Petition to ban Germaine Greer from upcoming lecture

MakeEmLaugh

Well-known feminist academic and writer Germaine Greer is set to give a lecture at Cardiff University in Wales. However, the Women's Officer at the university's Student Union, Rachael Melhuish, has started a petition with Change.org asking for for Greer to be banned from speaking at the university.

It is because, according to Melhuish, Greer has “demonstrated misogynistic views towards trans women, including continually misgendering trans women and denying the existence of transphobia altogether”.

As of 9:34pm UK/Ireland time on 23rd October 2015, the petition has been signed 369 times. However, it should be noted that there are 30,000 students enrolled in Cardiff University, and that it cannot be proven that the 369 signatures are comprised of students from that university, at whom Greer's upcoming lecture is aimed.

Greer has been dismissive of both the petition and the university, who said the lecture will go ahead.

I just don’t think that surgery turns a man into a woman. A perfectly permissable view. I mean, an un-man is not necessarily a woman. We don’t really know what women are and I think that a lot of women are female impersonators, because our notion of who we are is not authentic, and so I am not surprised men are better at impersonating women than women are. Not a surprise, but it’s not something I welcome.

What they are saying is that because I don’t think surgery will turn a man into a woman I should not be allowed to speak anywhere.

If the University of Cardiff cannot guarantee that I will not have things thrown at me then I won’t go there. I can’t be bothered.

What are your thoughts? Should she be allowed to go ahead with her lecture, or are the people behind this petition right?

DEFTLEFTHAND

Universities are supposed to be places of free speech, learning and debate, banning speakers and shutting down debate flies in the face of all that. No matter who the guest is.

Fukuyama

"Womens Officer"

Stopped there.

SeanW

A catfight between two hate filled, psycho assholes.

Colour me bored.

DrumSteve

I wish I could find words to accurately explain the apathy I feel towards both of these people.

Also, whilst I couldnt give a singular fook what greer has to say, she has the right to her opiniin and just because you don't like someone's opinion, doesn't mean you have a right to shut them up.

justchecked

So she joins the list of those who fight against free speech.

Put her in there with mao, stalin, hitler.
They would approve.

Meanwhile the likes of Gandhi would probably disagee.

KungPao

Phew. Though that said German Beer. That would be terrible for the students.

Day Lewin

Germaine Greer is not stupid, uninformed or irrelevant: she played a pivotal role in forming modern feminist opinion and helped to drive some serious changes in popular opinion. She is also a serious academic.

Whether you agree with her views or not, she has as much right to express them as anyone else, and a better right than many to be heard with attention on topics that touch on sexuality and identity.

Poor showing for that "women's officer" who can't bear to even hear a view she may disagree with. (Ah, a long, tough road lies ahead of her!)

Links234

Greer is a vile hate-filled person, and a very nasty piece of work indeed. That said, I think calling for her to be banned from speaking at the university is counterproductive, it just draws more attention to her.

lazybones32

I agree with Greer being banned from Public speaking but I don't agree with why the nutjob's trying to ban her.

I think they should be set adrift in the Ocean. 2 birds, 1 stone, etc;.

the evasion_kid

Were do I sign....

Eugene Norman

I like Germaine.

I think we should just give up on modern day universities as places of free thinking. Invite "controversial" speakers to pubs or theatres across the road from the universities and advertise within.

RWCNT

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Universities are supposed to be places of free speech, learning and debate, banning speakers and shutting down debate flies in the face of all that. No matter who the guest is.

How does this shut down debate exactly? Nobody was debating anything, some dickhead was just going to talk in a room for a bit.

play it again

Links234 wrote: »

Greer is a vile hate-filled person, and a very nasty piece of work indeed. That said, I think calling for her to be banned from speaking at the university is counterproductive, it just draws more attention to her.

Why ? Is it solely because she has a different opinion on transgender than you , or is it something specific she has said or done in the past

Eugene Norman

RWCNT wrote: »

How does this shut down debate exactly? Nobody was debating anything, some dickhead was just going to talk in a room for a bit.

"Dickheads" talking and other "dickheads"disagreeing in a public forum is a debate.

hatrickpatrick

Germaine Greer is an absolutely horrible person but I will defend her right to say whatever the hell she wants to say.

What the f*ck is with all these university debates about banning this and that lately? Are they the new SJW battleground now that they have unequivocally lost their battle to have rules imposed on the internet?

fedor.2.

Links234 wrote: »

Greer is a vile hate-filled person, and a very nasty piece of work indeed. That said, I think calling for her to be banned from speaking at the university is counterproductive, it just draws more attention to her.

Well there's a surprise

frostyjacks

It's not a question of "Should she be allowed" to give her lecture. She already is allowed, it's just that the thought-police can't bear the idea of someone calling them out on their mumbo-jumbo. They always play the victim card.

Geuze

Links234 wrote: »

Greer is a vile hate-filled person, and a very nasty piece of work indeed.

I disagree, she seems fairly sound to me, from what I've read about her, and seen her on TV.

I don't think you'd be that successful if you were "vile hate-filled".

c_man

Ah she was a good laugh on Grumpy old women.

BlaasForRafa

Germaine Greer is a rotten old misandrist but I wouldn't want to see her banned from speaking.

RWCNT

Eugene Norman wrote: »

"Dickheads" talking and other "dickheads"disagreeing in a public forum is a debate.

Yeah, that is a debate. This Greer character wasn't coming to debate, it was a talk or lecture.

Edit : Read the statement from the guy at the Uni saying all views would be challenged and debated. If they let the student body have a go at her there & then, fair enough. Debating with someone who's whole line is "Its my opinion - I don't care if people get offended"' probably won't actually be a real debate though.

alcaline

Greer is correct in her view, its about time someone with a bit of clout came out and said it.

MakeEmLaugh

Greer was on BBC Newsnight shortly after this story emerged, speaking to Kirsty Wark about the situation.

Here are extracts of the interview.

Kirsty Wark: But surely if a man who feels that he would actually like gender reassignment to make him/her feel more comfortable in her body, then that's what should be done? They should be allowed to do that.

Germaine Greer: I'm not saying that people should not be allowed to go through that procedure, what I'm saying is that it doesn't make them a woman. It happens to be an opinion. It's not a prohibition...

You don't have to say everything that's in your mind. You do use tact in the usual way. I would, for example, when someone who wished to be known as female use female speech forms, as a courtesy...

Kirsty Wark: So, someone like Caitlyn Jenner, for example, who has been on the front of lots of magazines and is apparently, I think I'm right in saying, getting an award for being Glamour Woman of the Year. What do you think about that?

Germaine Greer: I think it's misogynist. I think misogyny plays a really big part in all of this. That a man who goes to these lengths will be a better woman than someone who is just born a woman...

It seems to me that what was going on there is that he/she wanted the limelight that the other female members of the family were enjoying, and has conquered it just like that...

Kirsty Wark: If a man has his gender reassigned outwardly and he feels inwardly is a woman, in your view, can he be a woman or not?

Germaine Greer: No

Kirsty Wark: Do you understand how people feel that's insulting?

Germaine Greer: I don't care. People get insulted all the time.

alcaline

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Greer was on BBC Newsnight shortly after this story emerged, speaking to Kirsty Wark about the situation.

Here are extracts of the interview.

Good for her, someone speaking what everyone is thinking.

Very Bored

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Greer was on BBC Newsnight shortly after this story emerged, speaking to Kirsty Wark about the situation.

Here are extracts of the interview.

I really don't have any issue with what she said in that interview. What's she's said, for the most part, is absolutely true. I don't know enough about her to judge her as a person. I would question what her overall view of people like me, in other words men, is. However, I don't have any problem with the overall theme of what she said here.

BunkMoreland

DrumSteve wrote:

she has the right to her opiniin and just because you don't like someone's opinion, doesn't mean you have a right to shut them up.

Except for boards.ie, they censor and ban opinion all the time.

The Randy Riverbeast

KungPao wrote: »

Phew. Though that said German Beer. That would be terrible for the students.

I was wondering what Germaine beer was.


Could we at least wait for it to become a bit more than less than 400 people with internet connection signed petition?

Very Bored

Echoing Germaine Greer, in this issue at least, for me, a man is someone who is born with a penis. A woman is someone who is born with a vagina. Simple as that. If someone wants to have an operation which changes their sexual organs from one sex to the other, then that is their choice and who am I to stand in the way of that? I wish them well and hope it brings them happiness. However, for me, they remain the sex they were born. I also refuse to use he for a person who was born she and she for a person who was born he. That does not mean I disrespect the manner in which someone chooses to live their life, I wish them every success, I just don't see any reason why their choice should supercede mine. You can define me as a bigot if you so wish but I'm not for changing on this one.

In terms of dating, I am a very happily married man and, as such, wish to remain with my wife until my last days. However, should life throw a spanner in the works and return me to the dating game, which touch wood will not happen, I have to admit that if I was seeking a new partner, that partner would have to be someone who was born female. Furthermore, if there was someone who was transgender who was convincingly female, and there are transgender males who do look very much like women, I would expect them to be honest from the outset because, in the end, it would only cause heartache on both sides. Finally, I know many will want to jump on me and say how so many would be honest, but there are a devious few in every group and so it is not beyond the realms of belief that someone could trick a person. That said, if they are honest and find someone with a different mentality then I wish them every future happiness.

bur

Philosophically i can see where shes coming from.

PressRun

University is supposed to be a place of dialogue. If you just ban people whose opinions you disagree with, then there's no debate to be had. If they oppose Germaine Greer's position on this, then get it out in the open and have a lively discussion about it. Banning her because they don't like her opinion just makes it seem like they're afraid to debate her.

NachoBusiness

She's obsessed with her own gender, a female supremacist, always was and always will be. She says in the interview (regarding Jenner):

"Misogyny plays a really big part in all of this; a man that goes to this lengths will be a better woman than someone who is just born a woman".

To that I say: HA!

If anything, it is a sign of Misandry how Jenner is treated, not fecking Misogyny, as nobody gave a fcuk about him when he wa a man, but now that she's a woman.. you can't say a bad word about her, not even when she smashes into a car from behind which results in a person's death. As someone once said: Misery loves company, but it hates competition and I think Greer just can't stand that the spotlight is on the Transgender community more and more these days as a minority, and less and less so on women.

In any case, banning people from speaking is wrong, no matter how far up their arse their head happens to be.

Very Bored

PressRun wrote: »

University is supposed to be a place of dialogue. If you just ban people whose opinions you disagree with, then there's no debate to be had. If they oppose Germaine Greer's position on this, then get it out in the open and have a lively discussion about it. Banning her because they don't like her opinion just makes it seem like they're afraid to debate her.

Probably because they know she'd make s**t of them.

The Randy Riverbeast

Very Bored wrote: »

Echoing Germaine Greer, in this issue at least, for me, a man is someone who is born with a penis. A woman is someone who is born with a vagina. Simple as that. If someone wants to have an operation which changes their sexual organs from one sex to the other, then that is their choice and who am I to stand in the way of that? I wish them well and hope it brings them happiness. However, for me, they remain the sex they were born. I also refuse to use he for a person who was born she and she for a person who was born he. That does not mean I disrespect the manner in which someone chooses to live their life, I wish them every success, I just don't see any reason why their choice should supercede mine. You can define me as a bigot if you so wish but I'm not for changing on this one.

It tends to be about being polite to other people. A person doesn't have to hold the door open for someone, they can slam the door in their face if they please but most people would hold the door for a person rather than slamming the door.

Very Bored

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

It tends to be about being polite to other people. A person doesn't have to hold the door open for someone, they can slam the door in their face if they please but most people would hold the door for a person rather than slamming the door.

I would hold a door open for another person. I don't care whether they are male, female or transgender. I would do it because it is the decent and well mannered thing to do. However, I don't see any reason to call a man, she, and a woman, he. I don't see how it is such a huge issue though as I don't tend to address people by he or she either, I tend to use you. To be honest, if I was with my wife and someone asked me what I wanted to drink and then said "and what will she have" I would find it very insulting. She has a name and can also be asked herself which is when the word "you" would typically be used.

hatrickpatrick

I'm a half way house on the trans issue myself, I fully support trans people and their rights to do whatever they want to do (personally I find gender segregation utterly moronic anyway so I have no issue if an f -> m trans person wants to use the guys' jacks for instance) but echoing Very Bored above, I don't think I'd be comfortable dating somebody who wasn't born a woman. Primarily because I'd like to have kids, I guess - and actual biological kids of my own. I think anyone who attacks somebody for expressing a preference for romantic / sexual relationships with "original" men or women as opposed to post-op trans men or women is a complete and utter eejit.

But all of this is irrelevant - this issue with Greer has nothing to do with trans rights, in reality this is about the growing trend of large bodies being lobbied to deny a platform or a place at the conversational table to anybody who is going to stray from the PC-approved line of thinking. How anyone can see something like this happening and not be appalled by it is beyond me. Let me be quite clear: Even if someone were to come along with Hitler-esque views I'd absolutely support shouting them down, arguing with them, calling them every vile name under the sun. But denying them the right to express their views? That in my view crosses a line which a free society should never cross.

DivingDuck

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

echoing Very Bored above, I don't think I'd be comfortable dating somebody who wasn't born a woman. Primarily because I'd like to have kids, I guess - and actual biological kids of my own. I think anyone who attacks somebody for expressing a preference for romantic / sexual relationships with "original" men or women as opposed to post-op trans men or women is a complete and utter eejit.

There is a chasm of a difference between "I would prefer not to date a trans person" (fully your right; nobody has the right to demand you have a relationship with anyone you don't want to, for whatever reason) and "I refuse to respect this person's desire to be treated, and referred to, as a particular gender."

The former is your personal preference, the latter is disrespectful and rude.

Very Bored

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm a half way house on the trans issue myself, I fully support trans people and their rights to do whatever they want to do (personally I find gender segregation utterly moronic anyway so I have no issue if an f -> m trans person wants to use the guys' jacks for instance) but echoing Very Bored above, I don't think I'd be comfortable dating somebody who wasn't born a woman. Primarily because I'd like to have kids, I guess - and actual biological kids of my own. I think anyone who attacks somebody for expressing a preference for romantic / sexual relationships with "original" men or women as opposed to post-op trans men or women is a complete and utter eejit.

But all of this is irrelevant - this issue with Greer has nothing to do with trans rights, in reality this is about the growing trend of large bodies being lobbied to deny a platform or a place at the conversational table to anybody who is going to stray from the PC-approved line of thinking. How anyone can see something like this happening and not be appalled by it is beyond me. Let me be quite clear: Even if someone were to come along with Hitler-esque views I'd absolutely support shouting them down, arguing with them, calling them every vile name under the sun. But denying them the right to express their views? That in my view crosses a line which a free society should never cross.

Exactly, PC-ism is the new fascism. I was actually worried, initially, about what I wrote because I thought I'll get flamed for this or banned. I have enough balls to think f**k it though, I have as much right as anyone to say what I think. If people disagree so be it, but better a dissenting voice spoken than one that is too frightened to speak. That's the power of the PC brigade though, either you agree with this or your out. And too many are now too frightened to talk.

DivingDuck

Very Bored wrote: »

However, I don't see any reason to call a man, she, and a woman, he.

Because they've asked you to.

Of course, you can decline to honour that request, the same as you can decline any request... But it makes you look like a very rude and disrespectful person. The reason for that is because it seems as though you are doing it purely out of spite and stubbornness and cruelty, considering that it costs you only a brief moment of thought to use the pronoun they've requested, but it costs them psychological pain every time you use the one they desperately want to leave behind.

Even if you can't bring yourself to accept that being trandgender is something real and fully felt to the heart and soul of the person in question, why would you deliberately cause someone emotional pain when it takes so little effort on your part to avoid it?

Very Bored

DivingDuck wrote: »

There is a chasm of a difference between "I would prefer not to date a trans person" (fully your right; nobody has the right to demand you have a relationship with anyone you don't want to, for whatever reason) and "I refuse to respect this person's desire to be treated, and referred to, as a particular gender."

The former is your personal preference, the latter is disrespectful and rude.

Explain to me how it is disrespectful and rude to talk to someone in the gender they were born in? Its a ridiculous argument anyway as I don't talk to people in gender, I talk to them as human beings and I treat everyone as human beings. I also, as I said earlier, address people as you, not he or she. If a guy wants to call themselves Mandy, or a woman wants to call themselves John, I will use their name of choice, but won't use he or she inappropriately. In my book a he is born with a penis and a she is born with a vagina. The problem, from what I can see, is not my making concessions on your part, but you making them on mine. Furthermore, you say people should be spoken to in the terms they desire. So if I start declaring myself as the greatest goalscorer who ever played for Inter would you start asking me about when I scored a hattrick against Milan and a last minute winning goal against Juventus?

Very Bored

DivingDuck wrote: »

Because they've asked you to.

If I asked you to refer to me as the head of state of the USA would you call me Mr. President?

DivingDuck

Very Bored wrote: »

Explain to me how it is disrespectful and rude to talk to someone in the gender they were born in?

Because they have asked you not to. It's as simple as that. If you met a guy in a the pub, and his friend introduces him as Ben, and a little while later, you said 'Hey Benny, get your round in', and he asked you not to call him Benny, would you do it again? It's the same thing, except much bigger and much more hurtful for the other person. If someone asks to be referred to with female pronouns and you continue to refer to them with male pronouns, you are implicitly stating that you don't care that you're hurting them, and that your desire to use their birth pronouns trumps their hurt.

Does it really hurt you to use "she" when referring to someone who happened to be born with a penis, but wants to live as a woman? Would it make you feel worthless to do so? Would it make you hate yourself, or wish you hadn't left the house that day? Would it make you question your place in the world, and wonder why people have to be so needlessly cruel? That's what it does to the trans person. Why would you inflict this on a person when it's so easily avoided?

Its a ridiculous argument anyway as I don't talk to people in gender, I talk to them as human beings and I treat everyone as human beings. I also, as I said earlier, address people as you, not he or she. If a guy wants to call themselves Mandy, or a woman wants to call themselves John, I will use their name of choice, but won't use he or she inappropriately.

I understand what you're saying here, but it is often necessary to use third-person pronouns in conversation. You can end up referring to the person you're speaking to in their presence quite easily, especially in groups of more than two. Also, I think most trans people would like to feel their pronoun choices were respected even when someone was speaking about them rather than just to them, whether they're there to see it or not.

In my book a he is born with a penis and a she is born with a vagina.

You are conflating gender and sex here. Gender is a psychological construct, which is not exclusively related to the sex organs. Have you read any of the literature on the difference? There's a lot out there which explains it.

The problem, from what I can see, is not my making concessions on your part, but you making them on mine.

As I said above, in my view, it's the difference of level of concession and the impact it has. For someone to use a different pronoun than the one that occurs to them naturally (i.e., the feeling of, I know this person was born a man, so my instinct is to refer to the person as a "he") takes a bit of effort, but not a lot, and shouldn't cause huge psychological damage to the speaker. To the listener, however, they have already made a huge effort in admitting they are transgender, and the psychological damage caused by hearing what they feel is the wrong pronoun is immense.

If a little effort can prevent immense damage, shouldn't it be applied?

Furthermore, you say people should be spoken to in the terms they desire. So if I start declaring myself as the greatest goalscorer who ever played for Inter would you start asking me about when I scored a hattrick against Milan and a last minute winning goal against Juventus?

There's a bit of a difference here, you'll have to admit. The difference being that "the greatest footballer" or "the president" is a fairly small and exclusive category, and usually also a title that is conferred upon you by outside forces. The category "women" is quite expansive once you divorce it from the sex organs, and it's something people can decide whether they are or aren't.

If you want to live as the POTUS, you need the agreement of others or it won't work. You're not allowed in the Oval Office, or Airforce One, and you definitely can't command America's armed forces. If you want to live as the greatest footballer ever, you can't just go to the shop and buy a Ferrari on your non-footballer salary. You can't get into the hotspots of Europe's nightlife with a smile and a word from your bodyguard.

It's not the same for a trans person. They're not trying to live as a specific individual. So they can buy, on their ordinary salary, a new dress instead of a new suit. They can get a gender-stereotypical haircut. A trans man can do anything a male-at-birth man can, apart from producing children-- and if we're going to go down that road, we're going to upset a lot of men with fertility problems.

You are trying to compare a very general group (a gender-based group) with specific roles with massive barrier to entry, and they're not comparable because if someone wants to live as a woman, they can do so without the approval of the rest of the world-- it isn't fully hinged on the agreement of others, in the same way as being the president or a specific footballer. It does, however, make it easier for the person to live as a woman if they're not constantly tripped up by others. They'll still feel like a woman regardless of how you refer to them, they'll just also feel hurt and disrespected.

I understand your desire for a distinction between women who are biological/"cis"/"original"/"natural" women and those who have transitioned from being male, but once you accept that a person's sex organs or chromosomes doesn't determine whether they feel mentally male or female, I can't understand how you could be so opposed to speaking to and treating people as the sex they feel they are.

hatrickpatrick

DivingDuck wrote: »

There is a chasm of a difference between "I would prefer not to date a trans person" (fully your right; nobody has the right to demand you have a relationship with anyone you don't want to, for whatever reason) and "I refuse to respect this person's desire to be treated, and referred to, as a particular gender."

The former is your personal preference, the latter is disrespectful and rude.

According to some of the SJW types who would advocate banning people from speaking based on their opinions, there actually is not a difference between the two, and this is just one of the many areas in which I take issue with the modern social justice movement.

Eugene Norman

DivingDuck wrote: »

Because they've asked you to.

Of course, you can decline to honour that request, the same as you can decline any request... But it makes you look like a very rude and disrespectful person. The reason for that is because it seems as though you are doing it purely out of spite and stubbornness and cruelty, considering that it costs you only a brief moment of thought to use the pronoun they've requested, but it costs them psychological pain every time you use the one they desperately want to leave behind.

Even if you can't bring yourself to accept that being trandgender is something real and fully felt to the heart and soul of the person in question, why would you deliberately cause someone emotional pain when it takes so little effort on your part to avoid it?

There a difference between politeness in general conversation and political belief, which germaine articulated quite well. She'd call Jenner a she to his/her face but would disagree with transgenderism as an ideology.

DivingDuck

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

According to some of the SJW types who would advocate banning people from speaking based on their opinions, there actually is not a difference between the two, and this is just one of the many areas in which I take issue with the modern social justice movement.

I'm not a SWJ and I don't speak for anyone else beyond repeating sentiments which have been expressed directly to me, so I don't know anything about that.

What I can say is that I believe there's a difference, and I further believe that anyone who can't see that difference is being deliberately obtuse.

By that logic, everyone would have to be willing to have a relationship with anyone who was interested in them, which is utter bunk-- and goes against the foundational principles of social justice (regards an individual's right to choice), as well. It's not sustainable or rational, but of course there will be people who will argue it anyway.

hatrickpatrick

Very Bored wrote: »

Exactly, PC-ism is the new fascism. I was actually worried, initially, about what I wrote because I thought I'll get flamed for this or banned. I have enough balls to think f**k it though, I have as much right as anyone to say what I think. If people disagree so be it, but better a dissenting voice spoken than one that is too frightened to speak. That's the power of the PC brigade though, either you agree with this or your out. And too many are now too frightened to talk.

It won't last. The pushback has already begun in earnest. I think the SJWs finally overstepped a line with this whole thing about lobbying the UN to declare online misogyny as "violence against women". Even some of their most outspoken supporters called them out on this blatant attempt at mass censorship. It may have been their "The money was just resting in my account" moment, I've seen a lot of people jump ship from the movement ever since then. I think something that they didn't quite think through was that what they were advocating would apply to women as much as it would to men, which would mean that regularly b!tchy womens' e-zine columns and the like would be criminalised alongside offensive chat among men. Appalling columns such as Jezebel and Frisky for instance were notably absent from the supporters of that drive - probably because the realised that a lot of their own trash-talk would be on the chopping board if those advocating the "offensive chat = violence against women" line got their way.

Censorship sounded good to some of their less die-hard supporters until they saw incidents like this, which exposed exactly what SJW-esque censorship would mean if it was widely put into practise. I certainly don't believe the battle is won and I think that now more than ever, attempts at cultural authoritarianism and the pushing of the pro-censorship agenda needs to be fought relentlessly by those who believe in freedom - but we may have turned a corner over the last few months. What previously looked like a movement which was gathering steam has made a couple of tactical blunders and for the first time in a while, I'm not nearly as worried about its potential success.

DivingDuck

Eugene Norman wrote: »

There a difference between politeness in general conversation and political belief, which germaine articulated quite well. She'd call Jenner a she to his/her face but would disagree with transgenderism as an ideology.

Which is, in my book, at least a more respectful position than deliberately causing harm and offense to a person's face.

I disagree with her completely on trans issues, for the record, but to me that position at least affords the trans person the opportunity to leave the conversation without being insulted or feeling the need to begin a conversation they might not want to have on the basis of having their choice very obviously and deliberately disregarded.

Eugene Norman

You are trying to compare a very general group (a gender-based group) with specific roles with massive barrier to entry, and they're not comparable because if someone wants to live as a woman, they can do so without the approval of the rest of the world-- it isn't fully hinged on the agreement of others, in the same way as being the president or a specific footballer. It does, however, make it easier for the person to live as a woman if they're not constantly tripped up by others. They'll still feel like a woman regardless of how you refer to them, they'll just also feel hurt and disrespected

Actually it can have a major effect on other people. The use of bathrooms etc.

Also of course, given that gender is magic and fluid and not related to biology but floating above biology why couldn't a biological male rugby team -- without recourse to surgery or even dressing as women (since "cis gendered" women wear male clothing) -- just compete in a female rugby tournament? Or just declare themselves male one day and female the next. That's what fluid would mean.

Also he whole magical nonsense contradicts itself. Biological sex is (we are told) meaningless because gender is a social construct. Men don't act like men because of testosterone or other biological differences but because they are told what to do. This despite the animal kingdom not acting like that that at all, since nobody is constructing the differences between actual geese and actual ganders. Or any animals with sex differences, which is most of them.

But transgenderism actually believes in some kind of inate sexual differences not constructed by society. This inate diffrrence is not biological males who think they are "gender males", nor biological women who think they are gender females,m – that's all a construct. Instead the transfemale or male is opposing "social construction" by being true to their nature, a nature which isn't biological. How they managed to avoid the social construction trapping the rest of us is unexplained, as is how their real nature is to be tested for, or how it is more real than biological sex; and how this nature trumps evolution and social construction is not even asked, never mind answered.

It's a mystical belief system, like believing that bread becomes Jesus if you really believe it, and it's as heretical to not believe this now as it was the magical bread a few decades and centuries ago.

MakeEmLaugh

Very Bored wrote: »

I refuse to use he for a person who was born she and she for a person who was born he. That does not mean I disrespect the manner in which someone chooses to live their life, I wish them every success, I just don't see any reason why their choice should supercede mine. You can define me as a bigot if you so wish but I'm not for changing on this one.

Not to get too personal, but do you know any transgender people, or have you ever met one?

I have a reason to ask this question.

Had I been asked two years ago whether I would call a transgender person by their preferred pronoun or not, I wouldn't have had a straight answer. There is every possibility I might have said 'no'.

However, about a year ago, I began working with a transgender woman, and at no point did I hesitate for a second in using the pronouns 'she' and 'her', despite knowing this person was born 'with a penis', as you previously said.

I'm not getting on my high horse, here. I think this is a deeply complex and understandably divisive issue. But there seemed to be no good reason not to use female pronouns with this person.

You may be making a point if you insist on using pronouns like 'he' and 'him' to refer to a transgender woman, but the thought of even doing so once made me feel incredibly petty and insensitive.

Had I done so, I may have won some small battle from an intellectual standpoint, but I also would have been disrespecting this person, whether or not that disrespect was intentional. It didn't seem worth it.

So, really, while it's easy to say "I would use the term 'she' or 'her' to refer to a transgender woman", imagine if a transgender woman were standing in the room.

Are you really going to maintain that insistence, knowing how they will interpret it?

DivingDuck

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Actually it can have a major effect on other people. The use of bathrooms etc.

People's discomfort with the presence of trans individuals in sex-relegated spaces is a separate issue to the one I was discussing regards forms of address, though.

Also of course, given that gender is magic and fluid and not related to biology but floating above biology why couldn't a biological male rugby team -- without recourse to surgery or even dressing as women (since "cis gendered" women wear male clothing) -- just compete in a female rugby tournament? Or just declare themselves male one day and female the next. That's what fluid would mean.

...I don't recall seeing the words "magic" or "fluid" anywhere in this thread, and I'm fully sure I didn't use them.

There is a whole spectrum of trans identification and biological interventions to bring their bodies in line with their minds, but I take your point; maybe there does need to be some kind of regulation put in place regards sex-divided sport participation. Hormone levels, perhaps, or a time-restriction along the lines of "you must be able to prove that you lived as gender x before participating as gender x in competitive sporting events", etc. It's a sticky area, in my view, given the fact that there are some biological advantages which could be present because of someone's birth sex.

But what you're talking about are not normal everyday occurrences-- you're talking about people who are at the peak of human physical fitness where the importance of physical sex is as heightened as it's ever going to get. It is nowhere near so relevant for the vast, vast majority of people-- trans and non-trans.

It's also the same as the argument that Very Bored was making regards "if I say I'm the President, am I the President?" These categories are earned privileges which have been accorded to someone for specific achievements they have personally attained-- being voted president, physically qualifying for a sports team, etc. Normal everyday life is not like that. Being a cis male or female is not something you've earned, it's something that just happened, like being born with all your limbs, or blue eyes, or any other attribute of your physicality that you had no control over. Comparing the two is pointless.

Also he whole magical nonsense contradicts itself. Biological sex is (we are told) meaningless because gender is a social construct. Men don't act like men because of testosterone or other biological differences but because they are told what to do. This despite the animal kingdom not acting like that that at all, since nobody is constructing the differences between actual geese and actual ganders. Or any animals with sex differences, which is most of them.

But transgenderism actually believes in some kind of inate sexual differences not constructed by society. It's not biological males who think they are "gender males", nor biological women who think they are gender females, that's all a construct. Instead the transfemale or male is opposing "social construction" by being true to their nature, a nature which isn't biological. How they managed to avoid the social construction trapping the rest of us is unexplained, as is how their real nature is to be tested for, or how it is more real than biological sex; and how this nature trumps evolution and social construction is not even asked, never mind answered.

I can only assume what it comes down to is that the person in question doesn't like the "social construct" of what it means to be male or female, and wishes to live as the opposing construct. I don't fully understand what you mean when you talk about trans people having escaped something the rest of us haven't, because by being trans they're saying that they accept the male/female dichotomy, they just don't want to live with the one they were assigned at birth.

In my view, it is very simply this: a trans person wants to live as a specific gender, something which makes no statements beyond feeling that their psychology and life desires are more in line with what is expected of the opposite gender to the one they were physically born into. For some people, this extends to changing their physical body (i.e., hormones, surgeries, whatever) and for others, the presentation is enough (i.e., they dress as a man and intend to appear male, but do not have any surgeries to transform their body to remove female features and add male ones). There's nothing contradictory about any of that.

Some trans people might have political or ideological opinions which obfuscate the issue, but that is a separate and individual thing which a. isn't shared by all trans people, and b. isn't necessarily even linked to them being trans at all.

It's a mystical belief system, like believing that bread becomes Jesus if you really believe it, and it's as heretical to not believe this now as it was the magical bread a few decades and centuries ago.

Except it's not a crime. You don't have believe anything-- but likewise, others don't have to respect you or your opinions if you ignore people's statements about how they feel about their own bodies and desires.

Teafor two12345

She has always courted controversy. She is transphobic and also extreme in her feminism always has been. I don't about banning anyone from speaking I think freedom to be heard is important. Her views are not the mainstream in feminism. She has spewed a lot of trans hatred.