Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Pronoun/Gender Wars Continue Apace


Recommended Posts

Reading the first couple of pages made me feel bad enough that I just skipped to the end here to leave my response, so hopefully you will forgive me not responding to anyone in particular. Seeing how much Nehor was downvoted might mean sharing my thoughts is pointless, but whatever.

My spouse came out as transgender and for me this has personally led me to realize that there is whole parts of the human experience that I was not even aware of, and honestly I feel like if it were possible to go back I would never want to because the world feels more vibrant now. It also for a good couple of years led to a great deal of stress, fear, and lost relationships. It is not easy to go down the path of being true to yourself when there is so much hate, people wanting you dead, or just denying what you feel in the core of your being could have any validity.

There are some very basic misunderstandings I saw here. I imagine that other people have already corrected them and that it did nothing to change anyone's mind, but I'll just say it again:

1. Gender and sex aren't the same thing. This is obvious and simple, but people refuse to understand it. Sex is biological and gender is about one's inner experience and cultural expression of that identity. Biological sex isn't that important to many people, and honestly I don't see why it would have to matter to people more than their inner experience, values, etc. There are a lot of things we value that don't have anything to do with biological determinism, and it is usually viewed as a virtue to not just do everything we are biologically designed for. You might think that it's weird that people's inner identities don't match up with what you'd expect their biology to be, but that's an issue you should take up with the man upstairs. Or you can continue to scream and rave into the abyss and hope that changes reality. The rest of us are just trying to live with the cards we are dealt.

2. People have different experiences. You can't understand everyone else by appealing to your own experiences. Sometimes people will experience something you are incapable of experiencing even if you tried. You have to actually listen and believe what they are saying. This is such a basic element of being a decent person, that it blows my mind that people here are assuming that someone must be lying if you don't relate to them. You're probably a pretty crappy person, honestly.

3. It says a lot that people are always talking about trans women and not other trans people. Why are transfeminine people so threatening to both the patriarchy and TERFs? If you find the answer to that, it will probably tell you a lot about what makes our society tick. I think that you will probably find that it is a combination of misogyny, men who worry that they'll be attracted to a transfeminine person and then be "gay", and stereotypes propagated in pop culture in such movies as Psycho and Silence of the Lambs. People reducing gender to sexual deviancy is hateful and harmful, and has personally made my life pretty hellish sometimes. There isn't any evidence to suggest that trans people are more likely to assault people, and they are considerably more likely to experience violence than most groups.

4. People that are worried about sports... Get a freaking life. If this is a major concern you might just have quite a lot of privilege many of us do not. Who cares about some people running and playing with balls. This is completely irrelevant to most trans people's lives. We need to make our society into one in which people can just exist as themselves. Figuring out sports should be pretty down the priority list. If you were to ask me what sports organizations should do, I would say I couldn't care less and that I think you are distracting from much more important issues.

5. People like to focus on all the negative parts of trans people's lives inflicted on them by society. This totally misses the positive parts. It is deeply satisfying to be yourself, and I don't think that most people are able to jolt themselves out of their reverie to truly do this if you mostly fit in fine with what's expected of you. I suspect that most of us, one way or another, are harmed and don't like some of the expectations put on us, but few of us delve deep enough to really understand all of what makes us up, and to accept it. Most people don't see the depth of culture, heritage, and experience in the LGTBQ community, and they're poorer for it.

6. For the people that feel all these new ideas are confusing and convoluted, I would say that you are either being purposefully obstinate or you need to accept that you are going to be stupid and ignorant you're whole life if you can't be bothered to read a couple of Wikipedia articles to understand what's going on. And the fact is that these ideas and concepts aren't new, they just were buried by the apostate Christian church. Plenty of people in other countries have had transgender identities as part of their cultures for centuries. Look up the hijra in South Asia, for example. It also was a familiar idea in the ancient world that Jesus inhabited.

For example, the Jewish writer Philo of Alexandria, who lived at the same time as Jesus wrote (warning, offensive):

'[Eunuchs] belie their sex and are affected with effemination, [they] debase the currency of nature and violate it by assuming the passions and the outward form of licentious women... Certainly you may see these hybrids of man and woman continually strutting about through the thick of the market, heading the processions at the feasts, appointed to serve as unholy ministers of holy things, leading the mysteries and initiations and celebrating the rites of Demeter. Those of them who by way of heightening still further their youthful beauty have desired to be completely changed into women and gone on to mutilate their genital organs...' (Special Laws 1.324-25, 3.37-42)

I'm not sure where the reference is right now, but there are also Roman writers who complain about transgender people ("eunuchs") of their time insisting on using feminine names and pronouns. It is also interesting that like now, transfeminine people dominated the conversation. Now that people in the Western world have to face the reality of gender again, the same exact patriarchal hateful BS is surfacing again. Jesus was certainly aware of these people and embraced them:

'For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.' (Matthew 19:12 NRSVUE)

While this passage has been heavy-handedly reinterpreted after the fact, in the context of Jesus' time it is clear he is talking about actual real marginalized people he was concerned for: intersex or sterile people (?), people who were forcibly castrated (often by royalty or rich for use as slaves), and those who chose to express their gender and their physical form differently than they were assigned at birth, perhaps as part of a spiritual journey. See also the eunuch priests of Cybele, Atargatis, and genderqueer devotees of Aphrodite and Ishtar/Inanna.

This might all be theoretical to most of you, but for me and my family accusations of deception and deviancy cut deep, the prospect of violence constantly looms, isolation has gotten pretty bad sometimes, and mental health suffers for that. It certainly is a heavier burden than having to bumble through using pronouns differently or reading a couple of Wikipedia articles to understand what someone is talking about.

 

Edited by mapman
Link to comment
2 hours ago, mapman said:

Reading the first couple of pages made me feel bad enough that I just skipped to the end here to leave my response, so hopefully you will forgive me not responding to anyone in particular. Seeing how much Nehor was downvoted might mean sharing my thoughts is pointless, but whatever.

There are strong feelings all around, but civility and kindness (but also candor and honesty and reasoning) should prevail.

2 hours ago, mapman said:

My spouse came out as transgender and for me this has personally led me to realize that there is whole parts of the human experience that I was not even aware of, and honestly I feel like if it were possible to go back I would never want to because the world feels more vibrant now.

Okay.

2 hours ago, mapman said:

It also for a good couple of years led to a great deal of stress, fear, and lost relationships. It is not easy to go down the path of being true to yourself when there is so much hate, people wanting you dead, or just denying what you feel in the core of your being could have any validity.

Never having been a trans person on the receiving end of communications about that status, I cannot speak to your family's experience.  However, as a Latter-day Saint who regularly encounters "explanations" from other people as to what Latter-day Saints believe / think / feel (such as, for example, how we feel about LGBT folks), and which explanations typically attribute horrible motives to us, I can't help but look at the "so much hate, people wanting you dead" portion of your statement.  Has your family actually experienced such things, and if so, have they been coming from Latter-day Saints?

Also, I am curious about the remaining portion of that statement ("or just denying what you feel in the core of your being could have any validity").  A few questions:

1. Is it your position that individuals and society in general are obligated to affirm as "valid" the inner-held feelings of a person suffering from gender dysphoria? 

2. Alternatively, is it your position that individuals and society in general are not obligated to affirm as "valid" the inner-held feelings of a person suffering from gender dysphoria, but that we ought to affirm these feelings out of a desire to be nice, civil, etc.?

3. In your view, is this "what you feel in the core of your being" restricted to "gender identity" only? 

For example, do you believe a person can be "trans racial" (Rachel Dolezal and Jessica Krug)?

Can a person be "trans species" (Naia Ōkami and Eva Tiamat Medusa)?  

Can "Stefoknee Wolscht," a biological male in his 50s, "identify" as a perpetual six-year-old girl?

Can a sixteen year old girl who weighs 90 pounds "identity" as a fat person, and therefore request or demand that others affirm and validate what she "feel{s} in the core of {her} being" (which is that she needs to lose even more weight to become "healthy")?

If I "feel in the core of {my} being" that I am the biological son of Elon Musk, can I "identify" as his son and request or demand that others not "deny" the "validity" of that identity?

I assume the answer to the foregoing questions will be "no."  If so, would you mind A) explaining your answer, and B) including in the explanation the reasoning which allows you to differentiate one form of a claimed "identity" being valid (gender) from other claimed identities ("trans" race / species / age, son-of-Elon-Musk, etc.).

2 hours ago, mapman said:

1. Gender and sex aren't the same thing. This is obvious and simple, but people refuse to understand it. Sex is biological and gender is about one's inner experience and cultural expression of that identity.

And yet "gender" and "sex" are heavily intertwined.  Moreover, while we have always had "masculine" women and "femininet" men, a woman with "masculine" feelings, etc. does not become a man, nor does a man with "feminine" feelings, etc. become a woman.

2 hours ago, mapman said:

Biological sex isn't that important to many people, and honestly I don't see why it would have to matter to people more than their inner experience, values, etc.

With respect, I think you need to demonstrate, rather than assert, this.  Society has long maintained material distinctions based on biological sex, and often for good reason.  

By way of example, many medications affect women differently than men.  Biological sex matters in that regard.

Women's Sports are being decimated by trans athletes.  I think you would have a very difficult time telling the women who have lost to Lia Thomas, or female prison inmates who have been sexually assaulted by biological males (no small number of which are incarcerated for sex-related crimes) who have been transferred to women's prisons, that "biological sex isn't that important."

2 hours ago, mapman said:

There are a lot of things we value that don't have anything to do with biological determinism, and it is usually viewed as a virtue to not just do everything we are biologically designed for.

I agree.

2 hours ago, mapman said:

You might think that it's weird that people's inner identities don't match up with what you'd expect their biology to be, but that's an issue you should take up with the man upstairs.

With respect, I think you need to demonstrate, rather than assert, this.

If I tell myself that I am the biological son of Elon Musk, that's pretty much my own business.  But if and when I start telling other people that I am the biological son of Elon Musk, then that claim becomes their business as well.

If I start demanding that other people acknowledge and ratify and validate what I am saying, then that becomes society's business.

If I start persuading lawmakers to use the force of law to punish people who do not affirmatively acknowledge that Elon Musk is my biological father, then that becomes society's business.

If I file a lawsuit seeking some sort of legal recognition as the biological son of Elon Musk, then that becomes society's business.

If Elon Musk were to die intestate, and if I were to claim to be an heir to his estate (via my claimed status as his biological son), then that becomes society's business.

And on and on and on.

2 hours ago, mapman said:

Or you can continue to scream and rave into the abyss and hope that changes reality.

I would hope that you could allow for principled and reasoned disagreement about this topic.

2 hours ago, mapman said:

The rest of us are just trying to live with the cards we are dealt.

I think we are all trying to do that.

But if "liv{ing} with the cards we are dealt" is some sort of code for "ratifying (increasingly under force of law) a mentally infirm person's incorrect perception of reality," then that's really quite a problem.

When "liv{ing} with the cards we are dealt" means imposing your views on others and telling them what they must think and do and say relative to "trans" issues, then that changes things quite a bit.

2 hours ago, mapman said:

2. People have different experiences. You can't understand everyone else by appealing to your own experiences. Sometimes people will experience something you are incapable of experiencing even if you tried. You have to actually listen and believe what they are saying.

Yes, we should "listen ... {to} what they are saying."  Sure.  No problem with that.

No, we are not obligated to "believe what they are saying."  That is way too broad a statement. 

2 hours ago, mapman said:

This is such a basic element of being a decent person, that it blows my mind that people here are assuming that someone must be lying if you don't relate to them. You're probably a pretty crappy person, honestly.

The irony here is strong.  You seem to be condemning judgmentalism by . . . resorting to it.

People who disagree with you are not "decent."

People who disagree with you are "assuming that someone must be lying."

People who disagree with you are "pretty crappy."

I propose and request that you set aside such disparagements.  They hinder, rather than facilitate, communication about difficult topics (such as trans issues).

2 hours ago, mapman said:

3. It says a lot that people are always talking about trans women and not other trans people.

I think trans women are, in the aggregate, making far more of a public spectacle of themselves as compared to trans men.

2 hours ago, mapman said:

Why are transfeminine people so threatening to both the patriarchy and TERFs?

You presuppose that which has yet to be demonstrated.  That people who disagree with you feel that trans people are "threatening."  That epithets (like "patriarchy" and "TERFs") are self-evidently appropriate.

Again, I propose and request that you set aside such disparagements.

2 hours ago, mapman said:

4. People that are worried about sports... Get a freaking life.  If this is a major concern you might just have quite a lot of privilege many of us do not.

Again, your posture and tenor here is not helpful.

I question whether you would be so curt and dismissive to a young woman who has spent her entire life preparing to compete in athletics at the collegiate level (often for scholarship reasons), only to lose out on opportunities because she is forced to compete against biological males.

2 hours ago, mapman said:

Who cares about some people running and playing with balls.

Lots of people care.  Athletics are every bit as legitimate a facet of someone's life as any other interest or pursuit.  

Imagine someone saying to you: "People that are worried about identifying as a women when they are, in fact, biological men ... Get a freaking life."  Would you find that assertion helpful and instructive?  Or would you find it to be . . . something else?

If you are going to present an appeal for compassion and understanding, you will need to stop disparaging and insulting people whose views do not precisely align with yours.

2 hours ago, mapman said:

This is completely irrelevant to most trans people's lives. We need to make our society into one in which people can just exist as themselves. Figuring out sports should be pretty down the priority list. If you were to ask me what sports organizations should do, I would say I couldn't care less and that I think you are distracting from much more important issues.

"Figuring out how to treat people with gender dysphoria should be pretty down the priority list."

"If you were to ask me what society should do regarding people with gender dysphoria, I would say I couldn't care less and that I think you are distracting from much more important issues."

Do you find these statements persuasive?  Helpful?  

2 hours ago, mapman said:

6. For the people that feel all these new ideas are confusing and convoluted, I would say that you are either being purposefully obstinate or you need to accept that you are going to be stupid and ignorant you're whole life if you can't be bothered to read a couple of Wikipedia articles to understand what's going on.

"For the people that feel all demands that society ought - or even must, affirm and validate and ratify and celebrate the straying-from-biological-reality notions, borne of a mental health condition called 'gender dysphoria,' of biological men who 'identify' as women (and vice versa) are confusing and convoluted, I would say that you are either being purposefully obstinate or you need to accept that you are going to be stupid and ignorant you're whole life if you can't be bothered to read a couple of Wikipedia articles to understand what's going on."

Do you find this statement persuasive?  Helpful?  

2 hours ago, mapman said:

This might all be theoretical to most of you, but for me and my family accusations of deception and deviancy cut deep,

So do accusations of - let's review what you have said - "hat{ing}," of "wanting {trans people} dead," of "scream{ing} and rav{ing} into the abyss," of not being "decent," of being "pretty crappy" (because we disagree with you), that people who disagree with you ought to "get a freaking life," that to disagree with you is to "just have quite a lot of privilege," that caring about Women's Sports is an illegitimate concern, that to disagree with you is to be "purposefully obstinate," that to disagree with you is to demonstrate that we are "stupid and ignorant," and so on.

The irony of your uncivil an intolerant call for civility and tolerance is strong.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There are strong feelings all around, but civility and kindness (but also candor and honesty and reasoning) should prevail.

Okay.

Never having been a trans person on the receiving end of communications about that status, I cannot speak to your family's experience.  However, as a Latter-day Saint who regularly encounters "explanations" from other people as to what Latter-day Saints believe / think / feel (such as, for example, how we feel about LGBT folks), and which explanations typically attribute horrible motives to us, I can't help but look at the "so much hate, people wanting you dead" portion of your statement.  Has your family actually experienced such things, and if so, have they been coming from Latter-day Saints?

Also, I am curious about the remaining portion of that statement ("or just denying what you feel in the core of your being could have any validity").  A few questions:

1. Is it your position that individuals and society in general are obligated to affirm as "valid" the inner-held feelings of a person suffering from gender dysphoria? 

2. Alternatively, is it your position that individuals and society in general are not obligated to affirm as "valid" the inner-held feelings of a person suffering from gender dysphoria, but that we ought to affirm these feelings out of a desire to be nice, civil, etc.?

3. In your view, is this "what you feel in the core of your being" restricted to "gender identity" only? 

For example, do you believe a person can be "trans racial" (Rachel Dolezal and Jessica Krug)?

Can a person be "trans species" (Naia Ōkami and Eva Tiamat Medusa)?  

Can "Stefoknee Wolscht," a biological male in his 50s, "identify" as a perpetual six-year-old girl?

Can a sixteen year old girl who weighs 90 pounds "identity" as a fat person, and therefore request or demand that others affirm and validate what she "feel{s} in the core of {her} being" (which is that she needs to lose even more weight to become "healthy")?

If I "feel in the core of {my} being" that I am the biological son of Elon Musk, can I "identify" as his son and request or demand that others not "deny" the "validity" of that identity?

I assume the answer to the foregoing questions will be "no."  If so, would you mind A) explaining your answer, and B) including in the explanation the reasoning which allows you to differentiate one form of a claimed "identity" being valid (gender) from other claimed identities ("trans" race / species / age, son-of-Elon-Musk, etc.).

And yet "gender" and "sex" are heavily intertwined.  Moreover, while we have always had "masculine" women and "femininet" men, a woman with "masculine" feelings, etc. does not become a man, nor does a man with "feminine" feelings, etc. become a woman.

With respect, I think you need to demonstrate, rather than assert, this.  Society has long maintained material distinctions based on biological sex, and often for good reason.  

By way of example, many medications affect women differently than men.  Biological sex matters in that regard.

Women's Sports are being decimated by trans athletes.  I think you would have a very difficult time telling the women who have lost to Lia Thomas, or female prison inmates who have been sexually assaulted by biological males (no small number of which are incarcerated for sex-related crimes) who have been transferred to women's prisons, that "biological sex isn't that important."

I agree.

With respect, I think you need to demonstrate, rather than assert, this.

If I tell myself that I am the biological son of Elon Musk, that's pretty much my own business.  But if and when I start telling other people that I am the biological son of Elon Musk, then that claim becomes their business as well.

If I start demanding that other people acknowledge and ratify and validate what I am saying, then that becomes society's business.

If I start persuading lawmakers to use the force of law to punish people who do not affirmatively acknowledge that Elon Musk is my biological father, then that becomes society's business.

If I file a lawsuit seeking some sort of legal recognition as the biological son of Elon Musk, then that becomes society's business.

If Elon Musk were to die intestate, and if I were to claim to be an heir to his estate (via my claimed status as his biological son), then that becomes society's business.

And on and on and on.

I would hope that you could allow for principled and reasoned disagreement about this topic.

I think we are all trying to do that.

But if "liv{ing} with the cards we are dealt" is some sort of code for "ratifying (increasingly under force of law) a mentally infirm person's incorrect perception of reality," then that's really quite a problem.

When "liv{ing} with the cards we are dealt" means imposing your views on others and telling them what they must think and do and say relative to "trans" issues, then that changes things quite a bit.

Yes, we should "listen ... {to} what they are saying."  Sure.  No problem with that.

No, we are not obligated to "believe what they are saying."  That is way too broad a statement. 

The irony here is strong.  You seem to be condemning judgmentalism by . . . resorting to it.

People who disagree with you are not "decent."

People who disagree with you are "assuming that someone must be lying."

People who disagree with you are "pretty crappy."

I propose and request that you set aside such disparagements.  They hinder, rather than facilitate, communication about difficult topics (such as trans issues).

I think trans women are, in the aggregate, making far more of a public spectacle of themselves as compared to trans men.

You presuppose that which has yet to be demonstrated.  That people who disagree with you feel that trans people are "threatening."  That epithets (like "patriarchy" and "TERFs") are self-evidently appropriate.

Again, I propose and request that you set aside such disparagements.

Again, your posture and tenor here is not helpful.

I question whether you would be so curt and dismissive to a young woman who has spent her entire life preparing to compete in athletics at the collegiate level (often for scholarship reasons), only to lose out on opportunities because she is forced to compete against biological males.

Lots of people care.  Athletics are every bit as legitimate a facet of someone's life as any other interest or pursuit.  

Imagine someone saying to you: "People that are worried about identifying as a women when they are, in fact, biological men ... Get a freaking life."  Would you find that assertion helpful and instructive?  Or would you find it to be . . . something else?

If you are going to present an appeal for compassion and understanding, you will need to stop disparaging and insulting people whose views do not precisely align with yours.

"Figuring out how to treat people with gender dysphoria should be pretty down the priority list."

"If you were to ask me what society should do regarding people with gender dysphoria, I would say I couldn't care less and that I think you are distracting from much more important issues."

Do you find these statements persuasive?  Helpful?  

"For the people that feel all demands that society ought - or even must, affirm and validate and ratify and celebrate the straying-from-biological-reality notions, borne of a mental health condition called 'gender dysphoria,' of biological men who 'identify' as women (and vice versa) are confusing and convoluted, I would say that you are either being purposefully obstinate or you need to accept that you are going to be stupid and ignorant you're whole life if you can't be bothered to read a couple of Wikipedia articles to understand what's going on."

Do you find this statement persuasive?  Helpful?  

So do accusations of - let's review what you have said - "hat{ing}," of "wanting {trans people} dead," of "scream{ing} and rav{ing} into the abyss," of not being "decent," of being "pretty crappy" (because we disagree with you), that people who disagree with you ought to "get a freaking life," that to disagree with you is to "just have quite a lot of privilege," that caring about Women's Sports is an illegitimate concern, that to disagree with you is to be "purposefully obstinate," that to disagree with you is to demonstrate that we are "stupid and ignorant," and so on.

The irony of your uncivil an intolerant call for civility and tolerance is strong.

Thanks,

-Smac

Calls for civility and respect from the person who started this guaranteed dramabomb of a thread? Yeah, no, not gonna take that seriously.

Methinks you might be disingenuous about actually liking civility and respect when your actions are obviously not aimed at creating or maintaining it.

You build a boxing ring, set up a match, and then tut about how we should stop punching and just all get along. Take some responsibility for your actions and admit you like the brawls you start. This level of self-deception is very unhealthy.

Link to comment
On 12/20/2022 at 9:23 PM, The Nehor said:

While it would be great this drastically increases the likelihood of being ridiculed and/or attacked. The history of minorities shows that once an oppressed group starts to be proud of themselves there is an almost reflexive reaction from many to crush them back. In the US we had the Red Summer of 1919, the Tulsa Massacre, and many others. You see it in the contempt of pride parades which rarely have any impact on the angered except that they exist.

I like your optimism but I could see it going very badly. Your bolded “and that should be ok” is probably not the reality.

That is only part of the picture and not the most recent renditions of civil rights concerns and and minority community celebration. Some more recent ones have been able to help at least carve greater (thought still imperfect) space for minorities in terms of positive representation as they are. 

 

i would also note, that to some degree that space needs to be made. There will always been trans folk who simply can't pass or pass well for the gender they ID with more.  If they're to be safe, it would mean a greater tolerance for differences needs to be carved out in the culture. That that's hard and that there will likely be set backs in that, doesn't change the need for it, if the goal is to make a space for all trans folk.

 

With luv, 

BD

Edited by BlueDreams
Link to comment
2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Oh, malarky.  I have done nothing to elicit incivility or disrespect.  We can and should have discussions about difficult topics.

The feeling is reciprocated.

Again, malarky.  There is nothing wrong with having discussions on difficult topics.  And I have said nothing to advocate for incivility or disrespect.

Meanwhile, you are repeatedly on record as publicly advocating for actual physical violence against anyone whom you dislike, and justifying it by arbitrarily labeling them as "nazis" and/or "fascists."

Again, malarky.  We ought to be having difficult conversations, and doing so with civility and respect - and also without advocacy of physical violence.

Says the guy who publicly approved physical violence against an 81-year-old woman with a walker whom he labeled a "Nazi."

-Smac

You aren't stupid. You know exactly how these threads are going to go. You start them all the time.

That 81 year old lady was going to a party rally for a party that had a literal neo-Nazi as one of its founders. Old people can be Nazis. In fact it even seems to make it more likely these days.

Link to comment
44 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You aren't stupid. You know exactly how these threads are going to go. You start them all the time.

That 81 year old lady was going to a party rally for a party that had a literal neo-Nazi as one of its founders. Old people can be Nazis. In fact it even seems to make it more likely these days.

I hadn’t seen that before I clicked on Smac’s link and read the report. Some of the goons from the protesting group stuck their feet in front of the wheels of her walker to block her from going into the event. Another one intentionally bumped into her elderly husband as he was trying to free the wheel of her walker. They scampered off when he went to get the police. By then, it was too late for the couple to get a good seat. They had to sit in the back, where she wasn’t able to hear much. 
 

Even the organizers of the protest disavowed the behavior of these thugs.  
 

According to the report, she wasn’t even a supporter of the person featured at the event; she was just trying to learn. 

And this is the sort of person you choose to label a Nazi. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
7 hours ago, juliann said:

Mansplain much? 

You admit you know nothing about feminist groups, not even enough to know that there is a push for lesbians to dissasociate themselves from the T because they are being told them must accept biological males as lesbians?  If you are unaware of the violence against anyone labeled TERF (and merely disagreeing with anything said by trans activists gets you that label), you have no standing in this discussion. Google it. The slurs and threats against women are too vile for me to post a link to them. And I stand behind my statement that these feminists receive the violence, they don't give it. Nice try trying to change that to "transphobes" to sidestep the fact that most violence is going to come from male transphobes. Just for fun, how many public campaigns have there been to get transgendered people fired? Cause there have been a lot of women who say things like sex is biological who have been fired or forced to resign. 

I thought you of all people would understand what mansplaining is and is not. Transgender issues are also not feminist issues. You insist I step aside for mansplaining while you straightsplain or heterosplain (assuming the same broad definition for -splain you are using) for lesbians.

There is a push amongst a few lesbians to do this. It is not the majority. There is also a similar push amongst a minority of gay men to keep people whose biological sex is female out of their spaces. A local gay club near me almost ripped itself apart over the controversy.

They don't perpetuate the violence? Maybe not, but they do give rhetorical cover for the violent and of course most of the actual violence is coming from male transphobes. Giving cover for violence is not an innocent act. They are harassed. The pro-transgender academics that push back against them are also harassed, doxxed, and threatened and they also are not committing any actual violence. The "feminist" defense against being bigots is that 'biology is not bigotry' which is laughable considering their pseudoscientific takes on biology and that similar biological theories have been a weapon of oppression used by racists and sexists since time immemorial.

That this branch of the "feminist" movement is aligning itself with groups that are anti-LGBT and anti-feminist in general should give people pause. They are 'useful idiots' like the Log Cabin Republicans. The Log Cabin Republicans get a little bit of space in swing states where their vote might matter. In places where they don't matter they are left in the cold. In that sense I see them as a threat not just to people I know and care about but to me too. It wouldn't be hard to find a few activists from the L and the G to say we in the B are a bunch of confused nutcases polluting the purity of gender who just need to "pick a lane". They already don't trust us that much. We are their worst nightmare in some ways. We break up with them and many of us go "back to being straight" which happens to them in relationships with their own group but we don't even have to claim we got our sexuality wrong or that we were just experimenting. There is also a slow but steady trickle of G and L people of all ages joining "the bi side" and it is freaking some people out. So tell your feminist group that if they can break the T into irrelevance the B is probably their best next target. We are poorly organized, don't really have our own spaces, and most of us are closeted. There is actually a much better weapon that could be wielded against the LGBT community as a whole that could possibly split all four letters against themselves and is perfect for triggering a massive moral panic but I am hoping no one ever realizes it.

There don't need to be campaigns to get transgendered people fired. It is the norm for them to be discriminated against by employers. It is the norm for LGBT people in general to get discriminated against and harassed in the workplace. No one has to campaign for it. There are also campaigns to get pro-transgender academics fired and they are hit by those same vile and horrific threats. 

7 hours ago, juliann said:

And as always, I have to add the obligatory disclaimer, my concern is with the trans activists that seem to control the public discourse, not the majority who transition and only want to co-exist, as they should be able to. Also, stop changing my words.  

Wow, and there it is. Imagine a man saying:

"My concern is with the feminist activists that seem to control the public discourse, not the majority of women who just want to co-exist, as they should be able to."

That wouldn't necessarily be mansplaining but it was the rhetoric of men trying to split a group to weaken them and make them incapable of influencing anything. It also suggests (wrongly) that most transgender people aren't behind said activists and they are. You don't just want to turn the L against the T. You also want to pretend the majority of T isn't supporting their own activists which is ridiculously untrue.

Link to comment
37 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I hadn’t seen that before I clicked on Smac’s link and read the report. Some of the goons from the protesting group stuck their feet in front of the wheels of her walker to block her from going into the event. Another one intentionally bumped into her elderly husband as he was trying to free the wheel of her walker. They scampered off when he went to get the police. By then, it was too late for the couple to get a good seat. They had to sit in the back, where she wasn’t able to hear much. 
 

Even the organizers of the protest disavowed the behavior of these thugs.  
 

According to the report, she wasn’t even a supporter of the person featured at the event; she was just trying to learn. 

And this is the sort of person you choose to label a Nazi. 

Of course they disavowed it.

I am not going to pretend that someone just wanting to learn what the Nazis have to say is somehow an earnest seeker of truth. The lady wasn't going to yell "Heil Hitler" at the reporter even if she was a Nazi. She would say the same thing whether she was a genuine supporter or some kind of open-minded weirdo curious what the crazy people have to say.

And she couldn't hear it that well????? TRAGEDY!!!!!!!

And why do I keep falling for smac's irrelevant bait callbacks? Waste of valuable time that could be spent in more profitable activities like stamp collecting or Nazi punching.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But not you. You’ll rush right in and rationalize/defend it. 

Yep. Nazis suck. I don't have to worry about PR.

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Lots of people in their 80s are hard of hearing. It’s not a good look for you to mock it. 

Yep, that was definitely what I was mocking there. Good catch.

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You aren't stupid.

I agree.

30 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You know exactly how these threads are going to go.   You start them all the time.

And many go quite well.  When the provocateurs and hecklers don't show up and muck things up.

30 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That 81 year old lady was going to a party rally

You continue to prove my point.  From the news item about her:

Quote

Dorothy Marston says it was curiosity about Maxime Bernier's platform that brought her to Mohawk College in Hamilton on Sunday, but when she tried to get inside the venue where he was speaking, she and her husband found their way blocked by a line of protesters.

The row of people standing between the 81-year-old using a walker and the political fundraiser had their faces covered. Some shouted "Nazi scum off our streets" as she tried to pass and, Marston says, one person intentionally put a foot in front of her wheel, forcing her to stop.

"They were in a lineup … and treating me like I'm a criminal," she said during an interview at the Hamilton-area retirement residence where she lives.

"If I moved, they moved and they would not allow me through. They were hollering 'Nazi' and 'racist' and all this nonsense. It was more than nonsense, it was frightening in my country."
...

Marston said she isn't sure who she'll vote for and that she's still trying to learn more about the PPC, though she thinks Bernier cares about the country and offers new ideas compared to the other party leaders.

The senior says she's aware Bernier's comments on immigration have upset people, but said she also has questions about who should be able to come to Canada.

She says, in her opinion, immigration has been largely positive, but "maybe we shouldn't open the floodgates."

"I look at the Middle East and it frightens me, because there's no democracy … and the fighting in Syria and the values are different than ours," she said. 

Marston, who was a social worker for 40 years, says she's not a racist or a Nazi.

"I don't care what colour, what race, nothing. What people think, that to me is what's important."
...

She describes what happened as an attack on free speech, calling the entire experience shocking and insulting.

"I want to know who I'm voting for and I want to know what their values are." she said.

"It's very sad that we're not open and we don't trust the citizens enough, such as me, to hear what people who want to lead us are saying."

This woman is, in your view, a "Nazi."

In your view, physical violence against this woman is justified.

Again, your response to how this woman was treated:

donald-glover-good.gif

"Nazi" (or "Fascist") is, for you, anyone you dislike, an arbitrary label you use to justify physical violence.

30 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

for a party that had a literal neo-Nazi as one of its founders.

Well, let's see:

1. In October 2019, Dorothy Marston was trying to attend "a Maxime Bernier event at Mohawk College."

2. Maxime Bernier is "a Canadian politician who is the founder and leader of the People's Party of Canada (PPC)."

3. The PPC is "a right-wing populist federal political party in Canada ... formed by Maxime Bernier in September 2018, shortly after his resignation from the Conservative Party of Canada."

4. In order to form as a political party in Canada, "the PPC had to submit the names of at least 250 members to the chief electoral officer."

5. One of the 250 people who signed the form was "Shaun Walker ... who now lives in St. Catharines, Ont., {and} once led the National Alliance {a white supremacist and neo-Nazi organization} and was convicted in Utah over his role in a conspiracy to intimidate minorities.

6. In August 2019, the PPC " cut its ties with Walker last month after his past involvement in the white nationalist movement came to light."  "'As of today {August 29, 2019}, Shaun Walker is no longer part of our organization,' Johanne Mennie, the executive director of the party led by former Conservative MP Maxime Bernier, said Thursday."  "A spokesperson for the PPC said 'a background check only yielded Canadian results.'  'Mr. Walker did not disclose any information in our ‘non-embarrassment’ pledge about his past in the United States,' Mennie said."

Let's review a bit more about Dorothy Marston - the 81-year-old retired social worker (and mother of five and grandmother of six) whom, according to you, ought to be subjected to physical violence (which violence you even affirmed as "good"):

Quote

Sitting at her Hamilton kitchen table Wednesday, the mother of five and grandmother of six said the incident still shocks her.

"To try and deny a man such as Maxime Bernier to speak, or for me to hear what he has to say, that is criminal," she said. "I felt my rights were interfered with."

Dorothy said she is not a Nazi, nor a racist.

She attended the event to hear what Bernier had to say. She said she understands some Canadians take issue with the PPC's advocacy of severe immigration cuts and support for interviews with prospective newcomers to ensure their views align with Canadian values, but she personally supports much of his stance on immigration.

"I do believe most people who come are good, solid people who've suffered in their own country and they don't want the same thing here," she said. "But then, there are some with values that are different."

She said she liked what Bernier said at the event but wants to do more research before deciding how she'll cast her vote.

Regardless of whether or not she ends up supporting him, she should be free to hear him out, she said.

I am supposed to take seriously moral opprobrium from you, who openly advocates for and approves of physical violence against this woman?

-Smac

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

According to the report, she wasn’t even a supporter of the person featured at the event; she was just trying to learn. 

And this is the sort of person you choose to label a Nazi. 

That's the horribly convenient thing about how people like Nehor use these epithets.  They are untethered from any actual or substantive meaning, and are instead mere labels used to justify targeted and intentional violence against people Nehor dislikes.  Nothing more.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
3 hours ago, smac97 said:

That's the horribly convenient thing about how people like Nehor use these epithets.  They are untethered from any actual or substantive meaning, and are instead mere labels used to justify targeted and intentional violence against people Nehor dislikes.  Nothing more.

Thanks,

-Smac

There’s that and the brazen guilt-by-association. The man’s political party allegedly was co-founded by a “neo-Nazi” (I have no idea whether that is true), so someone who only wants to hear him speak and to evaluate his message deserves to be labeled a Nazi and to have her own human rights violated by an aggressive mob. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment

@mapman I hope you can do us the honor of not following @The Nehor down his violent insulting discussion-suppressing rabbit hole.  I hope you address Smac's post.

I've seen a lot of posts like Mapman's, and a lot of responses like Smac's.  I've never seen further interaction between the two - every time it seems, folks like Nehor show up and totally derail things with their insulting nonsense.

I wanna take folks passionate about trans rights seriously.  I am unable to do so, if they cannot keep in a rational and challenging conversation.  Please, help me take you seriously.

Edited by LoudmouthMormon
Link to comment
Just now, LoudmouthMormon said:

@mapman I hope you can do us the honor of not following @The Nehor down his violent insulting discussion-suppressing rabbit hole.  I hope you address Smac's post.

I've seen a lot of posts like Mapman's, and a lot of responses like Smac's.  I've never seen further interaction between the two - every time it seems, folks like Nehor show up and totally derail things with their insulting nonsense.

It's almost as if Nehor wants to use a heckler's veto to suppress discussions he dislikes.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
3 hours ago, smac97 said:

It's almost as if Nehor wants to use a heckler's veto to suppress discussions he dislikes.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don’t have a problem with it. The idea that I don’t like a good verbal fight is ridiculous on the face of it. Have you not seen me post before? I throw dramabombs around here all the time. I charge into the fights and often get thread banned. If I wanted to suppress it I would use much different tactics.

It is your hypocrisy that I find disgusting. You like to start fights and are in denial about it. And that is just sad.

Edit: Of particular note you keep dragging in the Nazi thing everywhere to provoke me (do I really need provoking?) or in some misguided attempt to shame me (Good luck with that, lol).

Edited by The Nehor
Link to comment
3 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I wanna take folks passionate about trans rights seriously.  I am unable to do so, if they cannot keep in a rational and challenging conversation.  Please, help me take you seriously.

You want to understand the arguments of transgender rights advocates and you are going to judge the merits of their argument based on some randos on this board? You realize there is a wealth of literature, speeches, podcasts, etc. on transgender rights out there but you want their representation to impress you here on a board that (as far as we know) doesn’t have any transgender individuals on it, very few lgbt in general, and is slanted to be uninteresting and unimportant to the people who most advocate for transgender rights?

That is just weird. Plus if I had known I was somehow representing the transgender community specifically and the lgbt community generally I would have dressed nicer. I don’t think I can pull off the femboy look as well as i used to but I would have at least tried.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...