| Cancel culture 08:25 - Jul 8 with 17387 views | hampstead_blue |
Interesting and good that people with a voice are standing up to this.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53330105
A lawyer on Today even floated the idea of cancelling ALL historical statues, paintings, and physical memorials because 'standards change and people whom today seem great may be hiding dark secrets'
Bonkers.
Am all for free speech. Owen Jones and his cabal can scream "offence" until their lungs turn inside out. Makes my blood boil if you hadn't guessed. |  |
| Assumption is to make an ass out of you and me.
Those who assume they know you, when they don't are just guessing.
Those who assume and insist they know are daft and in denial.
Those who assume, insist, and deny the truth are plain stupid.
Those who assume, insist, deny the truth and tell YOU they know you (when they don't) have an IQ in the range of 35-49.
| | Poll: | Best Blackpool goal |
| |  |
| Cancel culture on 11:39 - Jul 9 with 645 views | Herbivore |
| Cancel culture on 11:25 - Jul 9 by hampstead_blue |
You are the King of the assumption.
Please stop. It's neither kind nor productive.
Your reading between lines which exist in your own mind. |
Your attempts at gaslighting people into thinking stuff is in their own head when it's there in writing are quite disgusting, Hammers. |  |
| |
| Cancel culture on 11:40 - Jul 9 with 642 views | SpruceMoose |
| Cancel culture on 11:37 - Jul 9 by Herbivore |
I've explained why and you just keep coming back with the same stuff. You are attempting to reduce a complex issue to being about whether or not someone has a penis, except of course when you talk about women's rights and then rely on socio-cultural narratives and history. The same socio-cultural narratives and history that you implicity deny trans women by your reductionist biological labelling of them as people with penises. If you can't see that then I really don't know how we can move on from here. |
All seems pretty understandable to me. You're providing an excellent learning opportunity for some here, and I hope they take you up on it. Thank you. |  |
| Pronouns: He/Him/His.
"Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country." | | Poll: | Selectamod |
| |
| Cancel culture on 11:48 - Jul 9 with 626 views | Ewan_Oozami |
| Cancel culture on 10:50 - Jul 9 by lowhouseblue |
are you denying that trans women are biological men? If that is an accurate statement then why is it transphobic to say it? please explain. again this is in the context of an abstract discussion and isn't related to any individual. why is it 'deeply problematic' to say that many biological women see trans women as falling within the category of people with penises? why don't those views count?
are you saying that the only way of avoiding being transphobic is to abandon the standard biological taxonomy which has been accepted for centuries? [Post edited 9 Jul 2020 10:51]
|
Ah, now I feel I can step in - the words "standard biological taxonomy which has been accepted for centuries" are the very nub of this whole discussion.
Let's ask some questions:
1. When the "standard biological taxonomy which has been accepted for centuries" was first consolidated, did people know about genes and chromosomes? I suspect not.
2. Did they go with what outwardly could be seen, ie, gentalia? Yes.
3. Did people then assign sexes on a reproductive basis? Yes
3. Was this then applied to all living things generally? Yes.
4. However, there are living species that asexually reproduce, so that model doesn't fit all living things.
5. So, people, ie, men, decided what was male and female and gave living things genders, not nature, not God, human beings decided that.
6. But with the discovery of DNA, chromosomes, hormones, etc, the picture became a bit more complicated, and it was realised that all living things are on a gender spectrum, and that some living things cannot be described in a binary model.
7. Remember, non-binary humans have always existed, it's not a new invention - what is new that there are now ways to make such people's lives better such that their physical body matches their chromosomal disposition.
8. This is a threat to many people's status quo - and yes, it can potentially be dangerous for cis women, if men who aren't trans, pretend to be such, in order to access women-only spaces.
9. However, that is not the fault of the trans community, it is the fault of the perpetrators.
10. No easy answers to this one, but I think considering the high suicide rate among trans people, from my personal point of view at least, they at least deserve our support rather than condemnation.
11. Discussion point: is this famous Monty Python sketch transphobic or not? By today's standards, probably yes. Would it get made now in that form? Probably not. Could it be made in a form that's just as funny in a more sensitive way? Definitely..but that does make the original any less funny? Certainly not...
http://www.mit.edu/afs.new/sipb/user/ayshames/Python/LORETTA.PYTHON |  |
| |
| Cancel culture on 11:48 - Jul 9 with 626 views | Herbivore |
| Cancel culture on 11:40 - Jul 9 by SpruceMoose |
All seems pretty understandable to me. You're providing an excellent learning opportunity for some here, and I hope they take you up on it. Thank you. |
I hope so. I fear we're still at a point where unconscious prejudice against trans people is still very much in the majority, much as it used to be in terms of the gay community. Hopefully we'll get there eventually. | |
| |
| Cancel culture on 11:49 - Jul 9 with 625 views | Ewan_Oozami |
| Cancel culture on 11:22 - Jul 9 by lowhouseblue |
thank you. i'm very aware that the biological sex taxonomy isn't a simple binary. few taxonomies in practice provide a precise and definite dichotomy that applies in 100% of cases. as your article says inter sex is relatively rare - it is also different from the current discussion. it doesn't alter the fact that for the vast majority of the human population the male / female biological taxonomy describes an essential dichotomy. or is anyone saying that isn't true? |
Oh damn - I typed a ridiculously long reply, and you've already discussed it! | |
| |
| Cancel culture on 11:52 - Jul 9 with 613 views | Herbivore |
| Cancel culture on 11:49 - Jul 9 by Ewan_Oozami |
Oh damn - I typed a ridiculously long reply, and you've already discussed it! |
Your long reply was helpful and informative, a good contribution to the thread. | |
| |
| Cancel culture on 11:54 - Jul 9 with 609 views | Ewan_Oozami |
| Cancel culture on 11:52 - Jul 9 by Herbivore |
Your long reply was helpful and informative, a good contribution to the thread. |
Thank you! There's always a first for everything! :-) | |
| |
| Cancel culture on 11:55 - Jul 9 with 608 views | footers |
| Cancel culture on 11:48 - Jul 9 by Ewan_Oozami |
Ah, now I feel I can step in - the words "standard biological taxonomy which has been accepted for centuries" are the very nub of this whole discussion.
Let's ask some questions:
1. When the "standard biological taxonomy which has been accepted for centuries" was first consolidated, did people know about genes and chromosomes? I suspect not.
2. Did they go with what outwardly could be seen, ie, gentalia? Yes.
3. Did people then assign sexes on a reproductive basis? Yes
3. Was this then applied to all living things generally? Yes.
4. However, there are living species that asexually reproduce, so that model doesn't fit all living things.
5. So, people, ie, men, decided what was male and female and gave living things genders, not nature, not God, human beings decided that.
6. But with the discovery of DNA, chromosomes, hormones, etc, the picture became a bit more complicated, and it was realised that all living things are on a gender spectrum, and that some living things cannot be described in a binary model.
7. Remember, non-binary humans have always existed, it's not a new invention - what is new that there are now ways to make such people's lives better such that their physical body matches their chromosomal disposition.
8. This is a threat to many people's status quo - and yes, it can potentially be dangerous for cis women, if men who aren't trans, pretend to be such, in order to access women-only spaces.
9. However, that is not the fault of the trans community, it is the fault of the perpetrators.
10. No easy answers to this one, but I think considering the high suicide rate among trans people, from my personal point of view at least, they at least deserve our support rather than condemnation.
11. Discussion point: is this famous Monty Python sketch transphobic or not? By today's standards, probably yes. Would it get made now in that form? Probably not. Could it be made in a form that's just as funny in a more sensitive way? Definitely..but that does make the original any less funny? Certainly not...
http://www.mit.edu/afs.new/sipb/user/ayshames/Python/LORETTA.PYTHON |
Very good post. It also shows up some of the arguments against as being pretty Europe-centric. There are cultures who've accepted third and other genders for centuries as part of their national identity, especially in Asia-Pacific region.
But I guess that these people's lived experiences don't count because they don't like in Europe or the US. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Cancel culture on 11:56 - Jul 9 with 605 views | lowhouseblue |
| Cancel culture on 11:37 - Jul 9 by Herbivore |
I've explained why and you just keep coming back with the same stuff. You are attempting to reduce a complex issue to being about whether or not someone has a penis, except of course when you talk about women's rights and then rely on socio-cultural narratives and history. The same socio-cultural narratives and history that you implicity deny trans women by your reductionist biological labelling of them as people with penises. If you can't see that then I really don't know how we can move on from here. |
no, i'm saying that biological sex matters in particular circumstances. one such circumstance is where biological women wish to have their own spaces. that isn't reductionist - there are lots of situations in which biological sex is completely irrelevant and gender matters much more. the fact that trans women are biologically male is completely irrelevant in most situations. but to deny biological women the right to have spaces which are exclusive to biological women in misogynist. health care is another example where biological sex matters more than gender. to try and pretend that the biological division between men and women is irrelevant in todays society, an dis always over ridden by gender, is misogynistic. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Cancel culture on 11:58 - Jul 9 with 589 views | Herbivore |
| Cancel culture on 11:56 - Jul 9 by lowhouseblue |
no, i'm saying that biological sex matters in particular circumstances. one such circumstance is where biological women wish to have their own spaces. that isn't reductionist - there are lots of situations in which biological sex is completely irrelevant and gender matters much more. the fact that trans women are biologically male is completely irrelevant in most situations. but to deny biological women the right to have spaces which are exclusive to biological women in misogynist. health care is another example where biological sex matters more than gender. to try and pretend that the biological division between men and women is irrelevant in todays society, an dis always over ridden by gender, is misogynistic. |
This time that is the only response you're getting. | |
| |
| Cancel culture on 12:01 - Jul 9 with 580 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Cancel culture on 11:48 - Jul 9 by Ewan_Oozami |
Ah, now I feel I can step in - the words "standard biological taxonomy which has been accepted for centuries" are the very nub of this whole discussion.
Let's ask some questions:
1. When the "standard biological taxonomy which has been accepted for centuries" was first consolidated, did people know about genes and chromosomes? I suspect not.
2. Did they go with what outwardly could be seen, ie, gentalia? Yes.
3. Did people then assign sexes on a reproductive basis? Yes
3. Was this then applied to all living things generally? Yes.
4. However, there are living species that asexually reproduce, so that model doesn't fit all living things.
5. So, people, ie, men, decided what was male and female and gave living things genders, not nature, not God, human beings decided that.
6. But with the discovery of DNA, chromosomes, hormones, etc, the picture became a bit more complicated, and it was realised that all living things are on a gender spectrum, and that some living things cannot be described in a binary model.
7. Remember, non-binary humans have always existed, it's not a new invention - what is new that there are now ways to make such people's lives better such that their physical body matches their chromosomal disposition.
8. This is a threat to many people's status quo - and yes, it can potentially be dangerous for cis women, if men who aren't trans, pretend to be such, in order to access women-only spaces.
9. However, that is not the fault of the trans community, it is the fault of the perpetrators.
10. No easy answers to this one, but I think considering the high suicide rate among trans people, from my personal point of view at least, they at least deserve our support rather than condemnation.
11. Discussion point: is this famous Monty Python sketch transphobic or not? By today's standards, probably yes. Would it get made now in that form? Probably not. Could it be made in a form that's just as funny in a more sensitive way? Definitely..but that does make the original any less funny? Certainly not...
http://www.mit.edu/afs.new/sipb/user/ayshames/Python/LORETTA.PYTHON |
Seems like a pretty solid, well argued argument to me. Not that I know much about trans issues. |  |
| |
| Cancel culture on 12:02 - Jul 9 with 571 views | lowhouseblue |
| Cancel culture on 11:58 - Jul 9 by Herbivore |
This time that is the only response you're getting. |
because you can't actually engage with opposing views. you've learnt the script and can't deviate from it. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Cancel culture on 12:03 - Jul 9 with 555 views | Libero |
| Cancel culture on 11:48 - Jul 9 by Herbivore |
I hope so. I fear we're still at a point where unconscious prejudice against trans people is still very much in the majority, much as it used to be in terms of the gay community. Hopefully we'll get there eventually. |
I stepped away from the thread as it's become a bit wild again.
Just returned to say that I think you're right, but I would say that there's a difference between a lot of the ignorance being communicated surrounding the bathroom issue and the genuine and complicated issue of sporting competition.
P.S (sorry to Healy who posted a perfectly pertinent and reasonable reply to something I wrote that as a result of stepping away from the thread I didn't respond to, appreciated your response and respected your stance) |  | | |
| Cancel culture on 12:08 - Jul 9 with 524 views | Herbivore |
| Cancel culture on 12:02 - Jul 9 by lowhouseblue |
because you can't actually engage with opposing views. you've learnt the script and can't deviate from it. |
No not because of that at all. I have engaged with you but I'm now done with you just repeating your same tired, transphobic tropes all whilst throwing around unfounded accusations of misogyny. And all based on using ridiculous reductive arguments that are only ever applied to one of the groups in question. I'm done with it, there's no point. | |
| |
| Cancel culture on 12:16 - Jul 9 with 501 views | lowhouseblue |
| Cancel culture on 12:08 - Jul 9 by Herbivore |
No not because of that at all. I have engaged with you but I'm now done with you just repeating your same tired, transphobic tropes all whilst throwing around unfounded accusations of misogyny. And all based on using ridiculous reductive arguments that are only ever applied to one of the groups in question. I'm done with it, there's no point. |
why is a reference to the relevance of biological sex in specific narrow circumstances reductive? It's the opposite of reductive since it is saying that the appropriate categorisation of people varies with the precise situation being considered. most times gender matters more, in a few instance biology matters more. to say that biological sex is never relevant is far more reductive - it suggests that gender is the only categorisation and fully defines people in every situation. it produces a single uni-dimensional view. in so doing it completely denies the lived experience of biological women and its distinctiveness. why doesn't the distinctive experience of biological women matter to you? | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Cancel culture on 12:19 - Jul 9 with 494 views | Herbivore |
| Cancel culture on 12:16 - Jul 9 by lowhouseblue |
why is a reference to the relevance of biological sex in specific narrow circumstances reductive? It's the opposite of reductive since it is saying that the appropriate categorisation of people varies with the precise situation being considered. most times gender matters more, in a few instance biology matters more. to say that biological sex is never relevant is far more reductive - it suggests that gender is the only categorisation and fully defines people in every situation. it produces a single uni-dimensional view. in so doing it completely denies the lived experience of biological women and its distinctiveness. why doesn't the distinctive experience of biological women matter to you? |
| |
| |
| Cancel culture on 12:21 - Jul 9 with 490 views | lowhouseblue |
again, no answer. you've learnt your views but you can't defend them. it's a bit sad. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Cancel culture on 12:41 - Jul 9 with 457 views | Herbivore |
| Cancel culture on 12:21 - Jul 9 by lowhouseblue |
again, no answer. you've learnt your views but you can't defend them. it's a bit sad. |
| |
| |
| Cancel culture on 12:52 - Jul 9 with 435 views | Ryorry |
| Cancel culture on 11:48 - Jul 9 by Ewan_Oozami |
Ah, now I feel I can step in - the words "standard biological taxonomy which has been accepted for centuries" are the very nub of this whole discussion.
Let's ask some questions:
1. When the "standard biological taxonomy which has been accepted for centuries" was first consolidated, did people know about genes and chromosomes? I suspect not.
2. Did they go with what outwardly could be seen, ie, gentalia? Yes.
3. Did people then assign sexes on a reproductive basis? Yes
3. Was this then applied to all living things generally? Yes.
4. However, there are living species that asexually reproduce, so that model doesn't fit all living things.
5. So, people, ie, men, decided what was male and female and gave living things genders, not nature, not God, human beings decided that.
6. But with the discovery of DNA, chromosomes, hormones, etc, the picture became a bit more complicated, and it was realised that all living things are on a gender spectrum, and that some living things cannot be described in a binary model.
7. Remember, non-binary humans have always existed, it's not a new invention - what is new that there are now ways to make such people's lives better such that their physical body matches their chromosomal disposition.
8. This is a threat to many people's status quo - and yes, it can potentially be dangerous for cis women, if men who aren't trans, pretend to be such, in order to access women-only spaces.
9. However, that is not the fault of the trans community, it is the fault of the perpetrators.
10. No easy answers to this one, but I think considering the high suicide rate among trans people, from my personal point of view at least, they at least deserve our support rather than condemnation.
11. Discussion point: is this famous Monty Python sketch transphobic or not? By today's standards, probably yes. Would it get made now in that form? Probably not. Could it be made in a form that's just as funny in a more sensitive way? Definitely..but that does make the original any less funny? Certainly not...
http://www.mit.edu/afs.new/sipb/user/ayshames/Python/LORETTA.PYTHON |
Excellent reply, well said.
Re your point 10 - that's extremely saddening re the suicide rates amongst trans, and of course they deserve our support. No-one on here is condemning trans people tho are they? (I haven't seen anyone do so anyway) - the issue here isn't transphobia (altho some seem to want to turn it into that), it's about the rights of different groups to feel and be safe in particular spaces which have until recent times traditionally been private (see also objections to turning single-sex hospital wards into unisex, which there has also been plenty of protest about). |  |
| |
| Cancel culture on 12:55 - Jul 9 with 423 views | footers |
| Cancel culture on 12:52 - Jul 9 by Ryorry |
Excellent reply, well said.
Re your point 10 - that's extremely saddening re the suicide rates amongst trans, and of course they deserve our support. No-one on here is condemning trans people tho are they? (I haven't seen anyone do so anyway) - the issue here isn't transphobia (altho some seem to want to turn it into that), it's about the rights of different groups to feel and be safe in particular spaces which have until recent times traditionally been private (see also objections to turning single-sex hospital wards into unisex, which there has also been plenty of protest about). |
People have been sharing those facilities with trans people in the UK for more than 100 years. What has changed recently to make you think there'll be a wave of trans on cis sex attacks, or that there is something for cis women to fear? Genuinely curious because it seems an objection based on something that hasn't ever really been an issue. | |
| |
| Cancel culture on 13:04 - Jul 9 with 383 views | lowhouseblue |
ok very sad. you can't discuss stuff or defend your views when challenged, but instead you call people transphobic. i guess that's what social media teaches you. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Cancel culture on 13:09 - Jul 9 with 367 views | Ryorry |
| Cancel culture on 12:55 - Jul 9 by footers |
People have been sharing those facilities with trans people in the UK for more than 100 years. What has changed recently to make you think there'll be a wave of trans on cis sex attacks, or that there is something for cis women to fear? Genuinely curious because it seems an objection based on something that hasn't ever really been an issue. |
Never like this till now. Maybe it's actually the more widespread acceptance and tolerance of trans, with ensuing publicity assisted by social media which have encouraged it, but there have been cases reported of non-genuine trans putting themselves forward as trans just to gain access (sorry I can't remember individual cases). Of course if people go so far as to go past the extreme barrier of having trans surgery, that's obviously different & I'd have no problem with them.
It could be argued that rigorous questioning and/or psychiatric or psychological assessment would sort out the genuine from non-genuine, but psychologists/psychiatrists have been fooled before, and I'd have no faith in any kind of privatised checking service the govt. might put forward, for obvious reasons. | |
| |
| Cancel culture on 13:12 - Jul 9 with 357 views | Libero |
| Cancel culture on 13:09 - Jul 9 by Ryorry |
Never like this till now. Maybe it's actually the more widespread acceptance and tolerance of trans, with ensuing publicity assisted by social media which have encouraged it, but there have been cases reported of non-genuine trans putting themselves forward as trans just to gain access (sorry I can't remember individual cases). Of course if people go so far as to go past the extreme barrier of having trans surgery, that's obviously different & I'd have no problem with them.
It could be argued that rigorous questioning and/or psychiatric or psychological assessment would sort out the genuine from non-genuine, but psychologists/psychiatrists have been fooled before, and I'd have no faith in any kind of privatised checking service the govt. might put forward, for obvious reasons. |
You're offering cases without any evidence and then suggesting that people should being rigorously questioned an face psychiatric or psychological assessment for being part of a minority.
Honestly Ryorry, I appreciate your feelings are very real around the bathroom issue but they are irrational and show a real level of prejudice and ignorance. | | | |
| Cancel culture on 13:15 - Jul 9 with 347 views | lowhouseblue |
| Cancel culture on 13:09 - Jul 9 by Ryorry |
Never like this till now. Maybe it's actually the more widespread acceptance and tolerance of trans, with ensuing publicity assisted by social media which have encouraged it, but there have been cases reported of non-genuine trans putting themselves forward as trans just to gain access (sorry I can't remember individual cases). Of course if people go so far as to go past the extreme barrier of having trans surgery, that's obviously different & I'd have no problem with them.
It could be argued that rigorous questioning and/or psychiatric or psychological assessment would sort out the genuine from non-genuine, but psychologists/psychiatrists have been fooled before, and I'd have no faith in any kind of privatised checking service the govt. might put forward, for obvious reasons. |
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/11/transgender-prisoner-who-sexuall | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Cancel culture on 13:20 - Jul 9 with 329 views | footers |
| Cancel culture on 13:09 - Jul 9 by Ryorry |
Never like this till now. Maybe it's actually the more widespread acceptance and tolerance of trans, with ensuing publicity assisted by social media which have encouraged it, but there have been cases reported of non-genuine trans putting themselves forward as trans just to gain access (sorry I can't remember individual cases). Of course if people go so far as to go past the extreme barrier of having trans surgery, that's obviously different & I'd have no problem with them.
It could be argued that rigorous questioning and/or psychiatric or psychological assessment would sort out the genuine from non-genuine, but psychologists/psychiatrists have been fooled before, and I'd have no faith in any kind of privatised checking service the govt. might put forward, for obvious reasons. |
Hmmm. I simply wouldn't like to deny trans people the right to their newfound genders simply because one or two 'bad apples' might slip through the net.
And as per a previous post on this thread, this really only applies to one subset of trans people, which is why labeling all trans people as potential sex attackers is worrying to me.
I know you may not agree, but I'd rather focus on that integration and increase security if there's a real, growing concern. Any way that women who feel uncomfortable sharing those facilities with a trans person should be looked at instead of throwing the baby out of the bathwater. There must be another way than this idea of a fourth toilet, which to me feels discriminatory and totally the opposite of what trans people deserve. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
