Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 21-02-2020 04:48PM

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 · 21-02-2020 04:48PM

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 · 21-02-2020 04:49PM

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 · 21-02-2020 04:49PM

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 · 21-02-2020 04:49PM

super_furry wrote: »

What the fcuk is this thread even about anymore?

Hatred and changing rooms.

B0jangles · 21-02-2020 04:49PM

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 · 21-02-2020 04:50PM

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 · 21-02-2020 04:51PM

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 · 21-02-2020 04:52PM

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 · 21-02-2020 04:54PM

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 · 21-02-2020 04:56PM

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 · 21-02-2020 04:56PM

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 · 21-02-2020 04:57PM

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 · 21-02-2020 04:57PM

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 · 21-02-2020 04:58PM

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 · 21-02-2020 05:00PM

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 · 21-02-2020 05:01PM

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 · 21-02-2020 05:01PM

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 · 21-02-2020 05:02PM

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 · 21-02-2020 05:02PM

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 · 21-02-2020 05:03PM

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 · 21-02-2020 05:04PM

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 · 21-02-2020 05:05PM

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 · 21-02-2020 05:07PM

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.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 21-02-2020 05:07PM

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?

The thing, I’m not anti-trans. I’m concerned with the area where the rights of different groups come into conflict. And I can’t understand why anyone wouldn’t be concerned about that to be honest. I don’t believe that supporting transgender people means that they can have everything they want. I’m also amazed at women throwing other women under the bus.

CtevenSrowder · 21-02-2020 05:08PM

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.

Was Germaine Greer chemically castrating gay men 60 years ago?

LineOfBeauty · 21-02-2020 05:09PM

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Was Germaine Greer chemically castrating gay men 60 years ago?

I don't know. Were some of the fore-bearers of the groups she is associating with fully in favour of such laws? Yes.

21-02-2020 05:12PM

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!

In was in response to 20Cents suggestion that the government finance the operations for those wishing to transition. And I didn't argue anything because nobody responded to it. Am I wrong in suggesting that those doing a full transition will no longer be able to produce children?

The problem with people like yourself, B0jangles, is that you're so high up on your self appointed moral tower that you only see everything from one perspective. Yours.

BTW, You really should consider some of the arguments that 20Cents, and others (your allies) have made...

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.

Ahh no. For I have posted up statistics when the claims were incorrect or inaccurate. The claim that males are more violent than females is correct. We are. Admittedly, it's mostly against other males, rather than females, but the claim by others were accurate, considering the context used.. Male on female violence is greater than female violence.

And since there are no statistics available on Transgender crime, we have no idea whether the statistics remain the same after transitioning, or whether it shifts. However, if a person believes that a biological male, remains a male personality, after transitioning, then it's logical to believe that the trend of violence would remain similar. Depending, of course, whether you believe that such instincts and behavior are biological or cultural.

B0jangles · 21-02-2020 05:17PM

Deleted User wrote: »

In was in response to 20Cents suggestion that the government finance the operations for those wishing to transition. And I didn't argue anything because nobody responded to it. Am I wrong in suggesting that those doing a full transition will no longer be able to produce children?
cultural.

The very idea that people transitioning could have any appreciable effect on a nation's birthrate is just insane. You'd probably have 10000-fold greater effect by running an ad campaign to encourage men to switch from briefs to boxers.

CtevenSrowder · 21-02-2020 05:17PM

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

I don't know. Were some of the fore-bearers of the groups she is associating with fully in favour of such laws? Yes.

What groups is she associating with that have done this?

30 years ago Sinn Fein were supportive of a terrorist campaign around Britain and Ireland. Does that mean Noone should associate with them now? Are 30% of the Irish population no better than murderers in your opinion?

Also yiu still have answered if, in your opinion, it is OK for an anatomical male to be house with female prisoners?

Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Comments