
Denying transfolk* the use of bathrooms and dressing rooms that fit with their self-identity is denying them the ability to live their own truths.
Quote from: The Brain on September 17, 2020, 01:59:03 PM
Meri, do you think there are any potential problems with transwomen in women's sports? I ask because I didn't really understand people's positions when sports came up earlier in the thread.
I think that it's a very complex and confusing part of transgenderism that is going to require a very delicate touch on how to handle it. I also don't believe that the US has the ability to have that conversation right now given how polarized everyone is. We, as a nation, don't do delicate right now.
I see both sides of the issue, and I struggle with finding an answer. I'm very grateful that it's not my responsibility to do so, because I'm not sure that I could.
Quote from: chipwich on September 17, 2020, 02:00:41 PM
Don't coddle lairs. They know that what they are doing is wrong. Anyone who has watched a Trump press conference knows that lairs are maggots eating at human civilization and should be treated as vermin.
Interesting that you would equate outright fabrication of facts like what Trump does with an interpretation of a very nuanced topic like Tyr has done.
That, to me, shows how little you understand rather than how wrong Tyr is.
Lairs is weird. If you must have a quirky replacement word, might I suggest lyres?
Also, civility is the cornerstone of civilization. Even if it is essentially a lie.
Quote from: merithyn on September 17, 2020, 02:11:14 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 17, 2020, 01:52:59 PM
Okay, so I'm not quite sure what Chip is talking about when he talks about a "bizarre totalitarian attitude", but I'm equally confused when you say JK Rowling is trying to "deny other's the opportunity to live their lives in their own truths". That doesn't track with anything she has said.
https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/ (https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/)
QuoteSo I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he's a woman – and, as I've said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth. - JK Rowling
Denying transfolk* the use of bathrooms and dressing rooms that fit with their self-identity is denying them the ability to live their own truths.
What Rowling is saying is that she wants trans people to get a medical certificate before changing their ID (and then presumably using the opposite bathroom). Which is the law as it exists, or previously existed, in the UK.
You can agree or disagree, but it's a lot less ominous than "denying them the ability to live their own truths".
Quote from: merithyn on September 17, 2020, 02:14:11 PM
Quote from: chipwich on September 17, 2020, 02:00:41 PM
Don't coddle lairs. They know that what they are doing is wrong. Anyone who has watched a Trump press conference knows that lairs are maggots eating at human civilization and should be treated as vermin.
Interesting that you would equate outright fabrication of facts like what Trump does with an interpretation of a very nuanced topic like Tyr has done.
That, to me, shows how little you understand rather than how wrong Tyr is.
He fabricated it out of thin air. Your failure to accept that shows you are no better than a Trump voter.
Quote from: chipwich on September 17, 2020, 02:25:07 PM
Quote from: merithyn on September 17, 2020, 02:14:11 PM
Quote from: chipwich on September 17, 2020, 02:00:41 PM
Don't coddle lairs. They know that what they are doing is wrong. Anyone who has watched a Trump press conference knows that lairs are maggots eating at human civilization and should be treated as vermin.
Interesting that you would equate outright fabrication of facts like what Trump does with an interpretation of a very nuanced topic like Tyr has done.
That, to me, shows how little you understand rather than how wrong Tyr is.
He fabricated it out of thin air. Your failure to accept that shows you are no better than a Trump voter.
Chipwich, please take it from an experienced litigator - calling someone a liar is one of the worst, least productive ways to make an argument.
Quote from: Barrister on September 17, 2020, 02:29:49 PM
Quote from: chipwich on September 17, 2020, 02:25:07 PM
Quote from: merithyn on September 17, 2020, 02:14:11 PM
Quote from: chipwich on September 17, 2020, 02:00:41 PM
Don't coddle lairs. They know that what they are doing is wrong. Anyone who has watched a Trump press conference knows that lairs are maggots eating at human civilization and should be treated as vermin.
Interesting that you would equate outright fabrication of facts like what Trump does with an interpretation of a very nuanced topic like Tyr has done.
That, to me, shows how little you understand rather than how wrong Tyr is.
Moreover, Tyr's status as a lair is factual and I will not hide from the truth.
He fabricated it out of thin air. Your failure to accept that shows you are no better than a Trump voter.
Chipwich, please take it from an experienced litigator - calling someone a liar is one of the worst, least productive ways to make an argument.
You have the advantage that lying under oath is illegal and being caught lying is embarrassing during legal proceedings.
Quote from: chipwich on September 17, 2020, 02:25:07 PM
Quote from: merithyn on September 17, 2020, 02:14:11 PM
Quote from: chipwich on September 17, 2020, 02:00:41 PM
Don't coddle lairs. They know that what they are doing is wrong. Anyone who has watched a Trump press conference knows that lairs are maggots eating at human civilization and should be treated as vermin.
Interesting that you would equate outright fabrication of facts like what Trump does with an interpretation of a very nuanced topic like Tyr has done.
That, to me, shows how little you understand rather than how wrong Tyr is.
He fabricated it out of thin air. Your failure to accept that shows you are no better than a Trump voter.
:lol:
No, he didn't, and your name-calling really is not worth my time to respond to. You do you, boo.
Quote from: chipwich on September 17, 2020, 02:35:33 PM
You have the advantage that lying under oath is illegal and being caught lying is embarrassing during legal proceedings.
Lying under oath is called perjury. It is one of the most difficult crimes to prove - and one I've never been able to prove successfully. In order to prove perjury you have to do more than prove that someone said something was untrue - you have to prove that they knew it was untrue. As it's almost impossible to prove what is going on in someone's head, it makes perjury almost impossible to prove.
Quote from: Barrister on September 17, 2020, 02:15:37 PM
Quote from: merithyn on September 17, 2020, 02:11:14 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 17, 2020, 01:52:59 PM
Okay, so I'm not quite sure what Chip is talking about when he talks about a "bizarre totalitarian attitude", but I'm equally confused when you say JK Rowling is trying to "deny other's the opportunity to live their lives in their own truths". That doesn't track with anything she has said.
https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/ (https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/)
QuoteSo I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he's a woman – and, as I've said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth. - JK Rowling
Denying transfolk* the use of bathrooms and dressing rooms that fit with their self-identity is denying them the ability to live their own truths.
What Rowling is saying is that she wants trans people to get a medical certificate before changing their ID (and then presumably using the opposite bathroom). Which is the law as it exists, or previously existed, in the UK.
You can agree or disagree, but it's a lot less ominous than "denying them the ability to live their own truths".
That's not at all what she said though, is it? What she said is that she takes issue that any man "who believes or feels he's a woman" can use the bathroom of their choosing. Why does that matter? If you walked into the women's bathroom to use a stall, I would mention that it was the women's room in case you weren't aware, and then move on with my life. Why do I care who's in the next stall to me? How does that in anyway impede my life?
And if it did? Then that's on me to find an alternative solution to accommodate myself. Find another restroom. Use the one at home. Or just deal with it, take a squat, and move on.
I have never nor will I ever understand the need to worry over this. It's such a non-issue. And if it did bother me, I would figure it out for myself, not put out an entire group of people just trying to go about their lives in peace.
Quote from: merithyn on September 17, 2020, 02:43:32 PM
That's not at all what she said though, is it? What she said is that she takes issue that any man "who believes or feels he's a woman" can use the bathroom of their choosing. Why does that matter? If you walked into the women's bathroom to use a stall, I would mention that it was the women's room in case you weren't aware, and then move on with my life. Why do I care who's in the next stall to me? How does that in anyway impede my life?
And if it did? Then that's on me to find an alternative solution to accommodate myself. Find another restroom. Use the one at home. Or just deal with it, take a squat, and move on.
I have never nor will I ever understand the need to worry over this. It's such a non-issue. And if it did bother me, I would figure it out for myself, not put out an entire group of people just trying to go about their lives in peace.
That's absolutely the context of what she said - it was about changing the UK gender identity law. Previously it required a medical certificate, they proposed to change it to just self-identification. So, theoretically, the biggest, hairiest, most masculine-looking guy you can think of could walk into the relevant government office, get their ID switched to female, and could start using women's washrooms.
I get that trans people don't like to be "gatekeepered", and I understand how unlikely my above suggestion is, but I really dislike this notion that if you don't fully, 100% buy into a set of public policy goals you're completely opposed to the entire movement. You can be against Black Lives Matter without being a racist, you can be opposed to the Green New Deal without being anti-environment, and you can want people to have a medical certificate before using a bathroom as a trans person without being anti-trans.
Quote from: Barrister on September 17, 2020, 02:54:06 PM
I get that trans people don't like to be "gatekeepered", and I understand how unlikely my above suggestion is, but I really dislike this notion that if you don't fully, 100% buy into a set of public policy goals you're completely opposed to the entire movement. You can be against Black Lives Matter without being a racist, you can be opposed to the Green New Deal without being anti-environment, and you can want people to have a medical certificate before using a bathroom as a trans person without being anti-trans.
:o That's what racists, anti-environmentalists, and anti-trans people would say.
As I said before, I don't believe that it is illegal to enter a woman's restroom in the UK as a man.
And if it is not illegal, seems an odd hill to die on.
Quote from: Barrister on September 17, 2020, 02:54:06 PM
I get that trans people don't like to be "gatekeepered", and I understand how unlikely my above suggestion is, but I really dislike this notion that if you don't fully, 100% buy into a set of public policy goals you're completely opposed to the entire movement. You can be against Black Lives Matter without being a racist, you can be opposed to the Green New Deal without being anti-environment, and you can want people to have a medical certificate before using a bathroom as a trans person without being anti-trans.
Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree on most of your points here. Sure, you can be opposed to the Green New Deal without being anti-environment because that's a policy, and there are differing views on how policy should work.
But Black Lives Matter is a movement that says, "Black lives are as important as White lives, and should be granted the same respect." If you disagree with that, well, then, you are racist. You may disagree with how that movement acts - or players in that movement act - but if you say, "I disagree with BLM", you are saying that you do not fundamentally agree that Black lives are as important as White lives.
And if you are requiring laws be made for one group of people that is not required of others (must have official documentation that one is a specific gender, but only for transgendered people), you are absolutely being anti-trans.
Quote from: garbon on September 17, 2020, 03:03:19 PM
As I said before, I don't believe that it is illegal to enter a woman's restroom in the UK as a man.
And if it is not illegal, seems an odd hill to die on.
Yeah that's my understanding too. I mean this is partly why I feel the whole debate is weirdly unreal.
At the moment in the UK you can change your names and pronouns on official documents, change your gender with your bank or employer and change your gender in passports of driving licenses (none of which require a gender recognition certificate). You can also get access to hormone treatment and surgery without getting a gender recognition certificate.
The gender recognition certificate issues a new birth certificate with changed sex on it - and affects issues around marriage and pension rights mainly. It's a mostly judicial/medical process and the reform proposal is to change it into more of an administrative process (also to remove the spousal veto).
None of that affects single sex spaces which are protected under equalities legislation and the consultation on May's proposal made clear there would be no change to the Equality Act. It is already allowed for servie providers to not allow a trans person to access a separate sex or single sex space or service - on a case-by-case basis - where exclusion is "a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim". The example in explanatory notes is group counseling of rape victims where it is possible that, on a case by case basis, it is appropriate and proportionate. That won't change under current proposals.
This isn't the US so from what I understand there's only been one case about this. A trans woman who had lived as a woman for 20 years and had undergone gender re-assignment surgery was followed into the loo by another woman who told her she should be in the gents. The pub landlord refused to assist, then barred the trans woman explaining that she should use the gents. The trans woman won £1,500 for discrimination. It's tough to see how what happened was for a legitimate aim or proportionate.
Quote from: merithyn on September 17, 2020, 03:26:57 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 17, 2020, 02:54:06 PM
I get that trans people don't like to be "gatekeepered", and I understand how unlikely my above suggestion is, but I really dislike this notion that if you don't fully, 100% buy into a set of public policy goals you're completely opposed to the entire movement. You can be against Black Lives Matter without being a racist, you can be opposed to the Green New Deal without being anti-environment, and you can want people to have a medical certificate before using a bathroom as a trans person without being anti-trans.
Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree on most of your points here. Sure, you can be opposed to the Green New Deal without being anti-environment because that's a policy, and there are differing views on how policy should work.
But Black Lives Matter is a movement that says, "Black lives are as important as White lives, and should be granted the same respect." If you disagree with that, well, then, you are racist. You may disagree with how that movement acts - or players in that movement act - but if you say, "I disagree with BLM", you are saying that you do not fundamentally agree that Black lives are as important as White lives.
And if you are requiring laws be made for one group of people that is not required of others (must have official documentation that one is a specific gender, but only for transgendered people), you are absolutely being anti-trans.
Meri, Black Lives Matter is both a slogan, but also a movement. And as a movement it has various policy goals. Same thing with feminism. Believing that women are equal to men is one thing, but feminism as a movement also has various policy goals attached.
So I believe that Black lives matter. But I disagree with the Black Lives Matter movement when it says, for example, to defund the police.
So I think I said my piece on bathrooms. I think that should be very simply resolved on a local, democratic basis that people should use the bathroom that corresponds to their overall appearance. If you're making an effort to pass as femme I could care less if you have a penis or not in the women's room. I don't think you need a medical certificate in order to be trans - but I don't think the bar should be so low that self-identification with nothing else should be sufficient.
That's out of step what most trans activists believe. But I don't think it makes me anti-trans.
Quote
do you think she wrote the book and had it corrected in two months?
Do you think it likely her views have completely flipped in the time period between writing the book and digging herself into a hole? Or is it more likely they happened at pretty much the same time and represent the views she holds at the moment.
Quote
Not the same thing at all
Entirely the same thing.
If a trans woman isn't a woman then what is she?
Quote from: chipwich on September 17, 2020, 07:23:24 AM
What makes vermin like Tyr think it's acceptable to brazenly lie? Did his mother raise him like that?
:lol:
Vermin. Gotta love it when boot lickers go all in for using literal nazi language.
All the while making pathetic attempts to gaslight too. Somebody really has personal issues with transgender people.
Quote from: Tyr on September 17, 2020, 03:53:43 PM
Entirely the same thing.
If a trans woman isn't a woman then what is she?
She is a trans woman - her own unique thing.
Quote from: merithyn on September 17, 2020, 02:12:58 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 17, 2020, 01:59:03 PM
Meri, do you think there are any potential problems with transwomen in women's sports? I ask because I didn't really understand people's positions when sports came up earlier in the thread.
I think that it's a very complex and confusing part of transgenderism that is going to require a very delicate touch on how to handle it. I also don't believe that the US has the ability to have that conversation right now given how polarized everyone is. We, as a nation, don't do delicate right now.
I see both sides of the issue, and I struggle with finding an answer. I'm very grateful that it's not my responsibility to do so, because I'm not sure that I could.
How is it complex and confusing do you think? Seems pretty straightforward to just accept transwomen as women.
Quote from: Tyr on September 17, 2020, 03:53:43 PM
Quote
Not the same thing at all
Entirely the same thing.
If a trans woman isn't a woman then what is she?
Someone not covered by a binary classification system, perhaps.
Quote from: Barrister on September 17, 2020, 03:39:08 PM
If you're making an effort to pass as femme I could care less if you have a penis or not in the women's room. I don't think you need a medical certificate in order to be trans - but I don't think the bar should be so low that self-identification with nothing else should be sufficient.
So if you look stereotypically feminine enough? ;)
Quote from: Barrister on September 17, 2020, 03:59:16 PM
Quote from: Tyr on September 17, 2020, 03:53:43 PM
Entirely the same thing.
If a trans woman isn't a woman then what is she?
She is a trans woman - her own unique thing.
That's not trans dogma, wherein a trans woman is a woman without question.
Quote from: Barrister on September 17, 2020, 03:59:16 PM
Quote from: Tyr on September 17, 2020, 03:53:43 PM
Entirely the same thing.
If a trans woman isn't a woman then what is she?
She is a trans woman - her own unique thing.
Which is a type of woman. Different to a cisgender woman, but still a woman.
Deny the fact that a transsexual woman is woman and effectively you're denying that transsexualism is a thing. That that they can not have changed their gender. Its a common argument put up there that on the surface may not not seem so controversial but it very quickly without any leaps of logic effectively says anyone claiming to be a transgender woman is just a dude in a dress.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 17, 2020, 02:10:52 PM
Yikes.
Remember to take your meds dude.
And that was probably only after hearing him say his was an Obama Liberal.
Quote from: Barrister on September 17, 2020, 03:39:08 PM
Quote from: merithyn on September 17, 2020, 03:26:57 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 17, 2020, 02:54:06 PM
I get that trans people don't like to be "gatekeepered", and I understand how unlikely my above suggestion is, but I really dislike this notion that if you don't fully, 100% buy into a set of public policy goals you're completely opposed to the entire movement. You can be against Black Lives Matter without being a racist, you can be opposed to the Green New Deal without being anti-environment, and you can want people to have a medical certificate before using a bathroom as a trans person without being anti-trans.
Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree on most of your points here. Sure, you can be opposed to the Green New Deal without being anti-environment because that's a policy, and there are differing views on how policy should work.
But Black Lives Matter is a movement that says, "Black lives are as important as White lives, and should be granted the same respect." If you disagree with that, well, then, you are racist. You may disagree with how that movement acts - or players in that movement act - but if you say, "I disagree with BLM", you are saying that you do not fundamentally agree that Black lives are as important as White lives.
And if you are requiring laws be made for one group of people that is not required of others (must have official documentation that one is a specific gender, but only for transgendered people), you are absolutely being anti-trans.
Meri, Black Lives Matter is both a slogan, but also a movement. And as a movement it has various policy goals. Same thing with feminism. Believing that women are equal to men is one thing, but feminism as a movement also has various policy goals attached.
So I believe that Black lives matter. But I disagree with the Black Lives Matter movement when it says, for example, to defund the police.
:lol:
You can ask a dozen different protesters in the BLM movement what their policy agenda is, and you'll likely get 25 different answers. The BLM is a movement, not a policy nor a push for a specific law. There are those within that movement who are pushing for specific laws, but one of the biggest complaints about the BLM is there is no clear policy or plan for them. So which is it? They are a movement with a specific goal/policy plan? Or are they a disorganized mass with no useful end game? (I would argue that feminism is the same. Ask 10 feminists what policies they support, you'll get 12 answers. The one obvious difference is abortion/reproductive rights for women, and for BLM to defund police, except that even that means something different to different people.)
QuoteSo I think I said my piece on bathrooms. I think that should be very simply resolved on a local, democratic basis that people should use the bathroom that corresponds to their overall appearance. If you're making an effort to pass as femme I could care less if you have a penis or not in the women's room. I don't think you need a medical certificate in order to be trans - but I don't think the bar should be so low that self-identification with nothing else should be sufficient.
That's out of step what most trans activists believe. But I don't think it makes me anti-trans.
If you're requiring documentation that everyone is a specific gender, then great. If not, then it is an anti-trans rule. I don't understand how you can't understand that.
Quote from: Barrister on September 17, 2020, 12:00:04 PM
And really - I think we're a long way away from transgendered people being a threat to our survival as a species. I'd be far more worried about the large number of heteronormative people out there not having kids by choice.
I've probably expressed my opinion badly. It's not a subject I have read a lot on in english.
I did not mean to say transgenders were a threat to our survival as a species. But it seems to me, that biologically, nature favours the reproduction of a species, in mammals like us, it means a male and female together.
In the animal kingdom, we have observed that when the female population becomes very low, some animals will engage in homosexual behaviour. But when it's the opposite, such behaviours do not seem to happen. Animals are driven purely by instincts, unlike humans. So I figure that biologically, nature intends for males&females to reproduce but in the absence of equilibrium something else happens.
Trying to reproduce that behaviour toward human and toward transgenderism is way outside my field of expertise, but I am really curious on the subject as to why there are so many and often in places where homosexuality is discriminated against.
I do wonder if sometimes, some transgendered people aren't simply gay but can't reconcile that fact with their cultural&religious upbringing and begin to feel they must be borned of the wrong gender to feel such an attraction, such desires.
I just think there should be more medical research on the subject, so we can understand it better. Until such a time, I think the best practice is still to accept the feelings of these people and accompany them through their transition process. But I also feel like alternative theories are completely shut down instead of being studied. Sometimes there are even people who realize they were not what they thought they were and want to go back, but can't. And the result of such activism is there are people still suffering after their transition and still committing suicide. Had we had better psychological practices, maybe we could have catched these people before they went so far and establish a better diagnostic.
Quote from: chipwich on September 17, 2020, 01:12:20 PM
I am an Obama liberal forced to watch in horror as conservatives became demons of plague, greed, and hate while liberals abandon their principles and adopt a bizzare totalitarian attitude when gender politics occurs.
I would also define myself as socially liberal, and where I American, there's no doubt in my mind I would have voted Democrat at all federal elections since Clinton's election.
But I still disagree with you. ;)
I'm more on Valmy's side where ideas must be allowed to be expressly opened. If someone is wrong, point to the facts saying otherwise. Do not hesitate to challenge preconcieved ideas, one side or another, but do so on a rational basis as much as possible.
I only draw the line at hate speech, as defined by canadian laws&tribunals, I think it's an acceptable compromise we made, so far, our tribunals aren't ideologically compromised the way some US courts may be.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 17, 2020, 12:42:48 PM
Mono is a different kind of fascist. They're both bad, but who's worse?
The answer is who cares.
neither are fascists, dude. Just because someone is to your right doesn't make them nazis :rolleyes:
Quote from: merithyn on September 17, 2020, 04:21:53 PM
If you're requiring documentation that everyone is a specific gender, then great. If not, then it is an anti-trans rule. I don't understand how you can't understand that.
I'm not saying anything about documentation. I'm saying it an come down to common sense. If you've got long hair, wearing a dress and makeup you can totally go in the women's washroom - I don't care that you have an adam's apple and stubble (or whatever combination traits you can think of). But I can totally understand why women would object to a male-presenting individual going into the women's room claiming "I identify as female".
I don't think that's an anti-trans position at all.
Quote from: viper37 on September 17, 2020, 04:33:04 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 17, 2020, 12:42:48 PM
Mono is a different kind of fascist. They're both bad, but who's worse?
The answer is who cares.
neither are fascists, dude. Just because someone is to your right doesn't make them nazis :rolleyes:
Calling someone a fascist over petty politics should be considered Holocaust minimization.
Quote from: merithyn on September 17, 2020, 02:11:14 PM
QuoteSo I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he's a woman – and, as I've said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth. - JK Rowling
Denying transfolk* the use of bathrooms and dressing rooms that fit with their self-identity is denying them the ability to live their own truths.
First of all, I think this bathroom issue is silly. People should be able to use the bathroom of their choice, but then again, I am a man, and I've been told before it's normal that women around me aren't taking chances because they simply don't know if I'm a good guy or a potential threat to their security, since there's apparently no city in the world where a women can safely walk alone at night and men can apparently go anywhere they want, alone, without ever being bothered by such a thing as mugging, robbery, assault or other unpleasanteries.
Imho, it is the same reasoning as JKR: victims of an agression fear for their security and are unwilling to take any kind of chances, however remote it might be. In the case of JKR, it translates as "Men are the ennemies and they will use any trick, any subterfuge they can to assault us". For others, it's something else.
So, yeah, I don't understand the fear of the bathroom. You want to use a men's bathroom while I'm in there, go ahead. As long as there are still doors to the toilet, I'll be ok :P
But maybe it's different for women. Would you feel threatened if men at your job were using ladies' bathroom? As a woman, would you be fine with unisex changing rooms? If you see a person who obviously looks like a man but is wearing womens' clothing entering your changing room, do you feel insecure about it? If he undresses and is clearly biologically a male except for the makeup and hairdo, would you accept to also undress as you would in any other situation, to go, say, to the pool or to the gym? If you still had a teenage girl, would you be ok with having a boy declare he is female one day and wish to use the girls' changing room? At what point would you be ok to let him in?
Quote from: chipwich on September 17, 2020, 04:40:48 PM
Calling someone a fascist over petty politics should be considered Holocaust minimization.
:huh:
Half the politicians in the world should then be jailed along with half of their supporters. Lots of Democrats and people on the left where calling Bush a fascist, IIRC.
It's stupid, but not criminal.
Quote from: viper37 on September 17, 2020, 04:50:11 PM
Quote from: chipwich on September 17, 2020, 04:40:48 PM
Calling someone a fascist over petty politics should be considered Holocaust minimization.
:huh:
Half the politicians in the world should then be jailed along with half of their supporters. Lots of Democrats and people on the left where calling Bush a fascist, IIRC.
It's stupid, but not criminal.
I don't remember actual officeholders using the f word, primarily because it is not ethical to.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on September 17, 2020, 02:14:39 PM
Also, civility is the cornerstone of civilization.
Does that mean Languish is uncivilized? :wacko: :P
Quote from: chipwich on September 17, 2020, 02:25:07 PM
Quote from: merithyn on September 17, 2020, 02:14:11 PM
Quote from: chipwich on September 17, 2020, 02:00:41 PM
Don't coddle lairs. They know that what they are doing is wrong. Anyone who has watched a Trump press conference knows that lairs are maggots eating at human civilization and should be treated as vermin.
Interesting that you would equate outright fabrication of facts like what Trump does with an interpretation of a very nuanced topic like Tyr has done.
That, to me, shows how little you understand rather than how wrong Tyr is.
He fabricated it out of thin air. Your failure to accept that shows you are no better than a Trump voter.
Well, you just said Zoupa was minimizing the Holocaust by calling you a nazi. And you post stuff like that about Meri. :rolleyes:
Take a break, look back at what you are posting, what you are accusing others of being. Frankly, to say Meri is no better than a Trump voter is the stupidest thing I've ever read on Languish, and maybe even in my life.
Breath, and look reasonably at what people are saying/writing, and try to honestly compare Meri with a Q-Anon/KKK type voting for Trump. I've known Meri online for a while and I think you are extremely stupid for making such a statement about her. Am I calling you worst than Hitler for this?
I'm not the best example of civility around here, but c'mon dude. You go after Tyr, Zoupa (ok, he may deserve it :P -just joking :) ) and then Meri and everyone in the Democratic party. And I still can't even figure what's your opinion on the issue we are discussing?
Try expressing your thoughts instead of going for the ad-hom and this thread can resume this complex issue.
Quote from: chipwich on September 17, 2020, 04:51:34 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 17, 2020, 04:50:11 PM
Quote from: chipwich on September 17, 2020, 04:40:48 PM
Calling someone a fascist over petty politics should be considered Holocaust minimization.
:huh:
Half the politicians in the world should then be jailed along with half of their supporters. Lots of Democrats and people on the left where calling Bush a fascist, IIRC.
It's stupid, but not criminal.
I don't remember actual officeholders using the f word, primarily because it is not ethical to.
It's a forum for online friends who've known each other for 20 years.
And I can assure you the accusation of fascism are often heard outside of parliaments by all kind of politicians. In office, it's different, there's a moderator to make sure everyone stays basically polite. Languish is closer to a pub than a moderated parliament.
Quote from: merithyn on September 17, 2020, 03:26:57 PM
But Black Lives Matter is a movement that says, "Black lives are as important as White lives, and should be granted the same respect." If you disagree with that, well, then, you are racist. You may disagree with how that movement acts - or players in that movement act - but if you say, "I disagree with BLM", you are saying that you do not fundamentally agree that Black lives are as important as White lives.
hmm, there is a huge problem of perception with this movement. And even among BLMers, I think many would not adopt this definition.
When they say "Black Lives Matter", I hear it wrong. First, because it sends the message that only their lives are important, not those of the presumably white police officers. Looking at the movement, it's as if every single time a black person is shot by police, without exception, it was a racist act, a lynching motivated purely by the color of their skin.
Secundo, I don't think blacks are the only ones being shot by police, or having any kind of problem with police. By its definition, the movement is not equalitarian, it's essentially saying a big fuck-you-you're-on-your-own to anyone who does not identify as black. Like half latinos-black person. Or whites getting shot by "accident" (at the rate it happens in the US, I believe it's a matter of training and selecting the right candidate to begin with). The movement should be reframed against police brutality in general, not just toward black victims. It feels like other victims are totally ignored because they don't matter... Ironic, isn't it?
Thertio, I don't think black men are shot because the officers judges their lives is irrelevent anyway. I think it's more a question of training and cultural upbringing. Even here I've heard lots of people, mainly women, over all my life, telling me how black men are all dangerous. Police are trained to react to perceived danger: a) to themselves b) to their colleauges and c) to society. Black men are seen as dangerous and they get shot because of this flawed training: shooting prehemtively is a good defense to neutralize a potential threat. Add to this that there are often no consequences for the shooters, there is no pressure for reform.
Quote
And if you are requiring laws be made for one group of people that is not required of others (must have official documentation that one is a specific gender, but only for transgendered people), you are absolutely being anti-trans.
Well, huh, I don't know. :Embarrass:
How would you define the characteristics necessary for someone to use the ladies bathroom?
I kinda figure that the law requirement she's asking is basically a way to assure herself that the individual really feels like women, behaves like a woman and is not a voyeur or criminal in disguise. Having gone through the extensive process to become legally female clarifies the issue, as it's too much of a burden for a simple criminal. I don't think she literally requires an id to enter the bathroom.
I'm not sure that the argument "I'm not worried about it" really solves the problem of men being able to enter women's locker rooms at will.
JK Rowling's point that women's spaces won't be safe from predatory men if men are allowed to use women's restrooms, locker rooms, and the like simply by saying that they are trans is so obviously true in my mind that it baffles me to hear people claim that it is simply false because they desperately want it to be false. I can absolutely guarantee that there are significant numbers of high school boys that would be willing to claim they are trans women if it allows them to go into the girls' locker room and see their female classmate naked.
So, while it would be inconvenient for the trans women to create some sort of gatekeeping mechanism to ensure that the XY types allowed to use the facilities of XX chromosome types (and vice-versa, to some extent), I think it is terribly naive to believe that it is not needed (and, indeed, to think that people who think it is needed are horrible people who should be "cancelled). Even if you don't think that you, yourself, would be bothered. The nature of some men ensures that it is needed.
Quote from: Barrister on September 17, 2020, 04:37:43 PM
Quote from: merithyn on September 17, 2020, 04:21:53 PM
If you're requiring documentation that everyone is a specific gender, then great. If not, then it is an anti-trans rule. I don't understand how you can't understand that.
I'm not saying anything about documentation. I'm saying it an come down to common sense. If you've got long hair, wearing a dress and makeup you can totally go in the women's washroom - I don't care that you have an adam's apple and stubble (or whatever combination traits you can think of). But I can totally understand why women would object to a male-presenting individual going into the women's room claiming "I identify as female".
I don't think that's an anti-trans position at all.
:lol:
I have female friends who wouldn't be allowed into the ladies room then! Any woman with PCOS could fit that bill, right down to the Adam's apple and stubble. What you're doing is saying, "If you present as what I understand a woman to be, I won't call you out for not being a woman."
Quote from: viper37 on September 17, 2020, 04:48:18 PM
But maybe it's different for women. Would you feel threatened if men at your job were using ladies' bathroom? As a woman, would you be fine with unisex changing rooms? If you see a person who obviously looks like a man but is wearing womens' clothing entering your changing room, do you feel insecure about it? If he undresses and is clearly biologically a male except for the makeup and hairdo, would you accept to also undress as you would in any other situation, to go, say, to the pool or to the gym? If you still had a teenage girl, would you be ok with having a boy declare he is female one day and wish to use the girls' changing room? At what point would you be ok to let him in?
It wouldn't bother me at all. I just don't care. My daughter is only 21, so barely out of her teen years. She doesn't care, either.
It's not about "did they use the right bathroom?". It's about "are they going to leer/attack me?" The complete lack of that happening now says there isn't anyone doing that kind of thing. Like garbon says, there are zero laws in place right now regarding who is allowed to use which bathroom. It's just not a thing. It only became a thing when people got pissy about transfolk.
Quote from: merithyn on September 17, 2020, 03:26:57 PM
But Black Lives Matter is a movement that says, "Black lives are as important as White lives, and should be granted the same respect." If you disagree with that, well, then, you are racist. You may disagree with how that movement acts - or players in that movement act - but if you say, "I disagree with BLM", you are saying that you do not fundamentally agree that Black lives are as important as White lives.
I think there is more to it than that. There is always a context behind a truism, otherwise there is no point in making a point about it. When you say that black lives matter, you're not just saying that black lives should be granted the same respect as white lives, but you're also saying that currently they are not. If you don't think that context should be part of agreement or disagreement with a slogan, then why take exception to "All Lives Matter" or "Blue Lives Matter"?
Quote from: viper37 on September 17, 2020, 05:16:16 PM
hmm, there is a huge problem of perception with this movement. And even among BLMers, I think many would not adopt this definition.
When they say "Black Lives Matter", I hear it wrong. First, because it sends the message that only their lives are important, not those of the presumably white police officers. Looking at the movement, it's as if every single time a black person is shot by police, without exception, it was a racist act, a lynching motivated purely by the color of their skin.
Secundo, I don't think blacks are the only ones being shot by police, or having any kind of problem with police. By its definition, the movement is not equalitarian, it's essentially saying a big fuck-you-you're-on-your-own to anyone who does not identify as black. Like half latinos-black person. Or whites getting shot by "accident" (at the rate it happens in the US, I believe it's a matter of training and selecting the right candidate to begin with). The movement should be reframed against police brutality in general, not just toward black victims. It feels like other victims are totally ignored because they don't matter... Ironic, isn't it?
Thertio, I don't think black men are shot because the officers judges their lives is irrelevent anyway. I think it's more a question of training and cultural upbringing. Even here I've heard lots of people, mainly women, over all my life, telling me how black men are all dangerous. Police are trained to react to perceived danger: a) to themselves b) to their colleauges and c) to society. Black men are seen as dangerous and they get shot because of this flawed training: shooting prehemtively is a good defense to neutralize a potential threat. Add to this that there are often no consequences for the shooters, there is no pressure for reform.
Your third point is what BLM fights against. The fact that they are black equates to dangerous to far too many people, and most importantly, police. By doing something that you or I would do without a second thought, they are perceived as "lethal". Not because of what they do or who they are, but because of the color of their skin.
Blacks are unique in that. They are the only race in the US that by its very existence is seen as "dangerous". And so, a movement was born to end that perception: Black Lives Matter. They and they alone have to daily contend with being dangerous for simply being. And that's what BLM is all about. And that is what negates your first two points.
Quote
Well, huh, I don't know. :Embarrass:
How would you define the characteristics necessary for someone to use the ladies bathroom?
I kinda figure that the law requirement she's asking is basically a way to assure herself that the individual really feels like women, behaves like a woman and is not a voyeur or criminal in disguise. Having gone through the extensive process to become legally female clarifies the issue, as it's too much of a burden for a simple criminal. I don't think she literally requires an id to enter the bathroom.
How about we don't define it? How about we allow others to decide for themselves where they are most comfortable going pee?
I have female friends who are regularly mistaken for men. One was yelled at in a public bathroom for trying to pee in the ladies' room. Born, raised, and identify as women. But they do not adhere to what you and BB consider women. They don't wear dresses, make-up, or do their hair like women. They wear jeans, t-shirts, and have short hair cuts. They're bigger women, so it's harder to tell if they have breasts; could just be a man with a fatty chest.
Who gets to decide for them where they belong?
I also had a friend in high school who was hella' fem and very flamboyantly gay. He never went to the men's room because he was far more likely to get his ass kicked there than in the girls' room. So he always went into the ladies' room with us. No big deal. There were stalls with doors. He couldn't have cared less if we were half-naked. Why does it matter if he's in the ladies' room? Where is the threat there?
There is way too much emphasis being put on something that seriously does not matter. Who the hell cares??
Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2020, 06:49:16 PM
Quote from: merithyn on September 17, 2020, 03:26:57 PM
But Black Lives Matter is a movement that says, "Black lives are as important as White lives, and should be granted the same respect." If you disagree with that, well, then, you are racist. You may disagree with how that movement acts - or players in that movement act - but if you say, "I disagree with BLM", you are saying that you do not fundamentally agree that Black lives are as important as White lives.
I think there is more to it than that. There is always a context behind a truism, otherwise there is no point in making a point about it. When you say that black lives matter, you're not just saying that black lives should be granted the same respect as white lives, but you're also saying that currently they are not. If you don't think that context should be part of agreement or disagreement with a slogan, then why take exception to "All Lives Matter" or "Blue Lives Matter"?
I think that's a legitimate point, and worth discussion. That being said, there is far and away enough statistical data out there that says that black people are treated unfairly in this country to make it a very hard point to press, in my opinion. But sure, it's at least a point of discussion.
Are people saying that there are no laws regarding using the bathrooms, locker rooms, public showers, and the like marked for the other sex because they know that there are no such laws where they live, or because they don't know of any such laws and so assume that they do not exist?
Because "it's okay because there are no laws now and no problems now" ignores the fact that many places have such laws and many places have such problems. Maybe some places have no laws and no problems, but we'd need to identify what makes this not a problem (e.g. lack of nudity taboos in some cultures) rather than saying "some places have no problems so problems don't exist anywhere."
The ostrich method solves few problems.
Is the UK having problems with men pretending to be transgender and using that as a fig leaf to enter a woman's restroom?
If so, does it make sense to have it illegal to have someone legally considered a man entering a woman's bathroom? Or is the concern about things like lewd behaviour, voyeurism, and sexual assault - things that are already crimes?
Quote from: merithyn on September 17, 2020, 07:03:19 PM
Who the hell cares??
Apparently a lot of people. :mellow:
Quote from: grumbler on September 17, 2020, 09:24:42 PM
Are people saying that there are no laws regarding using the bathrooms, locker rooms, public showers, and the like marked for the other sex because they know that there are no such laws where they live, or because they don't know of any such laws and so assume that they do not exist?
Because "it's okay because there are no laws now and no problems now" ignores the fact that many places have such laws and many places have such problems. Maybe some places have no laws and no problems, but we'd need to identify what makes this not a problem (e.g. lack of nudity taboos in some cultures) rather than saying "some places have no problems so problems don't exist anywhere."
The ostrich method solves few problems.
Well I have searched a few times since first creating this thread and not been able to find any evidence that it is illegal to enter a bathroom of the alternate sex in the UK.
Looking at California, I mostly see thst à private business could ask you to leave as a result and then it would be trespass if you refuse to leave.
Only one thing I found was that it may or may not have at one time been made illegal to do so in Santa Monica.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-11-01-me-688-story.html
But I guess that speaks exactly to the concerns of transgendered people. How would you possibly know the ins and outs of when you are and are not allowed to use the bathroom of the gender you identify with... and more importantly will the other citizens who might report you know?
Quote from: grumbler on September 17, 2020, 09:24:42 PM
Are people saying that there are no laws regarding using the bathrooms, locker rooms, public showers, and the like marked for the other sex because they know that there are no such laws where they live, or because they don't know of any such laws and so assume that they do not exist?
Because "it's okay because there are no laws now and no problems now" ignores the fact that many places have such laws and many places have such problems. Maybe some places have no laws and no problems, but we'd need to identify what makes this not a problem (e.g. lack of nudity taboos in some cultures) rather than saying "some places have no problems so problems don't exist anywhere."
The ostrich method solves few problems.
There is a law in Portland saying that men must use the men's restroom and women must use the women's in the city with no definition of "man" or "women". It's also illegal to challenge someone's gender, as it's considered harassment. There are zero bathroom gender laws in Illinois.
I did assume that garbon was correct about the UK. A quick glance says he is.
I get it why one wouldn't like Rowling's stance on all this and seeking to profit from the outrage via her new novel is especially nasty (although she was already doing that thing when announced half the novels' cast to be gay post fact), but we have gotten to the point where the makers of a Harry Potter game feel they must distance themselves from the creator of the Harry Potter universe:
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2020/09/17/jk-rowling-not-directly-involved-with-hogwarts-legacy-warner-bros-assert/
Quote from: Tamas on September 18, 2020, 02:54:48 AM
I get it why one wouldn't like Rowling's stance on all this and seeking to profit from the outrage via her new novel is especially nasty (although she was already doing that thing when announced half the novels' cast to be gay post fact), but we have gotten to the point where the makers of a Harry Potter game feel they must distance themselves from the creator of the Harry Potter universe:
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2020/09/17/jk-rowling-not-directly-involved-with-hogwarts-legacy-warner-bros-assert/
Well yes, if you look at any comments on articles about the game, you'll find people who now feel uncomfortable about HP and Rowling and uncertain that they want to support a game she'd profit from. Natural then that the publishers would put out a statement.
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2020, 03:05:54 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 18, 2020, 02:54:48 AM
I get it why one wouldn't like Rowling's stance on all this and seeking to profit from the outrage via her new novel is especially nasty (although she was already doing that thing when announced half the novels' cast to be gay post fact), but we have gotten to the point where the makers of a Harry Potter game feel they must distance themselves from the creator of the Harry Potter universe:
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2020/09/17/jk-rowling-not-directly-involved-with-hogwarts-legacy-warner-bros-assert/
Well yes, if you look at any comments on articles about the game, you'll find people who now feel uncomfortable about HP and Rowling and uncertain that they want to support a game she'd profit from. Natural then that the publishers would put out a statement.
But why is this even a concern for them? Quite very obviously anything using Rowling's IP will bring some level of profit for Rowling. So just forget about Harry Potter and regain stability on their morally high horse. It seems like they are trying to ride that horse, deprive Rowling any profit from her work, but also want to enjoy said work.
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2020, 03:05:54 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 18, 2020, 02:54:48 AM
I get it why one wouldn't like Rowling's stance on all this and seeking to profit from the outrage via her new novel is especially nasty (although she was already doing that thing when announced half the novels' cast to be gay post fact), but we have gotten to the point where the makers of a Harry Potter game feel they must distance themselves from the creator of the Harry Potter universe:
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2020/09/17/jk-rowling-not-directly-involved-with-hogwarts-legacy-warner-bros-assert/
Well yes, if you look at any comments on articles about the game, you'll find people who now feel uncomfortable about HP and Rowling and uncertain that they want to support a game she'd profit from. Natural then that the publishers would put out a statement.
As much as your usual suspects might make a noise about this sort of thing, it is really quite encouraging, that across the board, companies run the numbers and find there's more money to be made in distancing themselves from this bollocks than just ignoring it.
Fundamentally the majority just don't care about transgender people using whatever toilet or any of that sort of thing and would come down on the side of "Leave things be" if pushed. Its amazing that this is even an issue.
Using an IP that is heavily associated with a single individual always carries risk, especially an individual that's still alive. It's a bit like raising a statue of someone still alive.
Quote from: Tamas on September 18, 2020, 03:35:18 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2020, 03:05:54 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 18, 2020, 02:54:48 AM
I get it why one wouldn't like Rowling's stance on all this and seeking to profit from the outrage via her new novel is especially nasty (although she was already doing that thing when announced half the novels' cast to be gay post fact), but we have gotten to the point where the makers of a Harry Potter game feel they must distance themselves from the creator of the Harry Potter universe:
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2020/09/17/jk-rowling-not-directly-involved-with-hogwarts-legacy-warner-bros-assert/
Well yes, if you look at any comments on articles about the game, you'll find people who now feel uncomfortable about HP and Rowling and uncertain that they want to support a game she'd profit from. Natural then that the publishers would put out a statement.
But why is this even a concern for them? Quite very obviously anything using Rowling's IP will bring some level of profit for Rowling. So just forget about Harry Potter and regain stability on their morally high horse. It seems like they are trying to ride that horse, deprive Rowling any profit from her work, but also want to enjoy said work.
Because they enjoy HP (some of them have emotional connections to it forged from childhood) but struggle to reconcile that with their dislike now for the author given her un-HP comments?
I don't think it is unusual for people to struggle when they like a work but have qualms about the creator (be that literature, art, cinema, etc.).
Sure but if they feel morally obliged to boycott her then the actions to take are clear. If they have trouble prioritising their support for causes over their personal entertainment needs, that's their private business.
But... but... they care about transpeople but they really want to play a videogame! Can't you see they're in pain?
Quote from: Tamas on September 18, 2020, 03:55:27 AM
Sure but if they feel morally obliged to boycott her then the actions to take are clear. If they have trouble prioritising their support for causes over their personal entertainment needs, that's their private business.
But let's be clear there isn't some unified agenda or view here.
Some don't plan to play as they don't want to support HP anymore.
Some aren't sure if they want to play as they aren't sure if they want to support HP.
Some have said they are okay playing as Rowling likely already got her cut as part of her overall deal with WB and even if she gets residuals, there are also all the other blameless people who were involved in the project.
Still others have said they are okay as they think of HP as something bigger than just Rowling st this point.
I don't believe any of them (or at least not most) were looking for a statement from WB but rather WB saw these concerns and decided to take action.
Quote from: garbon on September 17, 2020, 09:57:59 PM
Well I have searched a few times since first creating this thread and not been able to find any evidence that it is illegal to enter a bathroom of the alternate sex in the UK.
Looking at California, I mostly see thst à private business could ask you to leave as a result and then it would be trespass if you refuse to leave.
Only one thing I found was that it may or may not have at one time been made illegal to do so in Santa Monica.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-11-01-me-688-story.html
But I guess that speaks exactly to the concerns of transgendered people. How would you possibly know the ins and outs of when you are and are not allowed to use the bathroom of the gender you identify with... and more importantly will the other citizens who might report you know?
In Virginia, Maryland, and Michigan (all places I can easy check and get authoritative answers) it is trespass to knowingly use a bathroom, locker room, etc designated for the opposite sex. A trans person who legitimately considers themselves entitled to use such facilities would not be trespassing (hence the need of the reactionaries to change the law to make it illegal to use a restroom designated for the use of those with the opposite sex
on your birth certificate.
The concern, of course, is that, if one can excuse ones self from trespass simply by saying that one is a trans person (even if just for the day), then there is no distinguishing between those who believe themselves to be trans and those who simply want to make the claim so that they can enter the women's locker room, or whatever.
Is it a big problem that requires a bunch of new laws/ Not that i can see. But I also cannot see why it is so desperately necessary to "cancel" a person that believes that it is a problem of any sort. Rowling can be wrong without being despicable; she can worry about predatory males without being anti-trans.
Quote from: grumbler on September 18, 2020, 12:53:22 PM
In Virginia, Maryland, and Michigan (all places I can easy check and get authoritative answers) it is trespass to knowingly use a bathroom, locker room, etc designated for the opposite sex. A trans person who legitimately considers themselves entitled to use such facilities would not be trespassing (hence the need of the reactionaries to change the law to make it illegal to use a restroom designated for the use of those with the opposite sex on your birth certificate.
The concern, of course, is that, if one can excuse ones self from trespass simply by saying that one is a trans person (even if just for the day), then there is no distinguishing between those who believe themselves to be trans and those who simply want to make the claim so that they can enter the women's locker room, or whatever.
Is it a big problem that requires a bunch of new laws/ Not that i can see. But I also cannot see why it is so desperately necessary to "cancel" a person that believes that it is a problem of any sort. Rowling can be wrong without being despicable; she can worry about predatory males without being anti-trans.
I'm sorry that you have had to live your life in such barbaric places.
Quote from: merithyn on September 17, 2020, 06:48:47 PM
It wouldn't bother me at all. I just don't care. My daughter is only 21, so barely out of her teen years. She doesn't care, either.
Great. :)
Quote
It's not about "did they use the right bathroom?". It's about "are they going to leer/attack me?" The complete lack of that happening now says there isn't anyone doing that kind of thing. Like garbon says, there are zero laws in place right now regarding who is allowed to use which bathroom. It's just not a thing. It only became a thing when people got pissy about transfolk.
Well the bathroom, I see as a non issue. We have doors for "intimacy"; well, occidental countries do, at least. The changing room is a little different.
You haven't answered that part directly: do you think the majority of women would be fine with a man changing beside them while they are nude and would they feel as threatened as by taking an elevator alone with an unknown man, or having a random man walking behind them on the street at night?
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2020, 12:59:30 PM
I'm sorry that you have had to live your life in such barbaric places.
:lol: Of course, California had to pass a law in 2016 requiring that all single-person restrooms be legally gender-neutral. It must be a barbaric place as well, else such a law would be completely unnecessary. If all bathrooms are legally gender-neutral, then you don't need to make some of them legally gender-neutral.
Quote from: merithyn on September 17, 2020, 07:03:19 PM
Your third point is what BLM fights against. The fact that they are black equates to dangerous to far too many people, and most importantly, police. By doing something that you or I would do without a second thought, they are perceived as "lethal". Not because of what they do or who they are, but because of the color of their skin.
I totally agree with that, and give them my total support, for what's it's worth. I've never felt threatened by someone based on their looks, including the color of their skin. But I do not have the same cultural upbringing as many, having been raised mostly alone on construction sites for all my youth, even in larger city, living quite isolated from others.
Quote
Blacks are unique in that. They are the only race in the US that by its very existence is seen as "dangerous". And so, a movement was born to end that perception: Black Lives Matter. They and they alone have to daily contend with being dangerous for simply being. And that's what BLM is all about. And that is what negates your first two points.
My first two points are about perceptions of the movement. They way it acts, it's mostly as if only black lives would matter, as if all Blacks were saints. I think at the very least, there are just as many criminal blacks as criminal whites. Maybe even a little bit more, due to how the US has shaped racial politics over the years, pushing black families more toward poverty than whites.
The point is, a cop will feel threatened and shoot. A women walking in the street at night feels threatened, she steps aside and let the man walk in front of her. It's the same reasoning, but the cop is armed, so he shoots.
It goes back to training them the right way. Don't wait until they've had 20 years exerience to give them racial sensitiviy classes, train them correctly to begin with.
And do not hesitate to tackle the union when they're the problem.
Unfortunately, the Republicans aren't willing to reform police, because they're calling to their base. And the Democrats are unwilling to tackle the union problem.
I don't see anything changing in the foreseeable future by holding protests.
If the current protesters want to change something, they will have to invest political parties and push for changes from the inside.
QuoteHow about we don't define it? How about we allow others to decide for themselves where they are most comfortable going pee?
Because I'm not the one being bothered by it. I do not feel threatened by a woman sharing an elevator with me, I do not feel threatened by a woman walking behind me at night, I do not feel threatened by a woman knocking at my door late at night, I do not feel threatened by much, actually.
It's not really up to me to decide who should enter a women's bathroom. If you want to enter the male bathroom, go ahead, I don't care.
Quote
Who gets to decide for them where they belong?
Society, unfortunately. We've decided to have seperate bathroom for men and women instead of unisex bathroom. In many places that seems to mean women have a clean bathroom, no piss&shit on all the walls and floor, doors that lock and toilet paper. Yeah, we have it that bad sometimes :( :P
Honestly, I feel like you on the subject, but I am unsure the majority of women feel that way. Imho, I am unqualified to decide who should or should not enter a women's bathroom.
Quote
I also had a friend in high school who was hella' fem and very flamboyantly gay. He never went to the men's room because he was far more likely to get his ass kicked there than in the girls' room. So he always went into the ladies' room with us. No big deal. There were stalls with doors. He couldn't have cared less if we were half-naked. Why does it matter if he's in the ladies' room? Where is the threat there?
I don't know. Where's the threat in sharing an elevator with a man? Where's the thread in having a man walking casually behind you at night?
Quote
There is way too much emphasis being put on something that seriously does not matter. Who the hell cares??
Apparently, lots of women care. And you're the primary users of this space, not us...
Quote from: grumbler on September 18, 2020, 02:04:11 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2020, 12:59:30 PM
I'm sorry that you have had to live your life in such barbaric places.
:lol: Of course, California had to pass a law in 2016 requiring that all single-person restrooms be legally gender-neutral. It must be a barbaric place as well, else such a law would be completely unnecessary. If all bathrooms are legally gender-neutral, then you don't need to make some of them legally gender-neutral.
Requiring there to be unisex bathrooms doesn't mean it is illegal to enter a bathroom of the opposite sex.
Quote from: grumbler on September 18, 2020, 12:53:22 PM
The concern, of course, is that, if one can excuse ones self from trespass simply by saying that one is a trans person (even if just for the day), then there is no distinguishing between those who believe themselves to be trans and those who simply want to make the claim so that they can enter the women's locker room, or whatever.
Is it a big problem that requires a bunch of new laws/ Not that i can see. But I also cannot see why it is so desperately necessary to "cancel" a person that believes that it is a problem of any sort. Rowling can be wrong without being despicable; she can worry about predatory males without being anti-trans.
As I said before:
Quote from: garbon on September 17, 2020, 09:44:14 PM
Is the UK having problems with men pretending to be transgender and using that as a fig leaf to enter a woman's restroom?
If so, does it make sense to have it illegal to have someone legally considered a man entering a woman's bathroom? Or is the concern about things like lewd behaviour, voyeurism, and sexual assault - things that are already crimes?
If she wants to make people's lives harder, she needs to justify why that is necessary. It would also be good to explain what suddenly brought on her bathroom crusade given even shortly after being abused by her ex-husband it would have still been legally possible for her to encounter a man in a woman's bathroom.
https://medium.com/@KatyMontgomerie/addressing-the-claims-in-jk-rowlings-justification-for-transphobia-7b6f761e8f8f
QuoteAs I pointed out in my last piece; in the UK — where both JKR and I live — trans women have used women's spaces longer than either of us have been alive, and have been legally protected to do so since 2010 (before that there was no clear law either way, though there were some protections for trans people, it has never been illegal). A Gender Recognition Certificate is not necessary to use women's spaces and it never has been, in fact using women's spaces for some time is required to obtain a GRC! If there was going to be a problem the moment that people were allowed into the facility they know is best for them then it would have already happened. It hasn't. All of the problems GC people propose with "Self ID" are always hypothetical, if it was going to happen, why hasn't it been happening for over a decade?
This is one of the most worrying pieces of misinformation put forward by her and by the GC movement as a whole. I, and many British trans people, are living in fear that the UK government is building up to trying to ban us from using public facilities. The reason they are claiming that trans women don't already use women's facilities is so they can frame taking away the rights trans people have today as "defending women's rights". Where do you think trans women have been weeing for the last 50 years?
Quote from: grumbler on September 17, 2020, 06:36:42 PM
I can absolutely guarantee that there are significant numbers of high school boys that would be willing to claim they are trans women if it allows them to go into the girls' locker room and see their female classmate naked.
Aside from your assertion that it is true, do you have any actual evidence of such a case happening? A dozen? A hundred? Thousands? If it is not illegal currently to do so in places and there are "significant numbers of high school boys" who would engage in such an act, there must be mounds of evidence and a plethora of examples to showcase. I look forward to reading through your damning evidence and examples. :)
Quote from: viper37 on September 18, 2020, 01:35:05 PM
Quote from: merithyn on September 17, 2020, 06:48:47 PM
It wouldn't bother me at all. I just don't care. My daughter is only 21, so barely out of her teen years. She doesn't care, either.
Great. :)
Quote
It's not about "did they use the right bathroom?". It's about "are they going to leer/attack me?" The complete lack of that happening now says there isn't anyone doing that kind of thing. Like garbon says, there are zero laws in place right now regarding who is allowed to use which bathroom. It's just not a thing. It only became a thing when people got pissy about transfolk.
Well the bathroom, I see as a non issue. We have doors for "intimacy"; well, occidental countries do, at least. The changing room is a little different.
You haven't answered that part directly: do you think the majority of women would be fine with a man changing beside them while they are nude and would they feel as threatened as by taking an elevator alone with an unknown man, or having a random man walking behind them on the street at night?
I'm probably the last person to ask that question. I've had five babies. I've also had a ton of "female issues" that means that I've been naked and spread eagle under the gaze of more than my fair share of doctors, nearly all male. Being naked in front of strangers - even men - doesn't bother me at all. Oh, I was also a nude model in college. So yeah, not a big thing for me. So long as they aren't leering, I'm not even going to notice them.
And honestly, that applies to your scenario in the elevator. Being alone in an elevator with a man doesn't bother me that much, so long as he's not being weird about it. Now, the guy on the street... I'm going to let him pass me. Because that's just smart. If either were dressed as women, on the other hand, they are women in my mind and there's no threat.
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2020, 02:50:47 PM
https://medium.com/@KatyMontgomerie/addressing-the-claims-in-jk-rowlings-justification-for-transphobia-7b6f761e8f8f
QuoteAs I pointed out in my last piece; in the UK — where both JKR and I live — trans women have used women's spaces longer than either of us have been alive, and have been legally protected to do so since 2010 (before that there was no clear law either way, though there were some protections for trans people, it has never been illegal). A Gender Recognition Certificate is not necessary to use women's spaces and it never has been, in fact using women's spaces for some time is required to obtain a GRC! If there was going to be a problem the moment that people were allowed into the facility they know is best for them then it would have already happened. It hasn't. All of the problems GC people propose with "Self ID" are always hypothetical, if it was going to happen, why hasn't it been happening for over a decade?
This is one of the most worrying pieces of misinformation put forward by her and by the GC movement as a whole. I, and many British trans people, are living in fear that the UK government is building up to trying to ban us from using public facilities. The reason they are claiming that trans women don't already use women's facilities is so they can frame taking away the rights trans people have today as "defending women's rights". Where do you think trans women have been weeing for the last 50 years?
Yep. To get a GRC is a medical-legal process at the minute and you have to have evidence that you have lived in your acquired gender for the past two years (continuously). Evidence that you didn't could count against you and cause your application for a GRC to be turned down.
Quote from: merithyn on September 18, 2020, 10:33:26 PM
I'm probably the last person to ask that question. I've had five babies. I've also had a ton of "female issues" that means that I've been naked and spread eagle under the gaze of more than my fair share of doctors, nearly all male. Being naked in front of strangers - even men - doesn't bother me at all. Oh, I was also a nude model in college. So yeah, not a big thing for me. So long as they aren't leering, I'm not even going to notice them.
Well, the doc, it's one thing. The rest... ok, you had a wildside I totally knew nothing about :P
Quote
And honestly, that applies to your scenario in the elevator. Being alone in an elevator with a man doesn't bother me that much, so long as he's not being weird about it. Now, the guy on the street... I'm going to let him pass me. Because that's just smart. If either were dressed as women, on the other hand, they are women in my mind and there's no threat.
But lots of women will say they're nervous when alone in an elevator with a stranger.
As for the street, I still think it's an insulting behaviour toward the man who happens to walk behind you and is not specifically following you and eventually, a self defeating attitude more likely to attract the attention of a real predator.
But that's just me.
In any case. I'm not the one concerned, so if most women are fine with it, I'm ok with it. It's something that really has to be judged by public reactions.
I think Sweden has unisex changing rooms and it works out ok for them. Trans bathroom stuff must not be much of a political issue over there :P
My impression is that unisex changing rooms (for more than one person) are very rare in Sweden.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on September 18, 2020, 10:20:43 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 17, 2020, 06:36:42 PM
I can absolutely guarantee that there are significant numbers of high school boys that would be willing to claim they are trans women if it allows them to go into the girls' locker room and see their female classmate naked.
Aside from your assertion that it is true, do you have any actual evidence of such a case happening? A dozen? A hundred? Thousands? If it is not illegal currently to do so in places and there are "significant numbers of high school boys" who would engage in such an act, there must be mounds of evidence and a plethora of examples to showcase. I look forward to reading through your damning evidence and examples. :)
I bolded the part that makes the rest of your statement null and void. I know of nowhere where that would be legal, and have only the self-serving claims of two non-legal-scholars to indicate that it is perfectly legal for boys to enter the girls' locker rooms in the UK and Oregon. I'm willing to bet that those places have trespass laws as well.
It would be weird if all those female cleaners I've seen in men's rooms in the UK were doing something illegal.
Just how much time do you spend in public restrooms? :unsure:
Quote from: Eddie Teach on September 19, 2020, 01:00:26 PM
Just how much time do you spend in public restrooms? :unsure:
Not like that, dear.
Quote from: garbon on September 19, 2020, 12:54:41 PM
It would be weird if all those female cleaners I've seen in men's rooms in the UK were doing something illegal.
Like gunpowder plotting?
Quote from: grumbler on September 19, 2020, 12:30:52 PM
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on September 18, 2020, 10:20:43 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 17, 2020, 06:36:42 PM
I can absolutely guarantee that there are significant numbers of high school boys that would be willing to claim they are trans women if it allows them to go into the girls' locker room and see their female classmate naked.
Aside from your assertion that it is true, do you have any actual evidence of such a case happening? A dozen? A hundred? Thousands? If it is not illegal currently to do so in places and there are "significant numbers of high school boys" who would engage in such an act, there must be mounds of evidence and a plethora of examples to showcase. I look forward to reading through your damning evidence and examples. :)
I bolded the part that makes the rest of your statement null and void. I know of nowhere where that would be legal, and have only the self-serving claims of two non-legal-scholars to indicate that it is perfectly legal for boys to enter the girls' locker rooms in the UK and Oregon. I'm willing to bet that those places have trespass laws as well.
:rolleyes:
Yes. Looking up laws online requires a law degree. I think you're confusing "legal" with "against the rules".
As meri said, illegal is not the same as against the rules and against what you want. Here's an additional piece for you to ignore to maintain your pride and position that lists a whole host of things Rowling has said in regards to trans individuals. Maybe someone else will read it and take something away from it. I don't hold out much hope though.
https://medium.com/@KatyMontgomerie/addressing-the-claims-in-jk-rowlings-justification-for-transphobia-7b6f761e8f8f
Quote from: garbon on September 19, 2020, 12:54:41 PM
It would be weird if all those female cleaners I've seen in men's rooms in the UK were doing something illegal.
Yeah, it would be weird if people hired to be somewhere were trespassing there. Maybe the answer, though, is that they aren't trespassing. :secret:
The same applies to trans women, of course; they are not trespassing in the women's rooms either. Men are, though, because that's what the owners of the restrooms marked "women" are conveying with the sign. That's kinda how trespass works.
Quote from: merithyn on September 19, 2020, 04:21:35 PM
:rolleyes:
Yes. Looking up laws online requires a law degree. I think you're confusing "legal" with "against the rules".
:rolleyes: I think that you somehow believe that laws are not rules. I have no idea what you mean by "against the rules" in this context. Whose rules?
I am distinguishing between trespass (which I believe keeps men out of women's locker rooms) and magic (which, apparently, you believe keeps men out of women's locker rooms). If you can show me that there is no trespass in Oregon when men enter women's locker rooms (except as employees or after hours), and that men don't enter anyway, then I'll believe it. I'm unlikely to take the word of someone who thinks the problem is solved because it's merely "against the rules."
Quote from: grumbler on September 19, 2020, 10:02:20 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 19, 2020, 12:54:41 PM
It would be weird if all those female cleaners I've seen in men's rooms in the UK were doing something illegal.
Yeah, it would be weird if people hired to be somewhere were trespassing there. Maybe the answer, though, is that they aren't trespassing. :secret:
The same applies to trans women, of course; they are not trespassing in the women's rooms either. Men are, though, because that's what the owners of the restrooms marked "women" are conveying with the sign. That's kinda how trespass works.
But that's the rub. The existence of the signs don't mean the owners are going to pursue trespassing charges.
They have indicated a women's restroom and a men's restroom but not that it will be illegal to enter one of the other gender. After all, some clearly let their employees go in opposite restrooms.
So isn't it really down to whether or not you have been ordered not to do so? Down to the discretion of the owner?
Which is then the precarious choices that transpeople face. Do I use the bathroom that fits my gender with the concern that I'll be considered trespassing?
Rowling would then have that made even more difficult for such individuals despite providing no evidence that restrictions are necessary.
Still remember when, 20 years ago, the managers of the gym I went to forced a trans woman to use the men's dressing room. It was quite uncomfortable for everybody involved and quite pointless. :hmm:
Quote from: garbon on September 20, 2020, 01:56:36 AM
But that's the rub. The existence of the signs don't mean the owners are going to pursue trespassing charges.
They have indicated a women's restroom and a men's restroom but not that it will be illegal to enter one of the other gender. After all, some clearly let their employees go in opposite restrooms.
So isn't it really down to whether or not you have been ordered not to do so? Down to the discretion of the owner?
Which is then the precarious choices that transpeople face. Do I use the bathroom that fits my gender with the concern that I'll be considered trespassing?
Rowling would then have that made even more difficult for such individuals despite providing no evidence that restrictions are necessary.
And even then it isn't at the discretion of the owner if that's discriminatory (in the UK you can't discriminate against people based on gender re-assignment, but you can refuse services if that's a proportionate way of achieving a legitimate aim), so the only case I'm aware of in England on this was that pub I mentioned earlier. That involved a trans woman who had lived in her gender for twenty, had gender re-assignment surgery - it's not clear if she had a GRC. The court found that the pub had discriminated against her in telling her to use the gents.
Quote from: garbon on September 20, 2020, 01:56:36 AM
But that's the rub. The existence of the signs don't mean the owners are going to pursue trespassing charges.
They have indicated a women's restroom and a men's restroom but not that it will be illegal to enter one of the other gender. After all, some clearly let their employees go in opposite restrooms.
So isn't it really down to whether or not you have been ordered not to do so? Down to the discretion of the owner?
Which is then the precarious choices that transpeople face. Do I use the bathroom that fits my gender with the concern that I'll be considered trespassing?
Rowling would then have that made even more difficult for such individuals despite providing no evidence that restrictions are necessary.
The laws of trespass are not nearly so arbitrary as you seem to believe (though it is a step forward that you now seem to realize that they apply). Like almost all laws, it comes down to the intent of the actor.
If the actor sincerely believes that they are entitled to use a restroom marked "women" because they consider themselves a woman, then they are not trespassing, regardless of what people on the internet (or even the owner of the restroom) believes.
So the question becomes: how do we test the sincerity of the motives of an XY entering an XX dressing room? It seems to me that the willingness of the XY women to risk being challenged on trespass grounds (which really shouldn't happen but there's no real way to tell an actual transwoman from a pretending predatory male) has been a pretty good deterrent so far. I don't think that someone should be cancelled for asking if that is enough, however.
I don't believe that Rowling has made anything more difficult for anyone. I believe that cancel culture has made addressing the problems around trans use of facilities much more difficult though, by, for instance, insisting that no laws exist today and so no law need ever exist. It would be better to admit that laws do exist and that they may need to be modified in the face of changing circumstances. I'd not California's law on single-person bathrooms as an excellent example of sensible law changes that can be undertaken once people acknowledge that laws do exist.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 20, 2020, 10:26:17 AM
And even then it isn't at the discretion of the owner if that's discriminatory (in the UK you can't discriminate against people based on gender re-assignment, but you can refuse services if that's a proportionate way of achieving a legitimate aim), so the only case I'm aware of in England on this was that pub I mentioned earlier. That involved a trans woman who had lived in her gender for twenty, had gender re-assignment surgery - it's not clear if she had a GRC. The court found that the pub had discriminated against her in telling her to use the gents.
The owner has the discretion to challenge suspected trespassers but, as the case you cite demonstrated, it is the motive of the suspected trespasser that counts, not the motive of the person challenging the alleged trespasser. That's how trespass works.
Damn, this cancel culture is brutal.
(https://i.postimg.cc/vDFKG5FW/cancel.png)
Free publicity.
Quote from: Syt on September 24, 2020, 02:54:22 AM
Damn, this cancel culture is brutal.
(https://i.postimg.cc/vDFKG5FW/cancel.png)
So it was all a plug for her upcoming book. <_<
Cancel culture has much more success in bullying nobodies.
Was there a campaign amongst far right types to buy it?
Though to be fair surely any book by her would go to number 1 straight away?
Most people probably don't care one way or another about trans people. So to them its just a new Rowling book so they bought it.
It's clearly written by Robert Galbriath.
Meanwhile in the "cancel culture" perpetual motion machine, OfCom have announced that they receive 1,900 complaints after a judge on Britain's Got Talent wore a BLM necklace. The show normally gets 9 million viewers.
Now people on the internet are discoursing about the 1,900 complaints which is also getting media coverage. Then OfCom will reject the complaints and we'll go into another cycle of pieces in the newspapers and the discourse.
On we go.
Quote from: merithyn on September 19, 2020, 04:21:35 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 19, 2020, 12:30:52 PM
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on September 18, 2020, 10:20:43 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 17, 2020, 06:36:42 PM
I can absolutely guarantee that there are significant numbers of high school boys that would be willing to claim they are trans women if it allows them to go into the girls' locker room and see their female classmate naked.
Aside from your assertion that it is true, do you have any actual evidence of such a case happening? A dozen? A hundred? Thousands? If it is not illegal currently to do so in places and there are "significant numbers of high school boys" who would engage in such an act, there must be mounds of evidence and a plethora of examples to showcase. I look forward to reading through your damning evidence and examples. :)
I bolded the part that makes the rest of your statement null and void. I know of nowhere where that would be legal, and have only the self-serving claims of two non-legal-scholars to indicate that it is perfectly legal for boys to enter the girls' locker rooms in the UK and Oregon. I'm willing to bet that those places have trespass laws as well.
:rolleyes:
Yes. Looking up laws online requires a law degree. I think you're confusing "legal" with "against the rules".
He could start by looking up what "null and void" means.
Sniping from the sidelines in third person is really not a good look.
While that's true, does anyone on Languish still care how we look? :hmm:
Quote from: DGuller on September 24, 2020, 05:01:11 PM
Sniping from the sidelines in third person is really not a good look.
Never did like third-person shooters. It's first person or nothing.
I didn't get lesbians bitching about the Sharon Stone beaver shot movie and I don't get this about JK Rowling. Should cis and straight people be bitching about the other 99.99% of villains?
Quote from: DGuller on September 24, 2020, 05:01:11 PM
Sniping from the sidelines in third person is really not a good look.
What looks even worse is someone using a term like null and void to attempt to talk down to someone else. Getting called for it, and then some idiot not liking the first idiot getting called out.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2020, 09:06:22 PM
What looks even worse is someone using a term like null and void to attempt to talk down to someone else. Getting called for it, and then some idiot not liking the first idiot getting called out.
I know the term "null and void" is a big one for you to grasp, but you don't need to, as I wasn't responding to you. So stop feeling all butthurt.
But, for your info, here's a definition:
QuoteDefinition of null and void
: having no force, binding power, or validity
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/null%20and%20void (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/null%20and%20void)
BTW, that's an example of talking down to someone, as opposed to the post where I first used the term.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2020, 09:06:22 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 24, 2020, 05:01:11 PM
Sniping from the sidelines in third person is really not a good look.
What looks even worse is someone using a term like null and void to attempt to talk down to someone else. Getting called for it, and then some idiot not liking the first idiot getting called out.
"I'm rubber, you're glue."
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2020, 09:06:22 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 24, 2020, 05:01:11 PM
Sniping from the sidelines in third person is really not a good look.
What looks even worse is someone using a term like null and void to attempt to talk down to someone else. Getting called for it, and then some idiot not liking the first idiot getting called out.
:hmm: I'm not sure that convoluted hypothetical scenario does look worse.
Quote from: Valmy on September 24, 2020, 08:28:26 AM
Cancel culture has much more success in bullying nobodies.
Remember when we thought Iran was evil for declaring a Fatwah against Salman Rushdie? :)
Huh?
Quote from: viper37 on September 26, 2020, 01:38:14 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 24, 2020, 08:28:26 AM
Cancel culture has much more success in bullying nobodies.
Remember when we thought Iran was evil for declaring a Fatwah against Salman Rushdie? :)
I mean I do think a government calling for murder goes a bit beyond cancel culture.
Quote from: Valmy on September 26, 2020, 03:47:25 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 26, 2020, 01:38:14 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 24, 2020, 08:28:26 AM
Cancel culture has much more success in bullying nobodies.
Remember when we thought Iran was evil for declaring a Fatwah against Salman Rushdie? :)
I mean I do think a government calling for murder goes a bit beyond cancel culture.
Sure. Until these people decide they're tired of waiting for a government to act.
Quote from: viper37 on September 26, 2020, 05:49:10 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 26, 2020, 03:47:25 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 26, 2020, 01:38:14 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 24, 2020, 08:28:26 AM
Cancel culture has much more success in bullying nobodies.
Remember when we thought Iran was evil for declaring a Fatwah against Salman Rushdie? :)
I mean I do think a government calling for murder goes a bit beyond cancel culture.
Sure. Until these people decide they're tired of waiting for a government to act.
Do we need to point to that statistic about 2% of politically linked killings coming from the left vs 74% from the right？
Just compare Farage getting a milk shake thrown at him vs Jo Cox being shot in her office.
People being mean to Rowling on twitter and saying they won't buy her books anymore vs.Owen Jones being beaten on the street.
Making a point without violence is literally what boycotting those with beliefs you disagree with is about.
Quote from: Tyr on September 26, 2020, 06:15:50 PM
Do we need to point to that statistic about 2% of politically linked killings coming from the left vs 74% from the right？
Those figures sound pretty sus.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on September 26, 2020, 07:20:10 PM
Quote from: Tyr on September 26, 2020, 06:15:50 PM
Do we need to point to that statistic about 2% of politically linked killings coming from the left vs 74% from the right？
Those figures sound pretty sus.
In the US, according to the ADL, since 1970, 73.3 percent of all extremist-related fatalities can be linked to domestic right-wing non-Islamic extremists, while 23.4 percent can be attributed to right-wing Islamic extremists. The other 3.2% were not members of any right-wing extremist group.
https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/right-wing-extremism-linked-to-every-2018-extremist-murder-in-the-us-adl-finds (https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/right-wing-extremism-linked-to-every-2018-extremist-murder-in-the-us-adl-finds)
So, yeah, that 2% looks sus, as it represents over half of the total non-right-wing extremists, when there must have been a number of moderate extremists, right? The 74% ignores the right-wing Islamists, which it should not do. It should read 96.7%.
If you're limiting yourself to an American context, calling jihadists right-wingers is very misleading. The issue they care about is foreign policy, on which they are diametrically opposed to US right-wingers.
That aside, the process of deciding which murders are due to "extremism" vs some other cause (frex mental illness) sounds highly political.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on September 26, 2020, 08:59:36 PM
If you're limiting yourself to an American context, calling jihadists right-wingers is very misleading. The issue they care about is foreign policy, on which they are diametrically opposed to US right-wingers.
That aside, the process of deciding which murders are due to "extremism" vs some other cause (frex mental illness) sounds highly political.
Extremists are mentally ill. That's no secret.
I don't understand the distinction you are trying to draw between Islamist right-wing extremists and secular or Christian right-wing extremists. They are motivated by the same belief: that those who reject their brand of received wisdom do so because of pride and ignorance, and they must pay for that. The difference between Timothy McVay and Osama bib Laden was money, that's all. If McVay had had bin Laden's money, he'd have tried to kill thousands, and not just little kids.
I mean the entire "right/left" dichotomy really falls apart when you start mixing up international politics. Not that it is ever especially useful.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on September 26, 2020, 10:53:45 PM
I mean the entire "right/left" dichotomy really falls apart when you start mixing up international politics. Not that it is ever especially useful.
Wait wait wait you challenged the numbers because you thought they were suspect. Once you got the source of the numbers you then move the goal posts to say the whole issue is not useful? If that was the issue why didn't you lead with that instead of the the numbers thing?
Oh, I still don't "trust" the numbers. They are dependent upon a number of subjective decisions.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on September 26, 2020, 08:59:36 PM
If you're limiting yourself to an American context, calling jihadists right-wingers is very misleading. The issue they care about is foreign policy, on which they are diametrically opposed to US right-wingers.
Ok. So exclude them and you've still got over 70%.
Just think of the last few weeks. Nixonland is also really, really good on the figures in the 60s because it is really striking how much attention the left-wing groups (Panthers, Weathermen etc) get and still have, while there are thousands of killings by extremists on the right.
QuoteThat aside, the process of deciding which murders are due to "extremism" vs some other cause (frex mental illness) sounds highly political.
This is always an issue. I've said before that I am highly dubious about the way we report someone with a history of serious mental health issues stabbing people and shouting out a political slogan or "Allah akbar". So often it gets reported as terrorism, which I'm not sure is right.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on September 27, 2020, 02:16:25 AM
Oh, I still don't "trust" the numbers. They are dependent upon a number of subjective decisions.
Distrust the numbers to the extent that exactly 73.3% of killings are down to right wing extremists- sure.
Distrust the overall point of them that the far right are vastly more likely to murder than anyone else- there's no way they could have fudged the numbers quite that much.
Maybe it was 73.3%. Maybe it was 90%. Maybe it was 60%. Most likely it was something about 73.3%. Quibbling about the exact end result is sort of missing the point.
Ok, I went to grumbler's link. Not only are they limiting the figures to America but to domestic sources. So no 9/11.
This still leaves the issue of defining left-wing and right-wing extremism. Did they count the Unabomber as a left-wing extremist? What about that dude who shot up a bunch of cops at beginning of BLM protest era? DC sniper? Probably attributed him to Islamism, though there was clearly racial animosity too.
It just doesn't seem realistic to get results of 70 to 2 without finessing the numbers.
Well those questions might have answers that might be to your satisfaction or they might not. I don't see how simply having questions automatically proves the data dishonest.
So on sports World Rugby have prepared guidelines on trans competitors:
https://playerwelfare.worldrugby.org/gender
In particular the summary and the FAQs are interesting and they do come to conclusions against transwomen (who hit puberty) competing in women's rugby. The big consideration is rugby is not just whether there's an advantage but the safety issues from contact injuries which are quite common. But they have committed to an annual review of the evidence and to update the guidance every three years.
The way this has been handled in the documents is exactly the sort of sensitively handled approach I didn't think sports governing bodies would be capable of - so fair play to World Rugby. It's up to the individual unions whether they adopt these guidenlines but the approach taken seems right in comparison with, say, the athletics governing body or (God help us) what FIFA would do.
Edit: And a summary on Twitter by one of the sports scientists involved:
QuoteRoss Tucker
@Scienceofsport
Oct 9
The World Rugby Transgender guideline is now out, and fully available here: https://playerwelfare.worldrugby.org/gender You'll also find a document called FAQs which tries to answer some common questions. We firmly believe it is the right thing in an emotive issue, for many reasons.
The Guideline is also accompanied by a visualisation that summarises the available physiological evidence that informed the Guideline. Here are those images, but I'd encourage consideration of all the issues - biological, legal, medical, social, ethical. All are in the doc & FAQs
As brief a summary as I can provide:
It is not possible to balance inclusion, safety and fairness. All the quality evidence, even if incomplete, strongly suggests that advantages are retained with welfare & performance implications. Therefore, players must compete in sex category
We genuinely did strive for inclusion (see trans men 'bypass'), but where it is apparent that it would compromise safety and performance, it cannot be achieved. Categories of sex exist for a reason and with the contact injury risk of rugby, this is the correct decision.
That said, we are committed to an annual review of the available evidence, because a few universities are doing quality stuff in this area. And a formal review of the guidelines is guaranteed every 3 years. For now, every piece of evidence points one way, and we went that way
And allow me to say, on a personal note - many of you may have questions & thought,. I pretty much guarantee that we thought about EVERY SINGLE ONE. Hard. We were not frivolous or reckless with evidence. The document & FAQ represent our best effort at summing up our 'struggle'
What are their normal procedures to ensure that safety isn't a problem because of size differences/whatever? They aren't sufficient?
Quote from: The Brain on October 10, 2020, 11:29:50 AM
What are their normal procedures to ensure that safety isn't a problem because of size differences/whatever? They aren't sufficient?
I recon normally if you are too brittle you don't make it into the team.
Quote from: The Brain on October 10, 2020, 11:29:50 AM
What are their normal procedures to ensure that safety isn't a problem because of size differences/whatever? They aren't sufficient?
There aren't any normal safety procedures I don't think.
The issue they flag in the FAQs is that the cumulative effect of increased mass, strength, power and speed is quite significant (160% higher in biological males than in biological females). And the ability to withstand forces is a function of strength in particular in addition to the general biomechanics of head and neck forces when a lighter player is in a tackle, ruck or scrum with a heavier player. So the risk is higher for transwomen playing against ciswomen.
While those risks exist in rugby at all times in a team on biological sex you would basically not have the small light players in a ruck or a scrum (and you need the light fast ones to release anyway). But that's a lower risk than the cumulative impact of a transwoman (who went through puberty) against a ciswoman.
I'm not sure if I agree but as I say I think it's an example of doing this based on evidence, open to review and in a sensitive way.
I don't have a problem with this. Though maybe we do need some kind of small print about special exemptions may be available if someone appeals: in the expectation nobody will but in theory if someone transitioned early enough and gets really good at rugby they aren't disqualified.
If we ignore the 0.00000001% of the population who cannot be clearly defined in such a way, all the sport-related issues would go away if they were categorised by birth sex instead of gender.
Quote from: Tamas on October 10, 2020, 01:22:12 PM
If we ignore the 0.00000001% of the population who cannot be clearly defined in such a way, all the sport-related issues would go away if they were categorised by birth sex instead of gender.
A bit mad to have testosterone filled hairy muscular trans guys wrestling girls.
There is no easy answer in this.
Quote from: Tyr on October 10, 2020, 01:36:26 PM
Quote from: Tamas on October 10, 2020, 01:22:12 PM
If we ignore the 0.00000001% of the population who cannot be clearly defined in such a way, all the sport-related issues would go away if they were categorised by birth sex instead of gender.
A bit mad to have testosterone filled hairy muscular trans guys wrestling girls.
There is no easy answer in this.
Let alone other sports.
Quote from: Tyr on October 10, 2020, 01:36:26 PM
Quote from: Tamas on October 10, 2020, 01:22:12 PM
If we ignore the 0.00000001% of the population who cannot be clearly defined in such a way, all the sport-related issues would go away if they were categorised by birth sex instead of gender.
A bit mad to have testosterone filled hairy muscular trans guys wrestling girls.
There is no easy answer in this.
No but see there is. Is your birth sex male? You compete with males. Is your birth sex female? You compete with females. Your current gender should have no say in it.
And if that's unfair then I am sorry but sports are already about harsh selection based on genetics.
Quote from: Tamas on October 10, 2020, 06:16:05 PM
Quote from: Tyr on October 10, 2020, 01:36:26 PM
Quote from: Tamas on October 10, 2020, 01:22:12 PM
If we ignore the 0.00000001% of the population who cannot be clearly defined in such a way, all the sport-related issues would go away if they were categorised by birth sex instead of gender.
A bit mad to have testosterone filled hairy muscular trans guys wrestling girls.
There is no easy answer in this.
No but see there is. Is your birth sex male? You compete with males. Is your birth sex female? You compete with females. Your current gender should have no say in it.
And if that's unfair then I am sorry but sports are already about harsh selection based on genetics.
And you don't see how mad this will be in the changing room for amateur competitions？
So you'll have a trans guy with the guys most of the time but when tournament time comes around he has to go up against women?
And what of the significant advantage its giving trans men?
Not to mention the question of just how do you define male and female?
The science that held this was a strict binary is rather outdated.
The right answer is to let cis-women have their own bubble. There can be exceptions made for trans-women who are judged not to have advantage, but it shouldn't be blanket inclusion.
The simple solution for sports is to just accept trans women as women. In some rare cases you may need to add some new safety rules, but many contact sports already have weight classes so they're set. The solution has the added advantage that it doesn't leave you wide open to accusations of transphobia.
That solution works better for woke males than female athletes.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on October 11, 2020, 02:11:19 AM
That solution works better for woke males than female athletes.
Only if you're stuck in the mindset that trans women aren't actually women.
Quote from: chipwich on October 11, 2020, 02:22:39 AM
Quote from: The Brain on October 11, 2020, 02:00:44 AM
you may need to add some new safety rules,
Like what?
Depends on the sport. The details are best left to experts in the relevant sports.
The whole point of women's sports is that it's own "weight category". That by definition requires defining who to include and who to exclude, because it's understood that in most sports the best women have no chance against the best men.
Quote from: Tyr on October 10, 2020, 06:38:29 PM
Quote from: Tamas on October 10, 2020, 06:16:05 PM
Quote from: Tyr on October 10, 2020, 01:36:26 PM
Quote from: Tamas on October 10, 2020, 01:22:12 PM
If we ignore the 0.00000001% of the population who cannot be clearly defined in such a way, all the sport-related issues would go away if they were categorised by birth sex instead of gender.
A bit mad to have testosterone filled hairy muscular trans guys wrestling girls.
There is no easy answer in this.
No but see there is. Is your birth sex male? You compete with males. Is your birth sex female? You compete with females. Your current gender should have no say in it.
And if that's unfair then I am sorry but sports are already about harsh selection based on genetics.
And you don't see how mad this will be in the changing room for amateur competitions？
So you'll have a trans guy with the guys most of the time but when tournament time comes around he has to go up against women?
And what of the significant advantage its giving trans men?
Not to mention the question of just how do you define male and female?
The science that held this was a strict binary is rather outdated.
You seem to be misunderstanding me. Why would it give advantage to trans anyone? How to explain better? If you were born with XY sex chromosome pairs you compete with males. If you were born with XX you compete with females.
Sports are already heavily discriminating on genetic grounds. If your inherent abilities are not judged good enough you can never progress past recreational playing of a sport. And if you do, things like being injury prone (also genetics) can limit how far you can go.
Quote from: Tamas on October 11, 2020, 04:12:47 AM
You seem to be misunderstanding me. Why would it give advantage to trans anyone? How to explain better? If you were born with XY sex chromosome pairs you compete with males. If you were born with XX you compete with females.
Sports are already heavily discriminating on genetic grounds. If your inherent abilities are not judged good enough you can never progress past recreational playing of a sport. And if you do, things like being injury prone (also genetics) can limit how far you can go.
Yes, but a trans-man will have an advantage over ciswomen. By banning him from playing with cisgender men you put this big hairy testosterone full guy, who happed to have been assigned female at birth, in the womens game.
Also have to point out that XY=Male and XX=Female is now understood to be generally true but an oversimplification.
Lest we forget the entire reason this trans people in sports thing is blowing up so much in recent times was Caster Semenya, undoubtedly female born and raised, yet XY.
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2020, 03:48:47 AM
The whole point of women's sports is that it's own "weight category". That by definition requires defining who to include and who to exclude, because it's understood that in most sports the best women have no chance against the best men.
I'm not suggesting that men should compete in women's sports.
That's exactly what you're doing.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on October 11, 2020, 05:48:22 AM
That's exactly what you're doing.
That one was settled years ago.
Trans women are women, trans men are men. This is not open to debate.
Whether due to their special circumstances they need to be treat differently when it comes to sports... That is an iffier proposition.
It's not settled, it's just rarely debated due to lack of interest.
Are we back to binary on the gender thing? :unsure: It's so easy to miss an update, especially with none of this being up for debate.
Sex, gender, and orientation are all different things. None of them are binary, but sex is closer to binary than the others.
I have always been more analog myself.
Quote from: Valmy on October 11, 2020, 11:34:07 AM
I have always been more analog myself.
Did you ask for it?
I always ask for analog. You just dont want spring that on somebody.
Quote from: Tyr on October 11, 2020, 06:02:16 AM
That one was settled years ago.
Trans women are women, trans men are men. This is not open to debate.
Whether due to their special circumstances they need to be treat differently when it comes to sports... That is an iffier proposition.
If participation in women's sports, or use of women's facilities like changing rooms and domestic abuse shelters, is in fact an iffier proposition, what is the significance of saying trans women are women (and it's not open for debate)?
Now that I think about it, Tamas's plan would also amount to a cis-woman only league. Trans-women would be excluded due to biology and trans-men due to banned substances.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on October 11, 2020, 12:40:57 PM
Now that I think about it, Tamas's plan would also amount to a cis-woman only league. Trans-women would be excluded due to biology and trans-men due to banned substances.
There is an untold mass of people barred from all kind of sports because they lack the genetic traits to be able to compete effectively, yet there is no fuss made.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 11, 2020, 12:20:41 PM
Quote from: Tyr on October 11, 2020, 06:02:16 AM
That one was settled years ago.
Trans women are women, trans men are men. This is not open to debate.
Whether due to their special circumstances they need to be treat differently when it comes to sports... That is an iffier proposition.
If participation in women's sports, or use of women's facilities like changing rooms and domestic abuse shelters, is in fact an iffier proposition, what is the significance of saying trans women are women (and it's not open for debate)?
There are those who would take the valid issue for sports rules makers of determining whether trans people can be involved and to what level, and use this as a crow bar for the broader issue of whether trans people are legitimately of their new gender or not. An issue which is pretty settled in favour of letting trans people be but nonetheless reactionaries are keen to push back and are grasping for any excuse to do this.
It's important not to mix the two completely seperate issues up.
For instance way back before he shot his wife I believe Oscar Pretorius was starting to compete beyond para athletics and in regular athletics. There was a debate to be had here as to whether that was acceptable as its perfectly possible to imagine his tech-legs giving him an advantage over those with biological legs.
But this in no way infringes on the fact he is undoubtedly a man.
Quote from: Tyr on October 11, 2020, 02:12:33 PM
There are those who would take the valid issue for sports rules makers of determining whether trans people can be involved and to what level, and use this as a crow bar for the broader issue of whether trans people are legitimately of their new gender or not. An issue which is pretty settled in favour of letting trans people be but nonetheless reactionaries are keen to push back and are grasping for any excuse to do this.
It's important not to mix the two completely seperate issues up.
For instance way back before he shot his wife I believe Oscar Pretorius was starting to compete beyond para athletics and in regular athletics. There was a debate to be had here as to whether that was acceptable as its perfectly possible to imagine his tech-legs giving him an advantage over those with biological legs.
But this in no way infringes on the fact he is undoubtedly a man.
You didn't answer the question. If reactionaries, crowbar, etc. etc., why do we care? What is the significance? What are the conclusions that flow out of saying trans women are legitimately women?
My impression is that it's a common position that trans women should be treated as women except in situations where the feelings or profits of cis women professional athletes are hurt. I could be mistaken though.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 11, 2020, 02:19:53 PM
Quote from: Tyr on October 11, 2020, 02:12:33 PM
There are those who would take the valid issue for sports rules makers of determining whether trans people can be involved and to what level, and use this as a crow bar for the broader issue of whether trans people are legitimately of their new gender or not. An issue which is pretty settled in favour of letting trans people be but nonetheless reactionaries are keen to push back and are grasping for any excuse to do this.
It's important not to mix the two completely seperate issues up.
For instance way back before he shot his wife I believe Oscar Pretorius was starting to compete beyond para athletics and in regular athletics. There was a debate to be had here as to whether that was acceptable as its perfectly possible to imagine his tech-legs giving him an advantage over those with biological legs.
But this in no way infringes on the fact he is undoubtedly a man.
You didn't answer the question. If reactionaries, crowbar, etc. etc., why do we care? What is the significance? What are the conclusions that flow out of saying trans women are legitimately women?
:mellow:
I answered you directly. They're two different issues and it's a mistake to conflate them.
Well, you didn't, you just restated the premise. "It's a mistake" does not explain why it's a mistake.
Brain, you subscribe to this newsletter. Maybe you can pitch in?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 11, 2020, 03:09:47 PM
Well, you didn't, you just restated the premise. "It's a mistake" does not explain why it's a mistake.
Brain, you subscribe to this newsletter. Maybe you can pitch in?
Which newsletter? Non-rhetorical.
I have tried in this thread to get a straight answer why sports should be different from other areas regarding trans women, especially since voicing concerns for the safety of cis-women (JK Rowling) makes a person transphobic. I have not managed to get an answer.
Quote from: The Brain on October 11, 2020, 03:16:03 PM
Which newsletter? Non-rhetorical.
I got the impression you felt "trans women are legitimately women" is an important set of words.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 11, 2020, 03:19:00 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 11, 2020, 03:16:03 PM
Which newsletter? Non-rhetorical.
I got the impression you felt "trans women are legitimately women" is an important set of words.
Well, I feel that if trans women are women then why shouldn't they be able to compete in women's sports? It seems weird to me.
Also, posters of a certain age will remember watching East German women compete. Seemed to work just fine.
:hmm: I'm sensing a proof by contradiction.
One aspect is that there has been a lot of effort in making women's team sports more popular and thus profitable, women's football in particular. Unlike in the case of toilets, I can absolutely see some B grader male athletes declaring themselves women and dominating their respective sport's women's field.
Although this would be good for the lols I guess, not only it would be unfair for the actual females playing women's sports, but also a couple of high profile cases of this would forever destroy any hope of the larger public taking women's sports and athletes seriously.
I do no think this price worth paying to indulge the tiny minority (professional athletes) of a tiny minority (transgender people).
Quote from: Tamas on October 11, 2020, 03:39:15 PM
One aspect is that there has been a lot of effort in making women's team sports more popular and thus profitable, women's football in particular. Unlike in the case of toilets, I can absolutely see some B grader male athletes declaring themselves women and dominating their respective sport's women's field.
Although this would be good for the lols I guess, not only it would be unfair for the actual females playing women's sports, but also a couple of high profile cases of this would forever destroy any hope of the larger public taking women's sports and athletes seriously.
I do no think this price worth paying to indulge the tiny minority (professional athletes) of a tiny minority (transgender people).
One of the effects of your solution is that everyone else who, for whatever reason, has a problem with trans women being treated as women can point to sports and say "See? They aren't actual women. If sports can discriminate then me or my organization should be able to do so too." And their point wouldn't exactly be unreasonable.
The public's idea of what a woman looks like may change. Just like the public's idea of what a professor or astronaut looks like has changed.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 11, 2020, 03:09:47 PM
Well, you didn't, you just restated the premise. "It's a mistake" does not explain why it's a mistake.
Brain, you subscribe to this newsletter. Maybe you can pitch in?
What's this called again? Sea lioning?
The rules for competition in sports are unrelated to the rules for gender reassignment.
Plenty of sports have rules governing who can and cannot compete without anyone thinking a guy in a wheelchair is somehow not a man because he is banned from professional basketball.
There are very valid questions to be answered in defining just where the lines are for people to be allowed to compete. There's no easy answers and it's daft to try and use it for general trans bashing.
What's hard about this?
Fair point Brain.
But equally if some trans women can just enter the women's competition and end up dominating it due to genetics, that can be pointed out by misogynists as proof to secondary status of females.
Quote from: Tamas on October 11, 2020, 03:57:55 PM
Fair point Brain.
But equally if some trans women can just enter the women's competition and end up dominating it due to genetics, that can be pointed out by misogynists as proof to secondary status of females.
As long as there are people who think that humans being different from each other is somehow bad and shameful there will be a problem squaring this circle. Those people exist in many places on the political spectrum, and I don't see them going away in my lifetime.
Quote from: The Brain on October 11, 2020, 04:03:04 PM
Quote from: Tamas on October 11, 2020, 03:57:55 PM
Fair point Brain.
But equally if some trans women can just enter the women's competition and end up dominating it due to genetics, that can be pointed out by misogynists as proof to secondary status of females.
As long as there are people who think that humans being different from each other is somehow bad and shameful there will be a problem squaring this circle. Those people exist in many places on the political spectrum, and I don't see them going away in my lifetime.
Yes but when a choice HAS to be made between discriminating against cis women and discriminating against transgender people, should not the choice be to discriminate against the least number of people?
Quote from: Tamas on October 11, 2020, 05:03:45 PM
Yes but when a choice HAS to be made between discriminating against cis women and discriminating against transgender people, should not the choice be to discriminate against the least number of people?
Why "discriminate against" anyone? Just let performance determine the outcome. Woman A was born with stronger lungs than woman B. Should society "discriminate against" woman A when it comes to long-distance running? If not, then why should it "discriminate against" woman C, born with testicles?
Quote from: The Brain on October 11, 2020, 03:30:27 PM
Also, posters of a certain age will remember watching East German women compete. Seemed to work just fine.
Yes to the first one. No to the second one.
Quote from: grumbler on October 11, 2020, 05:08:07 PM
Quote from: Tamas on October 11, 2020, 05:03:45 PM
Yes but when a choice HAS to be made between discriminating against cis women and discriminating against transgender people, should not the choice be to discriminate against the least number of people?
Why "discriminate against" anyone? Just let performance determine the outcome. Woman A was born with stronger lungs than woman B. Should society "discriminate against" woman A when it comes to long-distance running? If not, then why should it "discriminate against" woman C, born with testicles?
Fair enough but if that's the correct attitude then what exactly is the point of having a men/women division in sport? If effectively a person can join either based on self-declaration then it is utterly pointless to have both. Let's have THE sport, and then let the best win. We might end up with e.g. football where the top 4 leagues have barely any women in them unless they were born with testicles as you said, and non-testicled women might disappear from the top echelon of athletics, but apparently that is a small price to pay to ensure that no women gets discriminated based on the frivolous detail of birth sex.
Quote
Yes but when a choice HAS to be made between discriminating against cis women and discriminating against transgender people, should not the choice be to discriminate against the least number of people?
Why "discriminate against" anyone? Just let performance determine the outcome. Woman A was born with stronger lungs than woman B. Should society "discriminate against" woman A when it comes to long-distance running? If not, then why should it "discriminate against" woman C, born with testicles?
The trouble there is as Tamas says if there's big prize money on the line then it will actually be tempting for a OK but not excellent male athlete to transition.
Thinking about this. I think with transmen we can safely say there should be no restrictions whatsoever. They don't have an advantage, in fact are at a disadvantage, so fair play to them for giving it a go.
With trans-women though.... Well it's an issue bigger than trans women. How do you even define a woman (for sport) . As mentioned Caster Semenya has really shaken things up. Over the decades the definition of a woman has changed many times and it has never hit on anything satisfactory.
I really wonder whether there needs be rules about being female since before puberty and some kind of system in place for handling appeals and designations on a case by case business.... Though the potential for corruption and special interests taking over looms large.
Would it make sense to just have different testosterone level classes the same way some sports have different weight classes?
Quote from: Tyr on October 11, 2020, 03:52:53 PM
What's this called again? Sea lioning?
The rules for competition in sports are unrelated to the rules for gender reassignment.
Plenty of sports have rules governing who can and cannot compete without anyone thinking a guy in a wheelchair is somehow not a man because he is banned from professional basketball.
There are very valid questions to be answered in defining just where the lines are for people to be allowed to compete. There's no easy answers and it's daft to try and use it for general trans bashing.
What's hard about this?
I don't know what sealioning is.
You tell me what's hard about it. You don't want people to use the fact that sports are iffy to conclude that "trans women are not legitimate women."
Why? My question is why. You keep answering you really, really want people not to think that trans women are legitimate women as if that's an answer to why. It's not an answer to why.
"Sealioning (also spelled sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment which consists of pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity."
Nope. I'm asking why.
Quote from: The Brain on October 11, 2020, 03:30:27 PM
Also, posters of a certain age will remember watching East German women compete. Seemed to work just fine.
Yeah, I remember.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHBbInxJ4Is
Let's make this conversation more interesting. What it is that most people are thinking but not saying when discussing this topic, leading to the inability to hold a coherent conversation as we're witnessing here? My guess is that people are desperate to avoid any insinuation that being born transexual is a birth defect of some kind.
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2020, 09:17:12 PM
Let's make this conversation more interesting. What it is that most people are thinking but not saying when discussing this topic, leading to the inability to hold a coherent conversation as we're witnessing here? My guess is that people are desperate to avoid any insinuation that being born transexual is a birth defect of some kind.
You think this what *most* people in this conversation are thinking?
How did you come to this conclusion?
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2020, 09:17:12 PM
Let's make this conversation more interesting. What it is that most people are thinking but not saying when discussing this topic, leading to the inability to hold a coherent conversation as we're witnessing here? My guess is that people are desperate to avoid any insinuation that being born transexual is a birth defect of some kind.
I think you might be projecting.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 11, 2020, 09:20:54 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2020, 09:17:12 PM
Let's make this conversation more interesting. What it is that most people are thinking but not saying when discussing this topic, leading to the inability to hold a coherent conversation as we're witnessing here? My guess is that people are desperate to avoid any insinuation that being born transexual is a birth defect of some kind.
You think this what *most* people in this conversation are thinking?
How did you come to this conclusion?
When overt words don't make any sense, you have to think that there is a bush out there that people are beating around. This seems like the most obvious bush.
The pro-JK crowd seems to walk on thin ice trying to bring up the nuance of what differences there may be between people identifying as women and people who never had to think about what they identify as. The anti-JK crowd seems to mandate as a fact beyond debate that sex is not binary, but everyone absolutely without reservations is either a man or a woman. Neither side seems to be making arguments out in the open.
First of all I don't think you can be born transsexual. I mean, first of all its trans gender isn't it? And gender is a social construct.
A better question would have been: am I trying to avoid saying I am still not 100% convinced its a healthy mental state? The answer for that would have been yes.
What is a mental illness but a diversion from norms that has been branded as undesirable by society?
Practically everybody has some form of diversion. For most people they're harmless and virtually unnoticeable. Others...are harmful to the person suffering from them or, even worse, to other people.
Once upon a time homosexuality was counted as a mental illness. It is a deviation from the norm afterall. And then there's the whole bible thing. But with time we realised...So what?
If people learn to let gay people be then just accepting homosexuality and letting gay people get on with life is no issue whatsoever.
With transsexuals its similar. Its not something its so easy to dip in and out of like homosexuality (that's what she said) so it does require psychological intervention to determine if somebody is truly transsexual or suffering from some form of delusion. But once it has been determined that somebody is actually trans then...let them be. Whatever gender somebody is doesn't affect me.
QuoteThe anti-JK crowd seems to mandate as a fact beyond debate that sex is not binary, but everyone absolutely without reservations is either a man or a woman
I don't think anybody has said that.
Intersex people and various non-binary people exist too.
Trans-women are women. Non-binary people are...non-binary people.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 11, 2020, 07:03:27 PM
I don't know what sealioning is.
You tell me what's hard about it. You don't want people to use the fact that sports are iffy to conclude that "trans women are not legitimate women."
Why? My question is why. You keep answering you really, really want people not to think that trans women are legitimate women as if that's an answer to why. It's not an answer to why.
Because lets not let bigots exploit valid questions as an inroad to spreading hate?
Trans-people deserve the right to live in peace?
You're getting into the fundamental ethics of why do people have any rights here.
:cheers:
Tyr, why do you think that trans women shouldn't be treated as women? Isn't that holding open the door for hate?
Quote from: The Brain on October 12, 2020, 04:10:39 AM
Tyr, why do you think that trans women shouldn't be treated as women? Isn't that holding open the door for hate?
I've already gone over this.
Nobody would argue that Oscar Pistorius isn't a man.
Nonetheless he required special dispensation to compete in regular men's athletics. There was the very real risk that due to his condition and the aids he had to overcome this he may have an unfair advantage.
Quote from: Tyr on October 12, 2020, 04:18:37 AM
Quote from: The Brain on October 12, 2020, 04:10:39 AM
Tyr, why do you think that trans women shouldn't be treated as women? Isn't that holding open the door for hate?
I've already gone over this.
Nobody would argue that Oscar Pistorius isn't a man.
Nonetheless he required special dispensation to compete in regular men's athletics. There was the very real risk that due to his condition and the aids he had to overcome this he may have an unfair advantage.
Why do you think the supposed advantages of trans women would be unfair? If trans women are women, how is any advantage of theirs different from the advantage a cis woman with awesome genes has over other cis women?
Considering all the bridges society has crossed the past 150 years, maybe this time, this issue, is where the equality train should stop. Maybe this issue is where old privileges should prevail. Maybe this is different from all the other times resistance to equality has been washed over by the advance of society. It's certainly possible that this is the case, I don't know. I don't make the rules of society and I don't want to make the rules of society. It's just not at all obvious to me that this should be the time we say "stop!".
Quote from: The Brain on October 12, 2020, 04:28:01 AM
Why do you think the supposed advantages of trans women would be unfair? If trans women are women, how is any advantage of theirs different from the advantage a cis woman with awesome genes has over other cis women?
Women are women.
But a woman in a wheelchair is going to be better on a downhill course than an able-bodied woman.
Quote from: Tyr on October 12, 2020, 04:32:56 AM
Quote from: The Brain on October 12, 2020, 04:28:01 AM
Why do you think the supposed advantages of trans women would be unfair? If trans women are women, how is any advantage of theirs different from the advantage a cis woman with awesome genes has over other cis women?
Women are women.
But a woman in a wheelchair is going to be better on a downhill course than an able-bodied woman.
AFAIK trans women wouldn't be using any special gadgets, but rather the same equipment as everyone else.
Quote from: Tamas on October 11, 2020, 05:03:45 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 11, 2020, 04:03:04 PM
Quote from: Tamas on October 11, 2020, 03:57:55 PM
Fair point Brain.
But equally if some trans women can just enter the women's competition and end up dominating it due to genetics, that can be pointed out by misogynists as proof to secondary status of females.
As long as there are people who think that humans being different from each other is somehow bad and shameful there will be a problem squaring this circle. Those people exist in many places on the political spectrum, and I don't see them going away in my lifetime.
Yes but when a choice HAS to be made between discriminating against cis women and discriminating against transgender people, should not the choice be to discriminate against the least number of people?
I don't see that you have to discriminate against cis women just because you don't discriminate against trans women.
Quote from: The Brain on October 12, 2020, 05:04:09 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 11, 2020, 05:03:45 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 11, 2020, 04:03:04 PM
Quote from: Tamas on October 11, 2020, 03:57:55 PM
Fair point Brain.
But equally if some trans women can just enter the women's competition and end up dominating it due to genetics, that can be pointed out by misogynists as proof to secondary status of females.
As long as there are people who think that humans being different from each other is somehow bad and shameful there will be a problem squaring this circle. Those people exist in many places on the political spectrum, and I don't see them going away in my lifetime.
Yes but when a choice HAS to be made between discriminating against cis women and discriminating against transgender people, should not the choice be to discriminate against the least number of people?
I don't see that you have to discriminate against cis women just because you don't discriminate against trans women.
If that is true it means there is no valid reason to have men's and women's separation in sports.
Quote from: Tamas on October 12, 2020, 05:07:48 AM
Quote from: The Brain on October 12, 2020, 05:04:09 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 11, 2020, 05:03:45 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 11, 2020, 04:03:04 PM
Quote from: Tamas on October 11, 2020, 03:57:55 PM
Fair point Brain.
But equally if some trans women can just enter the women's competition and end up dominating it due to genetics, that can be pointed out by misogynists as proof to secondary status of females.
As long as there are people who think that humans being different from each other is somehow bad and shameful there will be a problem squaring this circle. Those people exist in many places on the political spectrum, and I don't see them going away in my lifetime.
Yes but when a choice HAS to be made between discriminating against cis women and discriminating against transgender people, should not the choice be to discriminate against the least number of people?
I don't see that you have to discriminate against cis women just because you don't discriminate against trans women.
If that is true it means there is no valid reason to have men's and women's separation in sports.
I don't see that. AFAIK the vast majority of women athletes are not trans women, there's likely to still be significant statistical differences between women and men when it comes to athletes.
That being said men and women competing as equals is a staple of SF and fantasy. Maybe society will get there some day?
I think you are way too smart not to see this but I will indulge you: self-declaring yourself from man to woman is not going to change your physical abilities stemming from your birth sexuality. If that inherent difference in physical abilities is not a source of unfair advantage for birth males vs birth females then separate sports for women and men should be abolished.
If they do mean an unfair advantage then those advantages do not disappear because someone change their name and clothing, or even if they have their genitals chopped off.
The trouble there is I very much doubt many female athletes will get far in male competition. I could maybe see the absolute super stars of women's sports making it to the lower reaches of the male professional game, but they won't get far beyond that.
QuoteAFAIK trans women wouldn't be using any special gadgets, but rather the same equipment as everyone else.
Sure. But the point is that if somebody isn't eligible to compete in women's sport it doesn't mean they're not a woman.
If Messi decides "You know what, I'm off to fill in the paperwork, call be Linda from now on" then that shouldn't automatically entitle him to compete in women's sports. For less successful male athletes the temptation to do this could be real. It really does seem to be something that can't be defined according to set rules, as we've seen in the history of women's sports and intersex people this is a very messy practice.
Rather it should be the case that above a certain level it is assumed by default that trans people can't compete, however the door should be open for people to appeal showing that they are following the spirit of female competition rather than merely exploiting the letter of the law.
e.g. random guy who is OK at sport decides to transition so he can become rich winning women's tournaments= no. Trans woman who happens to be good at a sport= OK.
This is a complex topic because we are trying to bend reality to match our ideals without anyone getting on the disadvantaged end of either ideals, reality, or both.
FWIW my impression is that people who think sports is special don't actually subscribe to the idea that trans women are women. I sense a lot of having cakes and eating them.
Quote from: The Brain on October 12, 2020, 07:41:14 AM
FWIW my impression is that people who think sports is special don't actually subscribe to the idea that trans women are women. I sense a lot of having cakes and eating them.
What do we mean by "trans women are women"? If we mean they should get the legal equality, pronouns and be allowed to dress and act as they please and use whichever bathroom then of course they are women.
If we mean they have the exact same physical attributes as biological females then of course they are not women.
Quote from: Tamas on October 11, 2020, 05:14:03 PM
[
Fair enough but if that's the correct attitude then what exactly is the point of having a men/women division in sport? If effectively a person can join either based on self-declaration then it is utterly pointless to have both. Let's have THE sport, and then let the best win. We might end up with e.g. football where the top 4 leagues have barely any women in them unless they were born with testicles as you said, and non-testicled women might disappear from the top echelon of athletics, but apparently that is a small price to pay to ensure that no women gets discriminated based on the frivolous detail of birth sex.
The bolded bit is assuming that legal gender is a matter of mere self-declaration. Is that true? If not, then your argument fails.
Quote from: Tyr on October 12, 2020, 04:32:56 AM
Quote from: The Brain on October 12, 2020, 04:28:01 AM
Why do you think the supposed advantages of trans women would be unfair? If trans women are women, how is any advantage of theirs different from the advantage a cis woman with awesome genes has over other cis women?
Women are women.
But a woman in a wheelchair is going to be better on a downhill course than an able-bodied woman.
I know of no sport called "downhill course" so I doubt that this is a legit comparison when talking actual sports. A woman in a sports car is going to be faster than a woman in a wheel chair.
Quote from: Tamas on October 12, 2020, 07:45:01 AM
Quote from: The Brain on October 12, 2020, 07:41:14 AM
FWIW my impression is that people who think sports is special don't actually subscribe to the idea that trans women are women. I sense a lot of having cakes and eating them.
What do we mean by "trans women are women"? If we mean they should get the legal equality, pronouns and be allowed to dress and act as they please and use whichever bathroom then of course they are women.
If we mean they have the exact same physical attributes as biological females then of course they are not women.
The legal equality that doesn't let them compete in women's sports? "Separate but equal"?
Why would having the exact same physical attributes as cis women be important? Try this, just as an experiment: think to yourself "trans women are women". Embrace it. Lean back and trust the thought as you trust your body's buoyancy when floating in water. Suddenly the whole problem disappears. Women won't be disadvantaged by trans women in sports because
they're all women. See my position? Now you can get back to normal thoughts. :)
I don't know if trans women are women. I don't know nearly enough about the matter to have a strong opinion. But
if they are, then I don't see how you could deny them competing in women's sports without twisting yourself into a very unflattering knot that smells of bigotry.
Quote from: grumbler on October 12, 2020, 07:58:49 AM
Quote from: Tyr on October 12, 2020, 04:32:56 AM
Quote from: The Brain on October 12, 2020, 04:28:01 AM
Why do you think the supposed advantages of trans women would be unfair? If trans women are women, how is any advantage of theirs different from the advantage a cis woman with awesome genes has over other cis women?
Women are women.
But a woman in a wheelchair is going to be better on a downhill course than an able-bodied woman.
I know of no sport called "downhill course" so I doubt that this is a legit comparison when talking actual sports. A woman in a sports car is going to be faster than a woman in a whell chair.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/sep/08/can-disabled-athletes-outcompete-able-bodied-athletes
Quote from: The Brain on October 12, 2020, 08:00:30 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 12, 2020, 07:45:01 AM
Quote from: The Brain on October 12, 2020, 07:41:14 AM
FWIW my impression is that people who think sports is special don't actually subscribe to the idea that trans women are women. I sense a lot of having cakes and eating them.
What do we mean by "trans women are women"? If we mean they should get the legal equality, pronouns and be allowed to dress and act as they please and use whichever bathroom then of course they are women.
If we mean they have the exact same physical attributes as biological females then of course they are not women.
The legal equality that doesn't let them compete in women's sports? "Separate but equal"?
Why would having the exact same physical attributes as cis women be important? Try this, just as an experiment: think to yourself "trans women are women". Embrace it. Lean back and trust the thought as you trust your body's buoyancy when floating in water. Suddenly the whole problem disappears. Women won't be disadvantaged by trans women in sports because they're all women. See my position? Now you can get back to normal thoughts. :)
I don't know if trans women are women. I don't know nearly enough about the matter to have a strong opinion. But if they are, then I don't see how you could deny them competing in women's sports without twisting yourself into a very unflattering knot that smells of bigotry.
sounds like orwellian newthink.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 12, 2020, 11:10:01 AM
sounds like orwellian newthink.
What the fuck does this mean? I mean I have read a bit of Orwell but I guess I missed this in Animal Farm.
I thought the Brain's remarks were cogent and helpful; they also simplify the question. It all boils down to "if" trans-women are women or not (and vice versa for transmen of course; apparently more common but neglected in nearly all of the discourse).
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2020, 11:12:18 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 12, 2020, 11:10:01 AM
sounds like orwellian newthink.
What the fuck does this mean? I mean I have read a bit of Orwell but I guess I missed this in Animal Farm.
It's from 1984.
Quote from: The Brain on October 12, 2020, 04:28:01 AM
Why do you think the supposed advantages of trans women would be unfair? If trans women are women, how is any advantage of theirs different from the advantage a cis woman with awesome genes has over other cis women?
People who go through puberty with an excess of testosterone build bigger muscles and stronger bones. Those don't entirely go away even with testosterone inhibiting drugs. They diminish, however, which is what makes this so tricky. A transwoman who transitions by taking testasterone-inhibiting drugs before puberty is, physically, no different than a cis-woman.
At the same time, there are any number of women who are cis-women with an overabundance of testosterone themselves. They are simply born that way. Because of that, they, like transwomen who transition post-puberty, are going to build bigger muscles and stronger bones. We do not test these women, and we don't exclude these women.
As such, it seems rather disingenuous to exclude transwomen. The primary issue would be transwomen choosing not to take their testosterone inhibiting drugs while training. That is akin to a cis-woman taking testosterone, which is banned (as I understand it). I know several transwomen and the idea of going off their meds is horrific to them, so I can't see this being a big issue, but since there's concern, testing for this seems appropriate, just as testing for extreme levels of testosterone in cis-women is done.
But this isn't cut-and-dried. There are so many nuances to all of this. That's why I say that I'm really glad that I don't have to make this decision. Transwomen are women (and I really wish we'd stop calling them trans and instead just call them women or men), but because of the public debate and vast sums of money on the line sometimes, I think there has to be some form of making sure that it remains a relatively even playing field. How that's done ... yeah... really glad I don't have to make those decisions.
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2020, 09:17:12 PM
Let's make this conversation more interesting. What it is that most people are thinking but not saying when discussing this topic, leading to the inability to hold a coherent conversation as we're witnessing here? My guess is that people are desperate to avoid any insinuation that being born transexual is a birth defect of some kind.
Damn it, Dguller. Try harder! This conversation still isn't interesting.
Is abuse of transsexual protections a big problem in sports right now?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 12, 2020, 12:10:28 PM
Is abuse of transsexual protections a big problem in sports right now?
I know of one transwoman who wishes to compete at a high level of sports, and there are cis-women in that sport who object.
I have no idea if there are others.
I was thinking more of abuses. Someone identifying as tran just so they would be better in sports.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 12, 2020, 12:22:19 PM
I was thinking more of abuses. Someone identifying as tran just so they would be better in sports.
I've not heard of that happening, which doesn't mean much as I'm not specifically following this type of thing.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 12, 2020, 12:22:19 PM
I was thinking more of abuses. Someone identifying as tran just so they would be better in sports.
I don't think there has been a practical example of that yet. Though certainly you've had conspiracies about some women actually being men.
And there was a futurama episode.
I can however recall examples of able bodied people posing as disabled to get into the paralympics. The Spanish basketball team one is the famous one.
I think a key point with this is that it's only very recently that countries have really started to recognise transsexuals to a decent extent. Its one of those things where a completely positive change, making things easier for trans people, can open up new avenues for people to be dicks.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on October 12, 2020, 11:41:23 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2020, 11:12:18 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 12, 2020, 11:10:01 AM
sounds like orwellian newthink.
What the fuck does this mean? I mean I have read a bit of Orwell but I guess I missed this in Animal Farm.
It's from 1984.
Ok how does it sound like that thing? And what does that mean that it sounds like that thing?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 12, 2020, 12:10:28 PM
Is abuse of transsexual protections a big problem in sports right now?
Virtually every loophole in sports has been ruthlessly exploited to gain a competitive advantage. So even if it is not a big deal now we can anticipate it will be.
I recall a few controversies in this area in the past that resulted in this exact discussion on this board so I think it does happen? But I don't know.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 12, 2020, 12:10:28 PM
Is abuse of transsexual protections a big problem in sports right now?
I don't think so. So that was sort of the basis of the complaints against Caster Semenya, that she had an unfair advantage. As I say I think that was handled dreadfully from the complaint to the investigation and everything else.
The issue, I think, is bigger in a pretty heavy contact sport like rugby where as well as issues of inclusion and fiarness, you have safety concerns (that wouldn't apply, for example, in touch or tag rugby).
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2020, 11:12:18 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 12, 2020, 11:10:01 AM
sounds like orwellian newthink.
What the fuck does this mean? I mean I have read a bit of Orwell but I guess I missed this in Animal Farm.
I believe he means Newspeak (the simplification of language to prevent complex thoughts among the proletariat). Or maybe he means doublethink (words that convey contradiction in and of themselves, to make it difficult to think in absolutes). [I am oversimplifying, of course]. I don't believe that "newthink" is an Orwellian term.
In any case, it seems a vague and bizarre accusation, especially when devoid of any specifics.
Quote from: grumbler on October 13, 2020, 07:35:28 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2020, 11:12:18 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 12, 2020, 11:10:01 AM
sounds like orwellian newthink.
What the fuck does this mean? I mean I have read a bit of Orwell but I guess I missed this in Animal Farm.
I believe he means Newspeak (the simplification of language to prevent complex thoughts among the proletariat). Or maybe he means doublethink (words that convey contradiction in and of themselves, to make it difficult to think in absolutes). [I am oversimplifying, of course]. I don't believe that "newthink" is an Orwellian term.
In any case, it seems a vague and bizarre accusation, especially when devoid of any specifics.
Ivan engaged in Newspeak.