Printable View
It was a question in good faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lester B
Your use of the word "definitely" was what interested me.
The whole issue is so complex, I think most people are uncertain or unclear about many aspects of the topic . "Definitely" is interesting use of language.
I guess it's just your level of conviction. That's okay.
Fair play and apologies for being defensive on the subject. I think you have to honour someone's choice, feelings and core beliefs to support a trans friend. I guess anything short of definitely seems weak to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by LewysGot2
Thanks for such a positive response
I’m not so sure it does. I find a lot of the debate confusing. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Lester B
It’s simple for me, I’ll respect and support the right of anybody to identify as they want. Why would any of us want another human being feel unable to live the life they feel they were meant to live? I think the majority of us feel the same, hence this well intended legislation which really does come from a good place. I think after the fuss has died down we will have this legislation or something very similar in force throughout the whole UK.
The extreme views on either side and the extremely rare situations we see highlighted to make a point ? That’s where I struggle.
There's a lot in that. Salazar in Portugal is an example. He was a fascist who despised Hitler, much of it to do with religion. He also didn't pose around in a uniform. But fascist he wasQuote:
Originally Posted by hibby rae
With reference to your last point, I think there is an inverse relationship between activity on the Holy Ground and activity with Hibs signings!Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Not directly, but a close family member supported a colleague through a physical transition. Clearly this was the right thing for them. I asked the family member how they felt their colleague would have responded to the current debate. They would have found it difficult, but they were also horrified by the aggressive pro trans stuff that passes for debate - the suck my lady **** stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lester B
yeah, this is what every trans person I know feels as well - it's one of these horrible situations where the loudest, most obnoxious people seem to ended up defining the whole debate, and it's difficult for anyone not to react to one of these extremes to some extent.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
i definitely also think that some of the 'pro-trans' stuff has been absolutely misogynistic, and probably used as an excuse by male tossers to vent their spleen at women. this is partly why i find it difficult to nail my colours to any mast - ultimately, i'm a CIS male without any skin in the game. I wish folk like Graham Linehan would butt out an aw though. I really don't think J.K. Rowling has been helpful either tbh - both have them have just been lobbing grenades in every so often, with Rowling occasionally giving some context to her views, which is helpful...but doesn't negate that she's been otherwise rather destructive.
Hibsbollah made the point earlier that it's an issue of clashing rights. Personally I think much of the problem is the vagueness around the definition of what it is to be trans.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
I can see the point about Graham Linehan, but I think that's most unfair to JK RowlingQuote:
Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper
i mean, she wrote an entire book where the villain is a man in a dress. she was maybe trying to make a point about opportunistic male sexual predators, but it really wasn't a very constructive thing to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
i can understand why this seems to be a problem in terms of the debate, but it actually hasn't been in any consequential way. the key issue ought to be safeguarding, and measure seem to be in place, certainly in prisons. there's the whole 'well why was she put in a women's prison in the first place' thing, but without knowing the details, there's probably got to be some default while they carry out the risk assessments, which probably involve a lot of paperwork. i think a default being 'well they're presenting as a woman, so we'll treat them as a woman, but in such a way that doesn't put anyone in harms way, until we've carried out the necessary legal procedures' makes perfect sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
I keep reading stuff the JKR is transphobic, but I've yet to see anything that actually is.Quote:
Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper
And you never will. Because she's not.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
i don't think she actually is, in terms of whether she is actively anti-trans...i'm absolutely sure that she doesn't see herself as that. same goes for linehan, actually. it's to do with how they've contributed to the conversation that's been going on, though. focusing too much on what the definition of 'woman' or 'man' etc. is, and not really on actual evidence of reasons for concern. this recent thing in the media has turned out to be a complete red herring, but they have helped to frame the debate in a way that makes finding common ground much harder. they haven't been as bad as jordan peterson and his ilk, nor have they been as bad as some of the pro-trans people on twitter...but JKR hasn't been constructive at all, IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Too many folk in our mediascape with loud voices trying to call the shots, citing depraved extremes to make a point about a life experience they haven't got a clue about, helping to stoke a stigma that shouldn't exist.
Under the noise, people are dealing with an existential crisis. They deserve better than this.
she has, however, been pretty unconstructive to the debate at several turns. i'm absolutely not blamer her for the abuse she's got, but she's also contributed negatively to a lot of trans peoples' lives throughout this whole debacle, by writing books about murderous dress-wearing men and talking in a way that, at the very least, implied that trans women are not women. given her profile, she's not exactly been careful.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
all the twitter stuff is just ridiculous, i've never had an account myself, but she's liked/followed/retweeted a pretty explicitly, horrifically transphobic person lately - essentially giving a platform to someone who openly hates trans people. whether this is a mistake or not, i don't know, i don't believe that she herself, in her heart of hearts, feel ill thoughts towards people because they have changed their gender - i just think she's got some dodgy views, bad ways of communicating them, and been a bit drunk on her twitter influence.
in short, not a bad person, but probably a harmful person in this context.
Define transphobic. And if she isn’t, who is?Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Is saying trans women aren't women transphobic. That's surely ridiculous. I'd say people who say hateful things to trans people as a group are transphobic. You might disagree withthem but surely people can say there is a biological difference that doesn't disappear with a bit of paperQuote:
Originally Posted by Lester B
Why are you arguing with me about something I haven’t said? Rowling uses her public profile to suggest that trans women are a threat to women. Demonising any minority to marginalise them and deny them rights? That’s a phobia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Superb post. Wish I’d written that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glory Lurker
She hasn't. She has said women deserve there own space from biological males in certain situations. She hasn't said trans are more likely to rape people than men, that would be transphobic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lester B
Excellent and to the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glory Lurker
Have you read her series of public pronouncements on the subject? I have never ever suggested that she has said trans women are more likely to rape than men. An absurd suggestion. Again you appear to be arguing against something I, and no one else as far as I can make out, has said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Yeah agree. I suspect this is going to drag on for some time though now it has become a political battle. In the meantime while Politicans from all parties try to work on solutions to address the valid concerns raised, they should also be speaking directly and publicly to the marginalised trans community to reassure them they will not be forgotten and reinforce the message any predjucice shown from a very small % towards them will be dealt with firmly in the courts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glory Lurker
You have said she's transphobic. From what I've read I've seen zero evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lester B
Shall we start with a full novel where a psychopath dresses as a woman to kill women? That's a dog whistle with bells on franklyQuote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
The defenders say transvestitism hardly features in the book, he puts on a wig to trick a woman into a van but he isn't a trans person. I've not read it but neither has most of the people calling it trans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lester B
Probably stupid given all the furore and hate she gets
On the contrary. Quite smart on her behalf. She can't make the villain a trans women. That's too clumsy. But the suggestion is there and speaks to certain hymn sheet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
She's pretty smart. You don't make billions from peddling third rate Tolkien without some nous
She has never 'demonised' trans people nor has she suggested bona fide trans people are a threat to women. If anything she's supportive of their right to live the life they want.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lester B
Well it was about time the lead apologist showed up.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Need to get some stuff sorted here but as a starter for ten. Define bona fide. And do you know any trans people personally?