Blue tory is the only good tory.
Advertisement
by The Xenopolis Confederation » Sun May 06, 2018 7:57 pm
by Mike the Progressive » Sun May 06, 2018 8:03 pm
Thanatttynia wrote:Mike the Progressive wrote:
To some extent, it gets annoying.
I mean OK, you're a male trapped in a females body or vice versa, cool.. But when you have people who dont identify as either male/female, or are male male but don't want to be referred to as a male without any intention of correcting their gender, it's just, ugh.
Idk. It's like people who refer to themselves as act-tors who in reality live in California working at denny's as a waiter while taking "drama" classes weekly.
At some point you got to realize, no, you're really not regardless of how much you want to be.
That's an understandable position to hold. I get that some gender-non-conforming people can be annoying, but that's true of the general populace - some people are annoying. It doesn't take much effort, though, to call someone by their preferred pronouns and, if they're being sincere, that small action might save them from a lot of unnecessary mental anguish.
Bit confused by your last point? Gender isn't 'real' (i.e. biological, unchangeable, absolute.) It's a societal construct like race or sexuality; therefore I would say you can literally be any gender you want. The only reason we assume there are two is that 99% of people fall into one of two biological categories, but sex and gender aren't the same thing so I'm not ultimately convinced we should keep this outdated system on the basis of that.
by Ifreann » Sun May 06, 2018 8:29 pm
Mike the Progressive wrote:New Emeline wrote:Why?
To some extent, it gets annoying.
I mean OK, you're a male trapped in a females body or vice versa, cool.. But when you have people who dont identify as either male/female, or are male male but don't want to be referred to as a male without any intention of correcting their gender, it's just, ugh.
Idk. It's like people who refer to themselves as act-tors who in reality live in California working at denny's as a waiter while taking "drama" classes weekly.
At some point you got to realize, no, you're really not regardless of how much you want to be.
by Threlizdun » Sun May 06, 2018 8:31 pm
Not really, because TERFs aren't advocating for the empowerment of women, just the empowerment of a certain subsection of women.Galloism wrote:Threlizdun wrote:Trans women are women, regardless on if the have transitioned or if they even desire to. Reducing women to their genitals is sexist and frankly gross as hell. TERFs promote violence against women who don't adhere to their standards of feminity. They aren't feminists, aren't radical, and have no place in the left.
You do know that claiming TERFs aren't real feminists is roughly like claiming that Senate Republicans aren't real Republicans, right?
by Mike the Progressive » Sun May 06, 2018 10:31 pm
Ifreann wrote:Mike the Progressive wrote:
To some extent, it gets annoying.
I mean OK, you're a male trapped in a females body or vice versa, cool.. But when you have people who dont identify as either male/female, or are male male but don't want to be referred to as a male without any intention of correcting their gender, it's just, ugh.
Idk. It's like people who refer to themselves as act-tors who in reality live in California working at denny's as a waiter while taking "drama" classes weekly.
At some point you got to realize, no, you're really not regardless of how much you want to be.
So if someone calls themselves an actor, we can tell that they aren't really an actor by noting that they don't actually do any acting. Makes sense.
And if someone calls themselves agender, we can tell that they aren't really by....what? Just the fact that them saying so annoys you?
by Grenartia » Sun May 06, 2018 10:33 pm
Mike the Progressive wrote:Ifreann wrote:So if someone calls themselves an actor, we can tell that they aren't really an actor by noting that they don't actually do any acting. Makes sense.
And if someone calls themselves agender, we can tell that they aren't really by....what? Just the fact that them saying so annoys you?
Yes. Because there is no such thing as "agender." Or if there is, it's stupid.
by Galloism » Sun May 06, 2018 11:33 pm
by Vassenor » Mon May 07, 2018 12:27 am
Galloism wrote:Threlizdun wrote:Not really, because TERFs aren't advocating for the empowerment of women, just the empowerment of a certain subsection of women.
So?
Senate republicans don’t advocate for power of republicans either - just a certain subsection of republicans (known as donors). The notion that Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists are neither true radicals nor true feminists is laughable. The fact that you don’t like them, for very good reason mind you, doesn’t make them not trueScotsmenradical feminists.
It’s roughly akin to saying senate republicans aren’t true republicans.
by Hirota » Mon May 07, 2018 12:56 am
Vassenor wrote:Galloism wrote:So?
Senate republicans don’t advocate for power of republicans either - just a certain subsection of republicans (known as donors). The notion that Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists are neither true radicals nor true feminists is laughable. The fact that you don’t like them, for very good reason mind you, doesn’t make them not trueScotsmenradical feminists.
It’s roughly akin to saying senate republicans aren’t true republicans.
So we're not allowed to distance ourselves from the toxic people? Because that sounds suspiciously like telling us we're not allowed to fix the things you complain about.
by Hirota » Mon May 07, 2018 1:25 am
Most of your "reply" is inarticulate one or two word replies - if you post something more coherent then there might be something to discuss. Equally, some has already been answered (Tahar for example), so I'm going to skip all those and address the parts that have something interesting to address.Imperializt Russia wrote:...
Are you sure? Elections (as an abstract principle) are supposed to be legitimising the power of those elected to lead. The people who vote will choose to do so on a variety of reasons, including who is best qualified for the job out of a pool of candidates. At least some of the electorate (often the "floating voter" - the ones who tend to make the actual difference in tightly contested seats) will decide who to vote for partially out of self-interest, and partially out of merit.
I illustrate May and Thatcher as evidence that there is no evidence AWSL's does any better to accomplish equality at the top or upper levels of politics than plain old political Darwinism.Imperializt Russia wrote:Hirota wrote:It's regressive because it assumes women are infantile, unable to get to the top without help, yet we've had 2 women Prime Ministers - from the only mainstream party not to impose shortlists.
It doesn't, but whatever.
Yes. One party has had two women prime ministers. Good for them.
They have, however, even as far back as Thatcher, had a dearth of women supporters, candidates and staffers, and still do have a severe "old boys club" with limited female access to many top jobs, which I argue is substantially more meaningful and important than having one woman in the top job.
Diversity of thought, not tokenism, I thought you hated that shit?
That is an evasion. You've not answered the questions. Provide evidence how what "strides" have been made on all these demographics, and explain why you need all women shortlists, but apparently not shortlists for religion, ethnic minorities and trans?Imperializt Russia wrote:Hirota wrote:Any how many MP's are trans? From ethnic minorities? From other religions? What makes women so deserving of special protections and a leg up, more so than these other demographics? Do you have evidence that women need shortlists but the others do not?
And we're making strides on all three, please note that "women" also make up a large number of all of those categories?
I'll rephrase the question - do you believe there is an under-representation in Parliament of MP's from lower-income backgrounds? And assuming you do,are they more or less worthy of special protections than your average female Labour candidate?Imperializt Russia wrote:Hirota wrote:Heck, you have socialist leanings, why are there no quota for lower income candidates? Are they more or less worthy of special protections than your average female Labour candidate?
It's not income that is the problem in politics, but financial interests and disconnect.
by Ifreann » Mon May 07, 2018 4:23 am
Mike the Progressive wrote:Ifreann wrote:So if someone calls themselves an actor, we can tell that they aren't really an actor by noting that they don't actually do any acting. Makes sense.
And if someone calls themselves agender, we can tell that they aren't really by....what? Just the fact that them saying so annoys you?
Yes. Because there is no such thing as "agender." Or if there is, it's stupid.
by The Xenopolis Confederation » Mon May 07, 2018 5:19 am
Mike the Progressive wrote:Ifreann wrote:So if someone calls themselves an actor, we can tell that they aren't really an actor by noting that they don't actually do any acting. Makes sense.
And if someone calls themselves agender, we can tell that they aren't really by....what? Just the fact that them saying so annoys you?
Yes. Because there is no such thing as "agender." Or if there is, it's stupid.
by Galloism » Mon May 07, 2018 7:15 am
Vassenor wrote:Galloism wrote:So?
Senate republicans don’t advocate for power of republicans either - just a certain subsection of republicans (known as donors). The notion that Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists are neither true radicals nor true feminists is laughable. The fact that you don’t like them, for very good reason mind you, doesn’t make them not trueScotsmenradical feminists.
It’s roughly akin to saying senate republicans aren’t true republicans.
So we're not allowed to distance ourselves from the toxic people? Because that sounds suspiciously like telling us we're not allowed to fix the things you complain about.
by Imperializt Russia » Mon May 07, 2018 12:30 pm
Vassenor wrote:The Alma Mater wrote:
And yet the King of the Netherlands rules "by the grace of God", the Chanchellor of Germany is a member of the CHRISTLICH Demokratische Union and the virgin Mary is formally Queen of Poland.
And how many of those countries are actually writing their laws based around religion?
Mike the Progressive wrote:New Emeline wrote:Why?
To some extent, it gets annoying.
I mean OK, you're a male trapped in a females body or vice versa, cool.. But when you have people who dont identify as either male/female, or are male male but don't want to be referred to as a male without any intention of correcting their gender, it's just, ugh.
Idk. It's like people who refer to themselves as act-tors who in reality live in California working at denny's as a waiter while taking "drama" classes weekly.
At some point you got to realize, no, you're really not regardless of how much you want to be.
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by Hammer Britannia » Mon May 07, 2018 12:31 pm
by Kvatchdom » Mon May 07, 2018 12:34 pm
Galloism wrote:Threlizdun wrote:Not really, because TERFs aren't advocating for the empowerment of women, just the empowerment of a certain subsection of women.
So?
Senate republicans don’t advocate for power of republicans either - just a certain subsection of republicans (known as donors). The notion that Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists are neither true radicals nor true feminists is laughable. The fact that you don’t like them, for very good reason mind you, doesn’t make them not trueScotsmenradical feminists.
It’s roughly akin to saying senate republicans aren’t true republicans.
by Imperializt Russia » Mon May 07, 2018 12:36 pm
Galloism wrote:Vassenor wrote:
So we're not allowed to distance ourselves from the toxic people? Because that sounds suspiciously like telling us we're not allowed to fix the things you complain about.
Of course you can. But you can’t try to pull that people aren’t part of <group> when they clearly are. For instance, I can’t say that Stephen Paddock isn’t a true man because he committed a mass murder. He’s a man whether or not he committed a mass murder, by being a member of the human species identifying as such.[.quote]
Not sure about your definition of manhood, but mine doesn't include mass murder.
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by Democratic Empire of Romania » Mon May 07, 2018 12:39 pm
by Vassenor » Mon May 07, 2018 12:55 pm
Democratic Empire of Romania wrote:Men considering themselves women are still men. No. You must be a woman in reality, not just to consider yourself one. That goes the same for women pretending to be men.
by Ors Might » Mon May 07, 2018 12:58 pm
Imperializt Russia wrote:Galloism wrote:Of course you can. But you can’t try to pull that people aren’t part of <group> when they clearly are. For instance, I can’t say that Stephen Paddock isn’t a true man because he committed a mass murder. He’s a man whether or not he committed a mass murder, by being a member of the human species identifying as such.[.quote]
Not sure about your definition of manhood, but mine doesn't include mass murder.
This is rather close to asserting the Nazis were socialists or that the DPRK is a democratic state.
"But it's in their name, so it must be true!"
Most feminists would seem deeply in agreement that by refusing and openly attacking trans identity, TERFs are inherently undermining any feminist principle they may otherwise hold.
by Chestaan » Mon May 07, 2018 1:05 pm
Imperializt Russia wrote:Galloism wrote:Of course you can. But you can’t try to pull that people aren’t part of <group> when they clearly are. For instance, I can’t say that Stephen Paddock isn’t a true man because he committed a mass murder. He’s a man whether or not he committed a mass murder, by being a member of the human species identifying as such.[.quote]
Not sure about your definition of manhood, but mine doesn't include mass murder.
This is rather close to asserting the Nazis were socialists or that the DPRK is a democratic state.
"But it's in their name, so it must be true!"
Most feminists would seem deeply in agreement that by refusing and openly attacking trans identity, TERFs are inherently undermining any feminist principle they may otherwise hold.
by Galloism » Mon May 07, 2018 2:04 pm
Imperializt Russia wrote:Galloism wrote:Of course you can. But you can’t try to pull that people aren’t part of <group> when they clearly are. For instance, I can’t say that Stephen Paddock isn’t a true man because he committed a mass murder. He’s a man whether or not he committed a mass murder, by being a member of the human species identifying as such.
Not sure about your definition of manhood, but mine doesn't include mass murder.
This is rather close to asserting the Nazis were socialists or that the DPRK is a democratic state.
"But it's in their name, so it must be true!"
Most feminists would seem deeply in agreement that by refusing and openly attacking trans identity, TERFs are inherently undermining any feminist principle they may otherwise hold.
Whenever a trans individual such as myself is critical of TERF ideology, we are labelled “misogynists” or “Men’s Rights Activists”, which is an interesting tactic and one that seems to actually make people question the TERF ethos more than swing the undecided towards their viewpoint. Merely by taking a stand against them, I and others like myself have been subjected to threats against our personal safety, been bombarded with spam, pornography, and signed up to various mailing lists in an attempt to silence our voices. Yet many transgender individuals are brave enough to continue pointing out where TERFs are wrong, in the hope that, at least for the transgender community, we can be treated as the men and women we truly are.
by Galloism » Mon May 07, 2018 2:11 pm
Kvatchdom wrote:Galloism wrote:So?
Senate republicans don’t advocate for power of republicans either - just a certain subsection of republicans (known as donors). The notion that Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists are neither true radicals nor true feminists is laughable. The fact that you don’t like them, for very good reason mind you, doesn’t make them not trueScotsmenradical feminists.
It’s roughly akin to saying senate republicans aren’t true republicans.
These people don't claim to be radical however. They are feminists, but terfs have been largely excluded from most feminist groupings because their ideas often go into conflict with most contemporary feminist ideas.
by Threlizdun » Mon May 07, 2018 2:25 pm
Galloism wrote:Threlizdun wrote:Not really, because TERFs aren't advocating for the empowerment of women, just the empowerment of a certain subsection of women.
So?
Senate republicans don’t advocate for power of republicans either - just a certain subsection of republicans (known as donors). The notion that Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists are neither true radicals nor true feminists is laughable. The fact that you don’t like them, for very good reason mind you, doesn’t make them not trueScotsmenradical feminists.
It’s roughly akin to saying senate republicans aren’t true republicans.
by Galloism » Mon May 07, 2018 2:28 pm
Threlizdun wrote:Galloism wrote:So?
Senate republicans don’t advocate for power of republicans either - just a certain subsection of republicans (known as donors). The notion that Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists are neither true radicals nor true feminists is laughable. The fact that you don’t like them, for very good reason mind you, doesn’t make them not trueScotsmenradical feminists.
It’s roughly akin to saying senate republicans aren’t true republicans.
Except feminism is literally defined by the struggle for the empowerment of women, all women.
Someone who only cares about the empowerment of one group of women (cis women, white women, heterosexual women, rich women, etc.), has abandoned the fundamental premise of feminism.
It is important for social movements to critique those who we cannot expect to have our back, especially when they are actively engaging in violence against members of our community. If someone tells me that they are a feminist, yet they deny my very femininity and ally with conservative sexists against me, then I'm going to call them a liar. The word becomes meaningless when diluted to mere self-interest of your own group to the exclusion of all other women and nonbinary people.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aadhirisian Puppet Nation, Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Bienenhalde, Camtropia, Cyptopir, Eahland, Floofybit, Hardinia, Israel and the Sinai, Kerwa, Nu Elysium, Pale Dawn, Post War America, Team Prattle, The Black Forrest, Tinhampton
Advertisement