Continuation Transwomen are not women - part 13

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

Not really unreasonable for liberals to expect other supposed liberals to take liberal positions. The existence of liberal transphobia (mostly on TERF island) is understandably galling.

This is the crux of the biscuit. It all hinges on your wide ranging application of the word "transphobia".

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot

This is the crux of the biscuit. It all hinges on your wide ranging application of the word "transphobia".

Well if everyone agreed it wouldn't be a controversy, would it?

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

Well if everyone agreed it wouldn't be a controversy, would it?

If you use the word "transphobia" the way you do, you shouldn't be surprised to see a lot of transphobia - including a lot of liberal transphobia.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

This is nothing new.

Intraparty fights have a long, long history. It's the kind of thing that'll get you ice-picked in Mexico or you head stomp in by riot cops in Chicago, no internet required.

I wouldn't hand wave away these differences as "fandom". Whether or not the Labor Party in the UK is pro or anti-trans rights is a significant question for people, not trivial.

1. That would sound a lot better coming from someone who as much as I agree with them generally and consider them "correct" walks around with a constant "Oh yeah you heard me who wants to start something" chip on their should and when given the choice between "making things better" and "scoring points against the wrong side" will always take the later option. I like you Turkey but you assume people around you are either stupid or blind way to often. You play a game and you know you do it.

I don't doubt you like trans-people. But I have even less doubt that you like hating anti-trans people a lot more then you like trans people. And from what I've seen of you here that's true of all your stances. You like having people to hate more then you like having people to protect. In fact you probably don't even understand the difference between the two.

You're still "right" for 99% of definitions of right and 100% of functional definitions of it, but I do wish you would own what you are more.

You define goodness as being in a state of constant low level bickering and constant poling the bear with the wrong side. That's not a bad definition of goodness, but you should know damn well it's not the only one.

2. You betray our point. You don't rant about the Labor Party, you rant about J.K. Rowling because she's an easier target. At the end of the day compared the American Religious Right and Republican Party how much damage has J.K. Rowling really done?

You pick easy targets.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

Not really unreasonable for liberals to expect other supposed liberals to take liberal positions. The existence of liberal transphobia (mostly on TERF island) is understandably galling.

"Transphobia" really just means not accepting trans activist dogma. No actual fear of or hatred towards trans people is required.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

the few bad men who are using the trans lobby as cover.

The few* bad men who have so completely co-opted the trans lobby that supporting mainstream trans rights activism is effectively supporting those bad men.

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

Not really unreasonable for liberals to expect other supposed liberals to take liberal positions.

Defending womens' rights is a liberal position, one that Rowling had already spoken out about. Her decision to continue to do in the face of what she perceived as an attack on those rights was hardly surprising, regardless of whether you agree with that perception.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

1. That would sound a lot better coming from someone who as much as I agree with them generally and consider them "correct" walks around with a constant "Oh yeah you heard me who wants to start something" chip on their should and when given the choice between "making things better" and "scoring points against the wrong side" will always take the later option. I like you Turkey but you assume people around you are either stupid or blind way to often. You play a game and you know you do it.

I don't doubt you like trans-people. But I have even less doubt that you like hating anti-trans people a lot more then you like trans people. And from what I've seen of you here that's true of all your stances. You like having people to hate more then you like having people to protect. In fact you probably don't even understand the difference between the two.

You're still "right" for 99% of definitions of right and 100% of functional definitions of it, but I do wish you would own what you are more.

You define goodness as being in a state of constant low level bickering and constant poling the bear with the wrong side. That's not a bad definition of goodness, but you should know damn well it's not the only one.

Anyone who spends as much time worrying about politics or current events as people on this thread just aren't normal. Probably best not to psychologize that too much. People (including yours truly) who think this much about current events or politics probably have something a bit wrong with their brains.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

2. You betray our point. You don't rant about the Labor Party, you rant about J.K. Rowling because she's an easier target. At the end of the day compared the American Religious Right and Republican Party how much damage has J.K. Rowling really done?

You pick easy targets.

Rowling has certainly become a proxy for the whole issue. It's unclear to me exactly what the origins of that is. The British pundit class certainly seems game to make these celebrities the focus point of these broader, often more nebulous issues. Seems a chicken-and-egg scenario to me. I don't think it's entirely pointless though. I imagine members of a representative government body take some notice of these proxy battles and note where various constituencies line up.

There's probably something to be said about how consumptive habits (what brands are good, what are bad, celebrities, blah blah blah) become the primary means of political expression in our societies, rather than in ways that are more potentially impactful. Probably something to do with societal alienation, the degradation of meaningful community, and a general sense of powerlessness, but that's a derail I think.

[JoeMorgue]

Liberals also seem to forget that at no point in history has the last disadvantaged groups actually been on the next disadvantaged group's "side" anymore than general population.

Women are not less racist then men.
Blacks are more homophobic than the overall population.
This thread proves the relationship between gay and transgender is at best contentious.

And here's a radical prediction trans people are not all going to universally get behind whatever the next disadvantaged group is gonna be.

"The minority of the moment" doesn't seem to have any feeling of kinship with the next one down the line.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Liberals also seem to forget that at no point in history has the last disadvantaged groups actually been on the next disadvantaged group's "side" anymore than general population.

Women are not less racist then men.
Blacks are more homophobic than the overall population.
This thread proves the relationship between gay and transgender is at best contentious.

And here's a radical prediction trans people are not all going to universally get behind whatever the next disadvantaged group is gonna be.

"The minority of the moment" doesn't seem to have any feeling of kinship with the next one down the line.

TRA orthodoxy is especially egregious, in that it is premised on securing advantages for their interest group at the expense of another historically underprivileged group. Black and Hispanic communities may be homophobic, but gay rights activists generally don't set themselves up as needing to keep people of color down in order to raise themselves up. This isn't so much a question of "all minorities are like this", as it is, "The T is intrinsically the enemy of the L, G, and B, and of feminists in general."

TRAs aren't suffering from a lack of empathy towards women. They're suffering from an antipathy towards women. The misogyny is real. The anti-TRA joke, "men are better than women at everything - including being a woman" is funny because it's true.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

theprestige's more recent post wasn't about KS specifically, but about states that accept fiat self-ID.

I may have been mistaken, but I thought he was replying to my question about recent events in Kansas.

That aside, we are not truly faced with a policy choice between full self-ID for all possible purposes and zero gender changes legally recognized by the state, those are just the extreme positions towards which activists have been polarized. There is nothing inconsistent with allowing a 16-y.o. MtF individual to change their gender marker on a state-issued identification card while also restricting their ability to enter sports leagues or locker rooms or Korean spas designated for people who never experienced male puberty.

[JoeMorgue]

Half measures are harder (not impossible but harder) to get to when we're talking this level of base, definitional disagreement.

I can't help but feel it's pretty obvious that this wouldn't be a thing on anywhere near the level it is if "Okay you can be your identified gender but only some of the time" was something the trans side was open to. "Self identity" and similar concepts is spoken of in such revered tones I don't see them giving much ground on it. To them it's like telling someone they get to be black or gay or disabled "some of the time."

And it gets lost in the noise but the solution making sense to the rest of society has to at least be there somewhere.

To be clear I don't think compromise is off the table, I just don't think we're going to get a lot of it. This seems like a pretty "middle ground lite" debate.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Liberals also seem to forget that at no point in history has the last disadvantaged groups actually been on the next disadvantaged group's "side" anymore than general population.

Women are not less racist then men.
Blacks are more homophobic than the overall population.
This thread proves the relationship between gay and transgender is at best contentious.

And here's a radical prediction trans people are not all going to universally get behind whatever the next disadvantaged group is gonna be.

"The minority of the moment" doesn't seem to have any feeling of kinship with the next one down the line.

I think you're overstating this a bit. It's true that liberals often assume allyship between marginalized groups, and it's foolish to treat any group as a monolith, but there is a history of this kind of solidarity. I'd guess that gay cismen and lesbian ciswomen are much more likely to be cool with trans rights than the general public, for example. American Jews were disproportionately represented as non-black members of the Civil Right movement.

it's probably worth stating the obvious that the dozen or so participants in this thread are hardly a representative sample of anything other than their own personal opinions. Plenty of other forum members have made it quite clear they want nothing to do with this cesspit, an obvious indicator of non-representative sampling. I really doubt there's any strong evidence that these "pro LGB, anti-trans" weirdos are anything but a very vocal (and boosted) minority, especially outside TERF island. Always plenty of work and publicity for token minorities and uncle Tom type figures, "Gays Against Groomers" will always find steady employment as a useful cudgel for reactionaries.

[IsThisTheLife]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Liberals also seem to forget that at no point in history has the last disadvantaged groups actually been on the next disadvantaged group's "side" anymore than general population.

Women are not less racist then men.
Blacks are more homophobic than the overall population.
This thread proves the relationship between gay and transgender is at best contentious.

And here's a radical prediction trans people are not all going to universally get behind whatever the next disadvantaged group is gonna be.

"The minority of the moment" doesn't seem to have any feeling of kinship with the next one down the line.

Surely you've heard of "muh interseshunality"?

[JoeMorgue]

Yes I am familiar with the liberal buzzword for "Gatekeeping Decency." I'm not a fan.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

To be clear I don't think compromise is off the table, I just don't think we're going to get a lot of it. This seems like a pretty "middle ground lite" debate.

If the trans rights folks don't want any compromises whatsoever—not even concessions to women's sports—then I'm content to side with the traditionalists until they do.

Sent from my Centrismatic-1996 using Tapatalk

[Samson]

Originally Posted by Darat

No the decision said there was no case for the newspaper to answer.

I was interested in discussing broader issues that flow.
The Supreme Court.
The Herald report
The complaint by Kelly
The judgement and decision by the authority

The key question is if the public are well served by concealing the maleness of the sadistic killer from the people.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

If the trans rights folks don't want any compromises whatsoever—not even concessions to women's sports—then I'm content to side with the traditionalists until they do.

Sent from my Centrismatic-1996 using Tapatalk

Trans people have already accepted concessions on women's sports.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

Trans people have already accepted concessions on women's sports.

Name two.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Samson]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

Trans people have already accepted concessions on women's sports.

Is that sentence the right way round?

[junkshop]

Will no-one rid me of this tedious thread?

[IsThisTheLife]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

If the trans rights folks don't want any compromises whatsoever—not even concessions to women's sports—then I'm content to side with the traditionalists until they do.

Sent from my Centrismatic-1996 using Tapatalk

Using the word "folks" is really not apposite for these *****.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by junkshop

Will no-one rid me of this tedious thread?

Yes, remarkable how quickly it has all been resolved, and there are handshakes and smiles all around.

[IsThisTheLife]

Originally Posted by junkshop

Will no-one rid me of this tedious thread?

Feel free to, you know, go elsewhere.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

I dunno, i didn't think it was that controversial to state this plain fact that Harry Potter personalities have publicly distanced themselves from Rowling, but evidence was demanded and I provided it. Take it up with lionking who seems skeptical of this claim.

A new I asked you about transphobic comments by Rowling. There must be a heap of them, surely…….

[Aber]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

There is nothing inconsistent with allowing a 16-y.o. MtF individual to change their gender marker on a state-issued identification card .

Change the SEX marker.

[Aber]

Originally Posted by lionking

A new I asked you about transphobic comments by Rowling. There must be a heap of them, surely…….

As TurkeysGhost noted, there's a large wiki section

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi...sgender_rights

but a shortage of killer quotes.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Aber

As TurkeysGhost noted, there's a large wiki section

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi...sgender_rights

but a shortage of killer quotes.

That’s the point. There is absolutely ******* nothing. They even make reference to her book “Troubled Blood” in that wiki article, where the murderer was absolutely not transgender but a man who disguised himself as a woman.

But TG has obviously read a headline or two, or a press release from some TRA group and decided that Rowling is a transphobic bigot.

Do the honest thing TG and concede that Rowling is not a transphobe. You have a lot of other (wrong) arguments to make, but Rowling is an absolute deadend. Give it up.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by lionking

That’s the point. There is absolutely ******* nothing. They even make reference to her book “Troubled Blood” in that wiki article, where the murderer was absolutely not transgender but a man who disguised himself as a woman.

But TG has obviously read a headline or two, or a press release from some TRA group and decided that Rowling is a transphobic bigot.

Do the honest thing TG and concede that Rowling is not a transphobe. You have a lot of other (wrong) arguments to make, but Rowling is an absolute deadend. Give it up.

But if a TRA group spokesman says Rowling is a transphobic bigot, it must be automatically accepted as truth without question... amirite?

[lionking]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

But if a TRA group spokesman says Rowling is a transphobic bigot, it must be automatically accepted as truth without question... amirite?

By definition, of course.

But seriously I detest being called a bigot by people who have run out of arguments.

[Matthew Best]

Dr Helen Webberley has explained things for us again:

"Humanity has been inventing new language for thousands of years.

No one batted an eyelid when we moved on from “Ye Olde English”!

This is no different. The only reason it’s newsworthy is because… you guessed it… it’s about the trans community.

There are currently words and phrases that are very binary and can be triggering to those people who do not identify with the sex they were assigned at birth.

What is the problem with using new language?

Who does it actually really hurt if we use a different word or phrase?"

What is the word she thinks we should move on from?

"Vagina".

And what does she think we should use instead?

"Bonus hole".

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Name two.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

You are aware that many of these elite sporting bodies have quite a few onerous conditions that trans people (namely, trans women) must meet in order to address fairness concerns. Prescribing that trans athletes must be on HRT for X amount of time and monitoring their hormone levels are significant concessions, don't you agree?

[Matthew Best]

So you can't name two, then?

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by Aber

As TurkeysGhost noted, there's a large wiki section

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi...sgender_rights

but a shortage of killer quotes.

Like you say, it's there for your assessment. Not really interested in trying to convince those who decide these criticism don't count for whatever reasons they see fit. In the interest of avoiding a tedious retread, let's just skip to the part where we agree to disagree about whether Rowling's body of work on the issue belies a bigoted standpoint.

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

You are aware that many of these elite sporting bodies have quite a few onerous conditions that trans people (namely, trans women) must meet in order to address fairness concerns. Prescribing that trans athletes must be on HRT for X amount of time and monitoring their hormone levels are significant concessions, don't you agree?

A condition imposed by an athletic governing body is not a concession by the athletes.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

A condition imposed by an athletic governing body is not a concession by the athletes.

Seems like a concession if they agree to the terms and participate.

What exactly are you looking for otherwise as a sign of concession? There's no Supreme Trans Council to endorse such things.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

Like you say, it's there for your assessment. Not really interested in trying to convince those who decide these criticism don't count for whatever reasons they see fit. In the interest of avoiding a tedious retread, let's just skip to the part where we agree to disagree about whether Rowling's body of work on the issue belies a bigoted standpoint.

Pathetic.

You have been asked to show where Rowling has been bigoted. You have provided nothing, but you are now somehow claiming a draw? No pathetic is too mild a word. Cowardly is a bit better.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

So you can't name two, then?

1) Proscribed HRT requirements of a duration determined to deal with fairness concerns
2) Medical monitoring for compliance.

Can you name 2 concessions from trans exclusionists are willing to make?

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by lionking

Pathetic.

You have been asked to show where Rowling has been bigoted. You have provided nothing, but you are now somehow claiming a draw? No pathetic is too mild a word. Cowardly is a bit better.

You can lead a horse to water but can't make it drink. I've linked you plenty of references and you have decided they are inadequate. We have reached an impasse.

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

You can lead a horse to water but can't make it drink. I've linked you plenty of references and you have decided they are inadequate. We have reached an impasse.

You have linked zero quotes from Rowling, which was what was asked for.

Why not?