Jump to content

UK Politics: Mone, Mone, Mone. It's not funny. It's a rich toff's world.


Spockydog

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Denvek said:

You're unsure why I would consider someone who opposes trans people having the same rights as they do anti-trans? I know you enjoy being deliberately antagonistic on here, but you're not stupid.

How would you define the terms "anti trans" and "gender critical"?

Well gender critical feminists that I am aware of almost entirely are comfortable with Trans people existing, for them to have happy and fulfilling lives and to be able to live in the gender identity they wish. That doesn't sound like someone who is 'anti trans' to me. 

I think there is a difference between someone who is 'anti trans' and someone who is 'gender critical'. Defining things in that way suggests that gender critical people don't believe trans people should exist or they should have their rights removed, which is really not the case at all. Its a way to label your enemy so that you don't need to think about what they are saying.

Where there is disagreement is on the core fundamental differences between gender ideology and gender criticism, because gender criticism maintains that biological sex and gender are not conflatable. This means that yes, there are some limited circumstances where single sex spaces are important, especially to women who feel vulnerable, or in some sports. I don't think those beliefs are in any way 'anti trans' but an obvious outcome of the fact that biological sex literally exists. 

The disagreement over single sex spaces I think is mostly fuelled by an early push by gender ideologists towards Self ID and removing a lot of the safeguards that would prevent anyone abusing the system. That is really the core of what is behind a lot of gender critical concern, that men will take advantage of lax rules to hurt women, not that there is anything dangerous about trans people. They are mostly worried because gender ideology seeks to almost remove biological sex and replace it with a view of the world where you are whatever you say you are, whereas in reality, biological sex exists and is important. That doesn't conflict with the need to be respectful of trans peoples rights.



 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

The Daily mail hired a private investigator to dig up dirt on her almost immediately after the engagement announcement, good morning Britain and several tabloids platformed Samantha Markle Grant before the wedding. The "exotic DNA" crack and the narrative of her mother raising her in a crime ridden slum started before the wedding. The bullshit about her wedding demands started before the wedding. The coverage of her during the engagement was mixed, at best. This, "they were cool to her for sooooo long" bullshit is bullshit. 

Lets see what was said in this 'Exotic DNA' article that was so terrible:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3909362/RACHEL-JOHNSON-Sorry-Harry-beautiful-bolter-failed-Mum-Test.html
 

Quote

So I have done my due diligence on Miss Markle, and this is where I stand. Genetically, she is blessed. If there is issue from her alleged union with Prince Harry, the Windsors will thicken their watery, thin blue blood and Spencer pale skin and ginger hair with some rich and exotic DNA. Miss Markle’s mother is a dreadlocked African-American lady from the wrong side of the tracks who lives in LA, and even the sourest spinster has to admit that the 35-year-old actress is extremely easy on the eye. Miss Markle has an active social conscience, and anti-landmine campaigner Princess Diana would be delighted that she is the Ambassador for World Vision and has toured Afghanistan and Rwanda as part of her humanitarian effort.

Johnson admits that her article couldn't be written today, but it is OVERWHELMINGLY gushing about how amazing Meghan is. The 'Exotic DNA' comment is used as a positive way to suggest that Meghan will be adding a lot to the royal family that wasn't there before. 

Horrifying isn't it, such nasty things to say. 

2 hours ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

I'll spell it out for you: pointing at Sunak or any other Brit POC does not prove there is no racism in the UK and does nothing to disprove claims of racism against Markel. Get it?

Who said there was no racism in the UK? Why are you even attempting to twist it like that.
The whole point is whether Markle's negative press is due to racism or not. There is ZERO evidence of it, and much evidence to the contrary. If the press were out to get her because of her race then Patal, Sunak or Badenoch would be ripped a new one every week.. except they aren't.. it isn't happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

The disagreement over single sex spaces I think is mostly fuelled by an early push by gender ideologists towards Self ID and removing a lot of the safeguards that would prevent anyone abusing the system. That is really the core of what is behind a lot of gender critical concern, that men will take advantage of lax rules to hurt women, not that there is anything dangerous about trans people. They are mostly worried because gender ideology seeks to almost remove biological sex and replace it with a view of the world where you are whatever you say you are, whereas in reality, biological sex exists and is important. That doesn't conflict with the need to be respectful of trans peoples rights.

How do you parse "men looking to hurt people" and "legitimate transwomen" (legitimate being a gender critical requirement - otherwise it's just a man looking to assault women or win in athletics). 

The answer is that you don't. Mind your own bigotry and let people live as they choose.

To the second bolded, you are whatever you say you are. Full stop. That view is the source of the solitary joke on the Right about pronouns. Turf it, TERF. Keep your misguided views to yourselves and let people live in peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Week said:

How do you parse "men looking to hurt people" and "legitimate transwomen" (legitimate being a gender critical requirement - otherwise it's just a man looking to assault women or win in athletics). 

 

Because by introducing gender self ID laws you pretty much remove any safeguarding for those circumstances. That is the point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Well gender critical feminists that I am aware of almost entirely are comfortable with Trans people existing, for them to have happy and fulfilling lives and to be able to live in the gender identity they wish

She’s not unique by any means.

I tweeted about a detransitioned terf who advocated people not being allowed to medical transition until after they’re thirty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Because by introducing gender self ID laws you pretty much remove any safeguarding for those circumstances. That is the point. 

Oh let’s not pretend Terfs have just stuck to crying about trans women In women’s bathrooms or sports.

They’ve gone after the autonomy of trans people—particularly trans men and boys(as Terfs are misogynists) —extensively to prevent them from getting much needed medical treatment or given social validation(being referred to by their proper pronouns). 
 

These are the people you’ve decided to side with because they serve your reactionary ideology.
 

People like to mask bigotry as being necessary to protect women from the marginalized group they’ve  assigned as degenerate.

The excuses never change lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The analogy to homophobia isn't perfect but it's a good one, not least because of the deployment of 'seperate but equal' nonsense (eg the suggestion that trans women should have their own, separate, services, despite the fact that this would be deeply impractical and discriminatory): rhetoric about 'valid concerns': groups trying to claim institutions as their own and insisting that allowing others in infringes their rights (cf gay marriage): and of course, the fact that in ten years' time, when self-ID laws have been passed and nothing bad has happened, nobody will be able to understand what the fuss was all about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Its a way to label your enemy so that you don't need to think about what they are saying.

 

It’s important to look at what people are actually saying before evaluating them.
If one looks up at terf forums run by Terfs for terfs, often it’s indistinguishable from /pol/ 

I encourage anyone to check out the gendercynical subreddit where they document Terfs in how they interact in their natural habitats and how the respond to trans people when they see them. It’s usually pure rage at their existence, disgust(for ex. Crying about Elliot page living his best life)  or glee when trans people even trans men get hurt by bigots.

Oh also  gender non-comfortity  in general is demonized.

 

10 minutes ago, mormont said:

The analogy to homophobia isn't perfect but it's a good one, not least because of the deployment of 'seperate but equal' nonsense (eg the suggestion that trans women should have their own, separate, services, despite the fact that this would be deeply impractical and discriminatory): rhetoric about 'valid concerns': groups trying to claim institutions as their own and insisting that allowing others in infringes their rights (cf gay marriage): and of course, the fact that in ten years' time, when self-ID laws have been passed and nothing bad has happened, nobody will be able to understand what the fuss was all about.

“We can’t let lesbians just waltz around heterosexual women and girls in vulnerable places. Don’t you care about insuring they be safe?”

I hope we get to a place where a mastectomy is as controversial as getting a boob job. As in not at all really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, mormont said:

The analogy to homophobia isn't perfect but it's a good one, not least because of the deployment of 'seperate but equal' nonsense (eg the suggestion that trans women should have their own, separate, services, despite the fact that this would be deeply impractical and discriminatory): rhetoric about 'valid concerns': groups trying to claim institutions as their own and insisting that allowing others in infringes their rights (cf gay marriage): and of course, the fact that in ten years' time, when self-ID laws have been passed and nothing bad has happened, nobody will be able to understand what the fuss was all about.

Yes this is also a pretty standard tactic by gender ideologists, compare everything happening now to homophobia of the past. Its a not so subtle way to shut down debate by adding another label to the people they disagree with. It doesn't matter that they two are different situations, only that you can demonise your enemy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Yes this is also a pretty standard tactic by gender ideologists, compare everything happening now to homophobia of the past.


It’s the same types fear-mongering, produced by same types of people, funded by the same entities with the same goals.

6 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Its a not so subtle way to shut down debate by adding another label to the people they disagree with.

How about you just engage honestly and point out how what you’re(and other conservatives like Terfs) doing isn’t the same thing conservatives were doing when they were screeching about the gay agenda.

Don’t just cry about a comparison being made and declare its unfair.

9 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

It doesn't matter that they two are different situations, only that you can demonise your enemy.

Terfs are generally not significantly different from the femininsts who fear mongered about lesbians.

You thus far have not shown yourself different than the conservatives who screeched about the gay agenda.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

 

I encourage anyone to check out the gendercynical subreddit where they document Terfs in how they interact in their natural habitats and how the respond to trans people when they see them. It’s usually pure rage at their existence, disgust(for ex. Crying about Elliot page living his best life)  or glee when trans people even trans men get hurt by bigots.

 

While i don't disagree with most of what you are saying, a freaky internet message board is not the place to get the idea of how a much larger group under a certain label behave.  The internet brings the worst of people to the forefront, that is a given. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

While i don't disagree with most of what you are saying, a freaky internet message board is not the place to get the idea of how a much larger group under a certain label behave.  The internet brings the worst of people to the forefront, that is a given. 

Y’know what?

fair enough.

It’s important to recognize one can’t  find isolated incidents on the internet to prove anything definitively. 

I will contend the actual language and advocacy by prominent Terfs usually are on par or not much better in terms of substance to those freaky message boards.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Well gender critical feminists that I am aware of almost entirely are comfortable with Trans people existing, for them to have happy and fulfilling lives and to be able to live in the gender identity they wish. That doesn't sound like someone who is 'anti trans' to me. 
 

These sound like people who should not have any problems with the GRA or EA2010 as they currently are, and would not have any problems with the GRA reforms the Scottish Parliament is voting on this week, given that those reforms make precisely 0 (zero) changes to the legal framework around when single-sex spaces are allowed to be restricted to cis people. They do not sound like anyone I've ever encountered online who would describe themselves as GC. Perhaps you could point me toward their work so I can learn how they accommodate these seemingly-conflicted viewpoints?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Denvek said:

These sound like people who should not have any problems with the GRA or EA2010 as they currently are, and would not have any problems with the GRA reforms the Scottish Parliament is voting on this week, given that those reforms make precisely 0 (zero) changes to the legal framework around when single-sex spaces are allowed to be restricted to cis people. They do not sound like anyone I've ever encountered online who would describe themselves as GC. Perhaps you could point me toward their work so I can learn how they accommodate these seemingly-conflicted viewpoints?

Since the GRA removes any need for medical oversight and is essentially gender self id then yes I'm sure they would have a problem with it, seeing as it's the lack of medical oversight and introduction of gender self id which is open to abuse which is exactly the bit they find problematic!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Since the GRA removes any need for medical oversight and is essentially gender self id then yes I'm sure they would have a problem with it, seeing as it's the lack of medical oversight and introduction of gender self id which is open to abuse which is exactly the bit they find problematic!

But the GRA has absolutely no bearing on single sex spaces. All it does is define how a GRC is acquired, and all a GRC does is allow people to update their birth, marriage, and (eventually) death certificates with their chosen gender. Access to single sex spaces is entirely under the purview of the Equality Act, which the Scottish Government is not changing, and the courts have already ruled that trans people do not need a GRC to benefit from the protections of the Equality Act so any changes to the ease of acquiring one make no difference to who benefits from those protections.

Despite all the scare-mongering from the GC side, the Scottish proposals make absolutely no difference to where trans people are and are not allowed to be, or how to determine if someone is allowed to be somewhere. It is, genuinely, purely a bureaucratic change that makes trans people's lives easier and makes absolutely no difference to anyone else's lives.

And if your main objection to self-ID is that cis people might pretend to be trans in order to access single sex spaces for nefarious purposes, I'd suggest that you:

  1. actually read the proposal to see the protections it has against people doing that
  2. remember that the proposal doesn't actually affect access to single sex spaces
  3. look into the statistics in Ireland and other countries that already have self-ID to see how this isn't happening in those places, and finally
  4. ask yourself why trans people as a class should have their lives made difficult because you're concerned about a hypothetical that, to re-iterate, this proposal doesn't make any more legal or illegal than it already is
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Week said:

To the second bolded, you are whatever you say you are. Full stop.

I have to admit, I've personally concluded that this extraordinary contention that an individual should be free to deny their basic biology is a direct consequence of liberalism, and the source of a collective disconnect from reality that threatens the survival of our species.

Partner argues that this form of "social liberalism" (the ability to "decide" your own gender) is innocuous and a fair compensation for the reaffirmation of economic and material realism that is now inevitable because of the environmental crisis. She also points out that pro-trans activists tend to be at the forefront of the fight against climate change.
Anecdotically, that is indeed the case if we take our trans and non-binary friends and relativesas example.

I'm a bit skeptical: I think the longer we delay our ineluctable confrontation with the harshness of reality, the more painful it will be. I also tend to think that the internal coherence of an intellectual structure helps - especially if we are to convince a majority of Westerners of just how dire things are about to get.

And yet... writing through the 1930s (and finishing his book in the early 1940s), Karl Polanyi, surely one of the greatest minds of the 20th century, already addressed such issues, concluding that Western societies were now torn between extreme liberalism and fascism:
 

Quote

Freedom's utter frustration in fascism is, indeed, the inevitable result of the liberal philosophy, which claims that power and compulsion are evil, that freedom demands their absence from a human community.

No such thing is possible; in a complex society this becomes apparent. This leaves no alternative but either to remain faithful to an illusionary idea of freedom and deny the reality of society, or to accept that reality and reject the idea of freedom. The first is the liberal's conclusion; the latter the fascist's.

Polanyi had concluded that the liberalisation of land, labor, and money was in fact impossible, and that the deluded push for liberalisation could only result in the confrontation with fascism.
Today it is the defense of the freedoms of the entrepreneur and the consumer that are equally deluded.

And yet, in the end, Polanyi still wrote a passionate defense of liberalism:

Quote

We must try to maintain by all means in our power these high values inherited from the market-economy which collapsed. This, assuredly, is a great task. Neither freedom nor peace could be institutionalized under that economy, since its purpose was to create profits and welfare, not peace and freedom. We will have consciously to strive for them in the future if we are to possess them at all; they must become chosen aims of the societies toward which we are moving.

Therefore, while I do believe that the Western liberal "left" ("left in name only" imho) is becoming just as insane as neo-liberalism in some respects, unlike neo-liberalism it does at least offer perspectives for the future. Since we are about to live through what can only be described as a war-time economy (for the foreseeable future, i.e. until we die), I suppose social liberalism is what we must strive for in the future: let us be free to decide what we are since we will not be free to do as we wish. As outlandish as it may seem today, it is probably the best we can hope for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...