Graham Linehan banned from twitter for questioning "trans ideology"

One eyed Jack wrote: »

So what? I’m not responsible for claims someone else makes!

But you're defending their right to make such claims and therefore emboldening this nonsensical ideology of allowing self identification.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The ongoing discrimination is that people who are transgender are often discriminated against on the basis that they are transgender and do not fit neatly into boxes that are labelled for the sex they identify with rather than the sex that has been determined for them at birth.

Women have to accept it because they are part of a democratic society where everyone is entitled to equal treatment based upon the law acknowledging that everyone in that society is entitled to equal treatment based upon the idea of valuing human dignity and respect.

They are labelled for the sex they were born with because that is the sex they were born with. You cannot change your sex. This is a view you even agree with, so I don't see your point.

Although at least you aren't a moral coward and can say that you believe that it's up to women to just accept it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why do you say of course they will be taken seriously when you yourself don’t take them seriously? Anyone can say they aren’t transgender, it’s up to the person who claims they are transgender to provide supporting evidence for their claims. It’s not as though their claims will be taken seriously without supporting evidence. Where’s the problem, other than one which is implied by tabloid rags sensationalising the whole thing for clickbait revenue to fuel moral panic in society of people who are transgender?

Jack, c'mon, we both know the trans lobby will be all over it. They are being 'denied their existence', it's 'transphobic' to say they aren't. And anyway, the whole point of self id is that you don't have to prove it.

I'd have no problem allowing people to self declare, and have legal documents changed, as long as this recognition does not extend to being allowed in women's prisons, having access to women's changing rooms, or women's shelters etc. unless that person goes through a full transition. That to me is the best compromise.

Unfortunately, sports are just a know go in general for me.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m not tying myself up in knots at all. Women aren’t being denied medals, they have the same opportunities to compete for medals as they always had, they never had the right to determine who else could or couldn’t also compete against them, in spite of accusations of doping against other athletes by American athletes when they didn’t win medals.

Women are being denied medals in various sports because men have self identified as women and beat them out of medals.

Up until self identification was a thing women did have the right to determine who they were competing against as by competing in a women sport they only competed against women, now that isn't the case.

Smith152 wrote: »

But according to some people here even questioning someone who claims to be transgender is transphobic and therefore discriminatory.

So what? I’m not responsible for claims someone else makes!

OscarMIlde

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The ongoing discrimination is that people who are transgender are often discriminated against on the basis that they are transgender and do not fit neatly into boxes that are labelled for the sex they identify with rather than the sex that has been determined for them at birth.

I presume you are referring to personality traits or interests when you talk about
people fitting neatly into the boxes that are labelled for their sex? Surely people should be breaking down gender based stereotypes rather than assuming that interests/personality traits are sex specific.

Smith152 wrote: »

I'm really looking forward to the future Olympics where countless women are denied medals due to men self identifying and the likes of One Eyed Jack tying himself up in knots over and over again defending such behaviour.

I’m not tying myself up in knots at all. Women aren’t being denied medals, they have the same opportunities to compete for medals as they always had, they never had the right to determine who else could or couldn’t also compete against them, in spite of accusations of doping against other athletes by American athletes when they didn’t win medals.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It could be, what’s your point? It would depend upon the circumstances in each individual case whether or not there has been a violation of their human rights. That would have to be determined in a Court of Law, not the Court of Public Opinion.

But according to some people here even questioning someone who claims to be transgender is transphobic and therefore discriminatory.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yes. I do think you are transphobic.

What I hear from you are all the same 'concerns' people used to voice about lesbians in women's changing rooms. I grew up hearing that crap. How we would be sexual predators. I stopped sharing changing rooms in the early 2000s and we were still hearing it then.
At a rugby tournament I played in in 1998 an English women's team was asked to leave due to the abuse they gave any player who was obviously gay. Ironically they were asked to leave after they complained they 'didn't feel safe' in the showers.
And the people who said those things were homophobic.

Is there a significant strength difference between lesbians and straight women that I’m not aware of?

Do lesbians have different patterns of criminality from straight women that I’m not aware of?

Remember, YOU are the one who brought up lesbians here so could you answer the above questions? Because that’s where my concerns lie primarily. Why would I therefore have wanted lesbians excluded? I’m concerned with SEX-based rights. Why would lesbians not be included?

Linking these concerns to homophobia is a sneaky, fallacious tactic. You think people are stupid, don’t you?

Smith152 wrote: »

If self ID is allowed then surely it's against their human rights to be denied transfer to a women's prison when they have self identified as women.

It could be, what’s your point? It would depend upon the circumstances in each individual case whether or not there has been a violation of their human rights. That would have to be determined in a Court of Law, not the Court of Public Opinion.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

I'm really looking forward to the future Olympics where countless women are denied medals due to men self identifying and the likes of One Eyed Jack tying himself up in knots over and over again defending such behaviour.

randomchild wrote: »

Reddit has banned the gender critical subreddit, once again emphasing the fact that big tech companies should have never been given the keys to the world's communication channels.

“GoOd RiDdAnCE, iT wAs FiLLeD WiTh hAtE sPeEcH”.

Or something.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

What is the ongoing discrimination exactly? I'll ask you aswell, why should women have to accept biological males into spaces reserved for women (females)?

The ongoing discrimination is that people who are transgender are often discriminated against on the basis that they are transgender and do not fit neatly into boxes that are labelled for the sex they identify with rather than the sex that has been determined for them at birth.

Women have to accept it because they are part of a democratic society where everyone is entitled to equal treatment based upon the law acknowledging that everyone in that society is entitled to equal treatment based upon the idea of valuing human dignity and respect.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Ofcourse they will be taken seriously. If they are not it is blatant transphobia. Sure who is anyone to say that they aren't trans. This is the problem.

Why do you say of course they will be taken seriously when you yourself don’t take them seriously? Anyone can say they aren’t transgender, it’s up to the person who claims they are transgender to provide supporting evidence for their claims. It’s not as though their claims will be taken seriously without supporting evidence. Where’s the problem, other than one which is implied by tabloid rags sensationalising the whole thing for clickbait revenue to fuel moral panic in society of people who are transgender?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, it has everything to do with them seeking more lenient treatment and special dispensations. There is nothing to stop any inmates from making these claims, it doesn’t mean their claims will be taken seriously, unless you imagine that the people who are charged with responsibility for these decisions are particularly stupid, in which case there are greater issues than simply a number of inmates claiming to be transgender.

If self ID is allowed then surely it's against their human rights to be denied transfer to a women's prison when they have self identified as women.

Bannasidhe

Gruffalox wrote: »

My views cannot be those of a TERF. I have my own independent big girl views. A good while back I posted a long and no doubt boring piece about how gender theory emerged from second wave feminism and was rooted in post modern deconstruction. I vehemently challenge gender theory which puts me well outside the views of many feminists. Gender was said to be a social construct first by these people, following Foucault, Derrida , Butler et al and has led directly to the illogical inconsistent ideological morass that attempts to insist against reason that TW is a W etc.

So you too will have to come up with a different slur for me since you cannot argue the grounds and instead make emotional appeals and resort to extrapolating from personal anecdote while disallowing others anecdotal experience

You deny that that Transgender women are women.
That, in a nutshell (or fallopian tube if you prefer) is the same view as a TERF.
However you cannot be a TERF as you are not a feminist. TBH you come across more like a sociologist. All that theory.

It is hardly a slur to point out that your expressed views - regardless of how you came by them, be it big girl or not - are similar to those expressed by a particular group of people. It is merely an observation.

You really shouldn't take these things so personally. It's not like I have invalidated your identity or anything.

You think I stand on the same side as men who are undermining and taking from women's hard won spaces by claiming to be women. That these men are a real threat to women. Possibly you feel I am a traitor to my sex/gender.

I think you stand on the same side as people who murder transgender people because they are transgender. To me, it's all transphobia no matter how much it is wrapped in Derrida et al.

What I did not do, no matter how desperately you want to believe otherwise, is insult you or call you anything that is a 'slur' - unless you think me saying I think you are transphobic is a slur in which case what other term would you like me to use for 'person who does not believe transgender people are the gender they identify as' and I will use that instead.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, it has everything to do with them seeking more lenient treatment and special dispensations. There is nothing to stop any inmates from making these claims, it doesn’t mean their claims will be taken seriously, unless you imagine that the people who are charged with responsibility for these decisions are particularly stupid, in which case there are greater issues than simply a number of inmates claiming to be transgender.

Ofcourse they will be taken seriously. If they are not it is blatant transphobia. Sure who is anyone to say that they aren't trans. This is the problem.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’d suggest that anyone who tries to argue on any basis that ongoing discrimination should be tolerated by people who are discriminated against, should be the ones to suck it up tbh. I don’t suggest that cohort specifically refers to women only, it also applies equally to men.

What is the ongoing discrimination exactly? I'll ask you aswell, why should women have to accept biological males into spaces reserved for women (females)?

Smith152 wrote: »

1 in 50 male prisoners in the UK are now claiming to be women. There's a reason for this and it's nothing to do them actually being transgender.

No, it has everything to do with them seeking more lenient treatment and special dispensations. There is nothing to stop any inmates from making these claims, it doesn’t mean their claims will be taken seriously, unless you imagine that the people who are charged with responsibility for these decisions are particularly stupid, in which case there are greater issues than simply a number of inmates claiming to be transgender.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Who said anything about forced sterilisation/genital rearrangement? They can have the surgery if they want, no-one is forcing them to.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Joey:

What do you propose exactly? Or is it a case of women just having to suck it up?

I’d suggest that anyone who tries to argue on any basis that ongoing discrimination should be tolerated by people who are discriminated against, should be the ones to suck it up tbh. I don’t suggest that cohort specifically refers to women only, it also applies equally to men.

Smith152 wrote: »

1 in 50 male prisoners in the UK are now claiming to be women. There's a reason for this and it's nothing to do them actually being transgender.

Not forgetting the sports people have id'd as female giving them a clear advantage. One is on the record as saying they gained pleasure from beating up women they had a difference of opinion with (fallon fox). All this fully supported by the people such as the poster you are responding to.

LLMMLL wrote: »

Why wouldn't Larry Murphy walk into the local women's changing rooms. Shoot everyone apart from one woman. Kidnap the remaining woman and abuse her.

Why wouldn't Larry Murphy dress up as a clown. Kidnap a bunch of kids. Bring then to his gingerbread house in the Dubkin Mountains and cook up a feast.

You can use Larry Murphy as a bogeyman for anything. I don't think laws should be made on crazy musings about what Larry Mutphy could potentially do.

1 in 50 male prisoners in the UK are now claiming to be women. There's a reason for this and it's nothing to do them actually being transgender.

LLMMLL

Smith152 wrote: »

Why wouldn't someone like Larry Murphy use self id if it was available to him. An unusually high number of male prisoners in the UK are self identifying as women now.

Why wouldn't a struggling male golfer or tennis player use self id and go from earning nothing to being a millionaire overnight.

A lot of human beings are incredible cynical and if they see an opportunity to benefit themselves then there's a good chance any person would take advantage of it.

Why wouldn't Larry Murphy walk into the local women's changing rooms. Shoot everyone apart from one woman. Kidnap the remaining woman and abuse her.

Why wouldn't Larry Murphy dress up as a clown. Kidnap a bunch of kids. Bring then to his gingerbread house in the Dubkin Mountains and cook up a feast.

You can use Larry Murphy as a bogeyman for anything. I don't think laws should be made on crazy musings about what Larry Mutphy could potentially do.

Stark wrote: »

As if saying that forced sterilisation/genital rearrangement is bad is such a controversial opinion.

None of anyone's business what genitals a person has. They're called "private parts" for a reason.

Who said anything about forced sterilisation/genital rearrangement? They can have the surgery if they want, no-one is forcing them to.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Joey:

What do you propose exactly? Or is it a case of women just having to suck it up?

Stark

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Joeytheparrot wrote:

Sorry no. That is forcing by saying they cant have legal recognition until they have surgery. Nah. Thats a totally abusive idea to force surgery for legal recognition and is definitely not something that could be done because its an abuse of human rights.

He didn't disappoint:

As if saying that forced sterilisation/genital rearrangement is bad is such a controversial opinion.

None of anyone's business what genitals a person has. They're called "private parts" for a reason.

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yeah I do. Bizarre that people think Larry Murphy is the kind of person who would use self id. People are so mixed up on this.

I think some people watched silence of the lambs and think Buffalo bill was trans and all trans people are Buffalo bill and all serial rapists are trans and buffalo bill. So strange.

Why wouldn't someone like Larry Murphy use self id if it was available to him. An unusually high number of male prisoners in the UK are self identifying as women now.

Why wouldn't a struggling male golfer or tennis player use self id and go from earning nothing to being a millionaire overnight.

A lot of human beings are incredible cynical and if they see an opportunity to benefit themselves then there's a good chance any person would take advantage of it.

joeguevara

Bannasidhe wrote: »

That's not paraphrasing - that is completely twisting to suit your agenda.

I said to another poster "your views are those of a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist), but you are not a feminist." - she herself said she wasn't a feminist.
And indeed - her expressed views were the same as TERFs, doesn't follow she is one, what with not being a feminist never mind a radical one.

What is the absolute obsession with people to label others and come up with acronyms. People have names not labels. Why do people spend so long to objectify somebody based on scrabble tiles. Surely chatting about what you have in common and what you have that don’t make a difference. I swear to God, it’s becoming an episode of countdown with people trying to figure what the letters mean. Also, one day I’m one thing. another day I’m another, I decide. Not letters.

Gruffalox wrote: »

A good while back I posted a long and no doubt boring piece about how gender theory emerged from second wave feminism and was rooted in post modern deconstruction.

I remember it well because it was one of the best things I’d ever read tbh. It had far more substance to it than simplistic back and forth bickering and warbling trite slogans and name calling nonsense. It was an actual critique of gender, as opposed to some people’s notions of referring to themselves as ‘gender critics’ based upon nothing more than what appears to be their ability to wind people up.

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

Masterphobe. I love it. Might get it on a t-shirt.

I always like to make at least one person happier every day.

Adieu for now. We shall meet again no doubt.