Transwomen are not women - X (XY?)

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

It is grossly offensive to force women to carry an unwanted prefix that implies that there exists a subset of women who are not female.

Something is only offensive from a particular moral frame/view of the world. Transactivists have a different perspective from which your refusal to accept transwomen as women is grossly offensive. Claims of offense just come down to questions of power. Do you, and the people who agree with you, have the power to force your notions of offence on others, or do the transactivists.

[Rolfe]

Well, hello, dept of the bleedin' obvious.

My point is that if everyone is so keen to adopt the transactivists preferred vocabulary to avoid giving offence, then maybe they need to consider that there are other groups who are equally offended by certain terms the transactivists favour. Goose and gander sauce.

Nobody ever succeded in a conflict by lying down in front of the demands of the other side and declaring, we don't have the power to promote our side of the debate.

You seemed not to know that many people find the term "cis" offensive, or why. I have explained this to you. Coming back and saying, well you don't have the power to make people pay any attention to the fact that you are offended, isn't really advancing the argument. We are offended, and I have explained why.

[Rolfe]

The proverbial seems to be hitting the fan with Mermaids today. Seems they have (had) a trustee whose "academic subject" was the normalisation of sexual attraction to children. He is (was) an associate professor at the LSE. People (mainly women) have been waving red flags about him for years, to little effect. But somehow notice has finally been taken of this man and his predilections, Mermaids has ditched him as a trustee and the LSE has put him on gardening leave.

No doubt we'll be getting all the usual about how this has only come to light and we're shocked, shocked I tell you. Except it was all in plain sight. There has been a movement dedicated to decriminalising and normalising sexual attraction to (and activity with) children for many years. Peter Tatchell was pushing it for some time. This character (Breslow) had managed to get the subject normalised enough to be employed to research it as an academic.

But kiddie-fiddling is still evil, whether you're a priest or a scout leader or Jimmy Savile or an academic who describes these people (which include himself, quite obviously) as "minor attracted persons" and paint them as an oppressed minority.

I can't think what it is about a charity dedicated to keeping children in a pre-pubescent state, and transforming young boys into a facsimile of a young woman, that would attract someone like this. Can anyone else?

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

The proverbial seems to be hitting the fan with Mermaids today. Seems they have (had) a trustee whose "academic subject" was the normalisation of sexual attraction to children. He is (was) an associate professor at the LSE. People (mainly women) have been waving red flags about him for years, to little effect. But somehow notice has finally been taken of this man and his predilections, Mermaids has ditched him as a trustee and the LSE has put him on gardening leave.

No doubt we'll be getting all the usual about how this has only come to light and we're shocked, shocked I tell you. Except it was all in plain sight. There has been a movement dedicated to decriminalising and normalising sexual attraction to (and activity with) children for many years. Peter Tatchell was pushing it for some time. This character (Breslow) had managed to get the subject normalised enough to be employed to research it as an academic.

But kiddie-fiddling is still evil, whether you're a priest or a scout leader or Jimmy Savile or an academic who describes these people (which include himself, quite obviously) as "minor attracted persons" and paint them as an oppressed minority.

I can't think what it is about a charity dedicated to keeping children in a pre-pubescent state, and transforming young boys into a facsimile of a young woman, that would attract someone like this. Can anyone else?

I think a more interesting question is why academia keeps producing/finding people with such ideas, and funding them....

[Rolfe]

Indeed. More institutional capture I suspect. I mean look what happened when these two guys wrote the spoof papers and submitted them to academic journals.

[Rolfe]

Mermaids and Gendered Intelligence influence is so pervasive. You come across people (even on this forum) declaring that they have a trans "son" or "daughter" and how dare you say anything that our family finds uncomfortable. And you know these people are utterly sincere and believe they're doing their best for the child they love, but there's a pretty good chance that behind this tale of glitter and rainbows and acceptance there's a deeply disturbed child having seriously bad things done to his or her body, seriously bad things that have become normalised and even celebrated.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Well, hello, dept of the bleedin' obvious.

My point is that if everyone is so keen to adopt the transactivists preferred vocabulary to avoid giving offence, then maybe they need to consider that there are other groups who are equally offended by certain terms the transactivists favour. Goose and gander sauce.

Sure, but if we are spelling out the obvious, it is obvious that not everybody's offence matters equally, or at all. When has this ever not been the case?

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Nobody ever succeded in a conflict by lying down in front of the demands of the other side and declaring, we don't have the power to promote our side of the debate.

Complaining about offense is something that only works if you have power on your side. It's like crying. It is a demand for somebody powerful to come to your aid and give you what you want, or a justification to strike at your enemies. When you have two moral frameworks claiming offense, only the offense recognised by the side with power matters. For your offence to matter, people who matter have to recognise it and take it seriously.

If the people in power are more sympathetic to the offence of transactivists than they are to your offence, then you are playing a losing game. Claims of offence are a way of bypassing debate, or avoiding recognizing the perspective of the other side. It's a great card to play if you are in a position to play it. I don't think you are in that position.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

You seemed not to know that many people find the term "cis" offensive, or why. I have explained this to you. Coming back and saying, well you don't have the power to make people pay any attention to the fact that you are offended, isn't really advancing the argument. We are offended, and I have explained why.

Sure. Do you find that you being offended is a powerful and convincing argument? Maybe in front of audiences that agree with you it is, but certainly not on this forum, and I am doubtful that it is in places that matter. I'm sure Nicola Sturgeon knows that all this stuff is offensive to people like you, what good does that do you though when she has sided with the people who are offending you, and are offended by you? It would be like me telling some old school Dworkin style feminists that conservatives and reactionaries found their views and statements offensive. They'd probably be pleased.

To link back to your last sentence. Your offence isn't an argument. If at some times you have found it worked as if it were an argument, it has been because you were in the position the trans-activists currently enjoy in having the political winds at your back, in having the sympathy of the powerful.

I find many of the same things as you offensive, but what good does that do?

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Mermaids and Gendered Intelligence influence is so pervasive. You come across people (even on this forum) declaring that they have a trans "son" or "daughter" and how dare you say anything that our family finds uncomfortable. And you know these people are utterly sincere and believe they're doing their best for the child they love, but there's a pretty good chance that behind this tale of glitter and rainbows and acceptance there's a deeply disturbed child having seriously bad things done to his or her body, seriously bad things that have become normalised and even celebrated.

Sure, but that pretty much necessarily takes it outside the realm of what one can have a reasonable conversation about. It's like having a conversation on the morality of abortion with somebody who has just come home after having an abortion.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I think a more interesting question is why academia keeps producing/finding people with such ideas, and funding them....

It's yet another form of oikophobia. My first real encounter with it was post-9/11, when a number of hard core leftists were trying to make excuses for radical Islam. Some people seem to take a certain sort of pleasure in "accepting" something that's generally condemned. It gives them a sense of superiority, because they can equate what they're doing to various movements of the past which are now looked upon favorably, like various civil rights movements. Academic administrators feel like they're accomplishing something by hiring these nut jobs. They don't have to live with the consequences, there's no risk to them. It's a form of cheap status signaling.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Sure, but if we are spelling out the obvious, it is obvious that not everybody's offence matters equally, or at all. When has this ever not been the case?


Complaining about offense is something that only works if you have power on your side. It's like crying. It is a demand for somebody powerful to come to your aid and give you what you want, or a justification to strike at your enemies. When you have two moral frameworks claiming offense, only the offense recognised by the side with power matters. For your offence to matter, people who matter have to recognise it and take it seriously.

If the people in power are more sympathetic to the offence of transactivists than they are to your offence, then you are playing a losing game. Claims of offence are a way of bypassing debate, or avoiding recognizing the perspective of the other side. It's a great card to play if you are in a position to play it. I don't think you are in that position.


Sure. Do you find that you being offended is a powerful and convincing argument? Maybe in front of audiences that agree with you it is, but certainly not on this forum, and I am doubtful that it is in places that matter. I'm sure Nicola Sturgeon knows that all this stuff is offensive to people like you, what good does that do you though when she has sided with the people who are offending you, and are offended by you? It would be like me telling some old school Dworkin style feminists that conservatives and reactionaries found their views and statements offensive. They'd probably be pleased.

To link back to your last sentence. Your offence isn't an argument. If at some times you have found it worked as if it were an argument, it has been because you were in the position the trans-activists currently enjoy in having the political winds at your back, in having the sympathy of the powerful.

I find many of the same things as you offensive, but what good does that do?

Goose and gander sauce. If authorities are bending over backwards to accommodate the trans lobby over things they claim are offensive, they need reminding that other people find things offensive too.

Two can play at that game. Being "offended" is currently a popular way of getting people to do what you want. Appealling for equal representation on that front is always worth a try.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

It is grossly offensive to force women to carry an unwanted prefix that implies that there exists a subset of women who are not female.

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Transactivists have a different perspective from which your refusal to accept transwomen as women is grossly offensive.

This little back and forth over "cis" or "cisgender" nicely illustrates why I reject the moral heuristic that we should modify our speech to mollify activists who take offense when nothing derogatory was intended.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Sure, but that pretty much necessarily takes it outside the realm of what one can have a reasonable conversation about. It's like having a conversation on the morality of abortion with somebody who has just come home after having an abortion.

Yes, that's a good parallel. Which is why I always find it difficult when someone appears in a thread like this talking about their trans "daughter" and what a lovely "girl" she is and how dare you point out that she's male.

Did I mention I live next door to someone whose grandmother was killed at Lockerbie? I mean, what were the bloody chances? (Her mother lives about 100 yards away too.) But it's that sort of situation. I understand why the entire topic causes Alys to burst into tears and why, emotionally, she can't even consider the possibility that the man convicted of the bombing didn't actually do it.

But we have an agreement that we simply don't mention it at all. I wouldn't try to give her a copy of my book or persuade her in any way. Her emotional investment is too great. If she were to wade into the Lockerbie threads we used to have here it would be a very difficult situation.

Having someone you think is quite likely to be conniving in the abuse of their child, unknowingly, enter these conversations is even more difficult. I feel desperately sorry for these families, but that doesn't sugar-coat what's going on.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Yes, that's a good parallel. Which is why I always find it difficult when someone appears in a thread like this talking about their trans "daughter" and what a lovely "girl" she is and how dare you point out that she's male.

Did I mention I live next door to someone whose grandmother was killed at Lockerbie? I mean, what were the bloody chances? (Her mother lives about 100 yards away too.) But it's that sort of situation. I understand why the entire topic causes Alys to burst into tears and why, emotionally, she can't even consider the possibility that the man convicted of the bombing didn't actually do it.

But we have an agreement that we simply don't mention it at all. I wouldn't try to give her a copy of my book or persuade her in any way. Her emotional investment is too great. If she were to wade into the Lockerbie threads we used to have here it would be a very difficult situation.

Having someone you think is quite likely to be conniving in the abuse of their child, unknowingly, enter these conversations is even more difficult. I feel desperately sorry for these families, but that doesn't sugar-coat what's going on.

I think this touches on a wider problem. It may not be as acute as the cases we have discussed, but I distinctly remember talking to some friends of my parents. Educated oxbridge Leftie types in their late 70s. They have been deeply shocked by Brexit, Trump, some of the issues discussed in this thread... but if one were actually going to have a conversation with them about these things, one is calling into question the moral foundations of their whole lives. So I am delicate and do not say hurtful things. There are many things my mother can't believe, because she says it would be too awful. At a certain point, it becomes very painful to question one's assumptions. The sunk costs are too great, particularly when your children are involved, and it is too late in the game to fix anything.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Goose and gander sauce. If authorities are bending over backwards to accommodate the trans lobby over things they claim are offensive, they need reminding that other people find things offensive too.

Two can play at that game. Being "offended" is currently a popular way of getting people to do what you want. Appealling for equal representation on that front is always worth a try.

But this is just the point. Two can't necessarily play the game, the playing field isn't level and never has been. When has everybody's offence ever mattered equally? Hasn't the last 60 years of social change been based on the idea that some people's offence is on the wrong side of history and should be ignored, while other people's offence, even if numerically smaller, is of great importance? Why should your offence be respected any more than Alf Garnett/Archie Bunker's was? The social progress that I believe you are pleased about has been achieved in the teeth of offence. Your offence simply doesn't matter unless it aligns with the views and sympathies of the great and the good.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

But this is just the point. Two can't necessarily play the game, the playing field isn't level and never has been. When has everybody's offence ever mattered equally? Hasn't the last 60 years of social change been based on the idea that some people's offence is on the wrong side of history and should be ignored, while other people's offence, even if numerically smaller, is of great importance? Why should your offence be respected any more than Alf Garnett/Archie Bunker's was? The social progress that I believe you are pleased about has been achieved in the teeth of offence. Your offence simply doesn't matter unless it aligns with the views and sympathies of the great and the good.

The playing field is not level. That doesn't mean we don't play.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I think this touches on a wider problem. It may not be as acute as the cases we have discussed, but I distinctly remember talking to some friends of my parents. Educated oxbridge Leftie types in their late 70s. They have been deeply shocked by Brexit, Trump, some of the issues discussed in this thread... but if one were actually going to have a conversation with them about these things, one is calling into question the moral foundations of their whole lives. So I am delicate and do not say hurtful things. There are many things my mother can't believe, because she says it would be too awful. At a certain point, it becomes very painful to question one's assumptions. The sunk costs are too great, particularly when your children are involved, and it is too late in the game to fix anything.

Sunk costs. That's a good way of putting it.

It's another reason why surveys about satisfation or regret after "gender reassigment" surgery can't necessarily be taken at face value. I read so many stories from people who say, I really believed when I went into this that transition would solve all my problems. And each step I took I still felt miserable but I convinced myself that the next step would do it. And here I am, the process is complete, there are no more steps to take, there is nothing between me and my problems.

Some admit they may have made a mistake, but they've made too many changes to their bodies to go back. Or they don't think detransition would make any difference anyway. Some are desperately grieving for what they've lost and are trying to go back. Some are coping OK but admit to wondering whether they'd have been OK in the bodies they were born with and it would have been healthier in the long term.

Some of the "this is great I'm so happy with it all" is probably genuine, but some of it has a real whiff of someone in complete denial.

I don't know how you'd ever get at the truth and find out what percentage of transitioners are really happy with their new bodies. But if you could, I wonder what the figures would be.

Of course everything is skewed at the moment because the movement is being run by men who haven't actually "transitioned" at all. Maybe some hormones but not enough to interfere with their sexual function, maybe pink hair, maybe makeup. But the people who have really gone for it, I wonder how many are happier than they would have been if they had tried to come to terms with the body they had? I have a strong suspicion that the huge numbers of girls coming forward for testosterone and mastectomy are going to include a distressing number who regret it.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

The playing field is not level. That doesn't mean we don't play.

Sure. But you need to adjust how you play accordingly. Arguing about offence is the same as losing if the other side is the one that society, or the people in society whose opinions matter, are sympathetic to your opponent and not you. Offence isn't an argument. It's either a justification for using power, or crying impotently about not having power. Your offence is no more of an argument to people who aren't on your side than Alf Garnett's offence would have been an argument to you.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Sure. But you need to adjust how you play accordingly. Arguing about offence is the same as losing if the other side is the one that society, or the people in society whose opinions matter, are sympathetic to your opponent and not you. Offence isn't an argument. It's either a justification for using power, or crying impotently about not having power. Your offence is no more of an argument to people who aren't on your side than Alf Garnett's offence would have been an argument to you.

We will simply have to differ about this. I think we have had the argument before. I don't believe in giving the opposition all the running.

[Rolfe]

I follow the Iona Community on Twitter. This is an interdenominational religious community based on the island of Iona where St Columba had his mission. They are about as captured as the rest of the Church of Scotland (of which they are a part) as far as I can see. But today's tweet reported that they are concerned about the current media profile of Mermaids and will remove the collection box for the charity from the Abbey until the matter is cleared up.

Yes, some people are noticing this.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I follow the Iona Community on Twitter. This is an interdenominational religious community based on the island of Iona where St Columba had his mission. They are about as captured as the rest of the Church of Scotland (of which they are a part) as far as I can see. But today's tweet reported that they are concerned about the current media profile of Mermaids and will remove the collection box for the charity from the Abbey until the matter is cleared up.

Yes, some people are noticing this.

Are they rethinking any fundamental assumptions that led them to support Mermaid's in the first place though?

[Rolfe]

Give it time. Baby steps.

What is going on as regards child transition is unconscionable. In biblical terms millstones round necks and casting into the sea territory. Whether or not there are too many sunk costs in the Church of Scotland, time will tell.

I replied to the Community's tweet saying that supporting trans people was one thing, but promoting the sterilisation and sexual mutilation of children too young to consent to a tattoo was another. An activist then replied to me with a whole thread on how waiting lists were so long that no child ever had this treatment on the NHS. I blocked her/him, but from my mentions a lot of people I follow are providing a lesson.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Some people seem to take a certain sort of pleasure in "accepting" something that's generally condemned.

As was it ever thus.

It took me years to grasp what Twain was saying in Tom Sawyer when he talked about the women who wanted Injun Joe released.

[Rolfe]

Actually, here is the tweet in question.

https://twitter.com/ionacommunity/st...37640235503619

Quote:

@ionacommunity welcomes all, believing that we are all created equal and in the image of God. However, we are concerned about the current media profile of @Mermaids_Gender. We have removed our collection box for the charity from Iona Abbey until matters are clarified.

I am struggling somewhat to figure out how supporting surgical "sex reassigmnent" is consistent with believing we are all created in the image of God. I'm also struggling with the concept that they seriously believe God makes a ton of mistakes and puts male souls into female bodies and vice versa.

Sometimes you can open your mind so far to be "accepting" that your brain falls out.

[Rolfe]

This is a cracker of an article.

Gender Sirens

Quote:

It’s a tactic familiar to anyone who has studied domestic abuse and coercive control. Make the people whose unquestioning compliance you seek — in this case, unhappy children — believe that the rest of the world is a greater threat to them than anything you could do. Convince them you are keeping them safe. Make them think that without you, they’d die.

The adults who claim to champion the cause of “trans kids” have taken this approach to extremes. The world is “trans-hostile”; young people are being threatened with “conversion abuse”; the treatments Mermaids promote are “life-saving”. This sits alongside broader messaging which suggests anyone critical of, say, puberty blockers or breast-binding is supportive of “trans genocide”.

Young people are told they are surrounded by adults who want them dead — if not by killing them outright, then by denying them the treatment they need to survive. Feminists want them dead. Their parents want them dead. Hell, even their favourite author wants them dead. This inflicts terror on children at one of the most turbulent stages of their lives.

This alone would be bad enough, but Mermaids takes it further. What’s next, once you’ve convinced a distressed child that everyone in the world is against them except you? You take away their last scrap of self-reliance. Persuade them their own body is out to harm them, with puberty lying in wait to ruin everything. Make them believe that the trauma and disorientation that is a familiar part of this particular life stage is proof that they need fixing, and fast. Anyone standing in the way of this is, of course, the enemy.

If you’ve destroyed young people’s trust in other people and their own bodies, what can there be left? Only their minds. Here, Mermaids encourages its young devotees to believe that if they are not careful — and if they are not sufficiently protected from the twin enemies of their growing bodies and Mermaids’ political opponents — they will kill themselves. It is this exploitation of the suicide narrative that I find most unforgiveable of all. No one can claim ignorance as to the dangers of this, yet Mermaids and its cheerleaders routinely add “suicidal ideation” into the symptom pool of what it means to be “truly” trans. In doing so it is they, not anyone else, who are putting children’s lives at risk.

I know I've been banging on about this in the thread for some time, but this really is an appalling tactic. It's child abuse. It's frankly evil. And although most of the people doing it are probably not motivated by a desire to sexually abuse children (in the conventional sense), the entire movement is a gift to those who do. What was it about an organisation that seeks to keep children's bodies in a pre-pubertal state while at the same time hyper-sexualising them that attracted you to become involved, Dr Breslow?

Still contemplating millstones and casting into the sea here.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

But this is just the point. Two can't necessarily play the game, the playing field isn't level and never has been. When has everybody's offence ever mattered equally?

Never. But...

Originally Posted by Rolfe

The playing field is not level. That doesn't mean we don't play.

To expand a bit on this, this is Alinsky's Rule 4: Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. Alinsky is a bit like Machievelli: he may be an immoral bastard, but his tactical advice is still often spot on. Spectators to the conflict who don't have much stake may bow to pressure to obey a rule they don't believe in, but will be less inclined to do so if they see the rule isn't being applied fairly.

[Rolfe]

Yes, that's a very good way of putting it.

I'm reminded of the innocent days of the 1990s when the SNP was a party campaigning for independence (not abolition of women's rights) and I was a volunteer helping in the campaign in Peterhead. The place had been a Conservative stronghold since forever, but the SNP had made significant gains.

I was told to read the rule book carefully and understand what was and what wasn't permitted in election campaigning. Then to call foul on every Tory I saw breaking these rules. I was told that the Tories had become so complacent that they themselves ignored the rules as if they didn't apply to them, but at the same time they would complain about any little infraction on the part of an SNP campaigner. The SNP had learned to play them at their own game, and insist that if the underdogs had to abide by the rules, so did the established party. It worked.

It's not a directly comparable situation, but that is exactly the point. If the rules are being enforced so as only to benefit the interests of the faction that has the power, the underdog has to stand up and bark and insist that the rules should be applied evenly. If it doesn't, it's complicit in and acceding to the uneven enforcement.

Sometimes it even works.

[Ziggurat]

There's also a touch of, the best way to get a bad rule repealed is to vigorously enforce it.

[Rolfe]

Another one.

Mermaids latest scandal and words you can't say on Twitter

Quote:

Sex education says: listen to yourself. Trust your gut. If something feels wrong, it’s OK to say no and leave a situation that makes you uncomfortable.

Queer theory says: unlearn your prejudices. Challenge your internalized _____phobia. Work through the discomfort. People are who they say they are. They’re the experts on their identities and their bodies, not you.

Queer theory says that's not a penis if 'xie' says it's not a penis. Queer theory says that what you think happened never happened, if the person who did it says it didn't.

Queer theory dissolves meaning. That means that indoctrination into queer theory dissolves whatever solid ground a child might otherwise stand on: to ask questions, express needs, voice discomfort, and say no.

You don't need a vivid imagination to see why this ideology would attract abusers to act as evangelists for such beliefs. That's before we get to puberty blockers and why anyone would want to create a crop of legal 'adults' with prepubescent cognitive and physical development.

I've had it up to here with the people who say, so you're saying that trans people are paedophiles and abusers? That's hate speech.

As the other article said, it's not the trans children who are being criticised here. Jacob Breslow isn't trans. Susie Green isn't trans. Nancy Kelly isn't trans. The "trans" children are the victims. The monsters are the people campaigning to make these children hate their bodies, to convince them that they can never grow up to be happy in the healthy bodies they have, and to steer them towards drugs and surgery that will permanently damage their bodies, shorten their lives, and leave them not only sterile but unable to experience sexual pleasure.

The monsters are the people cutting healthy breasts off confused teenagers who are distressed by their maturing bodies. (Which of us wasn't?) The monsters are the people turning healthy boys into living sex dolls with an artificial cavity made to accommodate someone else's penis, in an act the boy will never and can never get arousal or pleasure from.

Every time someone criticises them the retort is the same. Transphobe. You hate trans people. You want trans people not to exist. You want them to die. Trans genocide! No, we hate you, the person who is taking the natural confusion, uncertainty and discomfort of childhood and adolescence, making it far worse, and then using this as an excuse to maim and mutilate these children.

I'm off to find a millstone or two.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

There's also a touch of, the best way to get a bad rule repealed is to vigorously enforce it.

That too. I am liking your insights into this.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

To expand a bit on this, this is Alinsky's Rule 4: Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. Alinsky is a bit like Machievelli: he may be an immoral bastard, but his tactical advice is still often spot on. Spectators to the conflict who don't have much stake may bow to pressure to obey a rule they don't believe in, but will be less inclined to do so if they see the rule isn't being applied fairly.

OK, but when Alinsky was doing his thing the book of rules he was pushing his enemy to live up to was rather different to the one Rolfe wants to push against. You now have the privilege stack, standpoint theory and a grab bag of other things that tell you whose offence needs to be taken into account and whose can be discarded. One of the central tenets of critical race theory/anti-racism is that you shouldn't apply the same rules blindly to everybody. As the saying goes, it's not hypocrisy, it's hierarchy.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

We will simply have to differ about this. I think we have had the argument before.

I know, and you're right. It's funny, I don't believe rational arguments can resolve disagreements like this, and yet I can't stop myself arguing :-) Mostly I think we interact pretty positively and have lots of points of agreement, if we can't argue our way to The Truth.... we are doomed against all the people whose disagreement with us is more profound.

[Rolfe]

I'd be more interested in the posters who have been calling me, and Emily and others transphobes and bigots coming along and explaining why it's right to mutilate children rather than help them get through puberty and come to terms with the bodies they have.

The trans advocates have been getting quieter and quieter since I quit the thread way back due to their abuse of me. I almost miss them.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

There's also a touch of, the best way to get a bad rule repealed is to vigorously enforce it.

I think this really depends. For one thing, I think you are assuming that seeing the consequences of the law will be enough for people to agree that it is bad. If everybody isn't coming from the same moral/cultural/ideological place, that may not be the case. Secondly, we live in a complex society where the consequences of vigorously enforcing a rule isn't necessarily obvious to everybody.

[Rolfe]

You really can't let it go, can you?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

OK, but when Alinsky was doing his thing the book of rules he was pushing his enemy to live up to was rather different to the one Rolfe wants to push against. You now have the privilege stack, standpoint theory and a grab bag of other things that tell you whose offence needs to be taken into account and whose can be discarded. One of the central tenets of critical race theory/anti-racism is that you shouldn't apply the same rules blindly to everybody. As the saying goes, it's not hypocrisy, it's hierarchy.

The general public hasn't bought into this part, and largely doesn't notice it. That is by design.

Make them notice it. It won't get support. People naturally rebel at hypocrisy, which is the whole point of rule 4, and they won't accept hypocrisy just because someone says it's intentional and part of the ideology.

[theprestige]

Seems like the cutting edge of Queer Technology is to put the queer back in Queer.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I think this really depends. For one thing, I think you are assuming that seeing the consequences of the law will be enough for people to agree that it is bad.

Well, yes. I'm assuming that most people are fairly reasonable, because that's been my experience in the real world. Online interactions are not the real world.

If most people aren't fairly reasonable, we're ****** no matter what we do, and it's too late to save civilization. Just try to weather the storm, and hope that enough reasonable people survive the collapse to rebuild something after.

But I don't think we're at that point yet.

Quote:

Secondly, we live in a complex society where the consequences of vigorously enforcing a rule isn't necessarily obvious to everybody.

The rules AREN'T vigorously enforced, by design. That's the primary reason why the consequences aren't obvious to everyone. And that's why you shove the consequences in their face through vigorous enforcement.

[Rolfe]

This one doesn't exactly miss and hit the wall.

Blood in the water

"Gender-deranged Borg drones." Well, that's one way of putting it.

Quote:

Society has been under a wicked spell for years. Mediocre little bureaucrats who organise genders and sexuality into 100 boring flags and identities pursued a campaign to allocate children to such categories and were prepared to countenance surgical correction if the child didn’t fit. These were in the main gay children, autistic children, children leaving or in care. Above all they were children.

I can find no excuse or accommodation with those who cheered this on. This is the single most obvious medical scandal in human history. An open air live experiment where the gender borg were contemporaneously told in detail exactly what was wrong. These serious and heartfelt objections were met with the tactics of the Stasi or Gestapo. By cancellations. By character assassinations. Dr. David Bell. Sonia Appleby. Transgender trend. The LGB Alliance. All castigated, marginalised, forced to court by a vicious monster which believed itself to be beyond and above question or scrutiny.

This should have all ended when homophobia was raised as a safeguarding concern. It should have ended when Mermaids were tweeting out (without sanction) tips on breast binding. It should have ended with Kiera Bell and the divisional court. It should have ended with the first detransitioners raising the alarm or the first child chemically mutilated and atrophied by puberty blockers.

We had no necessity for a generation butchered and poisoned in this fashion. There was never a justification for it and those who have supported or been complicit in this have been complicit in a crime against humanity.

Gender will collapse in three stages. The flight of the cowards. The howls of the zealots. The prosecution of the monsters.

Welcome to stage one. The flight accounts for the silence on the battlefield today.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I'd be more interested in the posters who have been calling me, and Emily and others transphobes and bigots coming along and explaining why it's right to mutilate children rather than help them get through puberty and come to terms with the bodies they have.

The trans advocates have been getting quieter and quieter since I quit the thread way back due to their abuse of me. I almost miss them.

Erm, that's not why trans advocates have not been engaging in this thread for some time. But the fact that you think it's the reason is most illuminating. Carry on.

[LondonJohn]

(Maybe read your previous several posts, with vitriolic rants about "monsters" etc.... then you might (you won't) realise how toxic and genuinely nasty this thread is, and why sane people want to stay well away from the likes of your opinions.....)