Gender again. Sorry!

[AuroraSaab]

Lol. But when I ask all you guys about specific aspects you just opt out anyway.

 

[Fab Foodie]

This conversation flips and flops and zigs and zags and zooms about all over the place so much it gives me quite the headache, I'm glad I've made the decision only to participate in specific aspects of it.

I hear you brother/sister errr sibling, person....

Are there any simple bits we can all agree on and build from there? Maybe that's another way to look at things?

 

[winjim]

Lol. But when I ask all you guys about specific aspects you just opt out anyway.

I definitely try to keep my remarks on this subject, in this forum at least, very specific.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I hear you brother/sister errr sibling, person....

Are there any simple bits we can all agree on and build from there? Maybe that's another way to look at things?

I would imagine we all agree people should be able to live as they wish as long as it doesn't infringe on other people's rights. I know some women object to men dressing in a hyper feminised way and regard that as 'woman face' and a fetish. Personally, whilst I understand the concern that performing feminity has become equated with 'woman', I don't have any objection to men (or women) dressing as they wish, wearing make-up etc. I think most of us would agree on that for starters.

Edit: If society was more accepting of nonconformity many of these issues would be easier to resolve.

 

[Ian H]

Here's one expert. Unfortunately there is a lot of ideological capture around this issue and people and institutions who should be talking common sense are either ignoring the science or afraid to speak out.

View attachment 2776

I would say women are experts in the field of knowing what a woman is. The vast majority of them don't think a man can be one and they want to keep single sex spaces. Are you willing to 'defer to their authority and expertise' in this field?

Is that the same person who claims that cycle lanes increase pollution?

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Is that the same person who claims that cycle lanes increase pollution?

Just when some were trying to get the thread back to some sort of focus.

 

[theclaud]

Lol. But when I ask all you guys about specific aspects you just opt out anyway.

Alternatively, your Gish-galloping through every thread on the topic makes you a wearisome opponent and seldom illuminates anything. I'll remind you that the current thread started with me introducing an alternative way of framing the subject which you completely refused to engage with, and here you are, innumerable thread acres later, with the same fear-mongering and tedious appeals to moustachioed authority dressed up as feminist debate.

 

[winjim]

Good grief, just when I thought we'd at least established that cis women experience consciousness as a single homogenous entity here we are back to square one.

 

[Deleted member 28]

Good grief, just when I thought we'd at least established that cis women experience consciousness as a single homogenous entity here we are back to square one.

That's another word which instantly dismisses you in my book, cis, do you actually say that word in real life?

 

[AuroraSaab]

Is that the same person who claims that cycle lanes increase pollution?

... and this opinion means his reiteration of the standard scientific position on the binary nature of sex in mammals, shared by 99.9% of biologists on the planet, is wrong? Oh dear.

 

[winjim]

That's another word which instantly dismisses you in my book, cis, do you actually say that word in real life?

On the occasions I've decided to dismiss someone I usually simply refrain from interacting with them. I find it beneficial for my own state of mind, and there's no point in hating on someone just for the sake of it.

 

[newfhouse]

That's another word which instantly dismisses you in my book, cis, do you actually say that word in real life?

If nothing else, being here has taught you some new words to which you can react.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Alternatively, your Gish-galloping through every thread on the topic makes you a wearisome opponent and seldom illuminates anything. I'll remind you that the current thread started with me introducing an alternative way of framing the subject which you completely refused to engage with, and here you are, innumerable thread acres later, with the same fear-mongering and tedious appeals to moustachioed authority dressed up as feminist debate.

I didn't start this thread. I didn't resurrect it either. In fact, I haven't started any threads on gender or men in women's sports, either on NACA or the main CC.

I engaged at length with your initial post. The problem is when I highlighted the specific problems with the report you linked, you lost interest in the discussion. You just went 'Oh well it's just the big picture... it's just looking at a way forward'.

I think it's you who doesn't want to engage because you don't do specifics, just the usual Be Kind liberal feminism that ends up centering men.

 

[theclaud]

Good grief, just when I thought we'd at least established that cis women experience consciousness as a single homogenous entity here we are back to square one.

Sorry to disappoint!

 

[theclaud]

I engaged at length with your initial post. The problem is when I highlighted the specific problems with the report you linked, you lost interest in the discussion. You just went 'Oh well it's just the big picture... it's just looking at a way forward'.

I think it's you who doesn't want to engage because you don't do specifics, just the usual Be Kind liberal feminism that ends up centering men.

Bullshit. You started banging on at length without even reading the article the thread was about. I responded to your objections until I tired of your constant misrepresentation. Congratulations - you're doing it again. The report I linked to outlined a cogent definition of gender as a social phenomenon - you ignored that in favour of the limited understanding of gender you seem to be able to muster - some kind of individualist feeling in your head which can therefore be easily dismissed in favour of biological essence. I usually avoid arguments about who is and isn't a 'real' feminist, especially ones as arse-about-face as the one you're trying on above, but I don't think a 'feminism' which doesn't have a serious theory of gender is worth the paper its printed on.