The Gender Debate

[Guest]

10 hours ago, f_c_dundee said:

Many things I say are jumped on not because the poster is expressing how they specifically disagree with my point , but because it was in the wrong newspaper

The Spectator is a vector for introducing US libertarianism into UK politics. If we go along with their agenda then healthcare access for trans people will no longer be an issue seeing as none of us will have healthcare access any longer.

If you've reached the stage where you'd burn everything down for the working class just to spite the trans movement then you need to question your myopia.

[f_c_dundee]

1 hour ago, FreedomFarter said:

The Spectator is a vector for introducing US libertarianism into UK politics. If we go along with their agenda then healthcare access for trans people will no longer be an issue seeing as none of us will have healthcare access any longer.

If you've reached the stage where you'd burn everything down for the working class just to spite the trans movement then you need to question your myopia.

And where, pray tell did you get this random idea?

 

(From anything whatsoever that I've said)

Edited June 1, 2023 by f_c_dundee

[Guest]

52 minutes ago, f_c_dundee said:

And where, pay tell did you get this random idea?

 

(From anything whatsoever that I've said)

I'm referencing our only previous interaction. I showed how the Spectator was spamming trans articles from their publication. Despite never having shown any prior interest in women's rights or LGBT rights, they are doing so now because it has become expedient for their political agenda. Here's the wider point, though, that you're missing:

We only get truly earnest debate on trans issues between feminist academics. Between Judith Butler and Sheila Jeffreys, for example. Between people whose life's work has been scrutinising how society views gender. The moment you take the debate out that sterile environment and try to reproduce it in the public sphere, it gets co-opted by political interests.

The political left's interest is in the liberation of the working class. Objectively that means guaranteeing access to healthcare, housing, education, and secure, fulfilling employment. This is achieved by distributing society's resources to that end.

The political right's interest is to ensure a concentration rather than a distribution of resources with an ownership class being the recipients of that concentration. 

Working class liberation can only be achieved by solidarity among all the working class. Therefore, disrupting that solidarity has always been a goal of the political right. That's done via racism, ableism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, transphobia, national chauvinism and all the rest.

A good example of this in practice is how racist unions in USA last century excluded Black workers. Their strikes then kept failing because property owners would just hire the Black workers excluded from those unions. Or in Western Europe we saw how the ownership class patroned fascism as an antidote to socialism.

This is why neonazis or neofascists or whatever they are keep turning up in support of gender critical rallies. They recognise that transphobia can be used to divide the working class. Its not their preferred or main option, that's normally race, but transphobia is a newly opened avenue they're happy to explore. This impacts electoral politics and will probably influence "Workington Man" types to vote Tory in the next election.

I'm open to discussion about and criticism of the trans movement. I have criticisms of it myself. I'm not for a moment naive to who is making the criticisms and why, though. The source and the intent matters.

[f_c_dundee]

28 minutes ago, FreedomFarter said:

I'm referencing our only previous interaction. I showed how the Spectator was spamming trans articles from their publication. Despite never having shown any prior interest in women's rights or LGBT rights, they are doing so now because it has become expedient for their political agenda. Here's the wider point, though, that you're missing:

We only get truly earnest debate on trans issues between feminist academics. Between Judith Butler and Sheila Jeffreys, for example. Between people whose life's work has been scrutinising how society views gender. The moment you take the debate out that sterile environment and try to reproduce it in the public sphere, it gets co-opted by political interests.

The political left's interest is in the liberation of the working class. Objectively that means guaranteeing access to healthcare, housing, education, and secure, fulfilling employment. This is achieved by distributing society's resources to that end.

The political right's interest is to ensure a concentration rather than a distribution of resources with an ownership class being the recipients of that concentration. 

Working class liberation can only be achieved by solidarity among all the working class. Therefore, disrupting that solidarity has always been a goal of the political right. That's done via racism, ableism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, transphobia, national chauvinism and all the rest.

A good example of this in practice is how racist unions in USA last century excluded Black workers. Their strikes then kept failing because property owners would just hire the Black workers excluded from those unions. Or in Western Europe we saw how the ownership class patroned fascism as an antidote to socialism.

This is why neonazis or neofascists or whatever they are keep turning up in support of gender critical rallies. They recognise that transphobia can be used to divide the working class. Its not their preferred or main option, that's normally race, but transphobia is a newly opened avenue they're happy to explore. This impacts electoral politics and will probably influence "Workington Man" types to vote Tory in the next election.

I'm open to discussion about and criticism of the trans movement. I have criticisms of it myself. I'm not for a moment naive to who is making the criticisms and why, though. The source and the intent matters.

Jings my memory isn't that good. But sharing a spectator article or 3 doesn't mean I heartily support those who would seek to cause that unrest.

 

Both things are true imo. There are problems inherent in not using sex as the means of segregating public life at times.

 

Right wing types are also taking advantage. 

 

The newspapers probably just like extra sales and subscription money. I have heard a lot of people who've never bought the times or telegraph before, but have since bought them in order to read articles by the aforementioned female journalists who jumped ship there, for example.

 

What's the solution then, to criticism of self id and of medicalisation of children and young people. Should we shut up, because it's feeding the disruption?

 

You say truly earnest debate between academics is fine, but it's different in the real world. Hasn't the philosophical concept of queer theory also caused problems in the same way outside academic pondering? And been co-opted by people happy to cause trouble too.

 

You can't deny there were many years of #nodebate where discussion was not welcome.  That's kinda why we're here, I think with extremes having now been highlighted to push for discussion. 

 

[Zern]

3 hours ago, f_c_dundee said:

 

What's gender essentialism, exactly?

 

Language being 'degraded' is a bit of a dramatic way of putting it. It's not about some kind of philosophical purity of the language though. 

 

We need a word for women that doesn't include some men and the same for men. We need to be able to exclude men (or women) in some situations for reasons of risk or for privacy and dignity when undressed or otherwise vulnerable. 

 

Also to avoid gathering incorrect data - for things like the census, but also for recording crimes, health statistics. 

 

No one wishes to stop any individual from expressing themselves how they wish - the exception perhaps being men who dress e.g. in miniscule dresses at work which would not be accepted without batting an eyelid if worn by a woman.

 

I do not personally wish to conform to the gendered expectations placed on my sex by some sections of society. I feel exceptionally uncomfortable in a dress and like an idiot in make up. I am 0% interested in fashion or fancy nails, I like what I like and if it coincides with fashion it's a fluke, like combat trousers in the 90s .  No one at all GC is saying people can't express themselves how they want and do whatever job or sport they choose. 

 

They just can't be the opposite sex. They can be treated as such out of politeness at times, but this doesn't extend to a right to be recognised as their desired sex absolutely anywhere, because this affects others rights to things like single sex services and competitive sport.

 

Yes even park run. Even grass roots football. What % of us are going to be elite sports people? No that many. So having your weekly crack at the park run record for your age group placed out of reach for a male to feel included, is just as crap as the fact that males can set records that will be nigh on impossible to beat in women's sport. 

 

It's not about shitting on anyone, just that the realities must be considered and that's not bigotry.

 

It's not the same as homophobia, because giving the right to same sex marriage and protection from discrimination affected no one else apart from those in the relationship. As mentioned above- yes, people who are already homophobic and probably many other varieties of arsehole are happy to leap in and be genuinely derogatory. In the UK trans people are already protected from discrimination under a protected characteristic, I know this isn't the case everywhere. 

 

It's hard to focus on one aspect when the effects are very wide ranging. 

 

I've already had a week off for "abusive behaviour". 

 

You were the one complaining of the lack of proper discussion. I invited you to focus on one aspect where you can identify an issue caused by the equalities act being implemented.

If you are unable to do that then it is you who is failing to engage in proper discussion.

Quote

They just can't be the opposite sex.

This, to me, appears to be your core belief.

You are entitled to your beliefs, but they do not override the rights of transgender people to exist.

[DiscoStu]

13 minutes ago, Zern said:

You were the one complaining of the lack of proper discussion. I invited you to focus on one aspect where you can identify an issue caused by the equalities act being implemented.

If you are unable to do that then it is you who is failing to engage in proper discussion.

This, to me, appears to be your core belief.

You are entitled to your beliefs, but they do not override the rights of transgender people to exist.

No one's saying they shouldn't exist.

We're just saying they're not actually women.

[f_c_dundee]

32 minutes ago, Zern said:

This, to me, appears to be your core belief.

You are entitled to your beliefs, but they do not override the rights of transgender people to exist

Yes it is a core belief. 

 

They still exist quite obviously, but cannot expect the entire world to consider them as the opposite sex any time they want for any purpose. Not without consequences which cannot be hand waved away. 

 

That's it. 

[Zern]

20 minutes ago, DiscoStu said:

No one's saying they shouldn't exist.

We're just saying they're not actually women.

Well that is incorrect. Plenty of people are saying they should not exist we've mentioned one group already who are famous for they 1930s nostalgia and arm exercises. The Russian Federation they enforce the non-existence of trans people entirely.

 

[f_c_dundee]

23 minutes ago, Zern said:

Well that is incorrect. Plenty of people are saying they should not exist we've mentioned one group already who are famous for they 1930s nostalgia and arm exercises. The Russian Federation they enforce the non-existence of trans people entirely.

 

Yup, but being as you're chatting with Scottish football fans, not Nazis or the Russian federation, feel free to engage on that basis.

[DiscoStu]

2 hours ago, Zern said:

Well that is incorrect. Plenty of people are saying they should not exist we've mentioned one group already who are famous for they 1930s nostalgia and arm exercises. The Russian Federation they enforce the non-existence of trans people entirely.

The only ones wanting non-existence are the trans activists.

 

[scottsdad]

2 minutes ago, DiscoStu said:

The only ones wanting non-existence are the trans activists.

 

4 posts, all in the politics forum.

[DiscoStu]

Just now, Zern said:

lol

TERFS are not a protected category you plum

I didn't say they were.

Nice attempt at deflection though

 

[Zern]

2 hours ago, f_c_dundee said:

Yes it is a core belief. 

 

They still exist quite obviously, but cannot expect the entire world to consider them as the opposite sex any time they want for any purpose. Not without consequences which cannot be hand waved away. 

 

That's it. 

That's not a demand they are making. The reason your side of the argument is unable to gain any purchase in debates anywhere in the UK is because you cannot give a good reason other than the fact you dislike the idea of trangrender people in general. The ick factor.

The Roman Catholic Church shares your opinion, but go further in the belief of a fixed gender extending to the correction of sexuality.

They lost this fight too.

What's crazy is that this debate was lost years ago, and the recent GRR legislation only served to show how utterly bonkers the opposition was.

[Zern]

7 minutes ago, DiscoStu said:

I didn't say they were.

Nice attempt at deflection though

 

No better than yours. At least i didn't got to all the trouble of creating an sockpuppet to support my bullshit.

[f_c_dundee]

7 minutes ago, Zern said:

That's not a demand they are making. The reason your side of the argument is unable to gain any purchase in debates anywhere in the UK is because you cannot give a good reason other than the fact you dislike the idea of trangrender people in general. The ick factor.

The Roman Catholic Church shares your opinion, but go further in the belief of a fixed gender extending to the correction of sexuality.

They lost this fight too.

What's crazy is that this debate was lost years ago, and the recent GRR legislation only served to show how utterly bonkers the opposition was.

Nonsense.  I cba going back through all my posts, but 0% have mentioned the ick factor ffs.

 

You have either made that up in your own head, or are, again talking about something someone that's not on this forum has said.  The extrapolated it to assume everyone believes it if they disagree .

 

Utter, Utter, bobbins.

 

Feel free to elaborate on how the debate was lost years ago though, that would be interesting.

[Mr Waldo]

I know people would have avoided Channel 4's, Gender Wars, probably because it did not use the word 'Nazi' enough, but if we really want to resolve it, get Katy Jon Went (Guardian link) on TV more. A trans woman who spoke more sense in 3 minutes than some 'activists' in a lifetime. Someone who definitely was not a 'if you do not believe in everything I do, you are one of them'.

1 hour ago, Zern said:

That's not a demand they are making. The reason your side of the argument is unable to gain any purchase in debates anywhere in the UK is because you cannot give a good reason other than the fact you dislike the idea of trangrender people in general. The ick factor.

What part of the very numerous nuances within you side of the 'argument' do you mean? Here are a few. There are many more.

Some people (then called nazis, terfs and bigots) were concerned about Tavistock, England's Gender Indentity Development Services clinic.  Who were recently caught lying in court about the influence of Mermaids (Telegraph link) CEO Susie Green. Which looks like more evidence that vulnerable people were designated 'trans', with potential drugs prescribed and surgery, without the correct support.   A possible huge medical scandal that people were afraid to highlight and whistleblow for fear of being targeted by the twitter warriors as Terfs or bigots.

Some women (a protected category) want to feel safe in their own space.  Which got a load of 'genital inspectors in toilets' comments until everyone suddenly realised that this would also mean that they'd send a rapist to a womans prisons. A rapist to a womans prison! 

And talking about women, can you not see how it looks that is OK for a 16 year old to have the intelligence to work out that are the opposite of their birth sex but it takes until 25 for a man's brain to decide rape is wrong?   Community service for rape!  STV link

If you can change gender, can you change race? Did you fully support or only half supported Oli London (wiki link) when he became a non-binary Korean?  

I know we had a post recently about it not being too unfair to be a 20 year old man, now woman, competing against women.  There are many examples of it happening but how about Alana McLaughlin. US special forces, began transitioning 2010, and had her first MMA fight a couple of years ago. Alana won. Is that what is meant by equality?

[Zern]

12 minutes ago, f_c_dundee said:

Nonsense.  I cba going back through all my posts, but 0% have mentioned the ick factor ffs.

 

You have either made that up in your own head, or are, again talking about something someone that's not on this forum has said.  The extrapolated it to assume everyone believes it if they disagree .

 

Utter, Utter, bobbins.

 

Feel free to elaborate on how the debate was lost years ago though, that would be interesting.

The debate over transgender rights was lost when legislation was passed in 2014. The GRR bill also passed.

Both those debates had input from the so-called gender critical crowd prior to passing. All their arguments ended in the same place; a belief in fixed gender roles based on personal prejudice. The ick factor. They don't have a rational basis for their beliefs. The medical science supports the legislation that transgender people can, and do exist. So they have been granted rights. Its been that way for nearly a decade.

You have posted wild-eyed stories intended to shock, outright lies, fictions and extreme hypebole in an attempt to elicit a negative reaction from the reader, and direct it towards transgender people. It is not intended to provoke informed debate because you are misinforming people from the get go.

There is another strand to this; I am very aware that the Conservative administration in Westminster is deeply unpopular and are attempting to divert the anger directed at them towards minorities; immigrants and trangender people being targeted specifically.

So when i see some diddy from Dundee repeating culture war talking points i find myself dismayed that you are doing the tories dirty work.

[Mr Waldo]

2 hours ago, Zern said:

 

What's crazy is that this debate was lost years ago, and the recent GRR legislation only served to show how utterly bonkers the opposition was.

This 'debate' is only starting and will only finish when, as a society, we can agree on how trans gender people can become fully accepted and fully productive members of that society.

[Zern]

7 minutes ago, Mr Waldo said:

This 'debate' is only starting and will only finish when, as a society, we can agree on how trans gender people can become fully accepted and fully productive members of that society.

I agree, and often express the same sentiment towards FC Dundee fans.

Not prejudiced though. I treat them almost exactly the same as real people.

[carpetmonster]

It’s all a fucking grift exhibit 602

https://twitter.com/mxvivianwulf/status/1664091701772800000?s=46&t=DE1p8NEhWKLLs2Y1vIAPgw