U.K Politics: Revenge of the Truss.

[Heartofice]

4 minutes ago, karaddin said:

I was responding to this. If you were addressing the content of the article rather than issuing a disclaimer about the author then that was very unclear to me.

Sure ok. I read the article and based on what I read I can see the framing pretty clearly. It seems quite obvious to me without knowing anything about who wrote it, what position they take.

[Rippounet]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

It might be a point by point rebuttal, and while a lot of it might be valid, it's also worth keeping in mind that it is coming from the other extreme position and putting an interpretation on events based on their own prejudices. You only have to look at the language used, the way things are stated and the interpretations to understand that this is not a neutral, cold hard facts kinda piece.

It's not (it doesn't claim to be), but even with my own superficial knowledge of such issues I can tell it's more accurate than JKR's letter.

I think the main problem of JKR is that her attacks on trans identity supposedly comes from a concern for womanhood and female identity. It's not that she doesn't have a point, but this means her attacks are misguided. Even if (and that's a big if) you could show that young girls would rather identify as men than grow into women because of the patriarchy, surely the problem is the patriarchy itself rather than the growing tolerance for trans identity.
I would say that what JKR or yourself find hard to believe or acknowledge is that trans identity is factually harmless to society, and that any harm that would be attributed to it actually has other sources. OTOH what I do like about Penny's piece is that it acknowledges the fact that the issue goes beyond gender dysphoria and trans identiy, and attempts to replace it within a historical framework. This bit for instance:

Quote

[The TERFs] are committed to an essentialist understanding of womanhood, grounded in a radical reclaiming of the female body- a reading of gender and power that identifies binary reproductive difference and male violence as the root of women’s oppression.

Well, thing is, this essentialist understanding isn't wrong, it's exactly what history has taught us. The entire question is how to go beyond that. And quite honestly, I think it's rather naive to think bigotry is the only obstacle here...

[Pebble thats Stubby]

Trans people are people.  Its really not hard.

 

What people really have between their legs is of no concern of me unless a) I am providing healthcare to them that's gender specific.  b) I'm trying to fuck them.  

 

your parts and your partners parts need to be compatible with both your sexualities for successful fucking, and thats about the only time most people really need to know about someone else's parts.

 

arguing about what parts people currently have or where born with but maybe no longer have is a waste of breath.  People are what they identify as and should be treated as such and respected for their self identity.

 

concentrating on a very minority case where a trans woman once raped someone before transitioning is a distraction.  Unfortunately laws have to be written for the general and most fit.  occasionally something happens that falls outside of what the intent behind the law happens and thus some flexibility  or individual assessment is needed.  

 

but the trans fear of Men faking being trans so they get access to women or girls is way overblown and a major distraction on real issues.  Including the issues of actual Trans people face.

[Zorral]

7 hours ago, karaddin said:

The primary question that should matter for a general rule based on fairness is whether the average trans woman experiences an advantage beyond what is standard variation within cis women.

I am speaking only from my own knowledge which comes only from having three long-time male friends who are musicians, who, to the surprise of everyone who had known them all along, at one time or another, going into their thirties, told us they (meaning more than one person) were transitioning all the way and becoming who they really are, women.  This included name changes too.

All three are very successful musicians, all of them permanent members of well known electronic groups that regularly play big concerts and dance parties. 

It is a fundamental fact that in the music profession men have big advantages over women in the various fields of music -- including, at least, after a certain age! not being expected to be pliably sexually available to any man with the least bit of power in the business.*  

So here is a case in which being a man is certainly an advantage.  But these women chose -- or more in their case had to be who they are, despite what it could/would mean for their careers.  People in the fields of music, for them, music is pretty much the ruling factor of their lives, from birth.  That doesn't change with transition.  

For me, the take-away is that for these three friends, as music is the ruling factor of their lives, so was feeling 'wrong' until they transitioned.  Now both ruling factors of their lives are feeling right and working as they should be. This, despite the ugly and creepy addition of the starred above.

 

[Zorral]

6 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Or the overwhelming amount of people who socially and medically transition actually and don’t regret it actually.

The Actual data  on the topic contradicts the narrative they’re trying to build.

This is an anti-abortion, anti-contraception stance: the women who have taken advantage of contraception are tragically miserable and sorry, depressed and have often gone mad.

Whereas, in reality, almost all women who have been able to take advantage of contraception when they needed and wanted it, are extremely relieved and thankful they could and did.

 

[Week]

This thread elucidates some of the context needed to understand why JKR is so inflammatory with 'reasonable sounding' language (to the uninformed reader).

 

[Heartofice]

13 minutes ago, Week said:

This thread elucidates some of the context needed to understand why JKR is so inflammatory with 'reasonable sounding' language (to the uninformed reader).

 

I’m assuming this thread was written before the MF appeal was won and the Tavistock scandal and CASS report came out, because it doesn’t really read very well in 2023.

Edited February 17 by Heartofice

[Heartofice]

of course that article defending JKR needs to be cancelled! 

[Varysblackfyre321]

3 hours ago, Zorral said:

This is an anti-abortion, anti-contraception stance: the women who have taken advantage of contraception are tragically miserable and sorry, depressed and have often gone mad.

You see this one lady had an abortion that ended up leading her to be barren forever, ergo every single pregnant person who wants an abortion shouldn't get one—or shouldn't be allowed to get one.

ever.

Oh also be noted most of the attacks on trans people’s medical autonomy comes through focusing on trans men and boys—because they're seen as women and girls and thus needing protection.

Edited February 17 by Varysblackfyre321

[Maltaran]

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

24 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

of course that article defending JKR needs to be cancelled! 

Eh, pretty sure they’d have the same reaction if the New York Times gave an op-ed to arguing matt walsh isn't misogynistic for wanting women to not give.

Which would be good actually.

Anyway Rowling can't be stated enough—has praised walsh for his transphobia which would literally criminalize trans people.

Edited February 17 by Varysblackfyre321

[Heartofice]

Except you know that’s not true don’t you. Rowling praised Walsh’s movie which does do a very good job of exposing the incoherent ideology behind a lot of trans activism, and that is what she was praising. 
 

So unless it’s transphobic to let trans activists talk and expose their own incoherent ideas you’d have to accept you are wrong. 
 

However, where I will agree is that Walsh is a piece of shit and certainly a transphobe. That doesn’t mean you can just tar Rowling with guilt by association. That is really the main tactic the left has these days, to attack people based on who someone talks to or associates with. 
 

So I’m still waiting for you or anything else to point to something Rowling has said that is transphobic. So far we’ve had a bunch of links posted up and it’s zero. It’s still wink wink nudge nudge, and talk of ‘dogwhistles’. That’s when you know someone is talking bollocks

[Raja]

17 hours ago, Maltaran said:

 

The  onion never misses

[polishgenius]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

 

So I’m still waiting for you or anything else to point to something Rowling has said that is transphobic.

 

 

 

[Heartofice]

3 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

 

 

 

Maybe you can explain why ‘sex is real is transphobic’ rather than a statement of fact.

[polishgenius]

Maybe you can explain why you won't accept the explanations already given to you multiple times.

https://katymontgomerie.medium.com/why-what-jk-rowling-said-is-transphobic-42081477afa1


But here. Katy Montgomerie, saying it again. 

[karaddin]

Is anyone else curious and confused how "I accept and support trans people" and "trans ideology is transparently incoherent" can possibly be squared in the same person?  Please give us specifics on what you actually support, because the only thing I've seen is the superficial claim of support with nothing behind it. 

Do you support trans kids getting to socially transition with no medical treatment at all? Trans teens having access to the reversible treatment - puberty blockers - to delay the irreversible changes in puberty? Who do you think gets to gatekeep this treatment? Do we get to be called by our names and pronouns or is it fine to act like bigotry is a religious belief and people can call us whatever they like?

Do adult trans people get access to hormone therapy? Surgical intervention? What level of gatekeeping should this have compared to the functionally none required for many other procedures which simply require informed consent - a standard that's very important in medical treatment.

[Heartofice]

3 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Maybe you can explain why you won't accept the explanations already given to you multiple times.

https://katymontgomerie.medium.com/why-what-jk-rowling-said-is-transphobic-42081477afa1


But here. Katy Montgomerie, saying it again. 

The problem is she isn’t engaging with why people are saying sex is real, none of the trans activists do, that’s why that article is bollocks, as is the thread you linked.

My interpretation is that when you suggest that a trans person can literally change their sex, when you say that trans women for instance LITERALLY are women, and that anyone who says they are a women LITERALLY is a woman.. then you have basically removed basic biology from the system. Sex stops being real if you believe that someone’s internal interpretation of their gender is the only thing that matters.

That’s why it’s not a dogwhistle, it’s not some strawman, it’s pushing back against the very ideology fuelling the entire trans activist movement. 
 

Then on top of that you have the attempts to throw out standard sexual terms such as women and replace them with ‘menstruators’ and you can see that actually saying sex is real is a valid statement. 

[karaddin]

What is actually the relevance of "sex is real" though? What are the concrete policies relating to that and why should they be defined around category (sex) rather than function (genitals, gonads, testosterone level, some measurements of strength etc etc) that's actually relevant to the policy? 

[Heartofice]

5 minutes ago, karaddin said:

What is actually the relevance of "sex is real" though? What are the concrete policies relating to that and why should they be defined around category (sex) rather than function (genitals, gonads, testosterone level, some measurements of strength etc etc) that's actually relevant to the policy? 

How can you have single sex spaces or sports if sex isn’t real?