F*ck the Tories: a Thread Dedicated to Suella Braverman

[AuroraSaab]

Plenty. You'd already know that if you'd stopped steamrollering through every thread on the subject and paused to listen. I have plenty of opinions which are at odds with LGBT+ orthodoxy, and I can barely look at the graphic design car-crash that is the Progress Pride flag. Unfortunately it stopped being a good-faith discussion about the Equality Act (or the way that gender is constructed and performed) and became a moral panic some time ago, and I'm not on board for that. Feminist analysis has left the 'GC' building - these people are scared of Judith Butler and their hero is JK farking Rowling. Do you work with any young people, out of interest?

I spent my career teaching kids in secondary education. I know they are well-meaning but easily led. I've taught loads of gender non conforming kids; I'm gender non conforming (though I hate that term). And I know social contagion is a very real thing.

You chuck Butler in but never explain what her philosophy means. To me, Butler represents the difference between feminists like me, who think patriarchy is a system that operates through oppressive cultural systems like gender, and others who think the patriarchy is some sort of free floating cultural system that has nothing to do with bodies, or their exploitation. She's all about cultural signs and symbols shaping our subjectivity. Once you've taken apart all these symbols, all that's left for Butler is gender as a performance and a transwoman performing 'female' is no less authentic than a biological woman performing 'female'.

However, if there were no culture - no written word or even spoken language - women would still be exploited because our oppression is based on our sexed bodies. Muddying the distinction between men and women doesn't change that. Thus you can't expand, queer, or subvert gender; you have to disassemble it altogether.

As to moral panic, it's you and winjim who seem to want to reduce it to who goes in what toilet. I'm talking about everything from sports to prisons to changing language. And like winjim, you have a lot to say about feeling sorry for the likes of Emily Bridges but never seem to be able to let us all know what it is you do think, apart from conflating transwomen athletes with athletes with dsd's. And again, you offer no solutions.

I actually don't think we are miles apart on what the issue is, we just disagree about the solution.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Step away from the keyboard.

Oh dear. Another one who has nothing to say on the issues other than pointless interjections.

 

[Hitchington]

it's a new world and we've all got to accept the changes in society. nothing is binary anymore. ignore the bloody culture war morons

 

[AuroraSaab]

Could you expand on how you think this should play out re women's sports or recording crime data by sex or gender identity, for example?

 

[Fab Foodie]

Yea and I had a imaginary friend as a kid....it's not for you to judge is it ?

Did he leave you?

 

[theclaud]

I spent my career teaching kids in secondary education. I know they are well-meaning but easily led. I've taught loads of gender non conforming kids; I'm gender non conforming (though I hate that term). And I know social contagion is a very real thing.

You chuck Butler in but never explain what her philosophy means. To me, Butler represents the difference between feminists like me, who think patriarchy is a system that operates through oppressive cultural systems like gender, and others who think the patriarchy is some sort of free floating cultural system that has nothing to do with bodies, or their exploitation. She's all about cultural signs and symbols shaping our subjectivity. Once you've taken apart all these symbols, all that's left for Butler is gender as a performance and a transwoman performing 'female' is no less authentic than a biological woman performing 'female'.

However, if there were no culture - no written word or even spoken language - women would still be exploited because our oppression is based on our sexed bodies. Muddying the distinction between men and women doesn't change that. Thus you can't expand, queer, or subvert gender; you have to disassemble it altogether.

As to moral panic, it's you and winjim who seem to want to reduce it to who goes in what toilet. I'm talking about everything from sports to prisons to changing language. And like winjim, you have a lot to say about feeling sorry for the likes of Emily Bridges but never seem to be able to let us all know what it is you do think, apart from conflating transwomen athletes with athletes with dsd's. And again, you offer no solutions.

I actually don't think we are miles apart on what the issue is, we just disagree about the solution.

I'll come back to this later, as I am at work, but what is it you find so scary about thinking about how 'signs and symbols shape our subjectivity'? There is no natural or inevitable connection between the biology of sex and the social meanings of sex (ie gender), so yes I would say that there is no reason that femininity or masculinity is any more or less authentic according to the biology of the person/s performing it. I'd just ask you what is your endgame - as Catharine MacKinnon said, male-dominated society has defined women as a discrete biological group forever, and if it was going to produce liberation we would already be free. And now we have so-called feminists producing acres of argument that is virtually indistinguishable from 'weaker sex' rhetoric, in alleged defence of sports in which they appear otherwise mostly uninterested.

 

[Deleted member 49]

Did he leave you?

Let me ask her.

 

[winjim]

I'm not aware I've said anything about toilets on this thread.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I'll come back to this later, as I am at work, but what is it you find so scary about thinking about how 'signs and symbols shape our subjectivity'? There is no natural or inevitable connection between the biology of sex and the social meanings of sex (ie gender), so yes I would say that there is no reason that femininity or masculinity is any more or less authentic according to the biology of the person/s performing it. I'd just ask you what is your endgame - as Catharine MacKinnon said, male-dominated society has defined women as a discrete biological group forever, and if it was going to produce liberation we would already be free. And now we have so-called feminists producing acres of argument that is virtually indistinguishable from 'weaker sex' rhetoric, in alleged defence of sports in which they appear otherwise mostly uninterested.

The end game is, put crudely, to abolish gender, because it's based on stereotypes, and to keep the distinctions between the sexes only in those areas where it really matters. And there are very few areas where sex matters, but sometimes when it does matter it really matters.

Stereotypical gender roles are anchored in biology. There's no reason for women to be the only ones doing all the child care, but it's women whose biology means they have to have the babies - which leads to employment discrimination, career loss etc. You don't bring down that aspect of the patriarchy by pretending there's no difference between male and female. An Iranian girl performing masculinity will be just as oppressed as one performing femininity because women's oppression is sex based.

Believing that women are a discrete class, with specific needs does not mean they are the weaker sex. Different doesn't mean weaker. Feminism has actually brought about huge changes for women. Just because the job isn't finished doesn't mean feminism has failed.

Do you think women are a class with specific and unique needs, who should have the right to organise and campaign on the basis of those specific needs? What about black people and gay people? Are they a discrete group or should black people be concerning themselves with how white people are oppressed too?

How do women benefit from your feminism, which ends up centering blokes and their needs?

 

[Unkraut]

"Do you see a man who is wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him."

Nor qualification to judge how others lead their lives.

'There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death'.

I would have thought this, both figuratively and literally more relevant in the case of Jim becoming Kate.

It always amuses me when the you shall not judge trope is trotted out for any supposed religious criticism as those doing so invariably don't hesitate to pass judgement themselves!

 

[mudsticks]

'There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death'.

I would have thought this, both figuratively and literally more relevant in the case of Jim becoming Kate.

It always amuses me when the you shall not judge trope is trotted out for any supposed religious criticism as those doing so invariably don't hesitate to pass judgement themselves!

Why the bolded bit??

Apart from the fact that 'in the long run, we're all dead'
If Jim has a happier, more fulfilled life living as Kate, why does her living that way 'lead to death'..??


Unless you're talking about the chances of her being done in by ignorant bigots??



Some might suggest that your 'amusement' is misplaced..



Passing judgement on others personal life choices.

Is not the same thing as..

Saying that people shouldnt pass judgement on others, when those 'others' are not hurting anyone else by their own personal choices .

 

[Deleted member 49]

'There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death'.

What the Gospels actually said was: don't kill anyone until you are absolutely sure they aren't well connected.
Vonnegut 🙄

 

[winjim]

It always amuses me when the you shall not judge trope is trotted out for any supposed religious criticism as those doing so invariably don't hesitate to pass judgement themselves!

You've made a fundamental misunderstanding. What it means is that if you are going to claim religious justification for a moral position then you need to be consistent in how you apply your religious beliefs and expect those beliefs to be challenged and scrutinised. It doesn't mean there's any requirement for anyone else to follow the teachings of your religion.

 

[FishFright]

Oh dear. Another one who has nothing to say on the issues other than pointless interjections.

You should try reading your slabs of utter tripe about any trans issues. It might help.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

You should try reading your slabs of utter tripe about any trans issues. It might help.

Which only proofs that you don't read at all. Nowhere there is any tripe in those posts just a very clean analysis on to whether there is agreement or disagreement and why.
Maybe read it right now? it might learn you something.(even if you don't agree you could learn some conversation skills)