The Unofficial and Independent Leyton Orient Message Board
https://lofcforum.com/forum1/phpBB3/
niiiiiiiceRonnie Hotdogs wrote: ↑Fri Sep 17, 2021 8:04 pmSurely a 15 year old is able to make their own mind up?Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Fri Sep 17, 2021 5:19 pm Dont agree with the court decision, they should let puberty go its full course imho.
blokes trying to be a woman.
An important thing to understand is that the underpinning demand isn’t to allow biologically male people to access female spaces: that would be an argument that could be engaged with, where compromise could be found, and where there could be productive discussion about which spaces it is and isn’t appropriate to open to male people who identify as women.Long slender neck wrote: ↑Sun Mar 13, 2022 7:04 pm What are the demands beyond access to female spaces? You never hear about trans people req access to mens spaces.
I'm surprised you haven't taken your usual helicopter view and examined more objectively how this so called "debate" has been framed.CEB wrote: ↑Mon Mar 14, 2022 9:22 amAn important thing to understand is that the underpinning demand isn’t to allow biologically male people to access female spaces: that would be an argument that could be engaged with, where compromise could be found, and where there could be productive discussion about which spaces it is and isn’t appropriate to open to male people who identify as women.Long slender neck wrote: ↑Sun Mar 13, 2022 7:04 pm What are the demands beyond access to female spaces? You never hear about trans people req access to mens spaces.
What the demand actually *is* is that laws, policy and language should change to reflect this idea: we all, every one of us, have an innate sense of ourselves called gender identity that may or may not align with our body. What we’d think of as our sexed bodies therefore are not the basis on which we should organise society, because a person with the gender identity “woman” - which has no criteria applied to it by trans activism, no definition - *is* female, regardless of sex.
That’s why if you take the sport question for example, trans activism isn’t interested in addressing the fairness, because as far as the underpinning ideology goes, trans women belong in women’s sport because they *are* female, with *female* now meaning “person who identifies as a woman”, and so if a trans woman is stronger/faster than women, that’s simply because - “yay, this woman, who is oppressed by society based on her being trans, is EXCELLENT at sport”
There are lots of negative implications here, but one of the biggest is the suggestion that female people who know that they are female people are assumed to be less oppressed by patriarchy, by gender expectations etc, than male people who identify as female.
And that’s before you get into the sexist nonsense that is a male person’s internal idea of what a female sense of identity might consist of
I'm surprised you haven't taken your usual helicopter view and examined more objectively how this so called "debate" has been framedslacker wrote: ↑Mon Mar 14, 2022 9:40 am I’m really not certain what I think about this hot potato topic. I guess I’m still open to being put right on a few points I was unsure of here.
And hi CEB. Nice to have you around again. We’ve really suffered from a lack of Katie Perry drawings of late…
yeah, I’ve spotted the KP thread
The reason the issue is so complex is because, as far as I can see, people with an understandable predisposition towards progressive causes have happily gone along with what seems an obvious next step in society becoming more enlightened - “it’s just like gay rights” - and have kind of assumed that there’s some substantial analysis somewhere, a rationale underpinning trans activism that justifies it. And by the time you’ve gone along with it to some extent, you’re a bit railroaded into not questioning anything else lest you be considered bigoted. I think it’s easy for those who aren’t certain what to think to kind of delegate the thinking to others and see what people we’re aligned with think. That’s what I did to start with, but the absurdities were too much; i like a good argument, but I couldn’t argue in favour of trans rights activism because as I looked for the substance, there was none at all.slacker wrote: ↑Mon Mar 14, 2022 9:40 am I’m really not certain what I think about this hot potato topic. I guess I’m still open to being put right on a few points I was unsure of here.
And hi CEB. Nice to have you around again. We’ve really suffered from a lack of Katie Perry drawings of late…
yeah, I’ve spotted the KP thread
Max B Gold wrote: ↑Mon Mar 14, 2022 10:16 amI'm surprised you haven't taken your usual helicopter view and examined more objectively how this so called "debate" has been framed.
They think law and policy should be based on gender rather than sex?CEB wrote: ↑Mon Mar 14, 2022 9:22 amAn important thing to understand is that the underpinning demand isn’t to allow biologically male people to access female spaces: that would be an argument that could be engaged with, where compromise could be found, and where there could be productive discussion about which spaces it is and isn’t appropriate to open to male people who identify as women.Long slender neck wrote: ↑Sun Mar 13, 2022 7:04 pm What are the demands beyond access to female spaces? You never hear about trans people req access to mens spaces.
What the demand actually *is* is that laws, policy and language should change to reflect this idea: we all, every one of us, have an innate sense of ourselves called gender identity that may or may not align with our body. What we’d think of as our sexed bodies therefore are not the basis on which we should organise society, because a person with the gender identity “woman” - which has no criteria applied to it by trans activism, no definition - *is* female, regardless of sex.
That’s why if you take the sport question for example, trans activism isn’t interested in addressing the fairness, because as far as the underpinning ideology goes, trans women belong in women’s sport because they *are* female, with *female* now meaning “person who identifies as a woman”, and so if a trans woman is stronger/faster than women, that’s simply because - “yay, this woman, who is oppressed by society based on her being trans, is EXCELLENT at sport”
There are lots of negative implications here, but one of the biggest is the suggestion that female people who know that they are female people are assumed to be less oppressed by patriarchy, by gender expectations etc, than male people who identify as female.
And that’s before you get into the sexist nonsense that is a male person’s internal idea of what a female sense of identity might consist of
Based on identity.Long slender neck wrote: ↑Mon Mar 14, 2022 10:33 amThey think law and policy should be based on gender rather than sex?CEB wrote: ↑Mon Mar 14, 2022 9:22 amAn important thing to understand is that the underpinning demand isn’t to allow biologically male people to access female spaces: that would be an argument that could be engaged with, where compromise could be found, and where there could be productive discussion about which spaces it is and isn’t appropriate to open to male people who identify as women.Long slender neck wrote: ↑Sun Mar 13, 2022 7:04 pm What are the demands beyond access to female spaces? You never hear about trans people req access to mens spaces.
What the demand actually *is* is that laws, policy and language should change to reflect this idea: we all, every one of us, have an innate sense of ourselves called gender identity that may or may not align with our body. What we’d think of as our sexed bodies therefore are not the basis on which we should organise society, because a person with the gender identity “woman” - which has no criteria applied to it by trans activism, no definition - *is* female, regardless of sex.
That’s why if you take the sport question for example, trans activism isn’t interested in addressing the fairness, because as far as the underpinning ideology goes, trans women belong in women’s sport because they *are* female, with *female* now meaning “person who identifies as a woman”, and so if a trans woman is stronger/faster than women, that’s simply because - “yay, this woman, who is oppressed by society based on her being trans, is EXCELLENT at sport”
There are lots of negative implications here, but one of the biggest is the suggestion that female people who know that they are female people are assumed to be less oppressed by patriarchy, by gender expectations etc, than male people who identify as female.
And that’s before you get into the sexist nonsense that is a male person’s internal idea of what a female sense of identity might consist of
Yes. But without the word “gender” having a meaningful, tangible definition, and with activists using it to mean several distinct things, without delineating. So it’s not even based on “gender” in the sense that at least “gender” (which you could describe as stereotypes based on sex) could have a substantial, measurable definition.Long slender neck wrote: ↑Mon Mar 14, 2022 10:33 amThey think law and policy should be based on gender rather than sex?CEB wrote: ↑Mon Mar 14, 2022 9:22 amAn important thing to understand is that the underpinning demand isn’t to allow biologically male people to access female spaces: that would be an argument that could be engaged with, where compromise could be found, and where there could be productive discussion about which spaces it is and isn’t appropriate to open to male people who identify as women.Long slender neck wrote: ↑Sun Mar 13, 2022 7:04 pm What are the demands beyond access to female spaces? You never hear about trans people req access to mens spaces.
What the demand actually *is* is that laws, policy and language should change to reflect this idea: we all, every one of us, have an innate sense of ourselves called gender identity that may or may not align with our body. What we’d think of as our sexed bodies therefore are not the basis on which we should organise society, because a person with the gender identity “woman” - which has no criteria applied to it by trans activism, no definition - *is* female, regardless of sex.
That’s why if you take the sport question for example, trans activism isn’t interested in addressing the fairness, because as far as the underpinning ideology goes, trans women belong in women’s sport because they *are* female, with *female* now meaning “person who identifies as a woman”, and so if a trans woman is stronger/faster than women, that’s simply because - “yay, this woman, who is oppressed by society based on her being trans, is EXCELLENT at sport”
There are lots of negative implications here, but one of the biggest is the suggestion that female people who know that they are female people are assumed to be less oppressed by patriarchy, by gender expectations etc, than male people who identify as female.
And that’s before you get into the sexist nonsense that is a male person’s internal idea of what a female sense of identity might consist of
Weak. I expected better from you as the Boards only intellectual.CEB wrote: ↑Mon Mar 14, 2022 10:25 amMax B Gold wrote: ↑Mon Mar 14, 2022 10:16 amI'm surprised you haven't taken your usual helicopter view and examined more objectively how this so called "debate" has been framed.
Are you drinking already?