The 'logic' of some members' argument is surely flawed beyond debate: if a male thief wears a mask, does it follow that all men are potential thieves? And that all men should be separated from the rest of us? No.
Transgender rights discussion
- Thread starter crappycraperson
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Great point. Not to mention that a public toilet - where women are constantly walking in and out - would be a really strange venue for a sexual predator to try his luck.
In terms of safe spaces, I think the topic gets a bit more complex when it comes to residential stays. Prisons and the like. Although we already know single sex prisons are far from free of sexual violence it does seem sensible to find a way to separate biological sexes. Likewise women only homeless shelters etc
Isn’t the logic that women are primarily raped by men, so all men should be kept separate from all women in situations where those women are unusually vulnerable?
Which isn’t anything like as flawed.
Those outraged voices are peculiarly absent whenever I've posted about domestic violence against women, curiously enough. I wonder why?
I did quote the wrong post and can’t find the correct one. Teach me to try and reply on my phone.Either I've gone mad or you've quoted the wrong post.
Edit
It was @BobbyManc that I meant to quote.
I am guessing that is part of it - another part of it which must be incredibly frustrating for women is that by and large men have no clue what women experience day in day out in terms of their interactions with men with casual sexism and leering/sexual language a regular occurrence - never mind the many women who have sadly experienced sexual assault or worse (I say this as a man of course but I acknowledge that this is a serious issue that many women experience). I'd imagine that it might be a bit disconcerting for some women to share what are generally safe places where they are quite vulnerable with people who are biologically men. No idea what the solution is but I'd imagine it would be quite a challenge for some.
I think in terms of prisons each case needs to be judged independently, was it a sexual crime? How far into their transition are they? Could there be an argument for trans wings in prisons?
I'm no convict but I know I'd be hot property in a male (or female for that matter) prison
I certainly wouldn't feel safe. Interestingly enough my best friend works in a male prison which has a few trans women, albeit transvestites rather than transsexuals.I do think the type of crime is already a big consideration.
Here are two very different cases
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....ner-tara-hudson-sexually-harassed-hmp-bristol
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....gender-woman-moved-from-mens-to-womens-prison
https://amp.theguardian.com/society...ng-offender-attacked-again-transgender-prison
Last edited:
Sure. There’s definitely inconsistencies from people who get involved in these debates. A lot of right wing commentators seem happy to perceive all men as potenial sexual predators whenever trans rights are discussed but are also quick to use the “not all men” hashtag. Go figure.
I think in terms of prisons each case needs to be judged independently, was it a sexual crime? How far into their transition are they? Could there be an argument for trans wings in prisons?
I'm no convict but I know I'd be hot property in a male (or female for that matter) prison
I do think the type of crime is already a big consideration.
It definitely should be. I’ve no idea if it is or not. The Linehan crew love trotting out examples of men who have a history of sexual violence that offended again in female prisons, while claiming to be trans. Hopefully these are extremely rare and a common sense approach is being used when it comes to sentencing.
Must be tricky though. Sending a trans woman to an all male prison against their wishes would be a particularly horrible punishment.
So did Karen White have a grc?
I'll happily withdraw the "taken over" comment as too strong a statement. But look at what has happened with this debate. Lots of name calling, what aboutery, denial and obfuscation dominated by a couple of individuals unwilling to engage in a proper debate.
I'm not suggesting people like jessica yaniv, Karen white or Jess bradley are typical of the trans movement. Merely showing that they highlight the need for good safeguarding around some spaces.
Thanks for trying to engage in a positive way though. Pity some others don't seem able to see beyond their own prejudices.
Problem is she writes about wizards for a living and thinks people want to hear her voice. She’s a Berk.
Having a ‘Butch Lesbian’ friend doesn’t qualify her for shit. There are probably more Gay-Hating lesbians than Gay-Hating KKK members.I jest
Or.... She’s on her period and can’t control all those hormones.
I jest Again
No Karen White didn't, I don't either, I have a passport and drivers license which state I'm female, I haven't got around to the GRC yet. I don't think many trans people tend to carry these around as a valid form of ID, rather a means to an end to their journey.
Thanks for that Rudie. I appreciate that the grc is very much a "journeys end" and not absolutely necessary for some people. If you are happy then I am delighted for you.
Thanks and no problem, I agree the edge cases do need to be catered for, I myself wouldn't feel safe around the Karen White's of this World. I believe they admitted the mistakes made, likewise with sending Tara Hudson to a male prison.
Just on the toilets issue..
Why not make it a thing to have three or four types of toilets and if you’re unable to offer a minimum of three types then all the toilets are unisex.
I think too much time is wasted in pointing out differences rather than finding a way of making everyone feel comfortable.
Why not make it a thing to have three or four types of toilets and if you’re unable to offer a minimum of three types then all the toilets are unisex.
I think too much time is wasted in pointing out differences rather than finding a way of making everyone feel comfortable.
You can't make everybody feel comfortable all of the time, that is the reality of the situation. Unisex makes many people uncomfortable as it is so I wouldn't necessarily be advocating for that even as a compromise.
GRC isn't a form of identification though and shouldn't be asked for as proof of id. The last time I saw any figures on this, but less than 10% of trans people have got a GRC due to the cost and the considerable problems that come about applying and the process to which you have to undertake to get one. Karen White was a error, and the system has been made more secure since then.
Pre lock down I'd often go to gigs at Manchester Academy 2 and 3 and the toilets are unisex, no one has an issue with it, the only hassle is that everyone has to wait for a cubicle to come free. That's about it, no chance of anything taking place in them. What tickles me about unisex toilets is that everyone uses them every day of the week as it is yet we don't seem to complain about it.
Unisex wouldn’t be the norm though would it? Only in those shops and places where there is usually only one or two toilets max anyway.
I agree in schools for example, toilets should definitely be separate and in places such as clubs but they should have sufficient space to have 4 types of toilets (men, women, unisex, disabled).
Covid is going to cause a big change in the way we use toilets anyway. Much less shared areas. Which might make all of this a non-issue.
Nobody has an issue with it because there is no other option and if you need to pee what are you going to do? I'd imagine that given the choice most people would rather have separate toilets for obvious reasons.
Having a single toilet that is unisex that only one person has use of at a time is a very different situation to a big unisex toilet when you have all sexes within it.
Rowling's attempt at representing the Jewish community in her book was to give a peripheral character a Jewish sounding-name but make no reference to his religion, descent or Judaism in the book. She then confirmed only afterwards to fans he was Jewish, and that there were indeed plenty of Jewish wizards at Hogwarts, she just failed to explicitly mention any of them in, you know, her actual fecking writing. Is that supposed to be a good thing? It's so laughably transparent and it's exactly why she has become a meme for this kind of stuff. It's cowardly tokenism, and that's a generous interpretation. "Progressives" do not drop hints in their work then once the cheques have rolled in try and post-hoc claim meaningful representation.
In that vein, you won't be shocked to discover that in one of her crime novels, Rowling gave representation to a trans character, who is described by one review as follows:
Good grief. 
By the way, is it pronounced 'Ro-ling'? (as in 'rolling along')?
By the way, is it pronounced 'Ro-ling'? (as in 'rolling along')?
Glad someone posted this. It's telling that the framing about what trans-activists are pushing for has being completely distorted and outright fabricated at times. Do they think trans people have only popped up into existence in the past few years? Where do they think they have been going to the toilet in the centuries of existence of trans-people and what laws do they think have been governing that? By the way people talk you'd think there are bodyguards outside every public restroom in existence screening anyone who enters, and that trans people are trying to remove that security.
taken from this useful resource here - https://www.vox.com/identities/2016/5/13/17938102/transgender-people-bathrooms-locker-rooms-schools
It's worth pointing out that a lot of the arguments against transpeople are just the same rehashed incoherent arguments used against LGB people when they have been pushing for rights and against discrimination. I'll be the first to admit I, even as a young progressive, instinctively find transgenderism "confusing", but it's simply about two things: doing independent research and educating yourself on the facts, and not being a dickhead wanting to make life worse for an already oppressed minority.
She didn't mention if the Dursley's were CoE, The Patel's were Hindu or if Seamus Finnigan was Catholic either but that doesn't mean that they weren't and I wouldn't have a problem if she told me they were after the fact. I don't think she actually brought up anybodies religion but she wrote characters that fit into different ethnic backgrounds.
I have more problem with Snape the abusive teacher being a good guy in the end and the way she wrote Ron and Hermione's relationship where if you hang on to an abusive partner long enough he will come around and see the error of his ways.
Why is it important that there are Jews who are specifically identified as Jews in her fiction?
I don't understand what this post is getting at. The implication is that if you're writing a book, you have to have characters that tick every box of the race, religion and sexual orientation checklist or you lose your progressive card?
This is a good point, obviously she's perfectly aware of it but chose to ignore it in bad faith.
It's not important, at all. What is important is that if someone wants to try and gain credit for giving representation to a community in her writing, she has actually done so. Not simply given a peripheral character a Jewish-sounding name and stated 'there were lots of Jewish wizards at Hogwarts' without actually bothering to write this into the novels at the time.
No. That's not at all what I am trying to say. My point is Rowling loves to talk about the representation she gives to communities, but does this after publication, rather than in her actual writing at the time. Imagine writing a novel with no reference to sexuality or skin colour then saying afterwards 'oh the main character is gay and black!' - do you see what I am getting at and why this kind of thing is problematic?
No, it's that Rowling has a habit of claiming credit for representing diversity in works which don't really represent diversity.
If she's trying to retroactively claim brownie points for shit that isn't there and pat herself on the back for representing people she hasn't, then that's fair enough. All I can see after a quick google though is her being asked by a fan if there are any Jewish characters at Hogwarts, and her pointing to some tertiary character with a Jewish name.
It doesn't really seem to be an attempt to fish for undue credit to me. Is she supposed to go full Cartman and say "No, feck off, Jews can't be paladins"? Apologise and beg for forgiveness that none of the actually fleshed out characters were Jewish?
She’s got the self awareness of a swollen gonad.
“My friend who is a self declared ‘Butch Lesbian’...”
Then goes on to bitch about an issue that is an exercise in personal self-identification.
Shes a horrible little woman at times.
How else would you describe ‘there are lots of Jewish wizards at Hogwarts’ stated after publication when in the 4000+ pages of novels there is not one mention of a Jewish wizard, with the only possible reference being one peripheral character with a Jewish sounding name that will escape the attention of the vast majority of its young audience anyway?
I’ve no idea about the context of that quote but it makes me die a little inside that any author felt pressured into defending a lack of diversity in a book about fecking wizards and talking elves!
She was not pressured, she went out of her way to answer a fan’s question. It could have been easily ignored - how many questions on Twitter do you think she gets with no reply? - and nothing would have been said. There was no campaign asking why there were apparently no Jewish wizards in the book. She went out of her way to claim credit for representation that she did not bother to actually put in the novels. If this was an isolated incident no one would really have given it a second thought but there is a lot of controversy around her pattern of post-hoc representation (especially Dumbledore, who only after all books were published became gay and she already was set for life from the sales) or problematic representation within the novels (e.g. the only East-Asian character is named Cho Chang).
I'm assuming that's a follow up to the same Jewish fan? Sounds like a platitude to make the fan feel included to me. I'm really struggling to see that in the same damning terms that you seem to.
Wait, what the feck is supposed to be wrong with this?
It's hardly the Krusty the Clown flapping dickie bit.