Jump to content

U.K Politics: Revenge of the Truss.


Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

I'll be honest, I haven't been paying attention to trans issues.  I'm looking to be informed rather than participate in a row.  So, a question.  What's the rebuttal to this article?

Read about transgender life and issues from transgender writers, activists, and medical professionals. Don't look for a rebuttal for an op-ed by a transphobe about a transphobe.

Some names to read - Alejandra Caraballo,  Parker Molloy, Olivia Juliana, Erin Reed, and many others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Week said:

Read about transgender life and issues from transgender writers, activists, and medical professionals. Don't look for a rebuttal for an op-ed by a transphobe about a transphobe.

Some names to read - Alejandra Caraballo,  Parker Molloy, Olivia Juliana, Erin Reed, and many others.

That's not how you get a balanced perspective or understanding literally on anything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BigFatCoward said:

That's not how you get a balanced perspective or understanding literally on anything. 

Yes, of course. Pardon, I bow to your immense and impenetrable wisdom of both sides of the discussion are irrational and so *throw hands up*.

The people that I pointed to are all quite thoughtful people that certainly have a point of view (a bunch of reactionaries worldwide are trying to legislate out their rights). It's worth reading and learning from them to broaden your perspective. Rather than a discussion centered around that a notorious transphobe.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Week said:

Yes, of course. Pardon, I bow to your immense and impenetrable wisdom of both sides of the discussion are irrational and so *throw hands up*.

The people that I pointed to are all quite thoughtful people that certainly have a point of view (a bunch of reactionaries worldwide are trying to legislate out their rights). It's worth reading and learning from them to broaden your perspective. Rather than a discussion centered around that a notorious transphobe.

 

That's lovely but doesn't actually address what I said. And you know it.

If someone said 'what's week like? Let's only ask people who think they are a dick' would you expect them to give a true representation of you? 

It's not about giving both sides and anybody on those sides equal weight. But you have to listen to some dissenting voices. 

Edited by BigFatCoward
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

That's lovely but doesn't actually address what I said. And you know it.

If someone said 'what's week like? Let's only ask people who think they are a dick' would you expect them to give a true representation of you? 

But what you're describing here is basically what media coverage of trans issues is right now.

Look, it is not at all unreasonable to say that if you want to understand trans people, listen to trans people. There is an entire academic discipline based on that principle: we call it anthropology. The best way to understand any group is to listen to members of that group. That has nothing to do with balance, that has to do with learning things.

If you exclude that group from the discussion, then you have a problem with not getting a true representation. Every notable prejudice about gay people, disabled people, ethnic minorities, stems from people talking about those groups instead of to them.

It's not about dissenting voices. It's about ignorant ones.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair to Week, it’s much easier and less energy to say ‘ugh look who said a thing!’ than actually engage with arguments. 
 

Or even better you can say ‘ugh that person likes someone who said a thing ‘

Either one works far better than having to actually say something insightful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mormont said:

But what you're describing here is basically what media coverage of trans issues is right now.

Look, it is not at all unreasonable to say that if you want to understand trans people, listen to trans people. There is an entire academic discipline based on that principle: we call it anthropology. The best way to understand any group is to listen to members of that group. That has nothing to do with balance, that has to do with learning things.

If you exclude that group from the discussion, then you have a problem with not getting a true representation. Every notable prejudice about gay people, disabled people, ethnic minorities, stems from people talking about those groups instead of to them.

It's not about dissenting voices. It's about ignorant ones.

 

Hmm, and if you want to understand women’s perspective you would ask them too right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, mormont said:

But what you're describing here is basically what media coverage of trans issues is right now.

Look, it is not at all unreasonable to say that if you want to understand trans people, listen to trans people. There is an entire academic discipline based on that principle: we call it anthropology. The best way to understand any group is to listen to members of that group. That has nothing to do with balance, that has to do with learning things.

If you exclude that group from the discussion, then you have a problem with not getting a true representation. Every notable prejudice about gay people, disabled people, ethnic minorities, stems from people talking about those groups instead of to them.

It's not about dissenting voices. It's about ignorant ones.

 

And I fully agree trans writers and activists etc should have their voice,  but it can't be the only voice that you listen to.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

And I fully agree trans writers and activists etc should have their voice,  but it can't be the only voice that you listen to.   

 

Oh God, are you drowning in the biased rhetoric by and for transgender people seeking to protect and enshrine their basic human rights? Everywhere you look it's simply them talking and sucking up all the oxygen?

Is there anyone being listened to *less* than transgender people themselves?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

That's lovely but doesn't actually address what I said. And you know it.

If someone said 'what's week like? Let's only ask people who think they are a dick' would you expect them to give a true representation of you? 

It's not about giving both sides and anybody on those sides equal weight. But you have to listen to some dissenting voices. 

Anyhow, my response to @Gaston de Foix was clearly about understanding the milieu in which this discussion is taking place. It's more valuable to understand transgender people, their rights, their life and experiences to then juxtapose against the rhetoric of TERFs and other transphobe before diving into the JKR of it all. Understanding the full context of why people are upset with her as opposed to just her rants versus the reaction rants. Yeah, that's not going to do much for anyone. Which is why I didn't say, hey look at all the bad names these writers and activists are calling JKR -- I said read about their viewpoint, life, and experiences as well as that from medical professionals working in the field for trans health.

Simply debating about the thin-skinned, litigious bigot (JK Rowling) without that background seems pointless.

Edited by Week
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Week said:

 

Is there anyone being listened to *less* than transgender people themselves?

I was talking about you in particular, not society in general. 

You basically said 'listen to/read people who agree with my point and nobody else'.  

That's just silly. 

Edited by BigFatCoward
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

I was talking about you in particular, not society in general. 

You basically said 'listen to/read people who agree with my point and nobody else'.  

That's just silly. 

Bud, that isn't what I said explicitly nor is it "basically" what I said either. Nor am I framing this as "my point". It's pretty shocking to me that you'd frame this in this manner. I said:

Quote

Read about transgender life and issues from transgender writers, activists, and medical professionals. Don't look for a rebuttal for an op-ed by a transphobe about a transphobe.

Some names to read - Alejandra Caraballo,  Parker Molloy, Olivia Juliana, Erin Reed, and many others.

I was intending to offer a starting point to read directly from thoughtful people that have experience as, with, and/or medical treatment of transgender people. But apparently, fuck me for demanding that Gaston "listen to/read people who agree with my point and nobody else". C'mon dude. 

Edited by Week
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Week said:

Bud, that isn't what I said explicitly nor is it "basically" what I said either. Nor am I framing this as "my point". It's pretty shocking to me that you'd frame this in this manner. I said:

I was intending to offering a starting point to read directly from thoughtful people that have experience as, with, and/or medical treatment of transgender people. But apparently, fuck me for demanding that Gaston "listen to/read people who agree with my point and nobody else". C'mon dude. 

We'll have to agree to disagree. Cos I've read your statement numerous times and it still looks like 'i don't like to get my opinion pieces from/listen to anybody different to me'. If that's not what you meant, sweet, we can move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

You basically said 'listen to/read people who agree with my point and nobody else'.  

Friend, he did not say that at all.  He said clearly to read and listen to transgendered people themselves, not what others are saying to them and about them.  ??????

Edited by Zorral
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BigFatCoward said:

We'll have to agree to disagree. Cos I've read your statement numerous times and it still looks like 'i don't like to get my opinion pieces from/listen to anybody different to me'. If that's not what you meant, sweet, we can move on.

Ok, well -- gfy then. I guess my attempt to clarify and articulate my point can and will be read uncharitably. I figured it would only be read that way by the child responding as 'confused' to every post. So it goes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

And I fully agree trans writers and activists etc should have their voice,  but it can't be the only voice that you listen to.   

 

Well I’d say hear out but get your meaning and I’m privy to it to an extent.

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

and if you want to understand women’s perspective you would ask them too right?

Sure. 
Do you think this is a gotcha?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

And I fully agree trans writers and activists etc should have their voice,  but it can't be the only voice that you listen to.  

Why not?

As others have pointed out, we're not discussing opinions, we're talking about understanding the issue. If you are a cis person who wants to understand trans people, listen to trans people (and talk to them). Listening to other cis people isn't really going to substitute for that. JK Rowling can no more tell me about trans lives than Rishi Sunak can tell me about a life on benefits.

Opinions follow understanding: without understanding, you really have no way to distinguish between reasonable opinions and unreasonable ones. And balance, of course, isn't a question of landing on a midpoint between good opinions and bad ones. It's about being able to tell the difference.

I understand the instinct to split the difference. It's an easy way to feel like you're being fair-minded. The right have been exploiting that weakness for years.

Edited by mormont
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mormont said:

Why not?

As others have pointed out, we're not discussing opinions, we're talking about understanding the issue. If you are a cis person who wants to understand trans people, listen to trans people (and talk to them). Listening to other cis people isn't really going to substitute for that. JK Rowling can no more tell me about trans lives than Rishi Sunak can tell me about a life on benefits.

Opinions follow understanding: without understanding, you really have no way to distinguish between reasonable opinions and unreasonable ones. And balance, of course, isn't a question of landing on a midpoint between good opinions and bad ones. It's about being able to tell the difference.

I understand the instinct to split the difference. It's an easy way to feel like you're being fair-minded. The right have been exploiting that weakness for years.

To be honest, I find it a bit absurd to tell a police person of all things the merits of listening to one side only and question the possibility to draw the right conclusions after listening to all sides. This has nothing to do with wanting to land in the middle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m a bit late but I think @Week ‘s post was possibly misread as “transgender (writers, activists, medical professionals) when they possibly meant transgender writers AND activists AND medical professionals, the latter two not necessarily being transgender.

Although I definitely disagree with the tactic of saying ‘ignore this person, they’re a transphobe’. Anyone coming to this debate looking for some clarity and finds JKR’s original letter that sparked all this, calmly and seemingly-rationally written on the one hand and IGNORE HER SHE’S A FUCKING TERF on the other … might just get pushed the wrong way. (This is NOT a defence or endorsement of JKR, just saying how it might come across to someone uneducated in all this).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...