Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: » Well, I know Irish feminists who have the same concerns that I do. But they fear for their livelihoods and even their safety. One did voice her concerns under her real name on Twitter and was piled on. It was horrible to witness actually because she’s a very kind person and was very measured. But okay, let’s pretend that everything is okay and everyone is happy with the situation. There are Irish women on this thread raising concerns too. We don’t count apparently.
LLMMLL wrote: » It didn't pass me by. It passed you by because you weren't paying attention. That is not anti-democratic. It is 100% democratic. Shocking that you would portray a public process as anti-democratic because you basically didn't hear about it. Democracy requires active participation from citizens. It does not mean the government comes to your door and directly gets your opinion and makes law based solely.on your opinion. I really wish people would educate themselves on how public life works.
Gruffalox wrote: » Except for the very many transwomen who SAY openly that they are not women. Tough one that. Whatcha gonna call them blighters?
Sir Oxman wrote: » Critical gender/queer intersectionalism. Every womens NGO in the UK and here - funding is very important as well. In Scotland at least, no non-Critical gender/queer intersectionalism group will ever get govt funding. Not healthy.
Sir Oxman wrote: » Here you go again. (UK) You cannot see the tactic of #nodebate (promoted by orgs, NGOs, media you name it) and ignore my juxtaposition that there was um, a consultation which you know, sort of um, promotes the idea of discussion. Ireland's consultation passed me by, but then as I linked earlier, 'under the radar' was the successful lauded tactic. At this stage, the Law Society appear to be flagging due diligence/concerns after the event and the top endocrinologist I believe. An ideological theory which is just history repeating itself in it's tactics - every single NGO follows the same path. The uni students of yesterday are in some grand positions now.
suicide_circus wrote: » But travellers ARE travellers. And transgender people ARE transgender people. But they are not women/men (delete as appropriate).
LLMMLL wrote: » Of course transwomen are not exactly the same as women. Nor are white women, tall women, blonde women, etc. They are all women though. It's not magical thinking at all.
Sir Oxman wrote: » Anything to fit an outcome.:D
Sir Oxman wrote: » Here you go again. (UK) You cannot see the tactic of #nodebate (promoted by orgs, NGOs, media you name it) and ignore my juxtaposition that there was um, a consultation which you know, sort of um, promotes the idea of discussion.Ireland's consultation passed me by, but then as I linked earlier, 'under the radar' was the successful lauded tactic. At this stage, the Law Society appear to be flagging due diligence/concerns after the event and the top endocrinologist I believe. An ideological theory which is just history repeating itself in it's tactics - every single NGO follows the same path. The uni students of yesterday are in some grand positions now.
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: » Well, I know Irish feminists who have the same concerns that I do. But they fear for their livelihoods and even their safety. One did voice her concerns under her real name on Twitter and was pounced on. It was horrible to witness actually. But okay, let’s pretend that everything is okay and everyone is happy with the situation. There are Irish women on this thread raising concerns too. We don’t count apparently.
LLMMLL wrote: » If you need to frame public consultation as somewhat anti-democratic by putting "um" in front of it then I don't think I'm the one that needs introspection. The truth is there was public consultation. Did you make a submission? Because if you didn't then it's not really anyone's responsibility but your own.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » Its interesting though isnt it. No womens groups here have ever done that. Our National Womens Council is trans inclusive. There hasnt been a major anti trans backlash here to any extent at all even though we introduced Self ID laws.
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: » Transgender men are indeed female and fall under women’s rights. Naturally. You’re very welcome to direct me to any of my posts where I said otherwise. I’ll wait. And I have been very clear that I don’t believe transgender women are exactly the same as women. Because they’re not. It’s impossible for them to be. I’m amused that you think this is some kind of “gotcha”. Bless. To believe that transgender women are literally the same as women is magical thinking. If that’s what you subscribe to, knock yourself out. But I don’t. And thankfully, the thought police don’t exist so there’s not much that can be done about that. I believe that transgender women have a whole set of issues that are distinct from those of women. Those issues should be taken seriously. As should women’s concerns.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I don’t use the term myself, I’ve always referred to human rights, and you’re right, in Ireland at least everyone has the same rights in law as everyone else with regard to protection from discrimination and recognition in law. People who argue against self-ID if they were successful would mean that people who are transgender would not have equal recognition and protection from discrimination in law as people who are not transgender. The same sort of “everyone has the right to enter into marriage” was used before marriage equality legislation was enacted. It’s a disingenuous attempt that overlooks the purpose of why some groups in society need equal recognition in law. Same reason why travellers are now recognised as an ethnic minority in Ireland - because they need recognition and protection in law that they didn’t have before and can no longer be discriminated against on the basis of their identity as a member of the traveller community.
Gentlemanne wrote: » I'm not stupid, when I see organisations try to cut the T out of LGBT and I see people constantly refer to people on the other side as "Trans Rights Activists", I don't think its controversial to say they are anti transgender rights. Even the idea of trans rights vs. women's rights is a dishonest framing. Some transgender people are women too. Unless you mean trans women's rights conflicting with cis women's rights? But I'm guessing you purposefully don't use these terms because you don't think trans women are really women. Its actually pointless arguing with some people who are anti trans because fundamentally they do not even understand nor respect transgender people's identity in the first place.
Sir Oxman wrote: » Women's groups (the ones that weren't captured therefore defunded) and LGB & T people ('the wrong kind' according to tractivists) requested continuously over the past 3-4 years to have a respective, open debate and discussion as they could see conflicts arising from the GRA proposals & um, consultation. They were ignored. That's where indisputably dishonest tactic of #nodebate came about which is anathema to any democratic society. Due diligence is somewhat important even with one argument proclaiming there are 'no conflicts' So, whisht with your dishonest tactic/anti-trans rights reversal, I've seen and heard the gaslighting crap from locked-in ideologists too many times. A bit of introspection on those points wouldn't do you any harm.
suicide_circus wrote: » When people say "Trans Rights", what exactly are they referring to? Because everyone has "Human Rights".
volchitsa wrote: » Wow. That high horse you were on in the post above, did you slip off it here, or was it all just faux outrage and indeed faux decency? Because this post below is really very very sh1tty indeed. You don't know Linehan or Rowling - how the hell can you say what sort of people they are? Especially Rowling. That's such offensive stuff, and based on nothing. But I suspect you still think you're "a decent person" as you said. Going by that level of unfounded vitriol against someone you have never spoken to and who has never done anyone any harm as far as we know, that's unsure. (And there's a big difference in what she said and what people have claimed she said.)
Gruffalox wrote: » Apparently we are "going out of our way to humiliate people and still feeling as if we are decent people". Such manipulative tripe. All the main protagonists in this thread on the side of protecting the reality of sex based spaces, needs, truths, etc have always said transgender people need respect and protection too. Not at others expense though.
Gruffalox wrote: » Anyway. We must shut up or be considered "indecent". Where did I hear that before? Long time ago round these parts of the planet. Though the mullahs still say it to the women in Iran.
LLMMLL wrote: » I think it's more dishonest to portray a position as simply pointing out something. Anti-trans activists don't just have an opinion that there is a conflict (even though there is no conflict). They state how they believe that conflict should be resolved. And that is why they are anti-trans rights. And I agree. People who need to use dishonest tactics should ask themselves why that is.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I’m sure you can understand then when someone goes out of their way to humiliate another person and still sees themselves as a decent person speaking truth to power, they too may well be deluding themselves.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I’m saying anyone who does it. Linehan and JK are just examples of it. I don’t think Linehan has had any sort of a breakdown, I think he was always an arsehole. He knocked it out of the park with Father Ted and then when he was criticised for using a trope that was often applied to people who are transgender, he lost his shìt and went after them as a group. That’s when he showed his true colours, and he’s been at it ever since. Five minutes after he was banned off Twitter he logged on to mumsnet looking for support, and wasn’t long being told where to go. He was only brave while he was being egged on by the support he got from his half a million followers on social media. I think the same of JK - she was always an arsehole, dunno what set her off, but she took it upon herself to humiliate and provoke as large a group as she could, and has been playing the victim since. When she tried shmoozing up to Stephen King to elevate herself to his level, he wasn’t long indicating where she could go either. That’s why she deleted her tweet - utterly humiliating for her that Stephen King whom she heaped praise on when she thought he supported her ideas, didn’t support her ideas after all. She still has the support of 14.5 million followers on social media. The people they provoked are complete nobodies, who have the same attitudes towards other people that they do, except that Linehan and JK have all the power in that scenario. The expression “shìt finds it’s own level” comes to mind tbh.
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: » Well said. And yes, :rolleyes: at “anti-transgender rights”. Pointing out that some transgender rights conflict with women’s rights isn’t being against rights for transgender people. But portraying it that way is a standard tactic. If people need to employ such dishonest tactics, they should question why that is.
