Brilliant, you just keep on showing your lack of knowledge on liberalism the more you do this.
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.
Brilliant, you just keep on showing your lack of knowledge on liberalism the more you do this.
You're very welcome. I wouldn't take it as gospel, though.
I won't, I know how selective things around here are.
What do you mean "he made more people aware of it"? Why is that worthy of sharing in this thread? You made your point just fine by sharing the explanation of what Super Straight is, I just don't see what the motivation was for sharing the obviously offensive tweet. Presumably you knew it was offensive, and I'm beginning to think that's why you posted it.
You're not Mill or Bastiat, just a troll.
I explained this to the person that said it died, but a pretty big account latched onto it. Are you seeing something invisible i posted along with it? You can think that, I think you are just looking for offense
Last edited:
No, i am someone that understands there are many forms of liberalism from reading a book and not some clown that sees 'classic liberal', and thinks "oh he's talking about a modern liberal"
I cant help you with your own education, you can only do that yourself, or continue to play the dunce, upto you.
What's this new act you got going, then, you're pretending I believe Mill and Bastiat were modern day liberals?
Yes because thats been the reference point all along
Anyway, night xxxx
Me: You're no Bastiat or Mill.
You: Wow, you believe classical liberals are the same as modern day liberals? You better read some books.
Unhinged.
Yes, I know, you said that already. What does it matter that "a pretty big account latched onto it"? What value does it serve? Just to point out that people people say these sorts of things? We know that already. I'm sure that pretty big account has shared lots of different things, but this is the one you chose to share with us. It didn't really add anything of value that the first tweet didn't give us.
Perhaps I am just trying to be offended, but I'm also just trying to suss out your motivation with that particular post.
Their subreddit just got banned for being too transphobic, quite an achievment on Reddit.
You realise that's a parody account, right?
People are discussing it Jake.
Nothing creates aggression in men like a woman having an opinion.
Ok, but how's that relevant to this thread?
J.K. Rowling is a the thread title?
So this thread is just a bunch of men angry with her for having an opinion?
Seems a bit dismissive and reductionist, but you do you.
I can see you're the little guard dog of this thread, which is cute.
It's just an observation that whenever women start speaking, they're usually shouted down.
So that's what's going on here? We're all angry with her for daring to have an opinion? And here I though we were calling her out for her transphobia. Well feck, I guess I accidentally did a sexism then.
Probably not the last time.
Depends. Do you insist on seeing every documentation possible to ascertain that the women you fancy aren’t trans before engaging in coitus?
Probably not, if criticising a woman for bigotry now qualifies as sexism.
It's easy to justify things.
I enjoy watching people confirm sexuality is a choice.
That's such a bisexual thing to say.
Clearly.
Nothing creates aggression amongst ignorant and arrogant louts like a marginalised group speaking out.
It's just an observation that whenever there's a section of society getting grief, some ignorant lout will arrogantly show up and make some snide, unspecific, one line dismissal in order to try and get the final boot in.
The cowardice and dishonesty is disgusting. If you have a point that you think can stand up to scrutiny, on such a sensitive issue, then have the fecking guts to lay it out there.
It's just an observation that whenever there's a section of society getting grief, some ignorant lout will arrogantly show up and make some snide, unspecific, one line dismissal in order to try and get the final boot in.
The cowardice and dishonesty is disgusting. If you have a point that you think can stand up to scrutiny, on such a sensitive issue, then have the fecking guts to lay it out there.
Fecking guts? Are you OK? Totally normal levels of anger there.
Anyway, I believe that if you have any critique of gender science or an opinion on the subject that doesn't land squarely within a very narrow groupthink, people start thinking you're a bigot.
It's symptomatic of online discourse in general but more so on this subject perhaps on any other.
The pattern I keep seeing is of a group that, at times, displays the negative gender traits of men; toxic discourse, aggression, speaking over people, shutting down debate, insults etc.
These traits that have been highlighted by feminism to try and educate men to check their behaviour when working with women for example.
Is this entirely true of an entire group of people or a specific gender? Of course not.
But when you bring this up, the conversation starts to resemble the "not all men" trope, i.e. the reaction to a critique of a gender or, a subject to do with gender identity, is taken to mean everyone in that group is being attacked, by people really just being reactionary.
I think my general malaise over this subject, through the lens of social media, is that there is pretty much zero nuance and it is utterly tribal. Insofar as to the fact most people take a point at face value because it was made by a person they agreed with on another subject.
I have had the reaction to this statement be something, like "Nuance?! We are talking about people's lives here and their lived experiences you terf!"
Outside of fringe groups of bigots or trolls or actual Nazi's I don't see people calling for the removal of trans people from that public life, nor their expulsion from society, or their extermination. Yet, when you enter into this discourse or raise a point, usually you are labelled as an agitator or a coward or a terf or a bigot who is enabling those fringe and rare views.
Do I believe transphobia exists? Yes. Unequivocally so.
Do I believe there are glaring inconsistencies with queer theory and the current ideas around gender? Absolutely.
Are women who raise concerns about the side effects of changing legislation which might enable dangerous men to have easier access to vulnerable women bigots? No.
Am I saying some people will use the above statement as cover to justify their existing transphobia? Yeah, I'd say some would.
Does this mean we should ignore the concerns of women, who are, let's not forget, a protected class of people? In my opinion no.
Should we seek to enable trans women to have the ultimate possible protections and civil liberties in society that we all should have? Unequivocally yes.
Should vulnerable transwomen be allowed to use the female restrooms and protected spaces? I believe so.
Should we remove all protections and allow anyone to enter a female only spaces? I think this idea increases risks and should be discussed.
How do we maintain safeguarding of women in their protected spaces while we enable the correct and needed protections and rights for transwomen? This will be a conundrum all the while men continue to be a threat to women.
What if women vote en mass that they don't want this, through fear men, will use this to gain access to women? Do we ignore them? Remove their right to vote? What do we do then?
There are fundamental questions on this subject that need to be discussed. At no point am I wanting to discuss the legitimacy of TW, nor do I want to deny them polite, caring, consistent societies that enable them to flourish and be who they are.
Anyway, I believe that if you have any critique of gender science or an opinion on the subject that doesn't land squarely within a very narrow groupthink, people start thinking you're a bigot.
It's symptomatic of online discourse in general but more so on this subject perhaps on any other.
The pattern I keep seeing is of a group that, at times, displays the negative gender traits of men; toxic discourse, aggression, speaking over people, shutting down debate, insults etc.
These traits that have been highlighted by feminism to try and educate men to check their behaviour when working with women for example.
Is this entirely true of an entire group of people or a specific gender? Of course not.
But when you bring this up, the conversation starts to resemble the "not all men" trope, i.e. the reaction to a critique of a gender or, a subject to do with gender identity, is taken to mean everyone in that group is being attacked, by people really just being reactionary.
I think my general malaise over this subject, through the lens of social media, is that there is pretty much zero nuance and it is utterly tribal. Insofar as to the fact most people take a point at face value because it was made by a person they agreed with on another subject.
I have had the reaction to this statement be something, like "Nuance?! We are talking about people's lives here and their lived experiences you terf!"
Outside of fringe groups of bigots or trolls or actual Nazi's I don't see people calling for the removal of trans people from that public life, nor their expulsion from society, or their extermination. Yet, when you enter into this discourse or raise a point, usually you are labelled as an agitator or a coward or a terf or a bigot who is enabling those fringe and rare views.
Do I believe transphobia exists? Yes. Unequivocally so.
Do I believe there are glaring inconsistencies with queer theory and the current ideas around gender? Absolutely.
Are women who raise concerns about the side effects of changing legislation which might enable dangerous men to have easier access to vulnerable women bigots? No.
Am I saying some people will use the above statement as cover to justify their existing transphobia? Yeah, I'd say some would.
Does this mean we should ignore the concerns of women, who are, let's not forget, a protected class of people? In my opinion no.
Should we seek to enable trans women to have the ultimate possible protections and civil liberties in society that we all should have? Unequivocally yes.
Should vulnerable transwomen be allowed to use the female restrooms and protected spaces? I believe so.
Should we remove all protections and allow anyone to enter a female only spaces? I think this idea increases risks and should be discussed.
How do we maintain safeguarding of women in their protected spaces while we enable the correct and needed protections and rights for transwomen? This will be a conundrum all the while men continue to be a threat to women.
What if women vote en mass that they don't want this, through fear men, will use this to gain access to women? Do we ignore them? Remove their right to vote? What do we do then?
There are fundamental questions on this subject that need to be discussed. At no point am I wanting to discuss the legitimacy of TW, nor do I want to deny them polite, caring, consistent societies that enable them to flourish and be who they are.
Rounding off this rather long post (apologies), I don't believe J.K Rowling is a transphobe or transphobic. I read her open letter and really struggled to see the furor it was generating online. I am inclined to believe people read reviews of it on pinknews or via a tweet thread than actually read it for themselves.
What I also find funny is that people are slating her writing and her books now she has written her letter, like it wasn't obvious she was a shocking writer beforehand.
you need to read better. and don't fall so easily for classic terf rhetoric.
Genuinely baffling how one can still come to that conclusion.
Last edited:
Would you mind clarifying what you mean by this?
I think it was clear, he's bisexual so to him it is a choice, he swings both ways but is obviously frustrated by a lack of pegging lately so comes to troll the general forums as a way for release, he needs to fill his pegging quota and quick. Bless him.
I think it's clear that he's heavily influenced by terf rhetoric, he's already played the sexism/misogyny card, he's well on the way of getting a full house in terf bingo.
I bet he has a poster of Linehan on his bedroom wall.
Last edited:
I wish we could talk about things without reducing everything to an acronym and a label. Using "terf" sounds a lot like right wing using "cancel culture". I feel like it does more harm than good.
If it's transphobic it's better to just say transphobic. Then, the meaning is clear and obvious.
I admit I dislike acronym heavy dialogue wherever it's used, be it corporate acronyms or university acronyms. They aren't good communication imo.
If it's transphobic it's better to just say transphobic. Then, the meaning is clear and obvious.
I admit I dislike acronym heavy dialogue wherever it's used, be it corporate acronyms or university acronyms. They aren't good communication imo.
Uh, it isn't.
I see what you did there... Not sure if serious...
I'm serious about hating acronym-heavy speech but its a minor issue compared to things like transphobia so no need to take me too serious with my tangential rant