Gender again. Sorry!

[multitool]

Well, my son-in-law said to me recently 'transgenderism is a cause for a generation that doesn't have any real problems'.

I think there is a lot of truth in that unless you regard the intellectual confusion of the modern secular mind a problem in its own right.

Other than a housing crisis so acute that many will never own a house, employment rights decimated to the extent that many have no job security, a disappearing health service, a demographic time bomb about to go off with the number in work vs retired set to drop to 3:1, and most seriously of all the likelihood of irreversible climate change hitting tipping point in their lifetimes with huge upheaval and likelihood of major war, then no, you are right, this is a generation with nothing to worry about.

 

[theclaud]

they themself has also been

Look, singular they/them pronouns are fine with me, but I'm gonna have to draw the line at agreement with the verb.

 

[mudsticks]

Ironic again. You see I happen to think that mud sticks, and Aurora has sure done some mud slinging at trans people, and will no doubt continue to do so.

Other people have also expressed that they don't believe Aurora. I've used the word 'lies', others have been less direct, however people are saying that she does not speak the truth.

Not sure that I've used the expression 'happy about hatred'. A search didn't find it, perhaps you'll oblige me with a quote of me making that particular accusation.

You asked me to find the bit where you used the expression 'happy about hatred'
to infer that @AuroraSaab is happy about hatred.
So that's what I did.

Now you're shifting to talking about the use of the word other.

I didn't suggest that Aurora seemed happy about the hate. I said it, but you also said 'other people'. There were no 'other people'.

If you're going to be a such a stickler for the precise words that people use, then you really need to hold yourself to the same high standard.

In general it seems the spirit rather than than the letter of the word works better in an informal online debate such as this.

 

[theclaud]

Thank you @theclaud. I think this stands out as the most outstanding post on which has become a very long thread.

'I wish to associate myself with your sentiment if I may and I commend it to the house'.

I've made some headway with the link, but I think I'll leave finishing it until tomorrow. It so far reads as a very well considered essay, and likewise very well written.

I haven't quite managed to agree with each and every point, but Catharine MacKinnon and I are certainly close.

It seems we need buzzword for everything these days, but I do rather like phrase 'aggrieved entitlement' that I've seen some feminists use to label the syndrome.

Thanks, but I was tired and made an annoying error that has beaten the edit window - I meant to say second- and third-wave feminism. There are some actual second-wave feminists who have long had disagreements about sex, gender, and transgender inclusion in various contexts, but mainly I see people who were never feminists, or who were middle-class Libfems mainly interested in equal representation within existing power structures, appropriating the language of second-wave feminism (and sometimes even lesbian separatism) to prosecute a culture war based on a moral panic. Also it's difficult to ignore the fact that the political centre of gravity of the UK 'gender critical' movement (it's a misnomer, but we'll let that slide) is pretty much exactly where the liberal celeb/media establishment closed ranks and sided with right against the threat from the left in the democratic ferment of 2015-19. Hence the hero worship of people like Rowling and the elevation of non-entities like Forstarter to legend status.

 

[mudsticks]

I reckon I've tried a fair bit of that. The whole thread was an attempt to address an impasse by approaching it from a different perspective from that of the warring factions [Seems to be going well - Ed.]. It literally makes zero difference what one says to her because she foghorns the same (insulting and often wrong-headed) stuff at everyone whatever position they take, presumably in the hope of peak-transing the gallery.

As a woman (the old-fashioned AFAB-and-presumably-XX kind who'd probably pass most of whatever anatomical or genetic verification procedures Aurora has lined up for us) who has been thinking about gender in various contexts long before this row hit the mainstream, who comes at the subject from a long-standing radical feminist (more third- than fourth-wave) standpoint, and who is invested in sport as a spectator, participant, and grassroots coach, I've been endlessly taught to suck eggs by someone whose theory of gender is that 'it's just a feeling in your (meaning everyone else's) head, innit', accused of not caring about the destruction of women's sport by someone apparently indifferent to the entire field of endeavour, lectured to the effect that I don't know my own mind because I'm just a poor wee thing helplessly socialised to be kind to the poor menz (this latter characterisation would no doubt come as a surprise to the fragile and terrorised Cyclechat gammonati), and enjoined to believe that ultra-conservative right-wing grifters are actually somehow fighting for my rights.

Perhaps, if you're feeling like a peacemaker and you've got her ear (you haven't, actually, because they are made of cloth, but there we are), you could ask her not to be so fucking patronising?

Anyway, I see that Catharine MacKinnon has recently weighed in on the subject. You'd expect it to be smart and timely, and you wouldn't be disappointed.

Wow that's a lot of words.
(In the article I mean)

I 'think' that I agree with the main thrust of the piece but I can't pretend that I can hold that many thoughts at a time in my brainium.
I'll try reading it again 😇

My 'position' if it could be said to be anything so grand, is that is that I'm very much in favour of trans-rights being upheld, and actively go out of my way to promote as much.

But at the same time I'm also aware that I'm a priveleged woman (nowadays) so what I feel is absolutely fine in terms of broadminded acceptance of all things trans, isn't necessarily going to feel 'fine' to other women, who have a raft of issues still unaddressed

So to just immediately shush as 'hateful' all questioning on precise points of how stuff operate - eg in sport, rape crisis centres - seems counterproductive, in terms of advancing anything.
And falls into the same old position of 'shushing' women.

Not all women are in such a stable and self assured position as me, not by a long shot.

There's something in there about it being unreasonable to expect a 'perfect mode' of feminism.with relation to trans rights, in a world which is in truth is still stubbornly patriachal, and often overwhelmingly misogynistic (including sadly, the expression of large gouts of the internalised stuff)

 

[theclaud]

. Critiqued here by Victoria Smith:

LOL.

 

[monkers]

You asked me to find the bit where you used the expression 'happy about hatred'
to infer that @AuroraSaab is happy about hatred.
So that's what I did.

Now you're shifting to talking about the use of the word other.



If you're going to be a such a stickler for the precise words that people use, then you really need to hold yourself to the same high standard.

In general it seems the spirit rather than than the letter of the word works better in an informal online debate such as this.

I'd already explained that if you don't use the same form of words, then the search facility fails to find it.

It was also obvious that you used attempted to portray something that wasn't true with your 'other posters'. It was only about Aurora.

There is no denial from me about what I said about Aurora, and I'm not taking it back.

There was other crap, something about steamrolling kittens. WTAF. And then something about hanging out with Bolders - whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. What are 'Bolders'? Actually don't bother, it's obviously just some fiction that was supposed to put me in my place.

 

[monkers]

Thanks, but I was tired and made an annoying error that has beaten the edit window - I meant to say second- and third-wave feminism. There are some actual second-wave feminists who have long had disagreements about sex, gender, and transgender inclusion in various contexts, but mainly I see people who were never feminists, or who were middle-class Libfems mainly interested in equal representation within existing power structures, appropriating the language of second-wave feminism (and sometimes even lesbian separatism) to prosecute a culture war based on a moral panic. Also it's difficult to ignore the fact that the political centre of gravity of the UK 'gender critical' movement (it's a misnomer, but we'll let that slide) is pretty much exactly where the liberal celeb/media establishment closed ranks and sided with right against the threat from the left in the democratic ferment of 2015-19. Hence the hero worship of people like Rowling and the elevation of non-entities like Forstarter to legend status.

It is annoying when that happens. It's happened to me a few times too.

Be in no doubt, technicalities aside, your message was very clear.

 

[monkers]

Wow that's a lot of words.
(In the article I mean)

I 'think' that I agree with the main thrust of the piece but I can't pretend that I can hold that many thoughts at a time in my brainium.
I'll try reading it again 😇

My 'position' if it could be said to be anything so grand, is that is that I'm very much in favour of trans-rights being upheld, and actively go out of my way to promote as much.

But at the same time I'm also aware that I'm a priveleged woman (nowadays) so what I feel is absolutely fine in terms of broadminded acceptance of all things trans, isn't necessarily going to feel 'fine' to other women, who have a raft of issues still unaddressed

So to just immediately shush as 'hateful' all questioning on precise points of how stuff operate - eg in sport, rape crisis centres - seems counterproductive, in terms of advancing anything.
And falls into the same old position of 'shushing' women.

Not all women are in such a stable and self assured position as me, not by a long shot.

There's something in there about it being unreasonable to expect a 'perfect mode' of feminism.with relation to trans rights, in a world which is in truth is still stubbornly patriachal, and often overwhelmingly misogynistic (including sadly, the expression of large gouts of the internalised stuff)

'Shushing women'. It's not about shushing women. It's not the same as the ordinary experience of women being told to pipe down, or being told they are shrill. It's about exposing the truth that when a group, or groups of people use speech against another group of people such the frequency and level of hate crime against another group are intensified. It's not just me saying it, and it's not a case of those pesky trans activists saying it, it is the United Nations, Liberty, Amnesty International and other rights groups saying it. The terrorism is not in my words, I am not demonising women, I'm calling out a forum opponent because she is not interested in any distress she causes.

LONDON (11 May 2023) – Abusive rhetoric by politicians, the media and social commentators has trickled down to produce increasingly abusive and hateful speech against LGBT persons in the United Kingdom (UK), the UN independent expert on sexual orientation and gender identity warned today.

“I am deeply concerned about increased bias-motivated incidents of harassment, threats, and violence against LGBT people, including a rampant surge in hate crimes in the UK,” said Victor Madrigal-Borloz, the UN Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, who visited the UK from 24 April to 5 May 2023. “All of this is attributed – by a wide range of stakeholders – to the toxic nature of the public debate surrounding sexual orientation and gender identity,” he said.

Madrigal-Borloz warned that these developments could endanger very significant achievements, built over decades, to address violence and discrimination in the country.

You can make your own responses as mild-mannered or mealy-mouthed as you like, that's a matter for you. However just how polite would you be feeling if those subjected to violent attack are your own family?

So if you want to make facile comparisons about 'steamrolling kittens' or opaque lines such as 'hanging out with Bolders', go ahead but don't expect me to be impressed.

Violence dressed up as 'legitimate concerns' is not legitimate or proportional action.

 

[icowden]

I also note that while you say you sympathise, you also use the word 'lunatics'.

Yes. To distinguish those who are genuinely trans from those using it as a vehicle for hatred.

We don't have a system whereby filling in a form changes one's sex or gender identity - this is just not true, it's a trope advanced by anti-trans activists.

Here's the current form. You need £5 and documentation. At present, you need 2 reports written by 2 different medical doctors or a medical doctor and a clinical psychologist. The reports need to confirm that you have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. You also need to provide evidence of living in your gender for the last 2 years. This system is sound and ensures that only those who are truly trans get a GRC.

However, as you know, this has been portrayed as draconian (even genocidal by some of the more hysterical end of the activists) and the resistance to the Scottish GRC Bill is that it changes the process to require just the fee and a statement that you have been living as your new gender for 3 months (6 if you are 16 or 17). If this change goes ahead then the system changes to exactly what I stated - fill in a form and change your legal sex. No safeguards. No evidence required.

The goal of the anti-trans activists is to introduce a legal definition of sex as only biological sex. If adopted that will place an intolerable amount of stress on the 7000 or so trans people with a GRC and those who would wish to apply in the future. It serves to reverse their legal identity. Marriages that were formed legally could be declared invalid.

Yes, and I agree that this would be both undesirable and unacceptable. However it is not beyond the wit of man / woman / person to work out the details in a free and open discussion. Research will need to be done to look at where the pressure points are and where womens services need an additional layer of protection.

 

[AuroraSaab]

For all your moaning about hatred on here, there's not one of you who have called out the intimidation and violence of transactivists against women who are meeting perfectly legally within the law, or even just trying to do their jobs, whether it's KJ Keen or Kathleen Stock. You've either celebrated it with glee, dismissed it as 'Just the youngsters getting a bit carried away' or basically said 'Nazis get what they deserve'.

And then you blame women for starting a culture war that you frame as a right wing endeavour. Men in women's prisons is not a left wing or progressive position. That it has become one shows how willingly the left will listen to men but not to women.

 

[monkers]

Yes. To distinguish those who are genuinely trans from those using it as a vehicle for hatred.

Well OK. I'll reread what you said, and consider it in that context.

Here's the current form. You need £5 and documentation. At present, you need 2 reports written by 2 different medical doctors or a medical doctor and a clinical psychologist. The reports need to confirm that you have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. You also need to provide evidence of living in your gender for the last 2 years. This system is sound and ensures that only those who are truly trans get a GRC.

Thanks. You'll understand that I know the system inside out and backwards. Here's the thing, the political promise is two years. Even before the pandemic waiting lists were 5 to 6 years, now they are more like 7.

So I think you are going to have to concede that transition in the UK, is not filling out a form - that's oft repeated trope. The people who say it are those captured by the mischaracterisations of trans lives, and the failed political system that underpins it.

However, as you know, this has been portrayed as draconian (even genocidal by some of the more hysterical end of the activists) and the resistance to the Scottish GRC Bill is that it changes the process to require just the fee and a statement that you have been living as your new gender for 3 months (6 if you are 16 or 17). If this change goes ahead then the system changes to exactly what I stated - fill in a form and change your legal sex. No safeguards. No evidence required.

It is draconian. At the time of the 2004 Act (actually passed into law in 2003 - so some twenty years ago) the World Health Organisation were speaking of 'gender dysphoria' and had it listed as a mental disorder. Since then expert medical opinion is that gender dysphoria is not a mental disorder, and that wherever it comes from, it is not a diagnosable condition and not treatable as a mental disorder.

Accordingly other countries have dropped it, but the UK is continuing with it, (noting the Scottish Bill as I type that).

The political situation is that although promises were made in 2004, there never has been sufficient resource to implement that promise made in law. The queues grow longer and longer, some go private, some give up and somehow survive, some move abroad, some take their own lives. Now there are some people who call these 'lifestyle choices', but they are not. Transition is driven by desperation - the human instinct for survival, but when help doesn't arrive, we see increasing levels of that trauma impacting mental health, self-harm, and suicide, or attempts thereof.

I don't know how you describe that as anything other than draconian. That doesn't mean that the UK is the worst in the world, and I know we can always point to other countries that are worse.

The next point is that, there have been two all party select committee reviews that have taken evidence and opinions from all interested parties, considered that evidence in a respectful way, and both times, it led to recommendations. In the case of the last committee they proposed to the then government that a change to some system of self-Id is needed. The government accepted the findings and stated that they would be implemented. And now since a change of party leader, the promise is undone. It is difficult to justify this as a democratic action, because it isn't. The country have not elected Sunak, or any members of his cabinet to those positions. So again we have a draconian system in place due to autocratic decision made at cabinet level against a backdrop of a government clinging to Johnson's manifesto despite that manifesto not including the actions they are taking.

Draconian system perpetuated by an autocratic government does not enhance lives. So of course people are angry, because people have been made angry.

I've written very little by way of personal opinion on this thread, despite Aurora's claims. I write checkable truths, often with quotes and links that are dismissed by her as nonsense, since the truth gets in the way of her false narrative.

You can find the truth yourself if you are not persuaded by one side of the debate or the other. To me only the truth matters, when the situation is framed in truth we can have a respectful conversation, but until then it is not possible.

What gender critical people have is a wish list, with trans lives eradication central to their desire. On the other hand trans people have their human rights. If there is any trumping of rights, it is the supposed wishes of a greater number trumping the rights of a smaller group - that is not how equality and inclusion work. By definition 'genocide' is not a comfortable fit for the intentions of gender critical people, and 'cultural genocide' is not quite the comfortable fit either, and having no status in international law. Nevertheless the threat to this group is egregious.

This trans woman employed by the local church speaks out about the the three trans people who have taken their own lives in that one church district alone. i can imagine the pile on she faces now for speaking the truth.


View: https://www.facebook.com/reel/1000696947968767

Hold on ... looking for a different source.

 

[monkers]

For all your moaning about hatred on here

'Moaning about hatred' ... 'I'm not prepared to be kind'. I see you. I bet others will too.

 

[monkers]

And then you blame women for starting a culture war that you frame as a right wing endeavour.

Making stuff up again. I see you. It's in plain sight.

These are from the opening words from my very first post on this thread.

This so-called debate is not the battle between trans people and cis people as often thought. Indeed not, it is a battle between the beliefs of groups of cis people with varying beliefs. Broadly there are two groups; the feminists to the left, and the gender critical people from the right. It is not that all feminists are trans exclusionary, nor are the groupings from the right - but gender critical people from various parts of the political spectrum have joined forces.

You lie about everything. You make false accusations, false representations of people's opinions.

You might think this is a winning strategy, but people see through you, and have been telling you so.

 

[AuroraSaab]

'Moaning about hatred' ... 'I'm not prepared to be kind'. I see you. I bet others will too.

I'm not prepared to be kind to people who want to kill women lol. You bang on about kindness but have no kindness for women who don't want to get undressed around men. If a girl or woman sees a penis in the women's changing rooms, you said she should look away. Your demand for kindness only goes one way as usual.

I've written very little by way of personal opinion on this thread, despite Aurora's claims. I write checkable truths, often with quotes and links that are dismissed by her as nonsense, since the truth gets in the way of her false narrative.

Half your posts are emotive pleading and anecdotes we are meant to believe wholesale. You don't even read half your own links. Your one yesterday about women beating men at ultra distance events even had the female subject of the article saying 'Women only win because it's more mental than physical' in distance events. Some gotcha that was lol.

What gender critical people have is a wish list, with trans lives eradication central to their desire.

It's hyperbole like this that makes people see much transactivism for the overwrought nonsense it is. On this thread you've appropriated everything from persecution by the Nazis to the black rights struggle, and with a side mention of genocide this morning for good measure.