Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

B0jangles wrote: »

Have you noticed who your allies in the fight against trans rights are?

It's the MRA/feminism-is-evil crowd, in America you've got the unwavering support of the religious right, right here on boards you've even got someone arguing that letting trans people transition will reduce the western birthrate!

Does that not seem a bit strange to you?

Isn't it also strange that the very same people who'd normally be up in arms at the suggestion that all men are violent and a threat to women are quite happy to agree with that same notion as long as the 'men' being talked about are transgender.

Left-wing, female, abortion rights supporting, marriage equality supporting person here. How are you doing?

And the people doing all the labelling are those opposing people like me.

Argue the points. If you believe you have a strong case, why the labelling?

CtevenSrowder

B0jangles wrote: »

Have you noticed who your allies in the fight against trans rights are?

It's the MRA/feminism-is-evil crowd, in America you've got the unwavering support of the religious right, right here on boards you've even got someone arguing that letting trans people transition will reduce the western birthrate!

Does that not seem a bit strange to you?

Isn't it also strange that the very same people who'd normally be up in arms at the suggestion that all men are violent and a threat to women are quite happy to agree with that same notion as long as the 'men' being talked about are transgender.

Guilt by association is it? And secondly you are wrong. There are plenty of feminists who ideas such as self id in it's current format. Germane Greer and JK Rowling being probably the two most famous examples.

I personally don't like any of those groups of people.

creditcarder

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

What?

Can't be a simpler sentence tbh.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

creditcarder wrote: »

Can't be a simpler sentence tbh.

You... don’t understand why somebody would attack another person for sex? Well, I don’t understand it either but, urm, rapists exist. Why do I have to spell this out?

LineOfBeauty

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Because they are biologically male (or female if they are transmen), something that doesn’t and can’t change. In living as transpeople, they are a minority but that doesn’t exempt them from their underlying biology. And if you think it does - yikes.

Great, so they exist in name only according to you. Despite statistics showing that they are 50% less likely to commit sexual assault as other "biological males" that is something which you choose to disregard?

super_furry

What the fcuk is this thread even about anymore?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Guilt by association is it? And secondly you are wrong. There are plenty of feminists who ideas such as self id in it's current format. Germane Greer and JK Rowling being probably the two most famous examples.

I personally don't like any of those groups of people.

Oh but you see, they’re TERFs. Yet another label.

Gynoid

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Guilt by association is it? And secondly you are wrong. There are plenty of feminists who ideas such as self id in it's current format. Germane Greer and JK Rowling being probably the two most famous examples.

I personally don't like any of those groups of people.

Add Camille Paglia . But we are all right wing men.... apparently. I would have thought the GYN in my name gave me away

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Great, so they exist in name only according to you. Despite statistics showing that they are 50% less likely to commit sexual assault as other "biological males" that is something which you choose to disregard?

No, not just in name. What is controversial about saying that biological sex can’t be changed?

Can you cite those statistics? They’ve been mentioned a few times but I’ve yet to see a citation.

creditcarder

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

You... don’t understand why somebody would attack another person for sex? Well, I don’t understand it either but, urm, rapists exist. Why do I have to spell this out?

It happens sure, but the level of paranoia is absurd in anglo-saxon cultures. I mean, men aren't dogs.

Tbh, I'm going to go for the low hanging fruit and make a joke that I'm suprised if you could spell A to Z.

Edit: It's a joke Obvious. I don't mean anything by it.

LineOfBeauty

super_furry wrote: »

What the fcuk is this thread even about anymore?

Hatred and changing rooms.

B0jangles

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Left-wing, female, abortion rights supporting, marriage equality supporting woman here. How are you doing?

Yes, I am aware of your impressive leftwing credentials, you've cited them repeatedly.

I was pointing out that the other groups who are lining up with the anti-trans feminists hold opinions that would usually be at odds with those of most modern feminists, and with most women's rights advocates.

LineOfBeauty

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

No, not just in name. What is controversial about saying that biological sex can’t be changed?

But why is it that a certain group of these biological males who identify as "trans" are 50% less likely to commit sexual assault?

CtevenSrowder

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Nobody is linking them to sexual deviance? Pages upon pages of Boards discussion about the threat of letting trans people into a changing room or toilet have been imagined?

My answer is that the courts should decide. That if a person is living their life as a certain gender, then that person should be treated as such. That's up to the defendant to prove. The larger point is that if it's such an easy loophole to get around and if no common sense is applied, which seems to be what you're saying, how come nobody has done it yet here?

Again I'm asking if you think it's OK. The courts may decide that someone convicted of a rape should only get 2 years in prison. If I ask you if you think that's OK would your answer be "oh well that's up to the courts to decide"? It is not an answer to the question. I'm asking for your opinion. The courts don't decide your opinion on their decision.

So I'll ask the question again. Do you think its OK that an anotomical male is in prison with biologically female prisoners?

Yes and? If we were discussing whether men should be allowed into female changing rooms you'd hear the same arguments. That wouldn't mean all men are being associated with being rapists. It's acknowledging the increase risk this poses to females.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

But why is it that a certain group of these biological males who identify as "trans" are 50% less likely to commit sexual assault?

As asked above, can I see a citation for that?

LineOfBeauty

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Again I'm asking if you think it's OK. The courts may decide that someone convicted of a rape should only get 2 years in prison. If I ask you if you think that's OK would your answer be "oh well that's up to the courts to decide"? It is not an answer to the question. I'm asking for your opinion. The courts don't decide your opinion on their decision.

So I'll ask the question again. Do you think its OK that an anotomical male is in prison with biologically female prisoners?

Yes and? If we were discussing whether men should be allowed into female changing rooms you'd hear the same arguments. That wouldn't mean all men are being associated with being rapists. It's acknowledging the increase risk this poses to females.

My opinion is obviously that, like any case and any factors in any case, it should be weighed up on its merits and judged on a case by case basis.

But it willfully ignores the fact that actually it doesn't pose an increased risk to females does it? For a variety of reasons we know that it doesn't and saying it does is an attempt to fear-monger isn't it?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

B0jangles wrote: »

Yes, I am aware of your impressive leftwing credentials, you've cited them repeatedly.

I was pointing out that the other groups who are lining up with the anti-trans feminists hold opinions that would usually be at odds with those of most modern feminists, and with most women's rights advocates.

Don’t get snarky about people contradicting labels YOU threw out there. I shall continue to remind you every time you trot them out. They are really lazy.

If people of different political hues and affiliations are objecting, doesn’t that tell you something?

LineOfBeauty

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

As asked above, can I see a citation for that?

One quick google of "are trans people more likely to commit a sexual assault than cis people" should steer you in the right direction pretty quickly. First result I came across did the trick for me. It's strange, for someone so passionate about the topic and who is so afraid of trans people attacking you seem to have done very little research into the topic.

CtevenSrowder

B0jangles wrote: »

Yes, I am aware of your impressive leftwing credentials, you've cited them repeatedly.

I was pointing out that the other groups who are lining up with the anti-trans feminists hold opinions that would usually be at odds with those of most modern feminists, and with most women's rights advocates.

So what? Permabear is a free-market libertarian and pro-choice. Does that mean a socialist such as 20c should now be pro-life?

Your point is idiotic.

LineOfBeauty

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Don’t get snarky about people contradicting labels YOU threw out there. I shall continue to remind you every time you trot them out. They are really lazy.

If people of different political hues and affiliations are objecting, doesn’t that tell you something?

Yes, that you're siding with people who, if they were around 60 years ago, would have been all for chemically castrating gay men.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Yes, that you're siding with people who, if they were around 60 years ago, would have been all for chemically castrating gay men.

People can agree on certain issues and not others. I can’t believe I have to point this out to a grown adult.

Any progress on that citation I asked for?

LineOfBeauty

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

People can agree on certain issues and not others. I can’t believe I have to point this out to a grown adult.

Any progress on that citation I asked for?

Ye, but when those are the people you're agreeing with you should probably ask yourself "are we the bad guys?"

I told you where to find it. It's a simple google search. If you're going to try to demonize an entire group of people the least you can do is a simple google search first.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Ye, but when those are the people you're agreeing with you should probably ask yourself "are we the bad guys?"

I told you where to find it. It's a simple google search. If you're going to try to demonize an entire group of people the least you can do is a simple google search first.

You made the claim. I’m beginning to think it doesn’t exist.

Gynoid

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Yes, that you're siding with people who, if they were around 60 years ago, would have been all for chemically castrating gay men.

Oh come on now, do try harder, I would say the women who are trying to protect the rational biological definition of what a woman is, and thereafter sex based rights and spaces, would probably, 60 years ago, at the very least have been hacking gay men to death with their bread knives and eating their grandmothers.

CtevenSrowder

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Ye, but when those are the people you're agreeing with you should probably ask yourself "are we the bad guys?"

I told you where to find it. It's a simple google search. If you're going to try to demonize an entire group of people the least you can do is a simple google search first.

I googled what yiu suggested and can't find the study or a quote from the study. Clicked into 5 different links.

B0jangles

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Don’t get snarky about people contradicting labels YOU threw out there. I shall continue to remind you every time you trot them out. They are really lazy.

If people of different political hues and affiliations are objecting, doesn’t that tell you something?

I'm not getting snarky, I don't see why your previously-held opinions somehow validate your anti-trans stance



It's not much of a range of political affiliations is it? - it's mostly limited to a subset of UK feminist thought (centered on mumsnet for some reason) and the mra/antifeminists/american religious right.

Do these allies really strike you as having the best interests of women at heart?

LineOfBeauty

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

You made the claim. I’m beginning to think it doesn’t exist.

Search it. Find out. Come back to me with some results. Unless of course you've searched desperately for any statistic to show that trans people are more likely to commit sexual assault than cis people. come up desperately short and now you're just kind of stalling, I definitely don't think that's the case.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Search it. Find out. Come back to me with some results. Unless of course you've searched desperately for any statistic to show that trans people are more likely to commit sexual assault than cis people. come up desperately short and now you're just kind of stalling, I definitely don't think that's the case.

You don’t have the citation, do you? That’s fine. Just admit it FFS.

I, on the other hand, haven’t given any solid statistics or claimed to know any.

LineOfBeauty

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

You don’t have the citation, do you? That’s fine. Just admit it FFS.

Actually I'm on a work computer and it's just a bit of a weird thing to show up on my search history. Though if they ever looked they'd probably wonder why has this guy been debating trans rights the last 4 days non-stop.

Gynoid

B0jangles wrote: »

I'm not getting snarky, I don't see why your previously-held opinions somehow validate your anti-trans stance



It's not much of a range of political affiliations is it? - it's mostly limited to a subset of UK feminist thought (centered on mumsnet for some reason) and the mra/antifeminists/american religious right.

Do these allies really strike you as having the best interests of women at heart?

Perhaps tis you who have a limited range of who you think the allies are. I see lots of businesswomen, writers, professors, biologists, film makers, animators, doctors, scientists, transwomen....every kind of woman and man are among those who thinks there is something amiss in radical trans activism. Good people in spite of the frankly disgusting abuse and insinuations thrown at them constantly. And for some death and rape threats and loss of jobs. Good people. I am glad to be with them.