Not The Politics Thread.

[ealingfox]

8 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

It wasn't a doorstep issue, but it's becoming one. Not just because of high-profile stories such as Lia Thomas and Emily Bridges, etc, but also because of the way trans issues are being discussed and handled in workplaces and schools. A year ago my parents would never have mentioned anything about it - it would have been completely off their radar. But on my last two trips to Leicester they've been speaking about it. It's definitely become more of a mainstream topic.

 

Surveys indeed show that if you ask people if they're supportive of trans rights, most will say they are. However, the picture does shift when people are asked more specific questions about real-world scenarios such as single sex spaces and participation in sports, etc. I suspect that discussions about those real-world implications of trans rights are only going to intensify over the next few years and Labour may find itself losing votes over the issue if it doesn't clarify the party's position.

 

The Conservative Party doesn't have a clearly defined position either.

[Footballwipe]

1 minute ago, ealingfox said:

 

There's plenty of evidence of majority support for trans rights.

 

This issue has hit the news because of a trans woman winning a single national swimming title. As you can see from the attachment this is an area where opinion is more split, and justifiably so, its a thorny issue and requires a nuanced approach. I would suggest that the opportunity for the required consideration is being shut down as certain actors have now successfully narrowed the entire issue down to how one defines a woman and whether a woman, under a presumed definition, can have a penis. That to me is a cynical approach which is exploitative of a marginalised group and is designed to foster resentment.

 

You just wait for the next election campaign. I am fully expecting some absolutely disgusting campaign material relating to this. Official and unofficial.

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, ealingfox said:

 

There's plenty of evidence of majority support for trans rights.

 

This issue has hit the news because of a trans woman winning a single national swimming title. As you can see from the attachment this is an area where opinion is more split, and justifiably so, its a thorny issue and requires a nuanced approach. I would suggest that the opportunity for the required consideration is being shut down as certain actors have now successfully narrowed the entire issue down to how one defines a woman and whether a woman, under a presumed definition, can have a penis. That to me is a cynical approach which is exploitative of a marginalised group and is designed to foster resentment.

Thank you and I agree this is an area that will indeed foster resentment but also division, which is unhelpful for everybody. (Except those seeking to cause divison of course)

[leicsmac]

28 minutes ago, Footballwipe said:

You just wait for the next election campaign. I am fully expecting some absolutely disgusting campaign material relating to this. Official and unofficial.

Without any doubt.

 

As I've said a few times before... the one remaining fashionable prejudice.

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, ealingfox said:

 

There's plenty of evidence of majority support for trans rights.

 

This issue has hit the news because of a trans woman winning a single national swimming title. As you can see from the attachment this is an area where opinion is more split, and justifiably so, its a thorny issue and requires a nuanced approach. I would suggest that the opportunity for the required consideration is being shut down as certain actors have now successfully narrowed the entire issue down to how one defines a woman and whether a woman, under a presumed definition, can have a penis. That to me is a cynical approach which is exploitative of a marginalised group and is designed to foster resentment.

I support trans rights, absolutely they should be supported and treated like humans but my only issue is where it infringes on other rights. I don’t know what the answer is but I’m pretty sure it’s not to allow people with penis’ into women’s areas.

[Robo61]

1 hour ago, ealingfox said:

 

The Conservative Party doesn't have a clearly defined position either.

It seems to me that the current government don't have a clearly defined position on anything,  they just blow with the wind.

[blabyboy]

50 minutes ago, Robo61 said:

It seems to me that the current government don't have a clearly defined position on anything,  they just blow with the wind.

I'd go further and say most politicians are the same, especially when they come into power. I think Royal Commissions are probably the only way of getting any real visionary and strategic changes achieved to the big topics that need to be dealt with today and in the next decade such as the NHS, Defence, Social Aid, Climate change and Education. Short termism is killing this country slowly and those areas need to be taken out of that context.

Edited 1 April 2022 by blabyboy
Fat fingers

[LiberalFox]

As someone who knows several trans people this obviously saddens me and it also transparently demonstrates the ability of the media to turn something that doesn't affect many people at all where there are high levels of ignorance and turn it into an "issue". It's completely manufactured. Trans rights lag behind LGB rights. Other "culture" issues like attitudes to race, women's equality and sex outside of marriage follow similar patterns. Older, male, more conservative people hold less progressive views. Those issues are just further advanced than trans rights. The survey data is encouraging as it shows that younger, more socially liberal people are supportive of trans rights which indicates a brighter future.

 

It's part of a wider culture war that the right is trying to wage which essentially goes along the lines of: "I will give my vote to whoever agrees with me on a narrow range of cultural issues regardless of other political concerns". 

 

I'm sure we will see a "war on woke" and also there will be attempts to stir up Brexit division. 

 

 

 

 

[ClaphamFox]

3 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

As someone who knows several trans people this obviously saddens me and it also transparently demonstrates the ability of the media to turn something that doesn't affect many people at all where there are high levels of ignorance and turn it into an "issue". It's completely manufactured. Trans rights lag behind LGB rights. Other "culture" issues like attitudes to race, women's equality and sex outside of marriage follow similar patterns. Older, male, more conservative people hold less progressive views. Those issues are just further advanced than trans rights. The survey data is encouraging as it shows that younger, more socially liberal people are supportive of trans rights which indicates a brighter future.

 

It's part of a wider culture war that the right is trying to wage which essentially goes along the lines of: "I will give my vote to whoever agrees with me on a narrow range of cultural issues regardless of other political concerns". 

 

I'm sure we will see a "war on woke" and also there will be attempts to stir up Brexit division. 

 

 

 

 

Respectfully, I don't think it's simply a matter of trans rights lagging LGB rights. LGB people merely wanted to be allowed to pursue their preferred relationships and lifestyles - that didn't demand anything of anybody else other than tolerance. 

 

By contrast, trans activists have campaigned for biological males to be allowed in female spaces and to compete in female sports. Many women do not want this, so there is a clash of rights. Whose rights are more important: those of women or girls that don't want a man in their changing rooms or beating them in their own sports, or those of the men who do want those things? Personally I would feel uncomfortable telling women they should just accept the erosion of their rights to accommodate another group. 

 

The point being: the trans rights issue is a lot more complex than the struggles for women's rights, gay rights and racial equality. So expecting it to simply follow the same pattern as those other battles is a bit naive. 

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Respectfully, I don't think it's simply a matter of trans rights lagging LGB rights. LGB people merely wanted to be allowed to pursue their preferred relationships and lifestyles - that didn't demand anything of anybody else other than tolerance. 

 

By contrast, trans activists have campaigned for biological males to be allowed in female spaces and to compete in female sports. Many women do not want this, so there is a clash of rights. Whose rights are more important: those of women or girls that don't want a man in their changing rooms or beating them in their own sports, or those of the men who do want those things? Personally I would feel uncomfortable telling women they should just accept the erosion of their rights to accommodate another group. 

 

The point being: the trans rights issue is a lot more complex than the struggles for women's rights, gay rights and racial equality. So expecting it to simply follow the same pattern as those other battles is a bit naive. 

I'm reasonably sure that a few decades ago most people didn't see it that way and the exact dispute regarding clash of rights (marriage comes to mind immediately) was used by those who disparaged LGB folks to disparage trans folks now.

[ClaphamFox]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'm reasonably sure that a few decades ago most people didn't see it that way and the exact dispute regarding clash of rights (marriage comes to mind immediately) was used by those who disparaged LGB folks to disparage trans folks now.

Allowing gay people to get married may have offended the delicate sensibilities of more conservative types, but it didn't demand anything of them other than to put up with it. That is completely different from asking women and girls to accept men in their spaces and sports. 

Many (though by no means all) women do not want to have biological males in their changing facilities, hospital wards, shelters, etc. However, some transwomen do want access to those spaces. You cannot please both groups at the same time - so whose rights are more important?

 

Very many women athletes do not want to be forced to compete against biological men who will have an in-built advantage over them. However, some transwomen strongly believe they should be allowed to compete in those sports. Again - whose rights are more important?
 

Unfortunately, there is no way of pleasing everybody. It's a very difficult situation, but pretending that there aren't tough decisions to be made is not going to make it go away.

 

[LiberalFox]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

I support trans rights, absolutely they should be supported and treated like humans but my only issue is where it infringes on other rights. I don’t know what the answer is but I’m pretty sure it’s not to allow people with penis’ into women’s areas.

They already are, have been for years. 

[leicsmac]

13 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Allowing gay people to get married may have offended the delicate sensibilities of more conservative types, but it didn't demand anything of them other than to put up with it. That is completely different from asking women and girls to accept men in their spaces and sports. 

Many (though by no means all) women do not want to have biological males in their changing facilities, hospital wards, shelters, etc. However, some transwomen do want access to those spaces. You cannot please both groups at the same time - so whose rights are more important?

 

Very many women athletes do not want to be forced to compete against biological men who will have an in-built advantage over them. However, some transwomen strongly believe they should be allowed to compete in those sports. Again - whose rights are more important?
 

Unfortunately, there is no way of pleasing everybody. It's a very difficult situation, but pretending that there aren't tough decisions to be made is not going to make it go away.

 

...and blokes didn't want gay blokes in some of those spaces due to the almost entirely imaginary stigma of them being more likely to pass on HIV and the method of transmission being grossly misunderstood at the time. To give just one example.

 

Point is, while this is a difficult situation as you state and there is indeed no pleasing everyone, these arguments are at least somewhat recycled.

 

Also:

 

10 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

They already are, have been for years. 

While there needs to be discourse on this matter, the discussion is at the present time being stirred up by those who don't actually care about womens rights at all and are simply using that as a convenient figleaf to dump on a minority that is already the most prejudiced against in the UK.

[LiberalFox]

1 hour ago, ClaphamFox said:

Respectfully, I don't think it's simply a matter of trans rights lagging LGB rights. LGB people merely wanted to be allowed to pursue their preferred relationships and lifestyles - that didn't demand anything of anybody else other than tolerance. 

 

By contrast, trans activists have campaigned for biological males to be allowed in female spaces and to compete in female sports. Many women do not want this, so there is a clash of rights. Whose rights are more important: those of women or girls that don't want a man in their changing rooms or beating them in their own sports, or those of the men who do want those things? Personally I would feel uncomfortable telling women they should just accept the erosion of their rights to accommodate another group. 

 

The point being: the trans rights issue is a lot more complex than the struggles for women's rights, gay rights and racial equality. So expecting it to simply follow the same pattern as those other battles is a bit naive. 

All of your points are either anti-trans or framed in anti-trans language. I really think you just prove my point. In time your views will be as conservative as you view those who opposed LGB rights. There is objective evidence to prove that this has already happened as it did for LGB rights and other cultural issues. 

 

"Trans people would like to compete as their identified gender rather than being forced into competing in their gender assigned at birth." "Some people oppose this". 

 

 

Edited 1 April 2022 by LiberalFox

[Dahnsouff]

31 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

All of your points are either anti-trans or framed in anti-trans language. I really think you just prove my point. In time your views will be as conservative as you view those who opposed LGB rights. There is objective evidence to prove that this has already happened as it did for LGB rights and other cultural issues. 

 

"Trans people would like to compete as their identified gender rather than being forced into competing in their gender assigned at birth." "Some people oppose this". 

 

 

Sorry, you seem a decent person but you sound like a virtue signalling echo chamber - there has to be more argument than mere blind adherence, the points were fair and warranted discussion not disdain.

[ClaphamFox]

59 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

All of your points are either anti-trans or framed in anti-trans language. I really think you just prove my point. In time your views will be as conservative as you view those who opposed LGB rights. There is objective evidence to prove that this has already happened as it did for LGB rights and other cultural issues. 

 

"Trans people would like to compete as their identified gender rather than being forced into competing in their gender assigned at birth." "Some people oppose this". 

 

 

Well you think I prove your point and I think you prove mine. I gave a couple of real-world examples of why I think the issue of trans rights is more complex than previous battles over gay rights, women's liberation and racial equality. You failed to address either of them, opting instead for the simple approach of just accusing me of being 'anti-trans'. If the rest of your party - as well as Labour - continues to respond in the same way to those questions, the electoral consequences could be serious.

 

The female cyclists who threatened to boyoctt the race this weekend if Emily Bridges was allowed to participate were young women, not old codgers. There are also plenty of young women who would very much describe themselves as pro trans rights but who are also deeply uncomfortable with sharing their changing rooms with biological males. As this issue shifts from being one discussed in theoretical terms on social media to being grounded in real world policy decisions, you may find that your prediction that it somehow fades away over time is a little premature.

 

 

[FoxesDeb]

1 hour ago, ClaphamFox said:

Allowing gay people to get married may have offended the delicate sensibilities of more conservative types, but it didn't demand anything of them other than to put up with it. That is completely different from asking women and girls to accept men in their spaces and sports. 

Many (though by no means all) women do not want to have biological males in their changing facilities, hospital wards, shelters, etc. However, some transwomen do want access to those spaces. You cannot please both groups at the same time - so whose rights are more important?

 

Very many women athletes do not want to be forced to compete against biological men who will have an in-built advantage over them. However, some transwomen strongly believe they should be allowed to compete in those sports. Again - whose rights are more important?
 

Unfortunately, there is no way of pleasing everybody. It's a very difficult situation, but pretending that there aren't tough decisions to be made is not going to make it go away.

 

Nobody is asking for that though are they? They are asking for women to be accepted into women's spaces? 

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

Nobody is asking for that though are they? They are asking for women to be accepted into women's spaces? 

... and thus we arrive at a key part of the discussion - what defines a "man" or "woman".

 

Unfortunately, that is an incredibly complex matter both scientifically and socially that is currently being rendered as simplistic by some parties for the sake of discrimination.

[LiberalFox]

31 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Sorry, you seem a decent person but you sound like a virtue signalling echo chamber - there has to be more argument than mere blind adherence, the points were fair and warranted discussion not disdain.

I stand by what I wrote. I simply do not agree that there is a "clash of rights". I also don't think it should be acceptable to use language and framing that is insulting to trans people. I don't think people will change their minds as a result of a debate. I think societal change will occur with demographic shift over time and that some people will either change their views based on lived experience or simply lose interest as the media goes quiet. 

 

I actually think the problem is that those who want "a debate" are already either radicalised or primed a certain way. I might not have treated ClaphamFox's points with huge respect but I respect his right to make them. What I'm getting is that people want to impose limits before a "debate" has even occurred "you sound like a virtue signalling echo chamber" vs "the points were fair" is entirely subjective.

 

This is why Sir Keir is simply trying to avoid being dragged into the "issue". 

 

Anyway I'll stop talking about this for today. I have some friends who are trans so seeing "decent" people posting quite hurtful things triggers a little bit of an emotional response. 

 

 

[Dahnsouff]

3 hours ago, LiberalFox said:

I stand by what I wrote. I simply do not agree that there is a "clash of rights". I also don't think it should be acceptable to use language and framing that is insulting to trans people. I don't think people will change their minds as a result of a debate. I think societal change will occur with demographic shift over time and that some people will either change their views based on lived experience or simply lose interest as the media goes quiet. 

 

I actually think the problem is that those who want "a debate" are already either radicalised or primed a certain way. I might not have treated ClaphamFox's points with huge respect but I respect his right to make them. What I'm getting is that people want to impose limits before a "debate" has even occurred "you sound like a virtue signalling echo chamber" vs "the points were fair" is entirely subjective.

 

This is why Sir Keir is simply trying to avoid being dragged into the "issue". 

 

Anyway I'll stop talking about this for today. I have some friends who are trans so seeing "decent" people posting quite hurtful things triggers a little bit of an emotional response. 

Fair enough, my cousin is trans so it is far from a foreign subject, but I feel above all else the refusal of discourse is an extremely dangerous course and leads to ignorance, not away from it, but I accept we have our own guiding experiences.

Edited 1 April 2022 by Dahnsouff

[LiberalFox]

2 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

Well you think I prove your point and I think you prove mine. I gave a couple of real-world examples of why I think the issue of trans rights is more complex than previous battles over gay rights, women's liberation and racial equality. You failed to address either of them, opting instead for the simple approach of just accusing me of being 'anti-trans'. If the rest of your party - as well as Labour - continues to respond in the same way to those questions, the electoral consequences could be serious.

 

The female cyclists who threatened to boyoctt the race this weekend if Emily Bridges was allowed to participate were young women, not old codgers. There are also plenty of young women who would very much describe themselves as pro trans rights but who are also deeply uncomfortable with sharing their changing rooms with biological males. As this issue shifts from being one discussed in theoretical terms on social media to being grounded in real world policy decisions, you may find that your prediction that it somehow fades away over time is a little premature.

 

 

I did say I wouldn't post again but I will make an effort to offer a counter argument. I think there is a difference between saying something is anti-trans or framed in anti-trans language and accusing someone of being anti-trans.

 

Using the term "biological male" to refer to transwomen is offensive. It's also pretty inaccurate scientifically and medically. Emily Bridges certainly isn't a "biological male", she's quite a ways into HRT. 

 

It's also offensive to frame an argument in a manner that assumes that given free choice, transwomen would be quite happy to have an unfair advantage over ciswomen rather than accept that people simply want to be able to compete in their gender category as the primary motivation. Emily Bridges has been sharing as much data as possible with the scientific community while she goes though transition with the aim of allowing sports governing bodies in conjunction with scientists to find a way for trans people to compete fairly without advantage.

 

People often try to frame trans rights as in opposition or in conflict with existing women's rights but there's little evidence to support that:

 

 

I've reposted the polling already posted by EalingFox, isolating just the male and female demographic responses. One would assume that if it were true that trans people's rights were in conflict with those of women then we would see a noticeable opposition to those rights from women. What we actually see is data more in line with societal attitudes towards other progressive issues with men being the ones more opposed. Even questions that very specifically affect women like trans participation in women's sports and trans access to changing rooms and toilets show that women are more accepting. It's true that some women, even "many" women hold a variety of positions in opposition to trans rights, but there's no indication that women as a group have any specific objections derived from their sex or gender. 

 

I struggle to see a logical argument that explains this while still framing trans rights as in opposition to women's rights. I've seen some arguments made. One is that women are absolutely terrified of "trans activists" or "woke mobs" and so even in anonymous polling they are simply too scared to say what they really think. Another seems to be that women are conditioned not to speak out and to just accept what they are told but that when they experience the true horror that trans rights will unleash they will quickly change their views. 

 

Both of those arguments while possible don't seem plausible to me and are usually better explained by the motivation of the person making them. Usually either a man who self identifies as a protector of women and has decided women need protecting regardless of whether they asked to be protected or from a radical feminist who sees themselves as a self appointed leader of women. I'd be interested if anyone has any better arguments.

 

As a minimum I don't see why people can't use terms like "transwoman" instead of "biological male".  

 

 

 

 

[FoxyPV]

18 hours ago, LiberalFox said:

 

As a minimum I don't see why people can't use terms like "transwoman" instead of "biological male".  

 

 

 

 

Because they like to identify themselves quite clearly as arses.

 

There is a nuanced debate to be had around this but 99% of the information put forward by GC or TERFs is absolute balls.

 

As always, the biggest threat to any woman, trans or not, is cishet men

[chapero82]

We really need to cut ourselves off from China too!

 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/apr/01/china-accused-of-launching-cyber-attacks-on-ukraine-before-russian-invasion

[LiberalFox]

5 hours ago, FoxyPV said:

Because they like to identify themselves quite clearly as arses.

 

There is a nuanced debate to be had around this but 99% of the information put forward by GC or TERFs is absolute balls.

 

As always, the biggest threat to any woman, trans or not, is cishet men

Some people definitely seem to just want a culturally acceptable topic to be assholes about. I think there's more to it than that. Trans people aren't new but trans visibility is very recent. Growing up I probably couldn't name a single trans person. I had a vague understanding of trans people's existence but my mental image of trans people was based on Monty Python's Life of Brian. 

 

 

I get the feeling many people have a similar mental image. They see this as an issue of men "deciding to be women" or perhaps "wanting to be women". That they can either choose to be John Cleese and rubbish what they clearly see as nonsense, or perhaps they can be like Michael Palin who adopts a kinder more empathetic tone while still being a little confused. There's a not so subtle message going on that the "real" woman played by Sue Jones-Davies is marginalised and ends up having to find a compromise in order to move on the discussion while Eric Idle's "Loretta" humorously says things like "It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them!".

 

In this caricature of a trans person the "trans" person is portrayed as neurotic, selfish and hyper sensitive. They dominate the discussion with demands for rights that have no basis in reality. They are completely oblivious to how they are displacing the cis woman in the discussion. They swap between calling themselves male and female giving the impression their gender identity is shallow attention seeking rather than a genuine reflection of who they are. They never offer solutions, instead they expect other people to accommodate them.   

 

This is a world away from the trans people I know who are very sure of who they are and simply want to go about their lives without harassment and with the same rights as everyone else. The majority of trans people I've spoken to do not say they wish they were born cis. They wouldn't change who they are and they would never claim their experiences as trans men or trans women are identical to those of cis men or cis women. This is in contrast to the portrayal of trans people as being in conflict with their own bodies. Most have a desire to seek cosmetic surgery at some point or "gender reassignment surgery", yet they tell me they still love their bodies. 

 

So perhaps a lot of people still have a mental image of a "Loretta" rather than knowing real people who aside from their gender identity are simply people like the rest of us. I don't know what I'd have thought about trans rights if it had become an "issue" 15 years ago when I was completely ignorant. I'd like to think I'd have tested my prejudices before firmly backing any position. 

 

I'll add that while the clip hasn't aged particularly well, it's a perfectly valid piece of satire. It's just unfortunate they chose to caricature a trans identity. I'd actually argue that your Rowling's and Forstater's are playing "Loretta", using their middle class privilege to dominate the discourse on women's rights over a total non-issue.  

 

Edited 2 April 2022 by LiberalFox

[ealingfox]