Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
Grebfromgrebland

Also In The News

By Grebfromgrebland, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

I don’t see how Rowling could have been any more nuanced? She was respectful enough and then stated consternation at the sacking of a woman for saying that biological sex is real. It’s an important case that’s worried a lot of people. Gervais simply refuses to be dictated to and Linehan’s been ardent about this issue for some time. 
 

I also don’t see how what any of them has said has in any way justified the reprehensible vitriol and actual death threats they’ve received simply for having a different opinion. 

How about "I support trans rights and specifically the right to self-determine, but the way this case has been handled has bad implications for free speech so I think it should have been handled differently"?

 

There - that took me barely five minutes to come up with and Rowling is clearly a far more skilled writer than I am. There's likely many other ways she could have been more nuanced in her approach but rather than that the first two lines heavily imply "do what you want, it's all performative and we'll always know what you really are" rather than actually being supportive or respectful, especially given her past remarks on the topic.

 

Rowling and the others are using the considerable platform they have to denigrate and further marginalise an already massively marginalised community that suffers from discrimination and often outright violence (hell, the "gay panic" defence is still a way to actually get away with murdering a trans person in some parts of the US) and if you think their copping flak for that (though no one deserves death threats) is a bigger problem than what that community has to go through then it's safe to say we have pretty different priorities about which people need helping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
urban.spaceman

urban.spaceman

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, leicsmac said:

How about "I support trans rights and specifically the right to self-determine, but the way this case has been handled has bad implications for free speech so I think it should have been handled differently"?

 

There - that took me barely five minutes to come up with and Rowling is clearly a far more skilled writer than I am. There's likely many other ways she could have been more nuanced in her approach but rather than that the first two lines heavily imply "do what you want, it's all performative and we'll always know what you really are" rather than actually being supportive or respectful, especially given her past remarks on the topic.

 

Rowling and the others are using the considerable platform they have to denigrate and further marginalise an already massively marginalised community that suffers from discrimination and often outright violence (hell, the "gay panic" defence is still a way to actually get away with murdering a trans person in some parts of the US) and if you think their copping flak for that (though no one deserves death threats) is a bigger problem than what that community has to go through then it's safe to say we have pretty different priorities about which people need helping.

Actually you're right - that would have been much better, though I would still say a lot of that could be inferred from the original tweet.

 

Obviously trans people are vulnerable to violence and hatred and I in no way want to imply that the abuse Rowling got is even on a par with that. Of course it's not. My oldest friend is married to a trans man and I absolutely understand and respect what he's been through. 

 

My point is that reactions like this from the activists are not helping their own cause. 

 

To many people what she said was perfectly reasonable regarding sex and while I agree it could have been worded better, doesn't come anywhere near to denigrating or marginalising anyone. The way people were reacting is as she'd actually advocated murder. She's been slandered as a TERF, a bigot, a misogynist, a fascist, a Nazi, a cvnt, and has had death threats. 

 

We can agree or disagree on the severity of what she said while at the same time equally wishing to protect trans people from harm - I hope I've made myself clear on that. She's obviously a very privileged woman who probably won't actually suffer much from the abuse she's got for one tweet.

 

But I still believe that this sort of reaction does more harm to the trans rights movement than good, when a much better, respectful reaction could have won more people over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

Actually you're right - that would have been much better, though I would still say a lot of that could be inferred from the original tweet.

 

Obviously trans people are vulnerable to violence and hatred and I in no way want to imply that the abuse Rowling got is even on a par with that. Of course it's not. My oldest friend is married to a trans man and I absolutely understand and respect what he's been through. 

 

My point is that reactions like this from the activists are not helping their own cause. 

 

To many people what she said was perfectly reasonable regarding sex and while I agree it could have been worded better, doesn't come anywhere near to denigrating or marginalising anyone. The way people were reacting is as she'd actually advocated murder. She's been slandered as a TERF, a bigot, a misogynist, a fascist, a Nazi, a cvnt, and has had death threats. 

 

We can agree or disagree on the severity of what she said while at the same time equally wishing to protect trans people from harm - I hope I've made myself clear on that. She's obviously a very privileged woman who probably won't actually suffer much from the abuse she's got for one tweet.

 

But I still believe that this sort of reaction does more harm to the trans rights movement than good, when a much better, respectful reaction could have won more people over.

Those are all fair points, especially the last sentence - it's why I roll my eyes and get really annoyed when folks like XR do something drastic in the name of protecting the environment - it's pretty simple that in a democracy, for real, tangible change, you need a plurality of people onside, and that isn't really the way to do it.

 

Personally I think JK's posting history also kinda counts against her on this one because she's said some at least questionable stuff about trans folks in the past and that could well be what has made people take the inferences here and run with them.

 

It's just a mess and the ones that will end up suffering the most from it are of course the most marginalised ones that are the trans folks themselves, and that's a real shame.

 

 

9 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

Definitely belong in the absolute cvnts thread. Kinell, what is wrong with people?!

White supremacy and male supremacy (in that order) and applied by people with some power, sadly.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LiberalFox

LiberalFox

Posted
Posted

Does anyone think that it should be a protected belief under the equality act that transwomen are men and transmen are women?

 

If I'm an employer and I've got trans people working for me and there is a person refusing to use their legal gender is it correct that you think it should be illegal to take any form of disciplinary action against them for that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Countryfox

Countryfox

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

Does anyone think that it should be a protected belief under the equality act that transwomen are men and transmen are women?

 

If I'm an employer and I've got trans people working for me and there is a person refusing to use their legal gender is it correct that you think it should be illegal to take any form of disciplinary action against them for that?

 

The other day I refused a pint (my third) as I had to get back home cus dinner was on the table ...  the person who was offering to buy it called me a big girls blouse.   Fair enough a big mans blouse maybe but girls blouse  ..   I think not !!    The landlord immediately showed him a red cad and banned him on the spot ....   I’m still not entirely happy about this though and am considering getting the police involved. 
 

What may have been acceptable a few years ago is definitely not now.

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LiberalFox

LiberalFox

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Countryfox said:

 

The other day I refused a pint (my third) as I had to get back home cus dinner was on the table ...  the person who was offering to buy it called me a big girls blouse.   Fair enough a big mans blouse maybe but girls blouse  ..   I think not !!    The landlord immediately showed him a red cad and banned him on the spot ....   I’m still not entirely happy about this though and am considering getting the police involved. 
 

What may have been acceptable a few years ago is definitely not now.

Did that actually happen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
urban.spaceman

urban.spaceman

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Those are all fair points, especially the last sentence - it's why I roll my eyes and get really annoyed when folks like XR do something drastic in the name of protecting the environment - it's pretty simple that in a democracy, for real, tangible change, you need a plurality of people onside, and that isn't really the way to do it.

 

Personally I think JK's posting history also kinda counts against her on this one because she's said some at least questionable stuff about trans folks in the past and that could well be what has made people take the inferences here and run with them.

 

It's just a mess and the ones that will end up suffering the most from it are of course the most marginalised ones that are the trans folks themselves, and that's a real shame.

100% with you on XR. That sort of hysteria feeds right into the skeptics playbook and even alienates people on the same bloody side. It's the same thing with the Corbynistas on social media; if you aren't 100% with me you're my enemy. **** your nuance and go join the alt right. It's 80% of why Labour lost right there IMO (tho different argument for a different time). 

 

The activists are now targeting and trying to silence an actual trans woman for having her own opinion:

Like I said above - they're hurting the cause themselves and the main victims of that is the already marginalised trans people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LiberalFox

LiberalFox

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

100% with you on XR. That sort of hysteria feeds right into the skeptics playbook and even alienates people on the same bloody side. It's the same thing with the Corbynistas on social media; if you aren't 100% with me you're my enemy. **** your nuance and go join the alt right. It's 80% of why Labour lost right there IMO (tho different argument for a different time). 

 

The activists are now targeting and trying to silence an actual trans woman for having her own opinion:

Like I said above - they're hurting the cause themselves and the main victims of that is the already marginalised trans people. 

The Times is especially bad on this issue. Debbie Hayton is entitled to her opinion but is hardly representative of the trans community. If they want to actually further the debate then they should empower people to give a range of opinions. Instead they seem to have picked a side and are doing everything to misrepresent the opposing viewpoint. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

100% with you on XR. That sort of hysteria feeds right into the skeptics playbook and even alienates people on the same bloody side. It's the same thing with the Corbynistas on social media; if you aren't 100% with me you're my enemy. **** your nuance and go join the alt right. It's 80% of why Labour lost right there IMO (tho different argument for a different time). 

 

The activists are now targeting and trying to silence an actual trans woman for having her own opinion:

Like I said above - they're hurting the cause themselves and the main victims of that is the already marginalised trans people. 

I have to agree with LF on this one - the Times have taken an unrepresentative outlying case and ran with it here and this does nothing to help the trans community either.

 

The way I see it, at a base level a persons right to self-determine is paramount, especially given the advancement of scientific literature that postulates that both gender and now sex are much more fluid than we first realised anyway (not the simplistic GCSE-level XX/XY chromosomal binary stuff that so many people seem to hold up as the last scientific word). If someone wants to give an opinion about someone's determination that runs counter to it, they're of course welcome to do so - but free speech also includes a right to respond to those remarks (for instance citing scientific inaccuracy), and if those remarks then manifest themselves in the denial of workplace or other rights (something that can and does happen), to cite discrimination.

 

And, from what I can tell, most peoples issues aren't with trans folks and their rights anyway - it's with the idea of cisgendered (cis is Latin, opposite of trans for anyone interested) blokes (usually) abusing those rights either for their own jollies or to discredit the trans community ("the whole predator in the bathroom" thing), so perhaps instead of marginalising the aforementioned community by restricting those rights through "bathroom bills" and the like, they should be focusing on the ones actually causing the problem?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jon the Hat

Jon the Hat

Posted
Posted

I’m pretty sure the trans community is a broad group of people with all kinds of different ideas, just like every other community.


I saw a great chart that showed the nonsense of denying male and female genders exist. Such a tiny fraction of people don’t fit in those buckets.  Those people deserve respect and frankly can call themselves what they like, but they can’t say sex doesn’t exist.  
Meanwhile I remain concerned that anyone who self identified as a woman should be allowed in women only facilities; not fair to a much larger proportion of the population.  How can it be fair to give rights to one small group by removing the rights of a much merger group?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LiberalFox

LiberalFox

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

I’m pretty sure the trans community is a broad group of people with all kinds of different ideas, just like every other community.


I saw a great chart that showed the nonsense of denying male and female genders exist. Such a tiny fraction of people don’t fit in those buckets.  Those people deserve respect and frankly can call themselves what they like, but they can’t say sex doesn’t exist.  
Meanwhile I remain concerned that anyone who self identified as a woman should be allowed in women only facilities; not fair to a much larger proportion of the population.  How can it be fair to give rights to one small group by removing the rights of a much merger group?

That's not happening and nobody is saying it should. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

I’m pretty sure the trans community is a broad group of people with all kinds of different ideas, just like every other community.


I saw a great chart that showed the nonsense of denying male and female genders exist. Such a tiny fraction of people don’t fit in those buckets.  Those people deserve respect and frankly can call themselves what they like, but they can’t say sex doesn’t exist.  
Meanwhile I remain concerned that anyone who self identified as a woman should be allowed in women only facilities; not fair to a much larger proportion of the population.  How can it be fair to give rights to one small group by removing the rights of a much merger group?

As I said to Matt, take a look at some of the latest biological sciences journals on that matter for more on how it's much more complex than simple designations.

 

As for the last paragraph:

 

9 hours ago, leicsmac said:

 

And, from what I can tell, most peoples issues aren't with trans folks and their rights anyway - it's with the idea of cisgendered (cis is Latin, opposite of trans for anyone interested) blokes (usually) abusing those rights either for their own jollies or to discredit the trans community ("the whole predator in the bathroom" thing), so perhaps instead of marginalising the aforementioned community by restricting those rights through "bathroom bills" and the like, they should be focusing on the ones actually causing the problem?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Strokes

Strokes

Posted
Posted

I don’t know any trans folk so I find it hard to see from their perspective, I’m certainly not anti them having rights or the right to self identify. My only thought on it, is if women feel threatened due to past abuse from ‘men’, do we not also need to consider their rights to feel safe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I don’t know any trans folk so I find it hard to see from their perspective, I’m certainly not anti them having rights or the right to self identify. My only thought on it, is if women feel threatened due to past abuse from ‘men’, do we not also need to consider their rights to feel safe.

It's a totally fair question in the second sentence and of course it should be considered, but the problem is that most people considering this problem are going after completely the wrong target or making rather daft assumptions that trans folks are almost all engaged in some kind of perverse performative stunt to gain access to womens spaces (or both).

 

NB. I'm chiming in on this topic so much because I do happen to know quite a few trans folk and as such happen to know a fair bit of the discrimination and sometimes outright hatred that gets thrown at them for simply existing in that way - in terms of both number of occurrences and actual level of abuse it tends to be more severe and result in more marginalisation than any other demographic in the UK (and largely out in the wider world too) at the present time. It is, for lack of a better term, one of the last few "fashionable" prejudices that many people hold against an inherent human quality.

Edited by leicsmac
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LiberalFox

LiberalFox

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Strokes said:

I don’t know any trans folk so I find it hard to see from their perspective, I’m certainly not anti them having rights or the right to self identify. My only thought on it, is if women feel threatened due to past abuse from ‘men’, do we not also need to consider their rights to feel safe.

Yes we do and that's why there are exemptions in the equality act that allow for the provision of same sex services and same sex spaces. These are judged on a case by case base and can exclude trans people with or without legal recognition of their trans gender. 

 

The proposed changes are to the Gender Recognition Act. Currently if a transgender person wants full legal recognition of their transitioned gender they have to provide proof of having lived as that gender for 2 years and have a medical diagnosis of "Gender dysphoria". They then pay a fee and a panel of 5 anonymous bureaucrats decide if they qualify for a Gender Recognition Certificate. This makes them legally recognised as the gender they identify with. It has no direct interaction with the equality act. People who are transgender are protected by the equality act regardless of whether they possess a GRC. It doesn't affect the exemptions for gender identity under the equality act either.

 

The original Gender Recognition Act came into being in 2004 and at the time was an advancement for trans rights as it allowed people to get full legal recognition of their gender identity. Now after a number of years that legislation could be improved upon. Only a small proportion of trans people have used the service despite a large majority saying it is something they would like. In addition there is a body of people who don't feel they have a gender identity that is either "male" or "female".

 

It's proposed therefore that the Gender Recognition Act is reformed so that trans gender people can apply for a GRC

 

-without needing a medical diagnosis 

-without the requirement to prove they have lived for 2 years in the acquired gender

-at a reduced cost 

 

Instead of having to convince a panel of bureaucrats the trans person would make an application and sign a declaration that they intend to live in the acquired gender for the rest of their lives. Essentially the burden of proof would shift from the trans person having to prove their case to the state assuming the application to be in good faith unless shown to be otherwise. This is what is known as "self ID".

 

In addition, official forms of ID would include a "non binary" category, usually abbreviated as "X" (M being male and F being female). Other countries already have this and it has little practical relevance but for those people who identify as non binary it is important to them to not be misgendered in official ID.

 

None of these changes to the GRA would impact the equality act. 

 

 

 

Edited by LiberalFox
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Strokes

Strokes

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

It's a totally fair question in the second sentence and of course it should be considered, but the problem is that most people considering this problem are going after completely the wrong target or making rather daft assumptions that trans folks are almost all engaged in some kind of perverse performative stunt to gain access to womens spaces (or both).

 

NB. I'm chiming in on this topic so much because I do happen to know quite a few trans folk and as such happen to know a fair bit of the discrimination and sometimes outright hatred that gets thrown at them for simply existing in that way - in terms of both number of occurrences and actual level of abuse it tends to be more severe and result in more marginalisation than any other demographic in the UK (and largely out in the wider world too) at the present time. It is, for lack of a better term, one of the last few "fashionable" prejudices that many people hold against an inherent human quality.

Yeah that’s fair enough, it’s quite a sensitive issue. Hence why I’ve stayed mostly silent. 
I have to admit to being quite ignorant on the issue, I certainly wouldn’t question the science you mentioned earlier.

I just think, that feeling safe Is a psychological state and if there are abuse sufferers that genuinely feel threatened by this, we’ve got a real dilemma, because one of the group is going to be upset. :(

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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