[The Gender Debate]

19 minutes ago, andyg83 said:

But you agree with the poster that they are not actually women?

Of course i don't. They're women. The certificate of authenticity makes them legit.

[The Gender Debate]

7 minutes ago, Mr Waldo said:

This 'debate' is only starting and will only finish when, as a society, we can agree on how trans gender people can become fully accepted and fully productive members of that society.

I agree, and often express the same sentiment towards FC Dundee fans.

Not prejudiced though. I treat them almost exactly the same as real people.

[The Gender Debate]

12 minutes ago, f_c_dundee said:

Nonsense.  I cba going back through all my posts, but 0% have mentioned the ick factor ffs.

 

You have either made that up in your own head, or are, again talking about something someone that's not on this forum has said.  The extrapolated it to assume everyone believes it if they disagree .

 

Utter, Utter, bobbins.

 

Feel free to elaborate on how the debate was lost years ago though, that would be interesting.

The debate over transgender rights was lost when legislation was passed in 2014. The GRR bill also passed.

Both those debates had input from the so-called gender critical crowd prior to passing. All their arguments ended in the same place; a belief in fixed gender roles based on personal prejudice. The ick factor. They don't have a rational basis for their beliefs. The medical science supports the legislation that transgender people can, and do exist. So they have been granted rights. Its been that way for nearly a decade.

You have posted wild-eyed stories intended to shock, outright lies, fictions and extreme hypebole in an attempt to elicit a negative reaction from the reader, and direct it towards transgender people. It is not intended to provoke informed debate because you are misinforming people from the get go.

There is another strand to this; I am very aware that the Conservative administration in Westminster is deeply unpopular and are attempting to divert the anger directed at them towards minorities; immigrants and trangender people being targeted specifically.

So when i see some diddy from Dundee repeating culture war talking points i find myself dismayed that you are doing the tories dirty work.

[The Gender Debate]

7 minutes ago, DiscoStu said:

I didn't say they were.

Nice attempt at deflection though

 

No better than yours. At least i didn't got to all the trouble of creating an sockpuppet to support my bullshit.

[The Gender Debate]

2 hours ago, f_c_dundee said:

Yes it is a core belief. 

 

They still exist quite obviously, but cannot expect the entire world to consider them as the opposite sex any time they want for any purpose. Not without consequences which cannot be hand waved away. 

 

That's it. 

That's not a demand they are making. The reason your side of the argument is unable to gain any purchase in debates anywhere in the UK is because you cannot give a good reason other than the fact you dislike the idea of trangrender people in general. The ick factor.

The Roman Catholic Church shares your opinion, but go further in the belief of a fixed gender extending to the correction of sexuality.

They lost this fight too.

What's crazy is that this debate was lost years ago, and the recent GRR legislation only served to show how utterly bonkers the opposition was.

[The Gender Debate]

20 minutes ago, DiscoStu said:

No one's saying they shouldn't exist.

We're just saying they're not actually women.

Well that is incorrect. Plenty of people are saying they should not exist we've mentioned one group already who are famous for they 1930s nostalgia and arm exercises. The Russian Federation they enforce the non-existence of trans people entirely.

 

[The Gender Debate]

3 hours ago, f_c_dundee said:

 

What's gender essentialism, exactly?

 

Language being 'degraded' is a bit of a dramatic way of putting it. It's not about some kind of philosophical purity of the language though. 

 

We need a word for women that doesn't include some men and the same for men. We need to be able to exclude men (or women) in some situations for reasons of risk or for privacy and dignity when undressed or otherwise vulnerable. 

 

Also to avoid gathering incorrect data - for things like the census, but also for recording crimes, health statistics. 

 

No one wishes to stop any individual from expressing themselves how they wish - the exception perhaps being men who dress e.g. in miniscule dresses at work which would not be accepted without batting an eyelid if worn by a woman.

 

I do not personally wish to conform to the gendered expectations placed on my sex by some sections of society. I feel exceptionally uncomfortable in a dress and like an idiot in make up. I am 0% interested in fashion or fancy nails, I like what I like and if it coincides with fashion it's a fluke, like combat trousers in the 90s .  No one at all GC is saying people can't express themselves how they want and do whatever job or sport they choose. 

 

They just can't be the opposite sex. They can be treated as such out of politeness at times, but this doesn't extend to a right to be recognised as their desired sex absolutely anywhere, because this affects others rights to things like single sex services and competitive sport.

 

Yes even park run. Even grass roots football. What % of us are going to be elite sports people? No that many. So having your weekly crack at the park run record for your age group placed out of reach for a male to feel included, is just as crap as the fact that males can set records that will be nigh on impossible to beat in women's sport. 

 

It's not about shitting on anyone, just that the realities must be considered and that's not bigotry.

 

It's not the same as homophobia, because giving the right to same sex marriage and protection from discrimination affected no one else apart from those in the relationship. As mentioned above- yes, people who are already homophobic and probably many other varieties of arsehole are happy to leap in and be genuinely derogatory. In the UK trans people are already protected from discrimination under a protected characteristic, I know this isn't the case everywhere. 

 

It's hard to focus on one aspect when the effects are very wide ranging. 

 

I've already had a week off for "abusive behaviour". 

 

You were the one complaining of the lack of proper discussion. I invited you to focus on one aspect where you can identify an issue caused by the equalities act being implemented.

If you are unable to do that then it is you who is failing to engage in proper discussion.

Quote

They just can't be the opposite sex.

This, to me, appears to be your core belief.

You are entitled to your beliefs, but they do not override the rights of transgender people to exist.

[The Gender Debate]

1 hour ago, f_c_dundee said:

Posie isn't anyone's leader, she's done a good job making a noise to get more discussion started, I'll give her that.  I also probably disagree with some stuff she thinks. There are a whole bunch of people from many walks of life who would like to go back to when we could say things like "sex is important in many situations" without being called bigots and maybe have proper discussions. Like how words have meanings, and the impact of that fact on safeguarding children and vulnerable adults, data collection, prison and hospital policy etc etc.

The idea that language is being degraded is bullshit, that you are in any way safeguarding anyone by shitting on transgender people is a fiction and the idea that you are being called a bigot for saying "sex is important in many situations" is patently false.

Posie Parker is not stimulating discussion. She' s preaching a gender essentialism that is bigoted. Being endorsed by Nazis only lends credence to this observation.

Nor are you being denied a 'proper discussion'.

It might help if you were to focus on one particular aspect that you feel requires changing in the equalities legislation.

[The Gender Debate]

9 minutes ago, strichener said:

And?  If they turned up to support your football team would that stop you from supporting them?  Even if they weren't invited?

Yes. Especially if it turned my football team's management were making speeches advocating the removal of transgender rights and were non-plussed by a bunch of Nazis standing nearby seig heiling their every word.

I would be very concerned about that.

Sadly politics is not an intellectually pure exercise and you can absolutely judge a person by the support they garner.

If the Indy movement was getting vocal Nazi support it would be judged seven ways from Sunday and be constantly re-reminded of that fact. The problem is that anyone trying to ignore the Nazi support for Posie Parker is that you have yet to address why they were there. They are the ones saying they support her and they are they ones approving of her stance of removing transgender as a protected characteristic.

Do you really think they have good reasons for this?

[The Gender Debate]

21 minutes ago, strichener said:

And used it to try and taint an entirely separate group of people by association.  An association that doesn't actually exist.

The association exists because the fuckers turned up to support a self-identifying leader of the Gender Critical movement. 

 

[The Gender Debate]

15 minutes ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said:

A stance should be judged on it's own merits, and not who supports it.

Some nazis supporting gender criticality has absolutely no bearing on gender criticality itself.

To suggest it does makes no sense whatsoever.

The name of the fallacy in question is argumentum ad Hitlerum.

[The Gender Debate]

39 minutes ago, virginton said:

Trying to portray the gender-critical lobby as a whole as Nazi is not appropriate or proportionate discussion. It is simply envoking 'Nazi!' like a trump card to shut down debate, which is indeed an application of Godwin's Law in its natural habitat of crap online debates that one side is desperate to win. 

No-one has tried to portray the gender-critical lobby as a whole, as Nazi mate.

We called the Nazis that were throwing Nazi salutes Nazis.

 

[The Gender Debate]

Posie Parker seems to be pretty extreme. Gender Policing? That is not a well-thought out idea at all.

[The Gender Debate]

21 minutes ago, virginton said:

Oh great, I see this binfire of a thread has naturally descended from 'citing non-entities as leading authorities because I agree with them' to 'invoking Godwin's Law on a loop'.

I think your misunderstanding what Godwin's law is describing.

There are appropriate places for discussion of Nazis. WW2 forums, History forums, Politics forums.

Hypothetically; if a bunch of Nazis turned up to support a Lib Dem conference, it would be weird to have someone criticise mention of that fact by citing Godwin's Law.

[The Gender Debate]

1 hour ago, Theroadlesstravelled said:

What the f**k is this shite?

Idiom.

Odd thing to object to.

I thought you were going away from this thread?

[The Gender Debate]

It's a bit difficult to 'both sides' an issue like this when the Nazis are firmly on one side.

Trans supporting events are also open to all, and yet you have no examples of Nazis rocking up in support.

You do get a few objecting though. They usually stand near the GC lot.

Fascist adjacent.

[The Gender Debate]

3 hours ago, f_c_dundee said:

Not seen many "GC" protesters ever turning up masked like they're scared to be identified though.

 

No one invited the Nazis. I don't think you even believe that - it's just a convenient diversion. Same as no one invites dubious Antifa types to come and get involved, but they have turned up on "the other side" anyway, especially in the US.

 

The whole point of the Let Women Speak events is that anyone can rock up, there's no control over that. It was also the police in Australia, if I recall correctly, that were seen allowing the Nazi salute dudes up onto the steps...

 

There's no way that "arm trans kids" sign would be taken as tongue in cheek in the other direction either, when expressing an opposing view is "violence". 

 

I seem to remember "decapitate terfs" was another delightful message a while back, unfortunately captured behind a photo of MSPs for posterity.  With a bit of tongue in cheek guillotine art work - nice. 

 

 

 

 

lol, that's a lot of verbiage to distract from the fact that you did not need to invite the Nazis.

They heard what Posie has been saying and approve entirely of their own accord. They turned up to support the rhetoric, they like what is being said, and are totally down to clown when it comes to targeting minorities purely on the basis of identity.

It's kindof their whole thing.

[The Gender Debate]

36 minutes ago, Mr Waldo said:

It looks like some people made their mind up, the when things get pointed out, they bend and change the rules/evidence to suit.

In the meantime, here is a possible solution suggested at some demo yesterday. Is it possible that some people on both sides have extreme views?.

Looks more tongue-in-cheek to me, i think the clue is the Howitzer within the Wendy house and it being a UK demo. I doubt there is any serious demand to make the MoD release its artillery for personal protection.

Is that the most extreme example you could find?

Because when it comes to extremists attending anti-trans events we have actual Nazis.

 

[The Gender Debate]

34 minutes ago, f_c_dundee said:

The fact that all you will do about JKR or Posie Parker is talk about how they were seen near a bad guy, speaks volumes.

 

Where is your discussion about what's been said?

 

The libellous statement in the article is ok with you? 

 

"the claim he published in iNews that a Let Women Speak event in Australia 'staged a mass Nazi salute'. This is a lie so brazen, so easily disprovable and so libellous, I'm amazed it was allowed into print by a supposedly reputable news source."

 

 

 

Her speech has been criticised plenty.

What made this speech different was the enthusiastic cries of "Seig Heil" that followed her every pronouncement.

I think it is generally a sign that you are doing badly in life when you find yourself having Nazi cheerleaders.

You may disagree.

[The Gender Debate]

5 minutes ago, f_c_dundee said:

Not really conspiratorial, but I'll accept it was a throwaway comment. You'd think that some fker responsible for dictionary maintenance would go "haud on a minute, words have meanings" though.

Nah. Words have meanings and circular definitions are no use.

But the whole "no that actually is a woman (or man)" and I will call you a bigot if you won't accept it, has escalated slightly, no?

Yes, due to the some of the many dumbass stereotypes and gender based restrictions applied to women throughout the years, in order to control them, generally. 

 

The historical women (e.g. Joan of Arc) being retrospectively painted as "maybe trans" are the dumbest of all. Women tried to pass as men because of the restrictions placed upon them, to train as doctors, to fight, to go out and get jobs, to vote etc. 

 

It's not the same thing.

 

 

Gender-bending pokes at the pretension of fixed roles for genders, that's kind of the whole point, and our acceptance of it speaks to the long history of recognising how artificial the boundaries between men and woman are in practice. It's because we use signifiers and shorthand to make a decision on what we are being presented with.

It what allowed Bonnies Prince Charlies to pass in safety.

I expect whoever updated teh OED did inded say that word have meanings. Many meanings for some words. I think the word 'set' has probably one of the most expanded number of meanings in the dictionary, somewhere in the high 30's. A very versatile word that.

I notice you shed not one tear over your own additional meaning being added, no wringing of hands at the adulteration of that word. You have almost no real insight or criticism on traditional gender roles, instead being largely fixated on a perceived wrongness of trangender people in general.

Shouldn't you be called trangender critical instead of gender critical?

To avoid confusion and all.

[The Gender Debate]

17 minutes ago, carpetmonster said:

She might wanna check this bit - 'Actual Nazis have turned up on the fringes of Let Women Speak events' - one of the guys from the National Socialist Network, they who were sieg heiling at Keen's Melbourne rally - reckons they were invited in to Keen's side 'by the organisers'

https://twitter.com/tesshall/status/1663284160377819136

 

It's really hard to maintain the facade of being the "good guys" when the "baddies" turn up and start saluting your speeches. 

[The Gender Debate]

17 minutes ago, f_c_dundee said:

It's really no a good look to pretend that you think posters are just *so stupid* that they are unaware of common things like the fact that new words and phrases are added to dictionaries. Lot of that on this thread.

Man / Woman are not new words though.  They are old words that already had a clearly defined and important meaning, to identify the sex of humans.  Now we have added to the existing dictionary entry, a definition for men/women that includes members of the other group.

Helpful how?

If a definition of woman/man includes the phrase "person who identifies as a woman/man", that is rather circular is it not? 

 

Men + some women who identify as men = men

women + some men who identify as women = women

(War = Peace

Freedom = Slavery

Ignorance = Strength

2 + 2 =5

  )

Because up until 10 or 15 years ago, the concept of gender identity was having very little impact on wider society, confined mostly to affecting those with the condition formerly known as 'gender identity disorder'.  2018 was the year that the consultations pushing for self ID forced women (mostly), to campaign more widely to point out the obvious potential issues.

Feminists being critical of both gender stereotypes and the concept of gender identity superceding sex.

Well, when someone claims that the additional meaning was added due to "the dictionaries caving" i can only deduce that they are unaware of how dictionaries operate. Are you able to provide any evidence for you claim? Or is this more conspiratorial muttering on you part?

Yes, the term is imprecise. Circular even. That's because language is imprecise, general and not a philosophical treatise. Our ideas of what 'man' and 'woman' has changed as our culture has changed.

Gender-bending is nothing new, we've always had stories where man passes as a woman and vice-versa. We've always used that to p***k the norms of society. Shakespeare is an obvious touchstone, and one that becomes all the more interesting when you realise that women where not allowed to act in the theatre so ALL his women where in fact played by men.

[The Gender Debate]

For "the dictionary companies caved" read; they updated themselves, as they are wont to do. Regularly.

New words list March 2022 | Oxford English Dictionary (oed.com)

Its almost as if a dictionary is a descriptive list of words and meanings in common usage and the only thing forcing them to update is people using and accepting the terms.

Oh and from that link i can show you this:

gender critical adj.
(a) critical of traditional beliefs about gender, esp. based on the perspective of gender feminism (gender feminism n.);

(b) critical of the concept of gender identity, or the belief that gender identity outweighs or is more significant than biological sex.

That 2nd definition, only added in 2018.

 

[The Very Meh Humza Yousaf Thread.]

On 26/05/2023 at 09:57, Gringo said:

Maybe it’s time to drop independence, do a deal with the UK government to have an independence vote at a set date (20 years from now) and work constructively to make devolution work for the benefit of us all.

We still don’t know the SNP policy on currency, trade, taxation (except high). They’re a shambles so maybe 20 years will give them time to work out their policies.

That's been the tory mantra at FMQs for over a decade.

However it is the UK government that refuses to work with the Scottish Government. Brexit is a case in point. At every stage the Scottish Government sought to work with the UK and was dismissed, rebuffed and ignored.

The GRR bill is example of how the SNP/Greens work when in government. The SNP/Greens had the numbers to vote it through as a partisan issue, they did not do that and sought buy-in from every other party in the Scottish Legislature. They done this on other bills too.

That's an example of working for benefit of us all.

It's not that they are not willing to deal with the UK gov, it's more that the present UK gov refuses to admit the Scottish Government to have any legitimacy or say in UK policy that affects Scotland  or even Scottish policy at present.

[The Gender Debate]

2 hours ago, f_c_dundee said:

Which examples, out of interest?

I just find it all very incurious.  No engagement with what is being said on a genuine level.

I was talking about the phenomenon of feeling the cognitive dissonance when your strongly held belief is questioned, but you are just shutting it down.  I don't know if that explains it well.

I expect discussions to involve a bit of "no I believe this not that because reasons".  Not just  what feels like "you are bigoted and cannot possibly be saying anything true so I will just reply with random stuff". And then repeat.

It's not that the beliefs are questioned, dismissing others is fairly easy. It is when those beliefs are contradicted by reality.

In the case of the UFO cult. The leader was fond of making prophesies. They began vague enough so her followers provided enough hits to match the predictions. War, unrest that sort of stuff. As it progressed her predictions became more and more specific, more detailed culminating in an exact date, time and place where the UFO was going to arrive a pick every one of the believers. The UFO, obviously, did not arrive. The cult shut itself away for week before announcing that the UFO had arrived 'spiritually' and that they were now free to spread to good news.

Note that the core belief is preserved and the reality (no UFO) is amended.

 

In your case, you have a belief that medical care for trans people is harmful.

In reality the medical profession is based on the principle of "do no harm" and has both the expertise and knowledge to recommend what is and is not harmful. They recommend trans care.

So, to preserve the core belief you amend the reality. You propose an ulterior motive to 'do no harm', and replace it with something else.

money, ideology.. anything to ease tension between the two contradictory positions.