Transgenderism

[Chindie]

24 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I find myself constantly baffled as to why people give so much of a shit about what JK Rowling thinks about anything but kids/young adult literature.

Her success and her story made her a political figure, both by proxy (politicians ingratiating themselves to her and her story) and directly (her money and her power let her attempt to influence matters to her liking). Then she went after trans debate and got herself a new cause to push as much as she can.

[Panto_Villan]

It doesn't really surprise me it's ended up here. Rowling's experience of trans people and their activists is just an endless torrent of abuse, whereas the people that are willing to support her are going to have negative views of trans people. It's an echo chamber that's just going to make her views increasingly extreme over time.

To echo the point I made in the racism thread a week or two ago, I think it's important for activists to accept that the rest of society is entitled to a say in these matters too. For instance, some trans activists are pushing for both gender self-identification and for trans women to be allowed access to all female safe spaces. Having both obviously presents a problem because a male sexual predator can self-identify as a woman and access these spaces. To be clear this isn't claiming trans people are sexual predators, it's just saying that their proposals create a loophole other people may exploit - and that all groups have some obligation to society to accept inconvenience in order to protect other parts of society (think teachers and their criminal checks, anyone going through airport security, etc).

I think it's a bit of a shame that the debate around transgenderism is so poisonous that anyone who isn't fully behind trans rights has to deal with so much hate they inevitably end up going off the deep end. Trans activists clearly need to stand up for their own rights, but society does need moderate, sensible voices to stand up for the other groups affected by these changes too.

[Panto_Villan]

4 hours ago, Chindie said:

Norton was interviewed at a literature festival and made some (frankly pretty spot on) comments on cancel culture and then the trans debate. He criticised the likes of John Cleese whinging about cancel culture by pointing out a) if you've got a platform to whinge about it, and people are looking to hear your views, you've not been cancelled and b) it's better described as accountability. He was then asked for his thoughts on the trans debate in light of Rowling's being hammered, and he said, to paraphrase, he's not trans and he's not an expert so his comments would be useless, the discussion should be focused on and amplify the thoughts of trans people, their families and experts in the field rather than parrot celebrities thoughts.

That was praised by Billy Bragg, who Rowling bit back at by suggesting these thoughts supported rape and death threats (...?), which in turn fed back to the original source of the comments, Norton, and he ditched Twitter as a result, to the sound of loads of anti-trans activists cheering.

Regarding point b), do you think Norton regards being chased off Twitter by an angry mob as "accountability" then?

[blandy]

4 hours ago, Chindie said:

Rowling bit back at by suggesting these thoughts supported rape and death threats

She didn’t. This is where Twitter is dire. What Norton said was terrific, btw. But Bragg and Rowling were not talking about the same thing. Rowling was and did highlight a leading figure in a trans charity who had actually made rape and death threats against feminists and was therefore making a point that “consulting [that person] wouldn’t be a smart move”. Bragg took that to be “you’re accusing me of supporting rape and death threats” and got all cross. But she wasn’t and Bragg isn’t trans, anyway. It’s just 2 high profile people getting the wrong end of the stick (both of them) and shouting at cross purposes, while their more excitable followers pile on in their tribes. Horrible.
others may see it differently and that’s fine, but that’s my take on it.

[Chindie]

The problem with the toilet rape argument is there's not really much stopping any bloke putting a dress and a wig on and raping anyone in a women's toilet right now. He won't disintegrate as he crosses the threshold of the ladies because he's not pinky promised he's a woman. So why is someone desperate to assault women in toilets going to bother to get a piece of paper that says they're a woman to get a pass to do it?

[MessiWillSignForVilla]

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

She didn’t. This is where Twitter is dire. What Norton said was terrific, btw. But Bragg and Rowling were not talking about the same thing. Rowling was and did highlight a leading figure in a trans charity who had actually made rape and death threats against feminists and was therefore making a point that “consulting [that person] wouldn’t be a smart move”. Bragg took that to be “you’re accusing me of supporting rape and death threats” and got all cross. But she wasn’t and Bragg isn’t trans, anyway. It’s just 2 high profile people getting the wrong end of the stick (both of them) and shouting at cross purposes, while their more excitable followers pile on in their tribes. Horrible.
others may see it differently and that’s fine, but that’s my take on it.

Where have you got that from, because it's not true, you can read the exchange for yourself, Rowling very much seems to be getting upset at the prospect of talking to Trans people.

 

Rowling's response was strawman galore and made no mention of trans charities.

[blandy]

1 minute ago, MessiWillSignForVilla said:

Where have you got that from, because it's not true, you can read the exchange for yourself, Rowling very much seems to be getting upset at the prospect of talking to Trans people.

 

Rowling's response was strawman galore and made no mention of trans charities.

I did read it and it is true. That exchange is exactly what I’m on about, talking at cross purposes. Bragg has retweeted stuff where there are comparisons to fascism in the maelstrom of unreasonable and reasonable views around trans people and issues. Rowling at cross purposes has logged that as “he’s comparing feminists to fascists and Nazis” (he’s not). And the stuff about threats of violence against feminists, Rowling has tweeted and it’s factual.  E.g.

I’m not intending to argue, I was more commenting on the awful nature of the Twitter “debate”. Like I said, Graeme Norton said a nice, wise thing. Days later Billy Bragg, who I like, and an famous author who’s books I’ve never read are calling each other all kinds…and to what end exactly? How does anyone benefit? How is understanding advanced?

[Panto_Villan]

35 minutes ago, Chindie said:

The problem with the toilet rape argument is there's not really much stopping any bloke putting a dress and a wig on and raping anyone in a women's toilet right now. He won't disintegrate as he crosses the threshold of the ladies because he's not pinky promised he's a woman. So why is someone desperate to assault women in toilets going to bother to get a piece of paper that says they're a woman to get a pass to do it?

Presumably if a man walked into a female toilet wearing a wig and a dress, in most cases there will be more women in there than he can control at once and at least one will go and complain to whoever owns the establishment and the bloke will be thrown out and potentially arrested because he's not actually allowed to be there. But if the man is legally entitled to be there because he's declared himself a woman and no further process is required, nobody can object to his presence (in fact, logically the woman who ran off to ask him to be thrown out is being transphobic and could be reported to the police for a hate crime).

But that's a bad argument anyway, because using that logic we shouldn't bother vetting teachers for previous sexual convictions because they could just snatch children outside school hours so we shouldn't even bother trying to make it harder for them.

Edited October 18, 2022 by Panto_Villan

[Chindie]

There's a difference between undertaking safeguarding measures for people that wish to pursue a career dealing with vulnerable people, and undertaking said checks to ensure someone is allowed to use a toilet because they believe they're a woman.

If we switched the code here, would anyone be ok with gay or lesbian people needing to be checked to be allowed to use a toilet? How about black people?

[Panto_Villan]

19 minutes ago, Chindie said:

There's a difference between undertaking safeguarding measures for people that wish to pursue a career dealing with vulnerable people, and undertaking said checks to ensure someone is allowed to use a toilet because they believe they're a woman.

If we switched the code here, would anyone be ok with gay or lesbian people needing to be checked to be allowed to use a toilet? How about black people?

If someone was applying for something specifically reserved for gay or lesbian people or black people (e.g. a bursary or scholarship), then yeah I'd expect some verification process in place. If you just allow anyone to self-identify as part of those groups without any external verification then it's pretty clearly not going to work.

[Chindie]

We're specifically taking toilets here though. Would we be ok if, hypothetically, all black people had to be checked as 'safe' to use a loo because we assume they're not inherently?

That's a really grim thing. Because you're part of X group you need to have proof you're safe to be allowed the basic concessions of society, because we inherently view your type as dangerous.

[Panto_Villan]

20 minutes ago, Chindie said:

We're specifically taking toilets here though. Would we be ok if, hypothetically, all black people had to be checked as 'safe' to use a loo because we assume they're not inherently?

That's a really grim thing. Because you're part of X group you need to have proof you're safe to be allowed the basic concessions of society, because we inherently view your type as dangerous.

To be fair you’ve fixated on toilets yourself. I said “safe spaces for women” in my original post. Toilets are the least important of them. Do you think different if we’re talking about rape shelters? Why would vulnerable children need protecting but not vulnerable women?

It’s also not fair to say asking trans people to go through some kind of one-off process to verify they are trans is implying they are untrustworthy and dangerous. Does medically checking people when disability benefits are granted imply all disabled people are fraudsters? Of course not, but it’s still necessary to weed the fraudsters out.

[bickster]

The Scottish Green Party have completely disassociated themselves with the UK Green Party in a row over trans abuse

 

[lapal_fan]

19 hours ago, Chindie said:

We're specifically taking toilets here though. Would we be ok if, hypothetically, all black people had to be checked as 'safe' to use a loo because we assume they're not inherently?

That's a really grim thing. Because you're part of X group you need to have proof you're safe to be allowed the basic concessions of society, because we inherently view your type as dangerous.

I think we need to understand too that, a lot of women feel threatened everyday, just by going out.  No-one could say anything to them, but generally being the weaker of the sexes, means they by nature have to be more careful, malicious intent or not.

The entire bathroom argument is essentially women saying "this is a female gendered area, to include men identifying as women in that area still makes us feel threatened - intent or not" and I DO understand that. 

We all have to survive and make choices daily, but for women it is slightly amplified - whether we like it or not, and in an "equal society" we're trying to remove that, but it's hard when we encroach.  

And it's just not the same if the shoe were on the other foot and a female born male came into the men's bathroom.. We don't feel that threat.  

I hate the whole argument, people should just be kind and considerate, but it's not the way things are - or ever will be - whilst we still have this much monkey in us.  

It would be wonderful if no trans person ever did attack women, then we couldn't even have the argument, but it has happened, sadly.  

[TheAuthority]

29 minutes ago, lapal_fan said:

 

It would be wonderful if no trans person ever did attack women, then we couldn't even have the argument, but it has happened, sadly.  

But statistically there are far, far more trans women who are attacked by men surely they deserve equal protection?

My university has mainly single stall bathrooms i.e. one person at a time which are all labelled "gender neutral." Seems a good solution.

[lapal_fan]

6 hours ago, TheAuthority said:

But statistically there are far, far more trans women who are attacked by men surely they deserve equal protection?

My university has mainly single stall bathrooms i.e. one person at a time which are all labelled "gender neutral." Seems a good solution.

I agree it's a good solution and it's becoming more widespread.

However, just because men attack trans people doesn't mean women should lose their spaces.

Seems like men are the angry, violent problem, so we should remove ourselves!

 

[TheAuthority]

Just now, lapal_fan said:

I agree it's a good solution and it's becoming more widespread.

However, just because men attack trans people doesn't mean women should lose their spaces.

Seems like men are the angry, violent problem, so we should remove ourselves!

 

I'd be quite happy we letting women run the world for the next 2000 years. There's no way it would as f****d up as the mess men have made of it.

[lapal_fan]

Just now, TheAuthority said:

I'd be quite happy we letting women run the world for the next 2000 years. There's no way it would as f****d up as the mess men have made of it.

I'm not so sure..

Queen Victoria was in charge when Britain made it illegal to show breasts in public

 

 

[TheAuthority]

Just now, lapal_fan said:

I'm not so sure..

Queen Victoria was in charge when Britain made it illegal to show breasts in public

 

 

Well there goes my theory in one foul swoop!

Women out!

[Xela]

26 minutes ago, TheAuthority said:

I'd be quite happy we letting women run the world for the next 2000 years. There's no way it would as f****d up as the mess men have made of it.

Liz Truss

Enough said.