Politics

[ewerk 34105]

Hey, they're just protecting women*.

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Well, when they're not trying to restrict women's access to healthcare that is.

Edited April 16 by ewerk

[NJS 4707]

Even the tories under May were sensible about this and even drafted the gender recognition legislation for the UK. Then the cunts in the mail etc decided it would make a good culture war battle so enlisted useful idiots like Rowling to make it so. 

 

It's another reason to despair what's happened to the Labour Party. 

 

 

[Alex 37704]

3 hours ago, NJS said:

Even the tories under May were sensible about this and even drafted the gender recognition legislation for the UK. Then the cunts in the mail etc decided it would make a good culture war battle so enlisted useful idiots like Rowling to make it so. 

 

It's another reason to despair what's happened to the Labour Party. 

 

 

It’s a Supreme Court ruling though. Labour could subsequently legislate against it but I don’t think you can put this on them. And say this as someone who agrees with your general sentiment re: this government at present 

[Rayvin 6431]

Yeah agreed - it's a weird one because I honestly suspect that the supreme court have their hands tied on this. They had to rule on this to the best of their ability and the fairest interpretation of existing law. It's not on them to decide what the law should be, just what it is. But nonetheless, while not really blaming them for it, I do think that this whole situation is simply a 'bad' thing.

[Alex 37704]

Aye plus the way the whole topic has been weaponised makes it difficult to make legislation changes on it from a political pov. Plus imagine being the policy team tasked with actually drafting the legislation on it? It would be an absolute fucking minefield to try and navigate. The campaigners who ‘won’ their case against the Scottish government though. They can, as they say up there, get tae fucking fuck. It’s all very reminiscent of Section 28. I was recently thinking about things like that and also stuff like the policy on drugs amongst other things and how it basically hasn’t progressed since I was a kid at school in the 80s. 

[Alex 37704]

Just got this through the door. These young conservatives* are so weird, man. He looks like he was grown in a test tube. 

 

 

* no mention of his affiliation on the cover of course 

Edited April 16 by Alex

[Gemmill 52257]

I've had one of those through the door today too.

 

Liam Bones. I bet he fucking doesn't. 

 

[Craig 7326]

1 hour ago, Alex said:

Just got this through the door. These young conservatives* are so weird, man. He looks like he was grown in a test tube. 

 

 

* no mention of his affiliation on the cover of course 

Didn’t the one Tory mayor who got elected campaign without mentioning his affiliation?

 

can’t blame them really.

[Ayatollah Hermione 15045]

Liam Bones is a brave name for a man with absolutely no bone structure to his face 

[strawb 4731]

If your daughter brought that fucking weirdo home you would be devastated. Clip of him

[RobinRobin 12887]

8 hours ago, Alex said:

Just got this through the door. These young conservatives* are so weird, man. He looks like he was grown in a test tube. 

 

 

* no mention of his affiliation on the cover of course 

Surely that's generated by a very old, cheap version of AI.  He cannot be real.  Looks like someone from a 70's puppet show.

[Craig 7326]

14 hours ago, Alex said:

Aye plus the way the whole topic has been weaponised makes it difficult to make legislation changes on it from a political pov. Plus imagine being the policy team tasked with actually drafting the legislation on it? It would be an absolute fucking minefield to try and navigate. The campaigners who ‘won’ their case against the Scottish government though. They can, as they say up there, get tae fucking fuck. It’s all very reminiscent of Section 28. I was recently thinking about things like that and also stuff like the policy on drugs amongst other things and how it basically hasn’t progressed since I was a kid at school in the 80s. 

I find it a difficult one to comment on given I've got a degree of 'skin in the game'.

 

The issue for me is you have very emotive people on both sides of the argument, with extremely valid points arguing that it's a cut & dry situation. It's anything but ... it's a minefield. 

What I have learned looking in on this argument from the periphery is that there are some trans people out there who are amongst the most vile and disgusting human beings I have ever come across - and that's not to do with who they are, how they are or what their beliefs are, it's about how they conduct themselves when anyone dares disagree with their narrative. 

[Rayvin 6431]

37 minutes ago, Craig said:

I find it a difficult one to comment on given I've got a degree of 'skin in the game'.

 

The issue for me is you have very emotive people on both sides of the argument, with extremely valid points arguing that it's a cut & dry situation. It's anything but ... it's a minefield. 

What I have learned looking in on this argument from the periphery is that there are some trans people out there who are amongst the most vile and disgusting human beings I have ever come across - and that's not to do with who they are, how they are or what their beliefs are, it's about how they conduct themselves when anyone dares disagree with their narrative. 

 

I don't doubt this actually but I'd wager they're formed by a considerable amount of disgusting abuse themselves. And while for you and I this may be a disagreement on philosophical position, to them any disagreement invalidates their entire being, and they will get that invalidation every day of their lives. At some point I think it does make you hateful.

 

I used to be somewhat skeptical around it myself as a younger man before extensive exposure to trans people as friends, and a conclusion that it simply wasn't my place to cause anyone as much pain as taking that position seemed to create. That's all I see now whenever this comes up tbh, people like JK Rowling fighting for their petty victories (that ultimately have no meaningful impact on anything in their own lives) while causing incredible amounts of pain.

 

[ewerk 34105]

The main crux of their argument seems to be that CIS women need CIS women only places are there are men pretending to be women in order to harm them. My question is how common are these attacks? How do they compare with CIS female on CIS female attacks? I haven't done much research into it but it appears to be an attempt to whip up moral panic over a non-issue.

[Rayvin 6431]

5 minutes ago, ewerk said:

The main crux of their argument seems to be that CIS women need CIS women only places are there are men pretending to be women in order to harm them. My question is how common are these attacks? How do they compare with CIS female on CIS female attacks? I haven't done much research into it but it appears to be an attempt to whip up moral panic over a non-issue.

 

Yep that's the line of questioning upon which this often falls down. I did look into it once and the attacks are vanishingly small. Smaller, importantly, than attacks by Cis men into those same spaces. The whole narrative seems to conveniently ignore that an aggressive man is going to walk into a women's bathroom either way, it's not like we have guards on the door.

 

My very cynical take on this issue from what I have seen of TERF positions is that they have operated for years benefitting from the sort of victim hierarchy that intersectional feminism creates, and are appalled and indignant that anyone born male is able to insert themselves into their position on the hierarchy chain, or higher. I really do think it's that petty for a lot of them. These are the sorts of people who don't want to make the world better, they just want to have their rage validated by everyone else.

[Monkeys Fist 46250]

Cunts will be cunts, innit. 

[Craig 7326]

7 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

I don't doubt this actually but I'd wager they're formed by a considerable amount of disgusting abuse themselves. And while for you and I this may be a disagreement on philosophical position, to them any disagreement invalidates their entire being, and they will get that invalidation every day of their lives. At some point I think it does make you hateful.

 

I used to be somewhat skeptical around it myself as a younger man before extensive exposure to trans people as friends, and a conclusion that it simply wasn't my place to cause anyone as much pain as taking that position seemed to create. That's all I see now whenever this comes up tbh, people like JK Rowling fighting for their petty victories (that ultimately have no meaningful impact on anything in their own lives) while causing incredible amounts of pain.

 

Whilst I get the sentiment, it's pitched at one side of the argument. And this is what I mean about viewing it from afar as cut and dry when it is far from it. I'll expand a little on 'my skin in the game'

My sister is trans. For the first 35 years of my life she was my oldest brother; for 13 years she's been my sister. She has a very clear view that trans women are men.  She also has tremendous issue with the idea that transgender activists called for anyone to be allowed to self-identify their gender (i.e. legal sex) by statuatory declaration alone and that Theresa May caved into those demands.

Her argument is there is nothing to prevent someone predatory to self-identify as a woman and allow themselves access, without challenge to scenarios and environments where women are at their most vulnerable.

Because she airs these concerns she is subject to the most vile levels of abuse and death threats from key figures within the trans community. India Willoughby is one particularly delightful individual.

 

I've elected to remain largely agnostic about the subject, but feel the need to outline there are very much two sides to this and the lines are extremely blurred. 

My footnote however is this. There are people in this world who feel the need to express they need to be different from what nature intended them to be and that is perfectly fine. But these people have issue with people who offer an opinion that is not aligned to theirs to the point where they become incredibly vile and nasty. 

Disagreement and debate is fine; vile insult and death threats is not fine.

[Rayvin 6431]

It's ok though, Trump is going to settle all of this for us by insisting we drop laws protecting trans people anyway. Either we do that or we don't get a trade deal.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trump-jd-vance-trade-deal-free-speech-b2733806.html

[Rayvin 6431]

1 minute ago, Craig said:

Whilst I get the sentiment, it's pitched at one side of the argument. And this is what I mean about viewing it from afar as cut and dry when it is far from it. I'll expand a little on 'my skin in the game'

My sister is trans. For the first 35 years of my life she was my oldest brother; for 13 years she's been my sister. She has a very clear view that trans women are men.  She also has tremendous issue with the idea that transgender activists called for anyone to be allowed to self-identify their gender (i.e. legal sex) by statuatory declaration alone and that Theresa May caved into those demands.

Her argument is there is nothing to prevent someone predatory to self-identify as a woman and allow themselves access, without challenge to scenarios and environments where women are at their most vulnerable.

Because she airs these concerns she is subject to the most vile levels of abuse and death threats from key figures within the trans community. India Willoughby is one particularly delightful individual.

 

I've elected to remain largely agnostic about the subject, but feel the need to outline there are very much two sides to this and the lines are extremely blurred. 

My footnote however is this. There are people in this world who feel the need to express they need to be different from what nature intended them to be and that is perfectly fine. But these people have issue with people who offer an opinion that is not aligned to theirs to the point where they become incredibly vile and nasty. 

Disagreement and debate is fine; vile insult and death threats is not fine.

 

I understand, but again I would just say that one side is arguing a philosophical position, the other side is having their world broken apart. The evidence isn't there to support the idea that men are doing this to get better access to women to abuse. If it was there, I would have a profoundly different view - but while it isn't, my own framework of principles forces me to conclude that even the debate around this issue is deeply hurtful and invalidating to many people - dehumanising even - and that I personally do not believe that to be worth people's happiness being crushed.

 

I'm sorry to hear of what your sister goes through either way.

[NJS 4707]

Men don't need to put a skirt on to attack women in toilets - they do it in far higher numbers than cross dressers. I don't have numbers on that but most rapists are definitely "men". 

 

I also hate the ignorance where all trans woman seem to be assumed to still be men anatomically - do these people really want women who've fully transitioned to be treated as men when it comes to facilities, healthcare or prisons? 

 

 

[Craig 7326]

5 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

I understand, but again I would just say that one side is arguing a philosophical position, the other side is having their world broken apart. The evidence isn't there to support the idea that men are doing this to get better access to women to abuse. If it was there, I would have a profoundly different view - but while it isn't, my own framework of principles forces me to conclude that even the debate around this issue is deeply hurtful and invalidating to many people - dehumanising even - and that I personally do not believe that to be worth people's happiness being crushed.

 

I'm sorry to hear of what your sister goes through either way.

As I said I choose to remain agnostic on the subject as I see the pain and suffering it causes on both sides and can see both arguments.

 

Where I have issue is where it turns nasty and in in my experience of reading commentary on this, the vile abuse tends to largely come from one quarter. That's not subjective opinion, it's fact. 

And whilst you state the evidence isn't there to support the idea that men are doing it to get better access to women in vulnerable situations, there doesn't need to be - the loophole is there to exploit which is why I understand the argument around self-identity and statuatory declaration alone. Do we have to wait until someone exploits that loophole before something is done about it? Prevention is far better than cure. 

I massively struggle with it all. I'm 9 years younger than my sister and have had to deal with the idea that the person I believed to be my older brother was at odds with his existence from around 6 years before I was even born and I was completely unaware until disclosure. She's now a journalist, appears regularly on the national news and has written a book on it. I got 2 chapters into it and stopped - there's something fucking weird about reading a biographical which touches on and makes reference to private family events and milestones which you have lived through. 

The only way I deal with this is to step back and when people ask if I know her I simply reply "yes, she's my sister."

[Meenzer 16786]

2 minutes ago, Craig said:

Where I have issue is where it turns nasty and in in my experience of reading commentary on this, the vile abuse tends to largely come from one quarter. That's not subjective opinion, it's fact. 

 

I mean, it literally is subjective opinion. I've seen plenty of bile in both directions (especially when I was still on X/Twitter), it's almost impossible to avoid so I'm amazed if you've managed it.

[Craig 7326]

3 minutes ago, NJS said:

I also hate the ignorance where all trans woman seem to be assumed to still be men anatomically.

 

 

But the ignorance around where some trans women wish to be still considered men anatomically is acceptable? 

This is the issue - mainstream media is driving the idea that all men who transition wish to be recognised as a woman anatomically. Not all of them do.

[Rayvin 6431]

2 minutes ago, Craig said:

As I said I choose to remain agnostic on the subject as I see the pain and suffering it causes on both sides and can see both arguments.

 

Where I have issue is where it turns nasty and in in my experience of reading commentary on this, the vile abuse tends to largely come from one quarter. That's not subjective opinion, it's fact. 

And whilst you state the evidence isn't there to support the idea that men are doing it to get better access to women in vulnerable situations, there doesn't need to be - the loophole is there to exploit which is why I understand the argument around self-identity and statuatory declaration alone. Do we have to wait until someone exploits that loophole before something is done about it? Prevention is far better than cure. 

I massively struggle with it all. I'm 9 years younger than my sister and have had to deal with the idea that the person I believed to be my older brother was at odds with his existence from around 6 years before I was even born and I was completely unaware until disclosure. She's now a journalist, appears regularly on the national news and has written a book on it. I got 2 chapters into it and stopped - there's something fucking weird about reading a biographical which touches on and makes reference to private family events and milestones which you have lived through. 

The only way I deal with this is to step back and when people ask if I know her I simply reply "yes, she's my sister."

 

I think we have to agree to disagree on this in terms of the main thrust of it, which is fine. I would suggest that trans people being attacked and killed for being trans would indicate that it's not one sided though.

 

Beyond that point I will say that I can well understand how confusing your own experience of this was, especially as a younger man who presumably looked up to his elder brother. I think such relationships are actually really important for young men so I honestly and completely do understand and empathise with the difficulty that situation would cause you. Especially with her now being quite a public figure. I acknowledge this would be hard for you man.

[Craig 7326]

6 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

I think we have to agree to disagree on this in terms of the main thrust of it, which is fine. I would suggest that trans people being attacked and killed for being trans would indicate that it's not one sided though.

 

Beyond that point I will say that I can well understand how confusing your own experience of this was, especially as a younger man who presumably looked up to his elder brother. I think such relationships are actually really important for young men so I honestly and completely do understand and empathise with the difficulty that situation would cause you. Especially with her now being quite a public figure. I acknowledge this would be hard for you man.

Put it this way, there's a therapist earning a tidy sum on the back of all this.