Gender again. Sorry!

[multitool]

You are comparing one person to a national GDP? Odd.

 

[monkers]

It's a comparator because people are oppressed on the basis of their race, just like they are oppressed on the basis of their sex. That's the comparison, not saying sex and race are exactly the same. To self identify into an oppressed group is an act of oppression in itself. Have you run your 'race isn't real' belief past your black friends?



Perhaps you can put me us all straight then and explain why Eddie Izzard is accepted for saying they are a woman but Rachel Dolezal is vilified for saying she is black.

Well now this is very amusing isn't it? After arguing that a person who uses a term like 'fascist-like in some regards' is going around calling people 'fascists', here you are. Whether you recognise that similarities can be legitimately made and compared or not seems only to depend on whether you are dishing it out or on the receiving end.

While we are making these 'legitimate concern' comparisons, we should observe the plight of women in countries who live under regimes of oppression where women complain of 'gender apartheid' - a systematic regime of one half of a nation's population against those of another gender.

By way of the kind of comparison that you are making, I'm going to suggest to you that your own advocacy of the gender oppression on one group is seeking to suppress or even eradicate the gender expression of others; you'd be happier if your own advocacy led to all women agreeing with your own policies of oppression of trans women. The methodology of this oppression has perhaps more similarities to the plight of Afghan and Iranian women under 'gender apartheid' for example than the shared similarities with fascism. Now there's something to chew on.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Believing that men, regardless of how they identify, shouldn't be in women's prisons, domestic violence refuges, single sex spaces and services, nor in women's sports, is not a 'policy of oppression of transwomen'.

Nobody is seeking to 'eradicate the gender expression of others'. Quite the contrary. Dress how you like. It doesn't change your sex or magically vanish the need for women to have single sex spaces and services.

Only you could think men who identify as women are as oppressed as actual women and girls in Iran and Afghanistan.

 

[monkers]

It's a comparator because people are oppressed on the basis of their race, just like they are oppressed on the basis of their sex.

It's a comparator because people are oppressed on the basis of their race, just like they are oppressed on the basis of their gender.

You might note that the women in Afghanistan and Iran complain of 'gender apartheid'. Geddit?

Typically though in your reply you have resorted to type, prisons, safe spaces, blah, blah, blah.

Also why are you telling me to 'dress as I like' or telling me 'it doesn't change my sex'? Have I disclosed any desire to? No this is all part of your delusion that you know who everybody else is and how you feel entitled to treat them accordingly.

 

[winjim]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that many people would consider Irish to be a race, and an oppressed one at that.

OK, since the Irish are somehow no longer an oppressed race, how about this one which occurred to me this morning...

I have a friend whose father is a Jew of Eastern European and specifically Ukrainian descent. She has family who were persecuted in the Holocaust, probably family who suffered under Stalin. But she was born in the UK and her mother is not Jewish. So considering that under Jewish custom, Jewishness is inherited down the maternal line, she's not considered to be a Jew.

So is she a member of an oppressed race? Her family two generations ago were subjected to genocide. But their racial line suddenly stopped at her generation due to their own custom. So she has half her father's genetics but none of his race? Is she half Jewish? That's not a thing in their custom afaiaa. With her Ukrainian Jewish ancestry and my Irish ancestry are we the same race?

Also I had a friend at university with a black father and a white mother. Her skin was white, as white as mine, but the shape of her features were those we'd associate with a black person. By the pigmentation rule she wouldn't be black at all. Is she black?

See, I'm not saying race isn't real. I'm saying it's complex and cultural.


Here's a picture of a black woman.

 

[multitool]

I don't think anti-semites would care about matrilineal religio-cultural customs tbqhwy.

I also think anti-irish prejudice is probably a think of the past.

 

[AuroraSaab]

It's a comparator because people are oppressed on the basis of their race, just like they are oppressed on the basis of their gender.

Women are not oppressed on the basis of their gender - because gender is a feeling in your head. They are oppressed on the basis of their sexed body, which is a material reality.

If oppression was based on gender, not sex, then girls in Afghanistan could simply identify as boys and go to school like boys can. Women and girls can't opt out of forced marriage, fgm, and all the other stuff by saying their gender isn't female. Neither can men opt out of stuff like being conscripted into the army by saying their gender isn't male.

You might note that the women in Afghanistan and Iran complain of 'gender apartheid'. Geddit?

Pretty sure Afghan and Iranian girls and women know that their oppression is based on their body not a feeling in their head. Funny how the authorities know who to stop going to school or which people to gas without asking their gender identity.

Typically though in your reply you have resorted to type, prisons, safe spaces, blah, blah, blah.

Well we know you think men should be in these places but funnily enough some of us disagree.

Also why are you telling me to 'dress as I like' or telling me 'it doesn't change my sex'? Have I disclosed any desire to? No this is all part of your delusion that you know who everybody else is and how you feel entitled to treat them accordingly.

You said I 'seek to eradicate the gender expression of others'. I don't. Anybody can express their gender how they want. It doesn't change material reality nor entitle them to impinge on the rights of others.

 

[monkers]

OK, since the Irish are somehow no longer an oppressed race, how about this one which occurred to me this morning...

I have a friend whose father is a Jew of Eastern European and specifically Ukrainian descent. She has family who were persecuted in the Holocaust, probably family who suffered under Stalin. But she was born in the UK and her mother is not Jewish. So considering that under Jewish custom, Jewishness is inherited down the maternal line, she's not considered to be a Jew.

So is she a member of an oppressed race? Her family two generations ago were subjected to genocide. But their racial line suddenly stopped at her generation due to their own custom. So she has half her father's genetics but none of his race? Is she half Jewish? That's not a thing in their custom afaiaa. With her Ukrainian Jewish ancestry and my Irish ancestry are we the same race?

Also I had a friend at university with a black father and a white mother. Her skin was white, as white as mine, but the shape of her features were those we'd associate with a black person. By the pigmentation rule she wouldn't be black at all. Is she black?

See, I'm not saying race isn't real. I'm saying it's complex and cultural.


Here's a picture of a black woman.

View attachment 3248

There are those who are keen to maintain their lines of heritage, and those who have no interest in them. National border have never been static, therefore the idea of race belonging to nationhood are not altogether real.

Race has less to do with man-made geographic boundaries, and more to do with culture. Culture can be accepted or declined on an individual basis. The Jewish paradox of a religious belief only being passed down the female line has the appearance to me of being somewhat paradoxical; but then I'm someone that believes that religious belief is extrinsic to the person, that is to say it only exists if it is taught, and adopted only as a matter of faith.

Even the most carefully nuanced examination of what is 'race' and what is 'religious belief' stumbles. I'd say it is a mistake to separate the two issues, which is appears to be the position adopted by the United Nations. However that does not stop people who are vociferously critical of a group of people, Muslim folk perhaps being the most currently pertinent, from denying that they are 'racists'. I would argue that they probably are.

 

[winjim]

I don't think anti-semites would care about matrilineal religio-cultural customs tbqhwy.

I also think anti-irish prejudice is probably a think of the past.

That's what I mean by the oppressors deciding on the characteristics of the oppressed. Anti-semites might consider her to be Jewish even when other Jews do not.

Subjective, innit.

 

[monkers]

Women are not oppressed on the basis of their gender - because gender is a feeling in your head. They are oppressed on the basis of their sexed body, which is a material reality.

If oppression was based on gender, not sex, then girls in Afghanistan could simply identify as boys and go to school like boys can.

I do realise that you don't seek to amuse; but here I am laughing - unfortunate that I can't laugh with you, only at you. You are tying yourself in knots.

All 'feelings' are felt in the head; where else? Feelings are what make us human. Why teach girls 'self-esteem'? By your logic that is simply indoctrinating your feelings into the heads of girls rather than allowing them to experience their own being for themselves. What you are advocating is dehumanisation of others for your own sinister aims.

If boys and girls could simply go to school expressing the opposite gender in Afghanistan and Iran as you suggest, why can't they do that here in the UK?

 

[monkers]

Well we know you think men should be in these places but funnily enough some of us disagree.

The basics continue to escape you. Trans women are not men. The words 'men' and 'women' relate to gender identity.

Trans women and cis women have the same gender identity. The terms 'women's prisons' that you use, validates the idea of any self-identifying trans woman offender being housed in a 'women's prison'.

Ironically it is me that says that this should not be so because I say that trans women should not by default be housed in the female prison estate because they state a preference for it, but considered on a case-by-case basis according to risk assessment.

Only when appropriate control measures can be put in place to ensure that all are safe when a trans woman is placed in a female prison should that happen.

 

[monkers]

You said I 'seek to eradicate the gender expression of others'. I don't. Anybody can express their gender how they want. It doesn't change material reality nor entitle them to impinge on the rights of others.

How quickly you forget what you've previously agreed.

After some exploration of UK and International law, you agreed that there is no mention of these special sex-based rights for women. You desire such rights, but the reality (a word I note you are fond of using) is that women have no peculiar and special sex-based rights; and I again I have to remind you that modern law tends to see 'women' as a gender identity and not as a sex class.

 

[AuroraSaab]

All 'feelings' are felt in the head; where else? Feelings are what make us human. Why teach girls 'self-esteem'? By your logic that is simply indoctrinating your feelings into the heads of girls rather than allowing them to experience their own being for themselves. What you are advocating is dehumanisation of others for your own sinister aims.

Women's oppression isn't based on how they feel. It never has been. You can't opt out of your oppression by saying you feel differently.

Teaching girls self-esteem has nothing to do with it. Stop the obfuscation.

It doesn't dehumanise men to tell them they can't be in women's single sex spaces or services. It's rather dehumanising to women to say their oppression isn't sex based though, because it's the fact that their oppression is sex based that means they need those separate services

If boys and girls could simply go to school expressing the opposite gender in Afghanistan and Iran as you suggest, why can't they do that here in the UK?

They mostly can. Most schools have similar uniform and hair style rules for boys and girls. And if they don't they should. Boys should be entitled to wear skirts to school if they wish.

I didn't say boys and girls can go to school in Iran and Afghanistan expressing the opposite gender btw. I very much doubt they can.

 

[AuroraSaab]

How quickly you forget what you've previously agreed.

After some exploration of UK and International law, you agreed that there is no mention of these special sex-based rights for women

I did no such thing. The UK Equality Act permits the exclusion of males in certain circumstances. Some companies and services choose not to apply these exemptions, but they exist in law.

. You desire such rights, but the reality (a word I note you are fond of using) is that women have no peculiar and special sex-based rights; and I again I have to remind you that modern law tends to see 'women' as a gender identity and not as a sex class.

Again, you're wrong, but we have been over this umpteen times and I'm simply not going over it again.

 

[monkers]

Teaching girls self-esteem has nothing to do with it. Stop the obfuscation.

Oh it isn't obfuscation. One of the claims made by the GC brigade is that in the UK more girls are expressing gender identity incongruent with their birth sex being due to lower self-esteem as a response to the baser treatment of girls in society. Self-esteem is the feeling of a person's worth affected by the treatment of others; but as you might say, 'these are just feelings inside their heads'. Yes, the poor creatures have 'feelings'.