Not The Politics Thread.

[Jon the Hat]

34 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I have no doubt that's the way some folks see it. 

 

In that case the priority still should be defending those who do just want to get on with their lives, seeing as the derision for them and discrimination against them, as well as the "nutters", is clear and obvious imo.

Yes of course, as long as that doesn't mean taking away from the rights of other much much larger groups.

[leicsmac]

26 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Yes of course, as long as that doesn't mean taking away from the rights of other much much larger groups.

...and the goalposts are over there again.

 

That there needs to be a talk about specific athletics-related issues (nothing more) is salient. But the initial swing of this discussion was that the trans community now are somehow different to the other "letters" in the eyes of those who would seek to marginalise them.

 

They are not, and there is a wealth of evidence proving this. And it is in no way whatsoever the fault of those being shat on from a great height, regardless of how much people want to spin that it is.

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

...and the goalposts are over there again.

 

That there needs to be a talk about specific athletics-related issues (nothing more) is salient. But the initial swing of this discussion was that the trans community now are somehow different to the other "letters" in the eyes of those who would seek to marginalise them.

 

They are not, and there is a wealth of evidence proving this. And it is in no way whatsoever the fault of those being shat on from a great height, regardless of how much people want to spin that it is.

It is about a few athletes, it is about women rights.  You can try to downplay it is you like, but the fact is men are trying a power grab.

[CosbehFox]

8 hours ago, blabyboy said:

No. Please reread what i said. They are _complicit_. Come back and comment when you understand what that means.

 

To respond to your comment, that is another element of the problem. And your second sentence, gets to the nub of the problem, a lot of people think he is the better representative.

 

Scary.

It’s not quite as clear cut on that in a lot of examples. Media can only reveal 1) when the courts allow it 2) when they have enough evidence to avoid a libel case. 
 

You take the whole parties scenario - they had to be absolute certain of their evidence/sources to avoid a legal case 

[StanSP]

Just read that excuse by that Tory MP  

Wtaf

[Jon the Hat]

17 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Just read that excuse by that Tory MP  

Wtaf

Was that real?  I assumed it was a spoof!

[Thefox81]

1 hour ago, StanSP said:

Just read that excuse by that Tory MP  

Wtaf

Whats his excuse? Not the collecting of dandruff one or is it a new one?

[StanSP]

20 minutes ago, Thefox81 said:

Whats his excuse? Not the collecting of dandruff one or is it a new one?

Yeah the piling up the dandruff one

 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

It is about a few athletes, it is about women rights.  You can try to downplay it is you like, but the fact is men are trying a power grab.

Nah, it's about an overfixation on this matter (that does require discussion) at the expense of others.

 

It's about the discrimination, ridicule and disparaging, both institutionalised and otherwise, that trans people face.

 

It's about, among other things, the unforgivably high suicide rate that community endures, often because of the above.

 

And it's about some people fixating on this issue and not raising a peep about any other, which rather clearly marks their intent that they don't actually care about women's rights or trans rights at all, but rather using one as a convenient figleaf to marginalise the other.

 

I'm sorry, but I don't think the arguments about all this are being put forward in good faith given the situation, nor will I likely ever given what I know and have seen.

 

I'm going to leave it at that as clearly our differences on the matter are long standing and neither of us looks likely to budge.

[LiberalFox]

9 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Is anyone portraying Trans people like this though?  I see a lot of activists demanding things and calling everyone who questions their orthodoxy a TERF, but I don't see anyone really being very anti trans.

I see a lot of women very concerned about losing hard won rights.

Anti-trans = Refusing to accept trans people are what they say they are. Framing trans rights as in conflict with existing rights rather than a desire for equal rights. Regarding trans people as mentally ill. Trying to divide trans people into "genuine" and "men trying to grab power". Believing that trans affirmative healthcare and education is a threat to children. Believing that children are being "transed" by their peers, parents, society or the medical profession.

 

Those are all viewpoints you appear to hold based on your posting here.

 

I think the reason you don't see anyone being anti-trans is because there are barely any anti-trans viewpoints you don't hold yourself. You are only aware of the reactions from understandably angry trans people and their allies.

[The Horse's Mouth]

11 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Allow me to present a counterargument from part of the "L" community From Aus. Anecdotal, but hey.

 

"One day it will sink in for people that for elder gays - we've been through this before. I've been called a social contagion, mentally ill, a pervert, and a predator. I grew up in a time when people feared me, I lost jobs because my employer had the legal right to fire me (pre-2013, the law only changed 9 years ago). I grew up with researchers trying to find the "Gay Gene" for **** sake. The One True Cause Of Being A Homo.

I really don't think people fully understand how bad it was 20 - 30 years ago."

 

I think that the portrayal of the gay and lesbian and bi community in media a few decades ago, snapshot as it is, bears this out too.

The trans thing is a lot more complicated than that, tbh I freely admit I'll never understand the trans thing, for me I would consider it a mental illness. But I'd never support hinging their rights because of this, I just don't get where you can draw a line where everyone is comfortable, more for women in most cases.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

The trans thing is a lot more complicated than that, tbh I freely admit I'll never understand the trans thing, for me I would consider it a mental illness. But I'd never support hinging their rights because of this, I just don't get where you can draw a line where everyone is comfortable, more for women in most cases.

It's certainly a complex issue or bundle of issues, that's for sure.

 

Hopefully the powers that be will eventually not be drawn to simplistic solutions and come up with something that benefits everyone, if possible.

[ClaphamFox]

14 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

Anti-trans = Refusing to accept trans people are what they say they are. Framing trans rights as in conflict with existing rights rather than a desire for equal rights. Regarding trans people as mentally ill. Trying to divide trans people into "genuine" and "men trying to grab power". Believing that trans affirmative healthcare and education is a threat to children. Believing that children are being "transed" by their peers, parents, society or the medical profession.

 

Those are all viewpoints you appear to hold based on your posting here.

 

I think the reason you don't see anyone being anti-trans is because there are barely any anti-trans viewpoints you don't hold yourself. You are only aware of the reactions from understandably angry trans people and their allies.

I think this strikes at the heart of the issue. Most (though not all) transgender people seem to want to be regarded as a member of the opposite sex  and find it hurtful if people do not see them that way. At the same time, many people believe that sex is a bodily reality that can be observed and recorded well before birth, and which cannot be changed. Drug treatments and surgeries may help to somebody to achieve appearance of the opposite sex, but they cannot change the way an individal is organised for sexual reproduction. Women have been forced into subservient roles throughout most of history (and continue to be so in many countries) because of their biological sex, not because of a gender role they chose or was 'assigned' to them. It's not something you can opt into or out of.

 

I'm aware that in the eyes of many transgender people and their allies, anybody who believes that humans cannot change sex is guilty of being 'anti-trans'. I don't agree - I think it's possible to believe that sex is immutable and also believe that anybody should be able to present themselves in whatever manner they wish without fear of discrimination, hostility or social disadvantage. But the issue has become so fraught that trans rights activists (particularly those on social media) tend to accuse anybody who disagrees with them of being a 'terf' or a 'transphobe', accompanied with accusations of arguing in bad faith. The debate on this thread has followed a similar pattern, albeit in a much more polite way than is typically seen on twitter.

 

Neither side is going to back down and the debate is going to continue for some time yet. As leiscmac says, hopefully this will result in policies and practices that are fair, decent and benefit as many people as possible.

 

[The Horse's Mouth]

26 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

It's certainly a complex issue or bundle of issues, that's for sure.

 

Hopefully the powers that be will eventually not be drawn to simplistic solutions and come up with something that benefits everyone, if possible.

Yeah agreed but I think we're a long way away from that 

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

Yeah agreed but I think we're a long way away from that 

Probably so - and all the while, those least deserving of it are suffering as a result of it all going on.

 

Bit of a bastard, really.

[LiberalFox]

58 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

I think this strikes at the heart of the issue. Most (though not all) transgender people seem to want to be regarded as a member of the opposite sex  and find it hurtful if people do not see them that way. At the same time, many people believe that sex is a bodily reality that can be observed and recorded well before birth, and which cannot be changed. Drug treatments and surgeries may help to somebody to achieve appearance of the opposite sex, but they cannot change the way an individal is organised for sexual reproduction. Women have been forced into subservient roles throughout most of history (and continue to be so in many countries) because of their biological sex, not because of a gender role they chose or was 'assigned' to them. It's not something you can opt into or out of.

 

I'm aware that in the eyes of many transgender people and their allies, anybody who believes that humans cannot change sex is guilty of being 'anti-trans'. I don't agree - I think it's possible to believe that sex is immutable and also believe that anybody should be able to present themselves in whatever manner they wish without fear of discrimination, hostility or social disadvantage. But the issue has become so fraught that trans rights activists (particularly those on social media) tend to accuse anybody who disagrees with them of being a 'terf' or a 'transphobe', accompanied with accusations of arguing in bad faith. The debate on this thread has followed a similar pattern, albeit in a much more polite way than is typically seen on twitter.

 

Neither side is going to back down and the debate is going to continue for some time yet. As leiscmac says, hopefully this will result in policies and practices that are fair, decent and benefit as many people as possible.

 

Trans people just want to live their lives in peace with the same level of respect and with the same rights as everyone else. 

 

"I'm aware that in the eyes of many transgender people and their allies, anybody who believes that humans cannot change sex is guilty of being 'anti-trans'."

 

This is fundamentally wrong, there would be no such thing as trans if that were true. People would simply change their sex. It might not be intrinsically anti-trans to believe "sex is immutable" but the phrase is almost exclusively used by people who hold anti-trans views as well as those who are actively transphobic. The belief that trans people want to erase the concept of biological sex is a transphobic conspiracy theory. 

 

I think the issue has become "fraught" because right wing interests and a few high profile people like Graham Linehan and JK Rowling have thrust it into the spotlight. 

 

The most dangerous people are those who rigidly hold to the idea of transness as a mental illness. They see it as a form of body dysmorphia similar to anorexia. They believe transness is a dysfunctional reaction to a harmful society or some form of trauma. This appears to be what JK Rowling believes. From their perspective they have a moral imperative to oppose affirmative trans healthcare and to support what most trans people would call conversion therapy. They view transitioning as a form of self harm or medical mutilation. They may claim that they don't hate trans people because they believe "genuine" trans people are victims of "trans ideology". In the same way people who support LGB conversion therapy believe they are helping. In their belief system everyone who is trans or a trans ally is either an abusive man or a victim while they see themselves as both rescuers of victims and victims of abusers in their own right. 

 

 

Edited 4 April 2022 by LiberalFox

[Jon the Hat]

45 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

Trans people just want to live their lives in peace with the same level of respect and with the same rights as everyone else. 

 

"I'm aware that in the eyes of many transgender people and their allies, anybody who believes that humans cannot change sex is guilty of being 'anti-trans'."

 

This is fundamentally wrong, there would be no such thing as trans if that were true. People would simply change their sex. It might not be intrinsically anti-trans to believe "sex is immutable" but the phrase is almost exclusively used by people who hold anti-trans views as well as those who are actively transphobic. The belief that trans people want to erase the concept of biological sex is a transphobic conspiracy theory. 

 

I think the issue has become "fraught" because right wing interests and a few high profile people like Graham Linehan and JK Rowling have thrust it into the spotlight. 

 

The most dangerous people are those who rigidly hold to the idea of transness as a mental illness. They see it as a form of body dysmorphia similar to anorexia. They believe transness is a dysfunctional reaction to a harmful society or some form of trauma. This appears to be what JK Rowling believes. From their perspective they have a moral imperative to oppose affirmative trans healthcare and to support what most trans people would call conversion therapy. They view transitioning as a form of self harm or medical mutilation. They may claim that they don't hate trans people because they believe "genuine" trans people are victims of "trans ideology". In the same way people who support LGB conversion therapy believe they are helping. In their belief system everyone who is trans or a trans ally is either an abusive man or a victim while they see themselves as both rescuers of victims and victims of abusers in their own right. 

[Jon the Hat]

Within a couple of posts liberal fox accuses me and others on being transphobic.  It’s like twitter on here!

[Zear0]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60983517

 

Not to sound too Garland Greene but, define irony...

Edited 4 April 2022 by Zear0

[Thefox81]

12 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60983517

 

Not to sound too Garland Greene but, define irony...

They are always sorry after being caught. Funny that. 

[Fox in the North]

One last cash grab before they get launched out of office 

 

 

[StanSP]

 

[Jon the Hat]

11 hours ago, LiberalFox said:

The most dangerous people are those who rigidly hold to the idea of transness as a mental illness. They see it as a form of body dysmorphia similar to anorexia. They believe transness is a dysfunctional reaction to a harmful society or some form of trauma. This appears to be what JK Rowling believes. From their perspective they have a moral imperative to oppose affirmative trans healthcare and to support what most trans people would call conversion therapy. They view transitioning as a form of self harm or medical mutilation. They may claim that they don't hate trans people because they believe "genuine" trans people are victims of "trans ideology". In the same way people who support LGB conversion therapy believe they are helping. In their belief system everyone who is trans or a trans ally is either an abusive man or a victim while they see themselves as both rescuers of victims and victims of abusers in their own right. 

I think you are pretty bold to assume that in some cases it isn't just that.  There are plenty of well documented cases of de transitioning.  It seems dangerous to me to group counselling for someone proposing to go through major irreversible hormone therapy or surgery with so called conversion therapy given my religious nut jobs who are homophobic.  It isn't the same thing.

[Jon the Hat]

3 hours ago, StanSP said:

 

Ditch conference, move on with the long needed ban on gay conversion therapy while the debate on trans therapy continues.

[Voll Blau]

12 hours ago, Fox in the North said:

One last cash grab before they get launched out of office 

 

 

Imagine being so thin-skinned about one channel having a news programme slanted in a way you don't like that you take action as self-defeating as this. "Snowflake" doesn't come close.