The trans debate

[Dunners]

Personally I couldn't care less other than increasingly corporations are using this as a way to earn their social justice credits, whilst shafting their workers over pay and conditions.

[PutneyO]

I think I should join this debate as Ive been referred to as an "old woman" on numerous occasions

[Currywurst and Chips]

Overturning of Roe Vs Wade is a "Matter of life and death for our LGBTQ cousins".

[CEB]

Remember waaaaay back when someone referring on here to “queer swans” would be ridiculed for their homophobia?

[Dunners]

It would appear that Macy Gray, from the early 2000s, is also not being kind.

[CEB]

India Willoughby reckons Macy Gray is an actual fascist
Yet more evidence that MB Gold’s “WUM” was simply a tiresome recital of actual trans activist tactics. Willoughby is thick as mince though, so I wonder what Maxxxyyyyys excuse is?

[Long slender neck]

[Dunners]

"... we do not agree with the insensitive and transphobic statement she made."

What did she say?

[CEB]

"... we do not agree with the insensitive and transphobic statement she made."

What did she say?

She tried to say that guys have a cock
Said it sways in front of their bum/balls
And though they try to hide it, it’s clear
Their Adam’s apple sticks out from their neck beards

[CEB]

It turns out that you *cant* sack a woman for believing that sex is real and matters. Who would’ve thought it?


This is the case, by the way, that led to JK Rowling tweeting in support of Maya Forstater, getting rape and death threats as a result, then writing her essay about why she was speaking out against trans activism/ideology. Turns out that she was right….

[tuffers#1]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-62059341

July 4th killer escaped dressed as a woman

Does this mean manhunt is the wrong term used by law enforcement ?

[PutneyO]

I'm surprised that Anthem of Hope hasn't contributed to this debate, her opinion would be invaluable.

[CEB]

In response to the thread above about Telford - Mick McQuaid - I believe trans activism to be regressive, and dangerous in a different way, from the discussion about Telford, but a similarity is that right now, those on the left who initially went along with trans rights activists, aren’t listening to and can’t countenance listening to objections. Not suggesting we do so right now, but how about an open, good faith discussion here where we avoid the ad hominems, assume good faith and actually discuss the substantive issues? No rush to reply or get the last word in or escalate or ridicule - can reply whenever we have a chance to do so. Respectful discussion about an issue that the right will score open goals with if the left don’t work out what to do with it. How about it?

[Mick McQuaid]

To be honest I don't think there is anything either of us could say that is going to change the others mind. Although you might think this is a must dash excuse I'm down with covid at the moment which gives me rare time to post on here but even less brain power than usual to construct an argument, especially across two threads.

[CEB]

To be honest I don't think there is anything either of us could say that is going to change the others mind. Although you might think this is a must dash excuse I'm down with covid at the moment which gives me rare time to post on here but even less brain power than usual to construct an argument, especially across two threads.

Willing to accept that it’s not a “must dash”, but the “there’s nothing you could say that could change my mind” is a total cop out, and is why I think the left’s general attitude on this stinks; I know what it would take to change my mind: substantive answers to some straightforward questions that address the impact of overwriting the concept of sex with that of gender identity. If your mind isn’t subject to change… well that kind of proves my point that you’re working backwards from a conclusion - trans women are women and to question that is unacceptable - and is exactly why the right are starting to capitalise on your unwillingness to scrutinise your own beliefs here, just as happened with the grooming gangs.

Disappointing response, but at least you’re honest that it’s actually you with an entrenched view that isn’t open for discussion and that you’ve closed off the possibility that you’re wrong.

[CEB]

Relevant tweet thread, which I think directly ties into discussion on this *and* the Telford thread.

[Mistadobalina]

For what it's worth, think there's a chance that the right might score a massive own goal with this subject, at least in the UK. The Tory leadership campaign is fixating on what is a very fringe issue in a way that Labour have never done, at a time where basic questions around people having enough money to live aren't being answered. The right accuse the left of being obsessed with identity issues, and yet I'd say the subject of trans identity much more of a preoccupation amongst the mainstream right than it is the mainstream left (once you get offline and off the Twitter sphere).

[CEB]

For what it's worth, think there's a chance that the right might score a massive own goal with this subject, at least in the UK. The Tory leadership campaign is fixating on what is a very fringe issue in a way that Labour have never done, at a time where basic questions around people having enough money to live aren't being answered. The right accuse the left of being obsessed with identity issues, and yet I'd say the subject of trans identity much more of a preoccupation amongst the mainstream right than it is the mainstream left (once you get offline and off the Twitter sphere).

The problem with that analysis is that the leadership campaign’s focus on it is based on the candidates attempting to take a position that comes over as sane enough to fly with the electorate, not to bore the electorate with a subject it isn’t interested in.
Again - look at the tweet above. It’s the left *introducing* identity issues, and the right given the opportunity to *ridicule* the left, while also taking the opportunity to distract from the issue at hand - abortion rights.

The Tories don’t need to fixate on the issue - they can fight their election campaign on their usual footing. What they can do is ridicule Labour’s position on this. Expect to see plenty of “can you trust a person who doesn’t know what a woman is to do right by women?” takes when they have a chance to have a potshot at one of the less bright Labour MPs.

The only reason the right care about identity politics is because they’ve identified it correctly as a weak spot in the left. Which is, again, why it’s an issue that the left should be thrashing out by itself.

And is, again, why I keep maintaining that it’s the trans extremists that are the mainstream trans activism. That’s why in the clip above, the woman speaking can’t say something as obvious as “Look, if we’re talking about sex, *of course* men can’t get pregnant. Everyone who can get pregnant is female. When we refer to trans men as men, we’re using the word to mean something different from sex. It’s important that we delineate where sex matters, and where gender identity matters so we can move on and defend the rights of female people, how ever the identify”. But mainstream trans activism means the left *cant* say that, because it maintains that gender identity is the only criteria for whether someone is a man or woman, with our actual sex being irrelevant.

It’s literally reality denial, and no, I don’t think the right are vulnerable when pointing out that the left are demonstrably denying reality.

Which people who voted Tory in the last election would be unlikely to do so if the Tories, among other policies, maintain that sex exists and so trans woman shouldn’t be considered female in all circumstances? I can’t see it.

[CEB]

The other thing about social media is that I think the fact that the Very Online left often coalesces around positions to take based on what mainstream left leaning outlets/columnists say means that support on the left for various issues can seem bigger than it is. Step back from those actively engaged in discussing politics, and I think there’s a whole lot of potential Labour voters, particularly women, who get a bit more alarmed every time they hear a Labour MP say something crazy about trans activism

[CEB]

Would be very interested in an analysis on how the right pointing at this as Not A Good Idea might backfire on them…
The only possible answer I can come up with is if we assume that nobody gives a toss about women?

[Mistadobalina]

For what it's worth, think there's a chance that the right might score a massive own goal with this subject, at least in the UK. The Tory leadership campaign is fixating on what is a very fringe issue in a way that Labour have never done, at a time where basic questions around people having enough money to live aren't being answered. The right accuse the left of being obsessed with identity issues, and yet I'd say the subject of trans identity much more of a preoccupation amongst the mainstream right than it is the mainstream left (once you get offline and off the Twitter sphere).

The problem with that analysis is that the leadership campaign’s focus on it is based on the candidates attempting to take a position that comes over as sane enough to fly with the electorate, not to bore the electorate with a subject it isn’t interested in.
Again - look at the tweet above. It’s the left *introducing* identity issues, and the right given the opportunity to *ridicule* the left, while also taking the opportunity to distract from the issue at hand - abortion rights.

The Tories don’t need to fixate on the issue - they can fight their election campaign on their usual footing. What they can do is ridicule Labour’s position on this. Expect to see plenty of “can you trust a person who doesn’t know what a woman is to do right by women?” takes when they have a chance to have a potshot at one of the less bright Labour MPs.

The only reason the right care about identity politics is because they’ve identified it correctly as a weak spot in the left. Which is, again, why it’s an issue that the left should be thrashing out by itself.

And is, again, why I keep maintaining that it’s the trans extremists that are the mainstream trans activism. That’s why in the clip above, the woman speaking can’t say something as obvious as “Look, if we’re talking about sex, *of course* men can’t get pregnant. Everyone who can get pregnant is female. When we refer to trans men as men, we’re using the word to mean something different from sex. It’s important that we delineate where sex matters, and where gender identity matters so we can move on and defend the rights of female people, how ever the identify”. But mainstream trans activism means the left *cant* say that, because it maintains that gender identity is the only criteria for whether someone is a man or woman, with our actual sex being irrelevant.

It’s literally reality denial, and no, I don’t think the right are vulnerable when pointing out that the left are demonstrably denying reality.

Which people who voted Tory in the last election would be unlikely to do so if the Tories, among other policies, maintain that sex exists and so trans woman shouldn’t be considered female in all circumstances? I can’t see it.

You are misunderstanding my point. I think there are plenty of people who will not vote Tory if they obsessing on a subject that has almost zero impact on their day to day lives at a time where food and energy bills are unsustainably expensive.

As far as I'm aware, labour aren't proposing anything different to current government policy on trans and gender rights, and it's not a subject they are campaigning on. Yes, they might bungle the occasional gotcha question on it, but it's just not a subject that I think animates that many people outside of a very online bubble, which has a massive Venn diagram with journos.

Maybe I'm wrong. But to use your tweet as an illustrative example, my guess is at the next election, the absolute dump that is the public realm due to sustained cuts and low growth over the last 12 years is going to be more of a concern than the actions of a single lefty council (and with which I disagree with them btw).

[CEB]

I’m not misunderstanding, but you’re wrong. The Tories are not obsessing on a subject - they are zeroing in opportunistically on an area where Labour is demonstrably vulnerable.
You say you think there are plenty of people, but who? Which section of people who voted Tory in the next election will not do so on the basis of the Tory stance on trans rights?

What I think you’re missing is that a potential Tory voter asking themself “why are the Tories focusing on trans rights issues?” can quite quickly be answered, either on the doorstep or in the papers they read or the media they consume, with “because Labour want to bring in some crazy policies including letting males into rape crisis centres, telling your daughters that if she’s not feminine she might actually be a boy, and prescribing puberty blockers if your kid doesn’t match stereotypes for their sex”
And those claims are not scaremongering - they’re all there in stonewall’s website, to which Labour is an enthusiastic supporter.



What I agree with you on is that their economic policy and their attitude to people who are less well off is an area where the Tories are vulnerable. But that’s part of my point. It’s not that if the Tories don’t focus on this, they’ll be free to make their economic policies seem more palatable. It’s that being able to paint the opposition as in thrall to batshit crazy extremists will do a lot of work to make their economic policy less of an issue.

And what you are misunderstanding is that many Labour MPs - and Starmer himself is currently equivocating on this - are open about the fact that they support reforms to the gender recognition act, and want to introduce self ID, under which there is no requirement for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and no criteria whatsoever before a male person can legally access female spaces on the basis that he knows himself to be a woman. This isn’t “one lefty council”, this is something that many within Labour want to
A: bring into law
B: not countenance any dissent
C: not discuss openly

[Rich Tea Wellin]

Bleats about the need for conversation and being open to debate on topics and follows it up with, “I’m not misunderstanding, but you’re wrong.” To a well balanced response. That openness really promotes people wanting to bother giving “substantive answers”.
Lots of words, very little content. Still, amusing to see them disappearing down the black hole of the high brow public forum that is an Orient message board, and an unofficial one, at that.

Off to the match now.

[CEB]

Bleats about the need for conversation and being open to debate on topics and follows it up with, “I’m not misunderstanding, but you’re wrong.” To a well balanced response. That openness really promotes people wanting to bother giving “substantive answers”.
Lots of words, very little content. Still, amusing to see them disappearing down the black hole of the high brow public forum that is an Orient message board, and an unofficial one, at that.

Off to the match now.

Note that after I asserted that he was wrong, I outlined why I believe him to be wrong, elaborating on my understanding of the conversation.

I see that you’re implying that if only I’d gone about the conversation the right way, I’d be getting those elusive substantive answers. I put it to you that you absolutely don’t have answers to them.

Well done on finishing with the discourse classic of “lol, your very point is undermined by the fact you made it HERE, a place on which I would never argue a point*”

*exceptions apply

I guess it’s probably easier for you to post on this thread about “bleating” than it would be for you to elaborate on your pathetic attempt to be like “you’re saying paedos are like trans people - bit odd!” on the other one…

[Long slender neck]

Bleats about the need for conversation and being open to debate on topics and follows it up with, “I’m not misunderstanding, but you’re wrong.” To a well balanced response. That openness really promotes people wanting to bother giving “substantive answers”.
Lots of words, very little content. Still, amusing to see them disappearing down the black hole of the high brow public forum that is an Orient message board, and an unofficial one, at that.

Off to the match now.

The level of debate was so much better 20 years ago when the forum was official wasnt it?