U.K Politics: Revenge of the Truss.

[Raja]

5 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

when you could disagree with someone without being a total dick about it).

It depends on what one is disagreeing about. Are we disagreeing about a movie or a show or some piece of music? That's totally fine.

If you're disagreeing regarding the fundemental rights of human beings, protections for the most vulnerable people in society, and racism, xenophobia or transphobia or any of the other nonsense - people, especially people that are within those groups,  who face these issues every single day - they can react however they want.

I've been a dick to people that have been a racist to me to my face, and I don't particularly care that I'm not being polite - some people have the privilege of not facing these issues.

It also depends entirely on how you ask things - do you think people who face transphobia, xenophobia or racism are dicks to every single person who question things about their literal existence? No. If we did that, then we couldn't function. There is a lot of patient explaining, there is a lot of hand holding. All the time. Every single day.

If people are asking these questions out of genuine curiosity, with the acceptance that their opinions might not be completely informed because they don't have that *lived experience*  and are doing it in a way that is respectful, then these questions are answered without people being dicks - because guess what - this happens literally every fucking day.

And it is very easy to tell who is asking questions in a genuine way and who isn't.

If you read the LGBTQI+ thread that we had/ have, you would see that there were plenty of questions asked there and no one was a dick to anyone.

Also, this 'there's no nuance' schtick is incredibly lazy. It's an easy out as opposed to actually addressing specifically what you're saying is nuanced.

[Varysblackfyre321]

55 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

JKR’s original letter that sparked all this, calmly and seemingly-rationally written on the one hand

How do you feel about her praising self-described Theocratic fascist Matt Walsh for his coverage on trans people?

55 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

IGNORE HER SHE’S A FUCKING TERF on the other

If I want to know why trans boys and men transition and what treatments work for them  I ask them, and medical professionals who they seek counseling with.

55 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

This is NOT a defence or endorsement of JKR, just saying how it might come across to someone uneducated in all this).

Suree.

You’re just saying her stated grievances are calm and rationally written and framing the entirety of her opposition as hysterically unhinged.

 

[karaddin]

I don't know that's necessarily a fair read of what DavesSumm meant, or even if it is that it's the best response at the moment.

The entire point of the way that original letter was written was to look exactly like that - calm, reasonable and rational - to get people nodding along to things that aren't typically controversial and have them continue nodding along without realizing it for the stuff that is controversial. It's an extremely common rhetorical trick these days, it often pairs with acting like you're just trying to ensure that side of the argument gets a fair hearing but it's not actually your opinion. 

The reason it's so common is because its reasonably effective. What DavesSumm was describing does happen - someone reads that original letter, thinks "this sounds reasonable, I have positive associations with JK" and sees some of the backlash without any further context and thinks it's people being raging assholes for no reason. 

What you need to understand what she's actually saying is that further context. It's not easy and it's not fast. You need to see the comments she's making on Twitter, establish that some of the things which sound reasonable are dog whistles which mean a lot more than it sounds, see the long term trajectory of her views on the subject. You need to understand the sort of experience both trans kids and trans adults go through, and the level of hate directing at us. And yes, seeing that this rabbit hole has led her to praising fascist men is actually relevant, guilt by association doesn't have a place in court but it does in forming personal judgements about the sort of views someone is immersed in.

Basically you need to do the sort of reading Week was suggesting, you're not going to get an op ed in the NYT carefully explaining the actual meaning of dog whistles because that would defeat the purpose of using them. You'd probably get a clearer picture of it by dipping into the pure TERF sections of Reddit or mumsnet, they don't tend to mince words so much there, but you risk being swayed by them or just putting yourself through something unpleasant.

Also Raja completely nailed it, definitely the same for me with not bothering to be polite to people that have been transphobic. 

[Conflicting Thought]

so strange, should we listen to racists if we want to know the perspective of a black person? like what?

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

9 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

so strange, should we listen to racists if we want to know the perspective of a black person? like what?

 

Listen dude, a Nazi's opinion of Judaism needs to be heard now and then. We can't just listen to the Jews about their lived experiences.

This entire conversation has been bonkers.

[BigFatCoward]

2 hours ago, Conflicting Thought said:

so strange, should we listen to racists if we want to know the perspective of a black person? like what?

 

Well you just prived my point. I said you shouldnt just listen to one side on any issue. And you immediately jumped to 'lets allow racists to the table'. As If there are only 2 groups, racists and victims of racism. 

If we want to know whether trans athletes should be allowed to compete at a high level in female sports, should we only listen to trans athletes or trans doctors? Or should female athletes and specialist in the field be allowed a say? 

If we want to know whether trans prisoners should be allowed in women's prisons should we deny female prisoners their say? 

I don't know the answers to these questions, because there is no definitive answer, these are exteemely complex quesrions, nobody does. But to make the correct decisions you need input from lots of different sources. And to get buy in from those affected they need to have a voice and feel at least that they've been listened to.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

12 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

If we want to know whether trans athletes should be allowed to compete at a high level in female sports, should we only listen to trans athletes or trans doctors? Or should female athletes and specialist in the field be allowed a say? 

Exactly how many high level trans athletes are there in the UK?

I've used this example before. Utah is an ultra conservative state here in the US. As red as it gets. The state legislature passed a bill banning all trans female athletes (notably not trans men), purely to chum the base and to be cruel. The very conservative governor of the state vetoed the bill (his veto was overridden) because he pointed out the obvious, there were only four athletes in the state this would impact out of roughly 75,000, only one of them competed in women's sports and while he admitted he didn't really understand gender dysphoria, he could recognized this was a dumb piece of legislation. 

[Week]

5 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

If we want to know whether trans athletes should be allowed to compete at a high level in female sports, should we only listen to trans athletes or trans doctors? Or should female athletes and specialist in the field be allowed a say? 

Male athletes don't get a say if a transman completes against them? You're identifying the specific intersection of current political arguments that the Right elevates for eyes, clicks, and anger. Nobody has said that 'nobody else gets a voice' and still it's pretty clear that the voice that goes most often unheard is from, again, transgender people, activists, journalists, and medical professionals working with transgender people and their community.

[BigFatCoward]

5 minutes ago, Week said:

Male athletes don't get a say if a transman completes against them? You're identifying the specific intersection of current political arguments that the Right elevates for eyes, clicks, and anger. Nobody has said that 'nobody else gets a voice' and still it's pretty clear that the voice that goes most often unheard is from, again, transgender people, activists, journalists, and medical professionals working with transgender people and their community.

Where did i say, or even imply that?  

[BigFatCoward]

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Exactly how many high level trans athletes are there in the UK?

I've used this example before. Utah is an ultra conservative state here in the US. As red as it gets. The state legislature passed a bill banning all trans female athletes (notably not trans men), purely to chum the base and to be cruel. The very conservative governor of the state vetoed the bill (his veto was overridden) because he pointed out the obvious, there were only four athletes in the state this would impact out of roughly 75,000, only one of them competed in women's sports and while he admitted he didn't really understand gender dysphoria, he could recognized this was a dumb piece of legislation. 

That's sounds like a man who listened to more than one side. Somewhat proving my point. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

That's sounds like a man who listened to more than one side. Somewhat proving my point. 

More like he rejected abject stupidity. 

[Week]

12 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

Where did i say, or even imply that?  

You actually didn't mention them at all. I'm treating your omission with the same reaction that you seem to have. The response that you should have is "yes, they do too". You seem to be very concerned with who and when all opinions are heard and particularly focusing on the wrong people. You're making HoI-level arguments here. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

41 minutes ago, Week said:

You're making HoI-level arguments here. 

Can we try not using other board members as an insult here?

It’s unfair to compare someone like Bigfatcoward whose legitimately trying to work in good faith and isn’t coming from a place of pure disgust to trans people to….someone else.

[BigFatCoward]

55 minutes ago, Week said:

You seem to be very concerned with who and when all opinions are heard and particularly focusing on the wrong people. You're making HoI-level arguments here. 

No I'm not. That is what you are taking from it. I very specifically did not say that the 'baddies' deserve a seat at the table, but all parties. 

If we are talking prison reform rather than trans rights, do you think both prisoners and victims groups should be involved? 

How do you ever reach an informed decision, without being informed? 

[BigFatCoward]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

More like he rejected abject stupidity. 

And he reached that decision by listening to people he probably disagreed with initially.

Are you sure that he is a republican, doesn't sound like one  

[Varysblackfyre321]

3 hours ago, Conflicting Thought said:

so strange, should we listen to racists if we want to know the perspective of a black person? like what?

 

Eh there are racist black people who actively do think that would support support white-supremacy.

It’s dangerous to have this mentality that simply being a member of a particular demographic means their arguments necessarily have more weight.

Conservatives exploit this thought process all the time by having members of groups that face social oppression be a face of their bigoted movements knowing liberals and leftists would be more hesitant to call bullshit.

 

 

[BigFatCoward]

Disappointing to read that the favorite for the SNP job is a religious nut (and yes, I am aware of the hypocrisy of this in light of my previous posts). 

[Varysblackfyre321]

 

38 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

Disappointing to read that the favorite for the SNP job is a religious nut (and yes, I am aware of the hypocrisy of this in light of my previous posts). 

so long as she says trans bad Terfs will cry she’s a feminist hero even if she advocates stripping women of their reproductive rights and ability to marry a same-sex partner.

Because feminism outside the potential use of a tool to beat up on certain groups is pointless to reactionaries.

[Varysblackfyre321]

5 hours ago, karaddin said:

I don't know that's necessarily a fair read of what DavesSumm meant, or even if it is that it's the best response at the moment.

I do honestly believe it’s fair. 
 

A person can describe an actor’s proficiency in framing things in a way to bolster the actor’s political without thinking the actor is right.
I don’t believe that’s the case here—

5 hours ago, karaddin said:

And yes, seeing that this rabbit hole has led her to praising fascist men is actually relevant, guilt by association doesn't have a place in court but it does in forming personal judgements about the sort of views someone is immersed in.

Should empathize it’s not simply praising Walsh for—it was specifically his rhetoric on trans people which is genocidal.

5 hours ago, karaddin said:

You'd probably get a clearer picture of it by dipping into the pure TERF sections of Reddit or mumsnet, they don't tend to mince words so much there, but you risk being swayed by them or just putting yourself through something unpleasant.

Sigh it is depressing to on their forums. In addition to the transphobia, just a lot of general sexism, homophobia, and ableism. 

[karaddin]

2 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

Well you just prived my point. I said you shouldnt just listen to one side on any issue. And you immediately jumped to 'lets allow racists to the table'. As If there are only 2 groups, racists and victims of racism. 

If we want to know whether trans athletes should be allowed to compete at a high level in female sports, should we only listen to trans athletes or trans doctors? Or should female athletes and specialist in the field be allowed a say? 

If we want to know whether trans prisoners should be allowed in women's prisons should we deny female prisoners their say? 

I don't know the answers to these questions, because there is no definitive answer, these are exteemely complex quesrions, nobody does. But to make the correct decisions you need input from lots of different sources. And to get buy in from those affected they need to have a voice and feel at least that they've been listened to.

Through the whole back and forth on this page I'm actually uncertain which is your point, and before answering please bear in mind I'm sincere in this not setting you up for a gotcha. Is your suggestion that all the sources that should be consulted will include the racists (in that analogy), or that it should include all the good faith actors in the discussion but exclude the racists (again in that analogy)?

My response to that varies depending on your answer, if you mean the first then I quite simply disagree and there's probably not much more to it than that. If you mean the latter though, my argument is that the voices we're talking about not being worth including in the conversation are as extreme and bad faith as the racists in the analogy. Yes, medical professionals with relevant expertise but no connection to activism can be part of the conversation. But you wouldn't give any more weight to a dermatologist discussing the physical strength of a generic trans person than you should a pediatrician discussing epidemiology and the elderly in a pandemic (personal bug bear there, we have a media doctor in Aus that has been very opinionated and listened to over the last few years despite being well outside his specialty).

You should also be weighing the scale of the problem and considering if the level of hysteria in the conversation is justified, which is sadly rare when it comes to trans athletes even if they did have an advantage.