Gender again. Sorry!

[multitool]

I don't respect you or your views. Neither do most people who express a view here. At least 5 other posters on this thread have referenced your dishonesty. In fact, you've bored most of them off this thread. Why on earth would I respect your views? They are horrid, mealy-mouthed, manipulative and dishonest and your tactics are cheap, base and mendacious. You rely on misrepresentation and straight up lying.

But, I've never called you a cünt. In fact I've never called anyone here a cünt. So, this is just another of your frequent lies, as is the accusation of "revelling in violence against women".

Trans rights are human rights.

 

[icowden]

They are protesting the hate. Trans rights are human rights too.

By punching women in their 60s and silencing women across the country.
It's a bit pot and kettle...

 

[multitool]

Every single protestor punched a 60 year old, did they?

How do you know they "silenced women across the country"? Half the protestors WERE women.

 

[monkers]

By punching women in their 60s and silencing women across the country.
It's a bit pot and kettle...

Cause and effect. Assault was committed on both sides. One side made a complaint. The assault committed by the young person was not motivated by a difference of opinion, or of values. It was reaction to the behaviour not the words of the other.

 

[monkers]

 

[Mr Celine]

 

[mudsticks]

And guess what...because I respect women's views and privilege them over my own, that is who I listen to.

I know it was April fools yesterday..
But I have to say

Ha de ha de ha,
Ha ..

Having some grounds for concern, in some areas of this issue and daring to express them, does not immediately make one a 'transphobe'

If women's rights and safety and well being were properly respected, if women and their needs their diversity even, were not so often disregarded, then we wouldn't need to be having this discussion.

Why do 'some' women feel threatened, why are 'some' women fearful of losing their safe spaces, and exclusive arenas??

It's not because they are all 'transphobes' it's because they have been brought into, and have to live in a world, where they do get physically traumatised, and oppressed by systemic patriachy.
On account of their sex


That is a plain cold hard, not infrequently lethal, fact.

Does talking about patriachy and it's oppressions make one a misandrist??

I don't think so.

And yes transpeople also get oppressed by those same people, and same systems.

A bit more time spent working on those systems of oppression, and a bit less trying to silence any legitimate concerns, ever raised might help.

A bit more time actually listening to - and even allaying some womens concerns, a bit less name calling might help.

It's OK I know the originator of the post won't see this because despite claiming to 'listen to women' and respecting them he clearly doesn't.

Unless ofc what they say, 'exactly' chimes with his own 'highly tolerant' view .

 

[mudsticks]

View attachment 3547

Quite so .

 

[multitool]

So, this morning there is this:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...4?shareToken=ce701e7dcace612eaea3c4bdb191463b

Doesn't appear to be behind a pay wall, so I read the whole thing. It's interesting in so far as people will be reading into it whatever they choose, because it is pretty anodyne. TERFs will criticise it because it is not explicitly anti-trans and it acknowledges trans rights. TRAs will see it as Starmer diving headfirst into transphobia.

I just did a twitter search for "starmer trans" and these two posts popped up next to each other, illustrating the point perfectly:

But it's function is political. It is Starmer circumnavigating the Tories attempts to draw him into the culture war, which I think is the only sensible position he can take. He tries to acknowledge the rights of all, whilst nodding towards no immediate change to GRA. He's also pointing out that trans people are a tiny number, and he's acknowledging their existence and their validity.

The headline is about trans issues but a large portion of the article isn't. The key thing is the tenor of the reporting and the newspaper in which it is published.

Say hello to your next PM.

 

[monkers]

Quite so .

The difficulty is that of those who are pushing for 'women's rights' from the left (some feminists) see it more as a social contract, whereas those from the right see it as a moral standard. These two group tend to agree on desired outcomes, but come from different places.

The problem of the remaining feminists and 'moderates' who have no issue and have no wish to take sides is that there is less voice volume, rather than fewer number of people with voice.

Trans people are sat in the middle of this in bewilderment that a government and the official opposition will say anything to support where they feel votes may be won or lost. Just as politics is a two party race with each side trying to outdo each other, the trans 'debate' is being polarised along the same lines. Each party thinks they can win support by gradually increasing withdrawal support for the trans community.

We are seeing a flip from demonising conversion therapy from being an evil, to being acceptable, a kind of return to section 28 with a reluctance to call it that which will affect all of the LBGTiQ community. We've seen the likes of Kathleen Stock trying to divide the LGBTiQ community with the LGB Alliance being formed. Now she is going further by attempting to splinter the lesbian community with the creation of another group centred on diminishing the human rights of trans people.

The Gender Recognition Act was passed some 20 years ago. There are a good number of trans people who have been transitioned and socially accepted for many years. Now they sit and watch in disbelief as the social contract is being superseded by moral standards, with feminists from the left supporting it. It is a travesty not just for the trans community, but also for feminism as the moral standards brigade get their way.

 

[Rusty Nails]

I know it was April fools yesterday..
But I have to say

Ha de ha de ha,
Ha ..

Having some grounds for concern, in some areas of this issue and daring to express them, does not immediately make one a 'transphobe'

If women's rights and safety and well being were properly respected, if women and their needs their diversity even, were not so often disregarded, then we wouldn't need to be having this discussion.

Why do 'some' women feel threatened, why are 'some' women fearful of losing their safe spaces, and exclusive arenas??

It's not because they are all 'transphobes' it's because they have been brought into, and have to live in a world, where they do get physically traumatised, and oppressed by systemic patriachy.
On account of their sex


That is a plain cold hard, not infrequently lethal, fact.

Does talking about patriachy and it's oppressions make one a misandrist??

I don't think so.

And yes transpeople also get oppressed by those same people, and same systems.

A bit more time spent working on those systems of oppression, and a bit less trying to silence any legitimate concerns, ever raised might help.

A bit more time actually listening to - and even allaying some womens concerns, a bit less name calling might help.

It's OK I know the originator of the post won't see this because despite claiming to 'listen to women' and respecting them he clearly doesn't.

Unless ofc what they say, 'exactly' chimes with his own 'highly tolerant' view .

This might be seen.

 

[mudsticks]

The difficulty is that of those who are pushing for 'women's rights' from the left (some feminists) see it more as a social contract, whereas those from the right see it as a moral standard. These two group tend to agree on desired outcomes, but come from different places.

The problem of the remaining feminists and 'moderates' who have no issue and have no wish to take sides is that there is less voice volume, rather than fewer number of people with voice.


Trans people are sat in the middle of this in bewilderment that a government and the official opposition will say anything to support where they feel votes may be won or lost. Just as politics is a two party race with each side trying to outdo each other, the trans 'debate' is being polarised along the same lines. Each party thinks they can win support by gradually increasing withdrawal support for the trans community.

We are seeing a flip from demonising conversion therapy from being an evil, to being acceptable, a kind of return to section 28 with a reluctance to call it that which will affect all of the LBGTiQ community. We've seen the likes of Kathleen Stock trying to divide the LGBTiQ community with the LGB Alliance being formed. Now she is going further by attempting to splinter the lesbian community with the creation of another group centred on diminishing the human rights of trans people.

The Gender Recognition Act was passed some 20 years ago. There are a good number of trans people who have been transitioned and socially accepted for many years. Now they sit and watch in disbelief as the social contract is being superseded by moral standards, with feminists from the left supporting it. It is a travesty not just for the trans community, but also for feminism as the moral standards brigade get their way.

I think this analysis of two 'sides' left versus right 'moral standards' versus 'social contract' - and then a supposed 'voiceless middle ground' where no one wants to 'take sides' is somewhat simplistic, in terms of where people are coming from.

Peoples views, sympathies, and understanding are not that clear cut.

Transrights are indeed human rights, and women's rights are also human rights.

The transgender and non binary people I know (and love) see this too.

It's the case that just now and then, the 'rights' or even 'demands' of one group being met unquestioningly, can come into conflict, with the rights of another group.

This can happen particularly in the case of the far less privileged woman.

I am a priveleged, white, cis, middle aged middle class (even) woman.

I will regularly advocate for the recognition, and upholding of transrights as human rights.
But at the same time I won't pretend that upholding transrights can never ever impinge upon women's rights as a whole

Particularly the rights of vulnerable women.


Being afraid to ever question things, for fear of being called 'transphobe' or 'terf' is in its way a reaction to the unhealthily reactionary 'totally anti trans' mindset.

Those extremists (at both ends of the spectrum) shouldn't be allowed to get in the way of considered grown up discussions.

Shouldn't stop any issues being aired.

If we do let that happen then 'they' - the extremists become the tail wagging the dog.

I thought this was a good read.

Showing that there are as many nuanced ways of being trans as there are of being woman, man, non binary and so on.


https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ie-or-find-a-way-to-live-as-a-transgender-man

 

[mudsticks]

This might be seen.

Shhh, stop making.trouble you.. 🥸

 

[monkers]

I think this analysis of two 'sides' left versus right 'moral standards' versus 'social contract' - and then a supposed 'voiceless middle ground' where no one wants to 'take sides' is somewhat simplistic, in terms of where people are coming from.

I don't think it too simplistic at all. It's just as being played out on here, on this thread. I guess you can say that there is another group of trans people and a few allies who also use their voice that I didn't point to, but as the target group their opposition is obvious.

What I'm talking about is what is exactly was has been playing out on this thread. AS coming from one particular wave of feminism and the social contract argument, Unkraut coming from the moral standard. The majority of the voices here are coming from moderates who show support for trans people against the incoming groups of opponents. I'm sure you can name them.

Feminists are going to be in for a shock if/when trans rights disappear, because the moral standards brigade will not be finished; indeed they'll be coming for other women's rights like abortion, sex work, etc. It's happening in the USA already, and the fight is intensifying in the UK.

Why trans people first? Because the right wing can engage some feminists in the 'struggle' on this issue. The next battles over women's rights will be fiercer.

 

[multitool]

This might be seen.

I don't read mudsticks posts as a rule. They are almost as empty of content as yours, but with added dreariness