text:
Canadian Politics Today
Beyond Politics => General Discussion => Topic started by: MH on June 11, 2017, 08:41:34 pm
Title: Gender Culture
Post by: MH on June 11, 2017, 08:41:34 pm
So, BodyBlitz is a women-only spa in downtown Toronto that has seen fit to ban trans women from their establishment during Pride Month.
My part in this discussion is mostly to listen to others' thoughts, and to express support for citizen rights as a citizen and ally of LGBT people.
Title: Re: Gender Culture
Post by: kimmy on June 11, 2017, 11:14:20 pm
I have never been in such a position. As I don't belong to a gym or similar, and as the trans population of Kim City is quite small, it's quite possible I never will.
I'm a strong believer in fairness for LGBT people. And I strongly oppose "bathroom bills" of the sort that some US states have been enacting. I can't imagine why it's an issue. Biologically female people are not going to be lining up at the urinal next to men. And if I'm in the ladies' room I really don't care what the biological sex of the person on the other side of the partition is. As long as they-- whatever their biological sex might be-- stay out of my stall while I'm doing my thing, I don't care.
But I feel that locker-rooms, changing rooms, and showers are a different story. I simply don't want to change or shower in the presence of someone with male anatomy. It would be unsettling and uncomfortable for me, regardless of whether they consider themselves male or female. I understand that might be hurtful to some trans people, but that's the reality of it. It's not a switch I could just turn off. It would be unsettling and uncomfortable for me, and I can only imagine it would be even more upsetting and uncomfortable for women from more conservative cultural backgrounds, and for women who may have had traumatic experiences with biologically male people.
Personally, I would probably leave, or wait until the person left, rather than change or shower alongside them. I would probably decide not to return to that establishment in the future, if that was a regular occurrence. I just don't think I could bring myself to do it.
I think that out of consideration for the feelings of the women who would feel uncomfortable in such circumstances (which is probably many or most women...) I think that establishments should either provide accommodation for trans customers, or provide a ****-free safe-space for women who aren't comfortable changing in the presence of biologically male people.
The movie "Starship Troopers" depicted a completely gender-integrated marine unit... the men and women showered together completely without concern. Perhaps there have been real-world cultures where people were equally comfortable with inter-gender group nudity. But our culture isn't, and it won't be any time soon.
Post by: MH on June 12, 2017, 06:07:34 am
I consider 50 years to be 'soon', so I see it coming absolutely.
I don't have any real stake in this discussion, other than the fact that I am an ally and this involves a human rights question in a country where I am a citizen, but if you are interested, I will offer some observation.
I am a McLuhanite to a fault, and we are perhaps at the end of the electronic era, wherein we are returning to our oral, and tribal roots. As such, this may be the last fight between the dominance of the literate age and the electronic one. I can't do justice to his many writings about clothing, but he explained that clothing and costume denoted one's place in society. Nudity is a shocking thing to a Victorian whereas tribal people, he wrote, merely see nudity as pathetic.
As such, this question make take us back to the origins of humans as the first big book explained it: in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve saw that they were naked and they were ashamed. For us to roll back to a place where nudity is just nudity we will negate that rule.
Personally, my experience with nudity is elementary: as a child, I participated in a backyard game of 'flashing' with a group of other kids and it was a big deal. As such, I have never been comfortable with it. In the last decade, I became part of the BurningMan community where nudity is simply an expression of onesself and I had to get comfortable being around it but never participated. I don't feel comfortable being naked in locker rooms, even, and to me that's the challenge.
Women can legally go **** in Ontario, but they don't. Nudity at Pride has been a sore point for upstanding citizens who need a reason to get upset. There's nothing in the constitution to prevent nudity from being legal, and I do think it's coming.
I think that is the choice that will emerge: do you want to be **** in an environment or not ? It will be your choice. As someone pointed out to me, women-only gyms exist as a descriminatory exception because they offer a 'safe space' and that is something that trans women need perhaps more than anyone. Trans men ARE allowed at this spa.
Post by: BC_cheque on June 12, 2017, 12:56:17 pm
Quote from: kimmy on June 11, 2017, 11:14:20 pm
But I feel that locker-rooms, changing rooms, and showers are a different story. I simply don't want to change or shower in the presence of someone with male anatomy. It would be unsettling and uncomfortable for me, regardless of whether they consider themselves male or female. I understand that might be hurtful to some trans people, but that's the reality of it. It's not a switch I could just turn off.
That's fair. When I first read your post and I pictured a moment like that, I kind of agreed it would be awkward.
But upon reflecting on it more, I don't see why it should be other than the fact that it's something not familiar.
Is it awkward to change in front of a lesbian woman who very well may be looking at me sexually? Not at all but probably because I've been around lesbians all my life.
Another thing, other than the showers at my local pool, every gym I've ever visited has changing rooms so this wouldn't be about anyone seeing me naked, it would be about ME seeing a woman with a pe-nis (can't believe that's too vulgar for the forum) who is comfortable enough with her body to get naked in an open room.
Then the onus is therefore on me, not on them.
I think this decision is based on the same notion as the bathroom rules where they're not worried about 'real' transgender women, but creepy straight men in wigs trying to be peeping toms.
In order to not discriminate and have to leave it up to judgement, it's a systematic rule.
I can see the other side but I think it's discriminatory at the same time. Personally I don't agree.
Quote from: BC_cheque on June 12, 2017, 12:56:17 pm
You don't agree with BodyBlitz's policy you mean ?
Quote from: MH on June 12, 2017, 01:12:00 pm
No, I don't. If it's meant to keep the straight men posing out, it's throwing the baby out with the bath water and if they just don't believe transgender women are real women, then it's archaic.
Ok, BodyBlitz has hit the blogs now. I predict mainstream coverage later this week maybe as early as tomorrow.
https://www.insidetoronto.com/news-story/7367851-toronto-s-women-only-body-blitz-spa-draws-ire-for-alleged-no-****-rule/
Facebook is still churning... wait... just saw a note that it's going to national news tonight.
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on June 12, 2017, 05:01:07 pm
Trans women, in my opinion, are female in gender but male in biological sex...unless they've had hormone therapy & surgery, then they're part male & part female biologically (kinda...it's complicated). So you have people who express themselves as feminine and say they are women, but their biology, including nudy parts, can be male or partly male at the very least.
So now we have a big conundrum now don't we! Personally I don't know what to make of it all yet.
This will be controversial, but as of now my opinion is that trans women are not men, and aren't women. They're trans women. They are unique in that sense and should be respected as equal but different. For instance, I don't agree with trans women competing in sports with biological women because they aren't the same, their biology is completely different, as I said male vs female. Why not have their own category of events, i'd root for them!
Quote from: Moonlight Graham on June 12, 2017, 05:01:07 pm
Trans women, in my opinion, are female in gender but male in biological sex...
So now we have a big conundrum now don't we!
Nope. There's a difference in opinion between you, and them and the law also. If those come into conflict then you rely on mediating mechanisms.
I'm not insensitive to the trouble some people will have here, but if you are not respectful in these matters, you will get a fight. The fight for gay rights was a long one. This fight will not be, as those who fight for trans rights are fighters and they will stand by to protect this very abused segment of society.
Here's a new campaign about pronouns:
(https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FwbcoPYJ.jpg&hash=24a2d94479a34a30643b10a51945465510e11014)
Would you use a pronoun that someone asked you to ?
I edited my opinion somewhat, so re-read my post.
I'm all for trans rights, but we have to deal in facts and science while also respecting people's rights. Trans women are women in the gender sense because gender is fluid and subjective, but what about biology?
Post by: the_squid on June 12, 2017, 07:08:44 pm
I would use he or she. Whichever they wanted. If I have to use made up words to save their feelings, then I likely won't be discussing much with them.
I did, but you just added a bit about sports. I don't know what the rules are around that and have no opinion on it.
What about it ? Gender is fluid as you say. I acknowledge that you have an opinion but as I said these issues will go to the law for mitigation and it will get political.
Quote from: the_squid on June 12, 2017, 07:08:44 pm
I would use he or she. Whichever they wanted.
I worked closely with somebody who is trans, so I listened to what others did. I'm a middle-aged male who is new to these things, but luckily I have some sense so I picked up on it. We are good friends now.
What made me think about this issue more was a heartbreaking post about this person, who is so strong and capable, and how they were utterly broken until they made this change. It was heartbreaking. Luckily I have a soul.
No i added a bit before that. I said before, which you quoted: "Trans women, in my opinion, are female in gender but male in biological sex..."
I changed that, this: "Trans women, in my opinion, are female in gender but male in biological sex...unless they've had hormone therapy & surgery, then they're part male & part female biologically.
Well, what I'm saying is gender is an expression of masculine or feminine and is fluid, but biology is much harder to change, and most of biology you can't change. If you're a male, and remove your **** and surgically make a mock-**** and insert artificial breasts and take hormone therapies...does that make you female in biology? I would argue it makes you more female in biology, but also can't change male chromosomes or male muscle & bone structure. So biologically, a trans woman post-transition...are they male, female, or a bit of both?
As for pronouns, I'll call a trans male a he if they want, i'll call a gender neutral person "they" if they want. As for the other pronouns like xe or xer etc., i'd have to learn more about it. Using "they" or anything other than male or female sounds most practical for everyone though.
It would be interesting to know somebody who is trans, to learn from their perspective. I respect everyone's right to be whatever they want to be, I don't care in fact I think it's great. What's important though is that even though we need to take people's feelings into account, facts also must be considered and I believe are of primary importance even if they hurt someone's feelings. I will call a ie: trans woman as "she" because they are female in gender, but to pretend they are female in all aspects including 100% in biology I will not, because it's contrary to science and the facts. I know that many trans people want to desperately be of the opposite biological sex as they were born, hence all of the medical procedures they have, but this isn't possible, at least not fully. That's why I don't think trans women should compete against born-women in competitive sports like the Olympics. It would be completely ridiculous. Imagine if Bruce Jenner had been Caitlyn Jenner in their Olympic hey-day. It would have been a sham, Caitlyn could have won every medal, and broke records that could never be matched except by other trans women. It might hurt the feelings of trans women to not be considered the "same" as other women, but they aren't quite the same, objectively. Same with trans men.
If the law wants to state that women and trans women are the same biologically, well fine but it still doesn't make it true. I think compelling other people by law to pretend that they are would be dangerous. But hey maybe I'm wrong, I'm willing to listen to other arguments, these social conundrums these issues raise are new to everyone, we need to find the proper solutions that respect everyone.
Maybe it's not about whether someone might be looking at you in a sexual sense.
Another thing, other than the showers at my local pool, every gym I've ever visited has changing rooms
That hasn't been my experience, but if establishments are updating their changing areas to provide more privacy, I think that would do a lot to put their patrons' discomfort to rest.
so this wouldn't be about anyone seeing me naked, it would be about ME seeing a woman with a pe-nis (can't believe that's too vulgar for the forum) who is comfortable enough with her body to get naked in an open room.
Ok, hang on... many people now accept the premise that some people are so fragile that we should avoid using the word "rayp" (I can't believe the forum censors that one too...), and do "jazz hands" or snap our fingers instead of clapping. And yet we're also now proposing that women who hold to long-standing social norms regarding intersex group nudity have to just shut up and deal with it?
Do you have to be special in some way before your feelings merit some consideration?
And we're now at a point where some people support providing women-only swimming times at public pools, out of respect for Muslim customs. And yet the mood now appears that women ought to share not just the swimming pool but also their showers and changing room with biologically male patrons. Don't you think there's a bit of a contradiction there?
If a Muslim member of BodyBlitz complained that having to change in the presence of a biologically male person was against her religious beliefs, would people support some sort of "reasonable accommodation" for her?
And, if so, then why shouldn't there likewise be an effort to make reasonable accommodation for people who are just not comfortable changing in front of some unfamiliar person with their dong hanging out?
If there's a male you don't know in the locker room, what's your first reaction?
Discrimination isn't necessarily illegal. The very existence of female-only facilities is an example of a situation where it was decided that there was a reasonable justification for discrimination.
Another fair reason for discrimination might be to preserve the patrons' sense of security and privacy.
Another fair reason for discrimination might be to avoid economic hardship-- which might be the result if patrons stop coming to the club because they find the locker-room situation to be uncomfortable or upsetting.
I will call a ie: trans woman as "she" because they are female in gender, but to pretend they are female in all aspects including 100% in biology I will not, because it's contrary to science and the facts. I know that many trans people want to desperately be of the opposite biological sex as they were born, hence all of the medical procedures they have, but this isn't possible, at least not fully.
I don't think anybody believes that trans people are fully biologically changed to the other sex, that's not even in question. The debate is really about rights and nothing more. The sports question will be decided by those governing bodies.
Of course that will have to play out. To my mind, religion's archaic and unreasonable segregation of men and women is constitutionally protected so I expect what they denote to be a man and women will also be protected.
We found ways to accommodate different cultures and to broker co-existence in the days before electronic media so we should be able to today even if the ignorant voices - previously ignored by big media - are part of the dialogue. Accommodation means they also have to be accommodated, and ignorant does not mean conservative by the way.
Post by: guest4 on June 13, 2017, 11:01:59 am
It would be interesting to know somebody who is trans, to learn from their perspective.
I've known 2 well enough to talk to beyond "hi, how are you". Both were male-to-female, one was attracted to women and the other was attracted to men. One changed later in life, after serving in the military and the other changed in her late teens/early 20s.
The most difficult part was the acceptance. For the older woman, she had to accept herself first - military duty was at least partly an attempt to prove her maleness, a desire to conform in a very obvious way. Once she'd made the change, she was able to find partners among other lesbians, although at the time I knew her, she wasn't with anyone.
The other, because she was that much younger, found self-acceptance easier in part because there was more awareness generally and her parents supported her. But what was extremely difficult for her was acceptance from men once they found out she'd once been male.
For them both, belonging and acceptance within society was important, as it is for most humans. I think people who generally fall in with the norms of society don't quite get how much of a drive it is for humans to conform; for them, it is effortless and natural to fit in and they seek ways to differentiate themselves in some small way and congratulate themselves on being unique. For those who really are very, very different it's a real challenge to admit and pursue their own true identity puts them at odds with 99% of the group and that's a very difficult thing to do. That's why it's so laughable when someone says "Oh, teenagers are just making a choice to be gay/trans, to follow a trend - they're just looking for attention", while kids commit suicide because they feel so unacceptable because of their difference.
Quote from: MH on June 13, 2017, 05:24:36 am
That's probably true yes.
I competed in a number of sports, team and individual. If I had been told I was expected to face a biologically male opponent in a judo competition, I'd have quit in protest rather than participate in a farce like that.
Regarding BodyBlitz...
If this was an issue that all their patrons were comfortable with, there wouldn't be an issue. We wouldn't be talking about it. BodyBlitz wouldn't be struggling to create a policy to deal with this issue. There would be no need of a policy to deal with this issue if all the women there were okay with this.
The one-sided InsideToronto article Michael posted makes it sound like everybody wants trans women in the club and BodyBlitz is being a villain because they're hateful.
Well, BodyBlitz is a business and they're not out to **** with people just because they're mean. If they're taking this position, it's because they're encountering pushback from patrons who are unhappy with being **** in the presence of biologically male people. Despite what the InsideToronto article might make it sound like, there isn't a unanimous opinion on this, and if InsideToronto couldn't find someone to state the other side it's either because they didn't want to or because nobody wanted to go on-record opposing trans access because they're afraid of being tarred with the same brush that BodyBlitz is.
I would love to be able to say that I would be completely chill with the situation and have no issue at all sharing showers and change facilities with people with dongs. But that wouldn't be true. The truth is, I'd find it unsettling and stressful and have serious hesitation about returning in the future.
I wouldn't raise a ruckus or tell off the management... I'd just stop going. Not from a desire to make anybody feel excluded, not from an intent to deny a trans person the chance to feel like just one of the girls. Only because my own discomfort with that situation would outweigh my goodwill toward a stranger.
If being able to change in the same facilities as other women will help trans women feel accepted, then that's great. But I'm not going to participate in helping provide that experience. I'm ok with the pronouns, I'm ok with them being in the stall next to me in the washroom... but I don't think I could get past being in a situation where there are dongs out. For me there's a limit.
Sure, but you are missing the point that the government doesn't allow your tastes to dictate policy for a 'public' business, or policy in general. People can be uncomfortable with public toplessness, or women attending their golf club, or Jews or blacks attending their restaurant. In the 1960s, the US decided to enforce a national morality on people. Of course you have a right to not go.
Post by: kimmy on June 15, 2017, 02:04:21 am
No, I completely understand that point. But government can't simply wave a magic wand and change people's attitudes.
As you say, people have a right to not go. And as I said earlier, I believe a significant number of women will exercise that option if they are uncomfortable with the outcome of this. I believe this is exactly the reason for BodyBlitz's reluctance to get on board with the ****.
If women are told they must share locker room and shower facilities with people with penises, many will take their business to establishments where they are provided more privacy-- individual shower stalls and private changing cubicles, perhaps. If women are told that this clothing-optional space must admit customers with penises who identify as female, then they may rethink whether they want to belong to a clothing-optional space at all.
That might have an effect on whether BodyBlitz remains a commercially viable operation, or it might not.
Quote from: kimmy on June 15, 2017, 02:04:21 am
Ok, so you get the point. And it seems like people will have to take their distaste for this home.
Full male-female nudity in public is coming, in the long run. Businesses don't look at the long term, and in this case it doesn't make sense to. They can easily amend their policy to eliminate nudity and create private spaces as you say.
The 680 News facebook page is where I go to see real debate has a distinct composition of foundational right-wingers who react without knowledge or care of process. The fight on there was, surprisingly, 50-50 pro- and con-. This is what I meant above when I said the pro- side will be fighting.
Post by: BC_cheque on June 15, 2017, 11:14:13 am
I brought up the lesbian comparison to say that logically, I would think that it be more unsettling to change in front of someone with similar anatomy who is looking at me sexually than someone with different anatomy who is completely oblivious to my sexual existence.
I say that to make a case for the fact that there is nothing logical about being uncomfortable around a transgender woman and that it's just a matter of unfamiliarity. For example, I'm sure 50 years ago the number of women unwilling to change in front of lesbians was a lot more than now than lesbians are more accepted after decades of familiarity.
As for the last couple of paragraphs, as I said before, I do get the other side of the argument, but I think that sometimes the masses have to be forced out of their ignorance. There was a lot of resistance to blacks drinking from the same fountains and gays being able to hold hands without getting killed.
Both societal shifts took decades to happen and it all started with the few people who stood up for their rights.
In other words, if some people wanted to boycott a restaurant back in the 50's that allowed blacks and whites to sit together, continuing segregation wasn't the answer.
I'd like to be on the right side of history when inevitably the same shift happens with transgenders.
Quote from: BC_cheque on June 15, 2017, 11:14:13 am
It's an assumption that a trans woman has no sexual interest in women. Dia mentioned that one of her trans women acquaintances was a lesbian. I'm no expert on the subject, but I don't think that gender dysphoria is necessary linked to homosexuality.
As well, lesbians don't walk into a locker-room with a sign that says "Lesbian". If you've changed in a public facility, you've probably been checked out by lesbians, and women who were curious, and by completely straight women who are still interested in seeing what "the competition" has.
And you keep using the word logic, but none of this has anything to do with logic.
People accept the premise of a female safe-space free from men, but the reason some women seek out male-free spaces is due to anxiety directly related to naked males, regardless of gender identity.
If someone was traumatized by a dog attack early in life, and later finds themselves standing in front of a big Rottweiler, the owner's assurance that "relax, he's friendly" actually does very little to reassured the frightened person. It's not a switch people can just turn on and off. And someone with anxiety regarding being naked in front of males will not simply feel reassured by "relax, she's trans."
I'm also still curious about the hypothetical Muslim patron. Do her religious sensibilities deserve consideration that other women don't?
Right, but that is an edge case for a safe space. And, although it's a practical concern, it doesn't come into the question about rights.
People are not obliged to provide women-only spaces, but they can't discriminate (a 2nd time) if they do.
Right, but that is an edge case for a safe space.
I'm not sure it's an edge case. Based on some of the statistics going around, it seems that a lot of women have actually had traumatic experiences with men. Maybe it's not unreasonable that such people would want a ****-free environment to relax in.
And, although it's a practical concern, it doesn't come into the question about rights.
There's a subjective judgment being made here, that one kind of discrimination is allowable but another is not. It's acceptable for some people to want a safe-space, but not for others.
Well then there's that. This whole discussion kind of tippy-toes around the fact that we've already agreed that some amount of discrimination is acceptable. If people really feel that strongly about discrimination, then maybe we should just let everybody in. Rebrand Spa Lady as Spa Human.
No, I don't think a Muslim woman's right trumps a transgender right. I don't think any kind of religious right should trample on any type of human right. If the law regards a transgender woman as a woman, she should have a right to exercise in a woman's facility. If that makes any Jew, Christian or Muslim, uncomfortable, that's too bad.
If the sight of a woman with a **** could cause harm to others, I could see the point, otherwise no.
As for feeling threatened by a ****, I don't think that's why we have segregated gyms. Having worked in gyms when I was younger, I know it's partly women wanting to work out without being watched by men, and also because they don't want to be hit on by men.
Which brings us back to the lesbian comparison. With a lesbian, she is for sure interested in women, but a transgender woman may or may not be interested in women. That's why I said it's more logical to be uncomfortable around lesbians even though we're not.
The point I was making which you did not address was that 50 years ago there was just as much of a fuss put up about allowing gay women into change rooms, but as times passed most of us couldn't care less if they're working out next to us.
In due time, I believe the same thing will happen with transgender women.
You're talking around the problem here. Rights don't 'trump' each other but they have to be resolved when in conflict. Religious rights already supersede human rights in several specific examples. It seems to me, reading this paragraph, that you may not realize that.
The answer to this particular dilemma may well be that the hypothetical Muslim woman isn't entitled to a ****-free environment and will have to find somewhere else to exercise. It's entirely possible that this might be the solution that places the least burden on the competing interests of all parties involved.
However, I'm curious to find out whether the gym could, if there was a demand for it, offer a ****-free environment, perhaps ****-free hours or something.
That's my view as well, but as I mentioned earlier we live in a society where a lot of people think that reasonable effort should be made to Muslims' sensibilities-- be it dress codes, food policies, and even the desire for women-only swimming. I'd expect the same people would support accommodating a Muslim woman who felt that being in an open-dongs environment was against her religion.
(as an aside, it's one of my pet peeves that saying "it's against my religion" somehow makes a belief more legitimate than beliefs you arrived at independently. You don't eat meat because your conscience forbids it. Someone else doesn't eat meat because her religion forbids it. Somehow her reason for not eating meat is seen as more worthy. That annoys me.)
I don't think it's just a dislike of being hit on or being oggled.
A lot of us were raised to feel that being naked in front of a strange man is an embarrassing, stressful, and threatening situation.
And a person with a **** is, until you personally know otherwise, a man. They can say "don't worry, I'm a trans woman", but that's probably not going to put people at ease.
And I'm still wondering whether these gym lesbians wore signs or something that told everybody that they're lesbians. I'm not aware of what fuss might have been made on that issue 50 years ago, and can't comment on it.
If somebody-- male or female-- is oggling you while you're changing, I certainly understand feeling uncomfortable with that.
I doubt that. The trans-protection legislation is through the Senate, I think, so soon to be law. This will have to be tested in court.
I learned a new term yesterday - TERF. It means trans-exclusionary-radical-feminist and is a large schism in the feminist community, apparently between generations of feminists. The CBC ran an opinion piece from a Megan Murphy that is being absolutely roasted on my facebook discussion page as she is dismissing the law outright. It's a rare case of the CBC going to the right of the Liberal party.
Someone else doesn't eat meat because her religion forbids it. Somehow her reason for not eating meat is seen as more worthy. That annoys me.)
Somehow=religion is protected in the constitution.
The idea of excluding men comes from providing a 'safe space' and trans women are arguably the most beaten-down and abused group that I have heard of. The "I'm not comfortable" argument was used in the CBC argument and would simply not be stated in any other argument about rights which in itself raises questions and highlights that trans people are seen as worthy of being dismissed as aesthetic problems for the delicate.
"I am not comfortable with headscarves, it bothers me."
"I'm not comfortable eating in a restaurant with black people."
This is the argument I have read on that line of logic.
They kept people in the closet and denied reality. I even remember women complaining about lesbians in bathrooms in university as if they could make a request to exclude them somehow. This is how far rights have come, and it's informative to see what happens when certain classes ascend in their power. TERFs are an example, I think.
Definitely and a 'no oggling' rule would address that. Of course that's hard to enforce but it can be done. Men harassing women is similarly difficult, ie. he said/she said. But we are getting there.
So you'd feel it's reasonable for the Muslim woman to want a ****-free environment, and that the gym should find a way to accommodate her, but everybody else needs to toughen up?
The idea of excluding men comes from providing a 'safe space' and trans women are arguably the most beaten-down and abused group that I have heard of.
So it's like a contest? You only get a safe-space if you're the most oppressed?
The "I'm not comfortable" argument was used in the CBC argument and would simply not be stated in any other argument about rights which in itself raises questions and highlights that trans people are seen as worthy of being dismissed as aesthetic problems for the delicate.
Yes, trivializing the feelings and experiences of those who aren't comfortable in the environment being proposed will assuredly lead to understanding on this issue.
We're expected to abandon all prior experiences and notions of ourselves, most especially those that relate to our female embodiment and the oppression that stems from it. Sex-based protections have been effectively dissolved. When it comes to female-only facilities, human rights law is clear: a male who claims the identity of "female" or "woman" can't be turned away. If a woman has concerns or is in a vulnerable position, her options are to somehow get over it or leave. What this tells women and girls who are survivors of male violence is that females' right to refuge and privacy away from males is negotiable and that they come last. This is an insidious form of grooming that tells women and girls that they are hysterical for recognizing the epidemic of discrimination and violence directed at them and that they must prioritize the feelings of others over their own sense of self-preservation.
--Brandi Sudyk
But this whole issue started with "I am not comfortable exercising with men" and people accepted that as valid.
I tracked down the Megan Murphy you spoke of, and I mostly agree with her.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/women-only-spa-counterpoint-1.4170158
http://www.feministcurrent.com/2017/06/18/shouldnt-controversial-maintain-women-spaces/
I am not sure this makes me "radical".
I think there's a general standard of behavior we'd hope for from people we share a locker room with... personally I feel like there's no reason anybody in the locker room should know your sexual preference, and if you're acting in a way that makes your sexual preference known it's probably because you're doing something that makes somebody uncomfortable.
What if the spa just had a "no dongs" policy? If you're trans after surgery with no dong, you're in, if you're trans with a dong you're out. It wouldn't be about "women" or "men" at that point, just about dongs. A safe space for muffs.
Whaaaaat ? That's a complete non-sequitur. How did you even get there ? You asked why some food choices are protected by law and I answered you.
I don't know, but it seems to me excluding men is reasonably rationalized as a way to provide space for women. I don't know how else these things would be decided.
I don't mean to trivialize those feelings but to point out how using such arguments would not be acceptable in any other context, and yet are seen as acceptable here.
This quote comes from the perspective that trans women simply can not be seen as women. It's an understandable point of view, but it isn't aligned with the emerging view (I can't call it a consensus yet) of human rights for trans people.
Yes, because of the dynamic of providing a place where people feel safe. The idea of excluding me from a space because of my gender is an affront to my individual rights, because it assumes I am a risk, however on the whole it provides rights to a group. The principle, in theory, is reasonable accommodation.
As such:
A 2015 study [PDF] reported that trans Ontarians had "nearly universally reported" experiences of transphobia, and 67 per cent "feared they would die young."
That reality is especially harsh for trans women. They are targeted not just because they are transgender, but also because they are women. That means they are "particularly vulnerable," as the Ontario Women's Justice Network puts it, to transphobic violence, sexual violence, and transphobic sexual violence. (In 2014, 55 per cent of all victims of hate homicide in the U.S. were transgender women, almost all women of colour.) It's the perfect example of intersectionality—different layers of identity that co-exist and in this case impede. Gapka calls it "additional hardship."
http://torontoist.com/2016/06/379820/
Inappropriate behaviour is always a reason for an individual to be excluded. But you couldn't see BodyBlitz excluding Lesbians because straight women 'felt uncomfortable' about it, nor could you come up with an outlying case where some incident happen and use that as an excuse to ban Lesbians. These are some of the arguments you can see being used against trans women.
'No dongs' is discrimination in this case. Of course it has to be tested.
Also, as has been pointed out... trans men without breasts and with beards are allowed in which is odd in that people who worry about 'the children' don't seem to mention it.
This is the policy Body Blitz currently has, which is what started this controversy in the first place.
If I walk into the women's locker room and see a naked male I'm now apparently supposed to accept that this person is a woman, no questions asked. If I don't feel comfortable with that then I must be a prude or a redneck, and if I don't think that person should actually be there then I'm a radical, apparently.
Also, as has been pointed out... trans men without breasts
Women are comfortable changing around women without breasts. Be it our "late bloomer" classmates in school or young people or people who are just very slender, or people who have mastectomies for health reasons.
and with beards are allowed in which is odd in that people who worry about 'the children' don't seem to mention it.
As far as I know of, nobody ever got violated by a beard.
If I don't feel comfortable with that then I must be a prude or a redneck, and if I don't think that person should actually be there then I'm a radical, apparently.
You can't control what people think, I'm afraid. I definitely accept that my voice is marginal at best in this discussion, and I am definitely sensitive to the voices of cis women who are uncomfortable with this major change in our laws.
But is it weird for women in general for someone with a beard, who looks like a man ? It must be.
Whaaaaat ? That's a complete non-sequitur. How did you even get there ?
Addressing BC_Cheque earlier on the subject of whether the hypothetical Muslim woman's wish for a dong-free environment should be respected, you said: "Rights don't 'trump' each other but they have to be resolved when in conflict. Religious rights already supersede human rights in several specific examples. It seems to me, reading this paragraph, that you may not realize that."
You seem fairly set on the idea that religious views merit consideration above and beyond what someone's personal conscience is, as a matter of law.
You asked why some food choices are protected by law and I answered you.
I wasn't discussing "protected by law". I was scoffing at the notion that BC_C's vegetarianism, which is a matter of deeply-held conscience, is viewed as being less sincere or less worthy of respect than someone who is a vegetarian because a magic book tells them so.
For some portion of women who this safe space has been provided for, the presence of trans people will eliminate any sense of safety.
It seems to me that characterizing objections to dongs in the locker room as "aesthetics problems for the delicate" is pretty trivializing.
It might not align with the view of some in the ultra-progressive and Ivory Tower world, I agree. I first off think that any woman who says she's in favor of this should get in a locker room and change while a naked male person watches her, to put her money where her mouth is. It's really easy to *say* you're in favor with something and trivialize or insult the objections of those who don't share your view, but when rubber meets road how many of these ultra-progressives and Ivory Tower types will live up to their talk?
As for whether it's possible to see trans women as women, all I can say is that there's a limit. When it comes to day to day interaction, sure, I have no problem. In the shower? I doubt it. As a romantic partner? Absolutely not.
I absolutely understand that trans people are at great risk of encountering hatred and violence. And I have no wish to contribute to someone feeling unsafe. At the same time, I won't sacrifice my own sense of security in favor of someone else's. I believe that many women-- the silent majority, probably-- feel the same.
And as I mentioned earlier, I think that Body Blitz thinks so as well. I think that they've taken this position not because they are hateful people, but because they know that allowing penises into their ****, women-only environment will be a grave threat to their continued financial viability. I believe that many women will not kick up a fuss over the admission of penises, but will simply decide to stop going to Body Blitz.
Hypothetically, if the human rights commission and the fair play committee and the lawyers and whoever else tell Body Blitz that they have to allow dongs in their spa, and Body Blitz ends up closing 3 months later so that nobody has this safe-space anymore, will that be a tremendous victory for human rights?
Yes, as I said it has to be resolved. The case of Muslims is a whole other complexity I haven't thought about.
You're scoffing at the constitution, but ok.
Point taken, but I was speaking to the comments that people "don't feel comfortable" which to me is not a reasonable test of accommodation. If people have trauma around seeing penises, then that is a serious matter to consider IMO.
I addressed the trivializing point above.
You call it 'ivory tower', I call it an 'emerging view'. I expect ultra-progressives will in fact live up to it, but the tough work is ahead in any case as this will be policy soon.
It may be that women will not visit the spa, or that the spa will change its nudist policy. It's a tough question, but I will point out there are other women-only spas that don't have nudity which is why BodyBlitz is such a lightning rod.
Also notable that men haven't been making much noise over women-only spas lately, so some questions on human rights do get answered.
I'm sure that some hypothetical Muslim could get her imam to explain to a human rights committee that under Islam people with penises aren't considered women even if they claim they are, and that it's haram for a Muslim woman to be in the presence of a strange ****, especially if she's naked. I think she'd have a winning case here. And so then we ask... if a Muslim woman gets special consideration here, why not a Christian woman? I'm pretty sure that most Christian denominations don't consider people with dicks to be women under any circumstances, and I'm pretty sure it's not considered godly for Christian women to be in that situation either. Eventually it'll be just us filthy non-believers who don't have an "out" of this wretched situation.
I don't even care. If the law says I'm wrong, then it's a stupid law.
"My religion doesn't let me kill anyone."
"Ok, you are assigned to the Alternate Service corps."
"My conscience won't allow me to kill anyone."
"I don't give a ****. Here's your rifle."
Does that seem right to you? It doesn't seem right to me. It doesn't seem right to me that a conclusion that a conclusion that somebody has arrived at through a lifetime of experience and reflection would have less value under the law than a conclusion somebody else got out of a magic book. And I think that if that's the way the law works in Canada then more Canadians will be embracing satirical religions like the Pastafarians or the Satanic Temple, which exist just to ridicule religious privilege.
I don't know if the above draft scenario would actually play out that way in Canada. It might be a moot point, since we haven't had a draft in many decades. In the United States, though, it wouldn't, by the way. In the US, courts have ruled that non-religious right to conscience is protected the same way that religious freedom. You don't have to be religious to be a conscientious objector in the US. If the same case were fought in Canada, I am pretty confident we'd see the same result.
I think you're well aware that the concerns of women about sharing accommodation with biologically male, self-identified women extend well beyond aesthetic quibbles.
I'm not referring specifically to you here. There seems to be a desire to heap scorn on anybody who isn't onboard with your "emerging view" here... you mentioned your Facebook friends "absolutely roasted" Megan Murphy for disagreeing with the PC hive-mind, for example.
I'm skeptical that the Ivory Tower academics and ultra-progressive granola-brigade spend much time at the gym and I'm skeptical whether they actually have any skin in the game (no pun intended.) It's easy to *say* you're in favor of something if you don't actually have to do it.
Likewise, I'm confident that most of the women who think trans-women should be allowed to compete in women's athletics have no intention of ever setting foot in a boxing ring or wrestling mat against a physiologically male opponent.
So there are other women-only safe-spaces that they *could* attend, but they want access to this one in particular? Perhaps that suggests that it's not simply a matter of seeking a safe space that's the motivation here. Perhaps there is a desire to push a political agenda. Or perhaps what they are seeking isn't a safe space, but validation... perhaps what they really want is for cisgendered women to look at their dong and still accept them as women. But that kind of validation isn't going to come from a lawsuit or a human rights committee ruling.
So similar question to last time... if the end result of this is that Body Blitz has to abandon their **** spa environment and adopt a clothed environment like every other women-only gym in Toronto, is that a tremendous victory for human rights?
Does that seem right to you? It doesn't seem right to me.
I think freedom of religion is an easy way to keep groups satisfied, and also keep out the spectre of government telling you what to think. We're actually debating that now, with a UofT professor claiming that the new law forces him to use pronouns, rather than simply avoid offensive words.
Yes, they extend beyond and include those quibbles also.
Yes, the PC-hive-mind is on one side and 'TERFs' on the other, ie. trans-exclusionary radical feminists. Both sides are dug in.
My friends in discussion are young, gender-fluid and very open about nudism and many things. It's a ew world.
This is a common criticism of groups wanting equality. The story was about a trans woman whose mate booked them a spa date, and that seems to be how it started - if that matters.
It's not to me to say the size of the victory. I firstly ask for dialogue, and reasonable accommodation. Peace will be achieved through those means. Equality will happen over a much longer timeframe.
This was posted in another thread but I thought I'd reply here:
So... my thoughts on the subject were just that... thoughts. Based on intellectual ideas of rights and so on. Until I read my friend's posts on her life before she changed.
Laws and economics can sometimes be ends in themselves, but they exist to make lives better overall. Trans people have very painful lives.
I fully understand that there's a lot of hatred and violence and mistrust and fear directed towards trans people. I really do. And I support efforts to make their lives better, within reasonable limits. I think we just have differing ideas about what might be reasonable and what might be unreasonable.
This is probably not a very good analogy, but suppose for a moment we're talking about someone confined to a wheelchair. I support making buildings and businesses accessible. I support washroom facilities with room for a wheelchair and handrails and whatever else they need. I support public facilities like gyms and pools having equipment and programs that meet the needs of a person confined to a wheelchair. On the other hand, I wouldn't support closing a hiking trail that can't feasibly be made wheelchair-accessible.
I don't think it's reasonable to expect everything to be 100% equal. Nothing is 100% equal.
Banning trans women from athletics might seem unfair to trans women, but allowing physiologically male competitors to compete against biologically female competitors would be grossly unfair to the biologically female people these events were created for in the first place. There's a point at which you have to say "sorry, but no".
Personally I feel that demanding an end to spaces for biologically female women is unfair to the people these spaces were created for in the first place.
We can't make everything 100% equal. Everybody has limits of some kind-- limits imposed by health, or finances, or religion, or physiology, or whatever.
That may be how it started, but now it appears to be a group action where trans women and their allies are calling for Body Blitz to be boycotted until they admit trans women. So again it seems while the friendly optics would be to say they're asking for access to a safe-space, it appears that there are other safe spaces available but they are demanding access to this one in particular.
My suggestion is that closing Body Blitz or forcing it to abandon its unique format and become like other womens' gyms would actually be a victory for nobody at all. Women who enjoy the existing format lose that, and it either vanishes altogether or becomes a Spa Lady clone in a city that already has a Spa Lady and Spa Lady clones. So what does anybody gain? I guess the Social Justice Warriors get their pound of flesh. Yay for them, I guess?
Absolutely agree. To get down to the details and mechanics of how reasonable accommodation works, honest, open and clear dialogue is the platform for discussion.
"I'm not comfortable with this" would not pass a test of needing to be accommodate.
"I am traumatized by this and feel unsafe" would pass.
I can accept all views if they're open, honest and clear. And then we take our best shot, and all accept the results.
There's a point at which you have to say "sorry, but no".
it appears that there are other safe spaces available but they are demanding access to this one in particular.
That argument wouldn't fly if we were considering rights for other groups, so I can't buy it here.
My suggestion is that closing Body Blitz or forcing it to abandon its unique format and become like other womens' gyms would actually be a victory for nobody at all.
False choice - there are other options that could be explored I'm sure.
I guess the Social Justice Warriors get their pound of flesh. Yay for them, I guess?
Tagging people who disagree with you isn't helpful either.
Ok, so if we decide that some peoples' desire for a space free from male physiology is legitimate, then what next? Do we appoint a gate-keeper or a panel or something to decide which women are allowed in and which aren't?
Say, **** victims and abuse victims and our hypothetical religion-based objector get allowed in?
It frames the demand differently, IMO. "We need a safe space!" makes it sound as if they don't have any alternatives which doesn't appear to be true. "We demand access to this particular establishment" makes clear that this is about their objection to this particular establishment's policy, which to me appears to be a more accurate description of the conflict.
Ok, we've talked about three options-- let them continue as is, put an end to open nudity in their establishment, or let the dongs run wild and let the market decide if Body Blitz lives or dies.
What other possibilities do you envision?
Do you object to the characterization as "Social Justice Warriors", or the suggestion that people are after the proverbial pound of flesh?
Post by: the_squid on June 30, 2017, 10:06:41 am
We're actually debating that now, with a UofT professor claiming that the new law forces him to use pronouns, rather than simply avoid offensive words.
"He" and "she" are not offensive words.
Quote from: the_squid on June 30, 2017, 10:06:41 am
What's next ? It's sometimes called 'solutioning' which is difficult and which you are starting to do here.
As a straight, cis, male I have no say in that part of the discussion nor do I have any idea what solutions may come.
"Why don't black people just go to their own beaches ?"
As I said, I can't really say. If I throw out some possibilities here, it's to show that there are some that haven't really been discussed so please don't just shoot them down as a way to say dialogue is pointless.
They could ask ****-bearing ladies to show discretion. They could discover that nobody at the club is actually traumatized by the mere sight of a ****. They could put parameters around nudity in other ways, cover up in certain areas or what have you. They could find out that the ones who object don't want any trans women OR men in there. etc.
I think tagging people is at once a mental shorthand, but also a way of boxing people into a category to dismiss them. TERFs vs SJWs. It's party politics, but in a different arena. The people who I personally know who are in this debate are standing up for their friends and relatives and not on any kind of path to punishing those who aren't like them.
If someone takes offence to common pronouns used by everyone everyday, that's not my problem. That might work fine in universities where PC-group-think seems to be the norm and nothing else is tolerated, but good luck in the real world.
So I can call you the c-word and that's ok ?
I realize it's hyperbole but to deny that people have no say in how they're referred to is a dumb starting position. If somebody called you "she" repeatedly, you would damn well have grounds to complain formally or otherwise, in any traditional setting.
Language is not static. It evolves and is a reflection of society.
Our present language is a reflection of a time when heterosexual white men had all the say. For example, I dislike word mankind which was quite common was I was young. It's now evolving and more people say humankind.
We are on the another paradigm shift where gender binary is being challenged as the accepted norm. There is no reason language should should not evolve to show more inclusiveness to reflect this shift.
Language is always evolving.
Blargyx fremple con muxike !
Since when did "****" become a pronoun by which everyone is referred? ::)
If somebody called you "she" repeatedly, you would damn well have grounds to complain formally or otherwise, in any traditional setting.
I will call someone he/she... whatever they wish. I don't care, and I don't wish to cause offence. But to start making up new pronouns based on what someone "feels" is rather silly.
I have no complaint about addressing a trans woman with feminine pronouns or a trans man with masculine pronouns, if that is their wish. I'm still a little skeptical about the use of "xe" and "xer" and similar previously fictional pronouns, however. If some accepted standard emerges I will adopt it, but until then I will stick with "he" and "she" as preferred by the recipient.
I confess that I have no understanding of gender-descriptors outside of "he" and "she"... the "non-binary" world somewhat baffles me, and I will wait for others to point me which way to go.
A colleague from my writing group (a progressive gay man from Toronto, if that matters) used "e" and "er" in place of "he/she" and "his/her" when referring to a hypothetical 3rd party whose gender was unknown (in place of using "he" and "his" as an all-encompassing placeholder for someone who may have been male or female). For example, his critique might have read something like:
"The reader might be confused at this point. E might feel as if e is reading a description from the point of view of a neutral observer rather than the biased point of view of the protagonist."
I didn't find this practice to be unreasonable, although I didn't adopt it in my replies.
I'm not going to come at you with the ole "you're a straight white male so your opinion doesn't matter!!!" if that's what you're concerned about. I ask because I'm genuinely curious. It may be that I'm simply short-sighted and not seeing the possibilities because I'm biased.
If we look at the question "do women have a right to a space free of male physiology?" there are just 3 possible answers.
1) Yes, all do.
2) Some do, others do not.
3) No, none do.
If your opinion was (1), we wouldn't be having this discussion. If your answer was (3), you didn't say so when I pressed you on this earlier. If your answer is (3) I don't think we'll be able to come to any consensus here.
I gather your view is basically (2) -- some do, others don't, based on the distinction of "traumatic" vs "aesthetics problems for the delicate" as discussed previously. You seemed to be open to the possibility that victims of male violence or religious objectors may have a legitimate claim to a safe-space free of male physiology, for example.
So if the answer is (2) -- some do, others don't... then the question of a "gatekeeper" immediately follows. If you feel that some do and others don't, then the question of deciding which is which is unavoidable. (feel free to correct me, if you feel I am wrong. I am trying to be as logical as I can be when I have consumed this much alcohol.)
I want to get into this "gatekeeper" issue because one of the tenets of the trans community and their allies is that any sort of "gatekeeping" is demeaning and degrading to trans people. The expectation expressed by the trans community and their allies is that anyone demanding access to women's facilities as a trans woman should be taken at their word, and that any demand for "proof" is inherently insulting and degrading.
So now we're at the position where anyone claiming to be a trans woman must be taken at their word, while someone claiming the right to a female safe-space-- a victim of male violence or a religious objector, for example-- must meet some gatekeeper's criteria before qualifying-- which is clearly unfair.
If one proposes that some gatekeeper function be applied to biological females wanting access to a female-only safe-space, then I suggest that fairness dictate that some gatekeeper function ought also be applied to biological males demanding access to female safe spaces.
I don't think that's a fair comparison, for two reasons.
First off, "the beach" is public land, while Body Blitz is a privately owned facility.
Secondly, I think everyone agrees that there's no rational basis behind a desire for a white-people-only safe-space, while I don't think we've yet agreed that there's no rational basis for a female safe-space free of male physiology.
And as I said, I'm genuinely open to ideas that I haven't considered.
They could ask ****-bearing ladies to show discretion.
IMO this is just an optimistically reworded repeat of my earlier "let the dongs run wild and let the market decide if Body Blitz lives or dies".
They could discover that nobody at the club is actually traumatized by the mere sight of a ****.
They could put parameters around nudity in other ways, cover up in certain areas or what have you.
They could find out that the ones who object don't want any trans women OR men in there. etc.
Perhaps their reasons for a safe-space free of physiologically male people is valid.
I apologize if the description of "SJWs" was out of line.
As an outsider-- I'm not from TO, I don't "Facebook", and I'm not part of any social networks that have any opinion one way or the other on this-- there seems to be a definite appearance that some people want to "get" Body Blitz for being anti-trans. And it seems like a lot of people want to "get" Megan Murphy for going "off the reservation" in expressing a view that goes against the grain.
"Boycott her website!" etc.
Post by: SirJohn on July 23, 2017, 10:12:38 am
Remember when nobody really thought much about trans people? You don't have to remember very far. It was like, not much over a year ago. Now it's become so desperately fashionable to make 'trans' feel comfortable even the tories (in britain) are bringing in the kind of laws which make me go "Oh **** off"
The Government is planning to reform gender identity rules to make it easier for people to choose their own gender in law.
Under plans being considered by ministers, adults will be able to change their birth certificates at will without a doctor's diagnosis, while non-binary gender people will be able to record their gender as "X".
As far as I'm concerned, and, I suspect 90% of other people, if you've got a dick you're a guy. If you don't want to be a guy any more then cut it off. Not willing to do that? Then you're a GUY! Go get yourself some therapy if that bothers you.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/transgender-rules-reform-gender-dysphoria-changes-2004-gender-recognition-self-identify-a7855381.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/transgender-rules-reform-gender-dysphoria-changes-2004-gender-recognition-self-identify-a7855381.html)
Post by: MH on July 23, 2017, 11:09:12 am
Right. So in ten years will you be saying Muslims are barbaric because they don't accept trans people?
Because that process happened with LGB people.
Quote from: MH on July 23, 2017, 11:09:12 am
I have never denied that people could be attracted to their own gender. That would be idiotic. And I seriously don't care. But pretending you are another gender is just as idiotic. And unlike sexual preferences genders are used for identification purposes. We've already got cases where people don't need to have their picture on identification because that offends their religious sensibilities. Now they can have no gender either? What's next, people deciding they're rabbits or dogs? Are we going to see ID with no picture, no gender, no age, and no race? WTH?
If you want to think of yourself as a girl that's fine. I don't give a damn. No skin off my nose. But when government decides to start changing basic identity documents like birth certificates to coddle your psychological issues I have the right to object.
You always have a right to object.
My point is that you are in a precarious position if you laud Western liberal traditions versus the fundamentalist alternative, and yet still decry the results of such decisions.
If you love a pluralistic society, then you have to accept that you will not agree with how things go sometimes.
Post by: cybercoma on July 23, 2017, 12:38:24 pm
Quote from: SirJohn on July 23, 2017, 10:12:38 am
Remember when nobody really thought much about trans people? You don't have to remember very far. It was like, not much over a year ago.
This is incredibly out of touch with reality. At least you're proud of the rock you live under though. That's commendable in some ways, I guess.
Post by: SirJohn on July 23, 2017, 02:27:03 pm
Valuing western liberal traditions does not mean embracing whatever fashionable bauble of an idea catches the flighty minds of western progressives.
Quote from: cybercoma on July 23, 2017, 12:38:24 pm
Maybe you should come to terms with the reality that a lot of your beliefs, cares and concerns are pretty far out there, by comparison with the greater population, and that it isn't everyone else who is the extremist, but you. If you think any substantial portion of the population ever even thinks about, much less cares about trans whatever people you're kidding yourself.
Post by: MH on July 23, 2017, 03:08:39 pm
Quote from: SirJohn on July 23, 2017, 02:27:03 pm
No but it means embracing the process. It also means that you acknowledge that progressivity is a continuum
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on July 24, 2017, 07:59:43 am
i think you should be able to be whatever gender you want, and frankly aren't even the business of the state to put on documents. But I don't think you should be able to change your biological sex on documents. Genetics are unchangeable.
Post by: cybercoma on July 24, 2017, 08:18:40 am
I'm sorry, but if you think that trans people and their concerns didn't exist until a year or so ago, you've been living under a rock. End of story. I don't give a **** whether you care about trans people or not, but to pretend that nobody was talking about them or concerned with what was going on is so tone deaf that it makes me laugh. Do you think LGBT was an acronym that was just made up last year or something? These have been concerns for as long as I can remember. Hell, there's been movies about trans people for decades, so they've even been part of popular culture.
I don't think you're an extremist, I just find you utterly clueless about the world you live in.
Quote from: Moonlight Graham on July 24, 2017, 07:59:43 am
What designation do you give to intersex individuals? What designation do you give to people with various chromosomal syndromes (eg, XYY syndrome, XXY syndrome)? Biological sex isn't even as binary as you think it is. And if you won't take my word for it, maybe an article from Stanford Medicine would be more convincing: http://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2015/02/24/sex-biology-redefined-genes-dont-indicate-binary-sexes/
The issue here is that culturally we're programmed to think in terms of sex and gender binaries and the reality is far more complex than that. What's more is that we categorize people into these classifications because we then ascribe to them a whole bunch of other cultural baggage about what "normal" men and women should do and be, how they should behave, how they should dress, how they should act, how they should live and love and all sorts of other **** that is socially constructed.
i never said sex is binary, i said it's unchangeable.
That's also not true. There's examples in nature of genetic mutations occurring changing an animal's sex.
If you people are actually interested in learning something, instead of just broadcasting your own opinions, there's an AMA on reddit with Joshua Safer, the Medical Director of the Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery at Boston Medical Center and Associate Professor of Medicine at the Boston University School of Medicine. He provides some links to papers and answers people's questions in the comments.
https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/6p7uhb/transgender_health_ama_series_im_joshua_safer/
Quote from: cybercoma on July 24, 2017, 08:18:40 am
I'm sorry, but if you think that trans people and their concerns didn't exist until a year or so ago, you've been living under a rock
I'm sure they were of desperate and ongoing concern to you and your clique of ultra-leftists activists and progressives, just as I'm sure 95% of the population never gave it a second thought except to snicker about men dressing as women. That's reality. Sorry if you find the intrusion on your starry eyed world view upsetting.
Post by: guest4 on July 24, 2017, 12:12:07 pm
Since when did majority opinion automatically equal the correct thing to do? If it weren't for people pushing boundaries against the status quo, the generally accepted and the majority opinion, we'd be approximately as socially advanced as the Muslims you love to criticize for their backwardness.
Quote from: dia on July 24, 2017, 12:12:07 pm
You mean the Muslims you spend all your time defending for their peacefulness? All the time defending for their progressive nature and how kind they are to everyone, and their wonderful feminist beliefs? Even criticizing the way women are treated in the middle east draws you out to shriek that they're just as well off as Canadian women.
In any event, you are using the same argument MH put only far less coherently. Admiring our modern, sophisticated culture does not mean embracing every stupid fashionable idea the Left embraces.
I've had posts removed on Muslim discussion lists for criticizing those very things you mention. The problem you have with me is that you fail to see how xenophobic and Islamaphobic you are. You bring up good points, but then you haughtily ascribe behaviors to everyone Muslim, pretend you can read an individual's mind based on what she is wearing, and support unequal treatment for them. While you claim to be supporting women in this endeavor, in other posts you complain about any iota of political status given to women because "Surely there was a guy more qualified" and bemoaning female empowerment generally.
It's just fun for me to point our your hypocrisy.
This is actually one of the reasons that the courts are independent, so that they can assess such questions independent of the whims of politics. Just thought I would point that out.
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on July 24, 2017, 01:39:42 pm
Show me examples of it occurring in humans. I want to see vaginas turning into penises.
Quote from: Moonlight Graham on July 24, 2017, 01:39:42 pm
Not penises turning into vaginas?
https://stillselecting.wordpress.com/2013/04/30/natural-human-sex-change/
Post by: Goddess on July 24, 2017, 02:11:52 pm
Not a dogmatic opinion, as I'm aware there could be exceptions, but my general feeling when assessing these things is:
Gender/Sexual orientation is not a choice.
Your religion is a choice.
Accomodating gender/sexual orientation/people with disabilities, etc. should be done as much as possible to include as many people as possible. Trans people are becoming more accepted and perhaps one day there will be 4 types of bathrooms - men's, women's, trans men's and trans female's.
Accomodating religious beliefs is another beast, IMO. Your religion is a choice. If your religion demands you only eat halal food (for example), then that is your choice. Find restaurants, grocery stores that offer it or do without. I don't agree with forcing restaurants (or any other type of business) to accomodate religious beliefs. If your religion is against homosexuals, then that is your choice. Don't open a bakery, if you feel that strongly about not baking a cake for a gay wedding.
I think accomodating people who have no choice in what they are - such as those with disabilities is the compassionate way to go.
Accomodating ridonkulous religious beliefs.....well, where would that end?
These appear like disorders that change output of hormones so they change mainly secondary sex characteristics, like males growing breasts or females growing facial hair. But secondary sex characters do not change the biological sex/chromosomes. Similar to things that happen during puberty when hormones rage & change, but during puberty you don't become "male " or "female" or whatnot, your sex and chromosomes are determined when you're in the womb.
Unless there's a disorder that can go back in time, stick you back in the womb, and make your **** into a **** & switch up your chromosomes I'll maintain that biological sex is unchangeable.
Trans people and whomever else can take hormones and have surgeries that change secondary sex characteristics, or even cosmetically alter parts of primary sex organs, and more power to them I think people should be free to look & feel who they want to be.
Fair enough. I was being a little bit tongue in cheek with that cite. So how about intersex people? If someone is born with a **** and then grows breasts at puberty, should they be required to remove one or the other in order to satisfy the majority expectations of male and female?
I've had posts removed on Muslim discussion lists for criticizing those very things you mention.
Which shows how intolerant they are, that even the most diffident, obsequious questioning of their rigid cultural codes gets your post deleted.
The problem you have with me is that you fail to see how xenophobic and Islamaphobic you are.
On the contrary. The problem I have with you is you're a typical self-hating, hand-wringing progressive awash in guilt over what you imagine are white sins against 'brown people' and desperate to make it up to them all by being their great protector. Your own innate racism causes you to turn your eyes aside at their blemishes and problems and make excuses for them as if they were little children who couldn't stick up for or protect themselves.
You bring up good points, but then you haughtily ascribe behaviors to everyone Muslim,
You make this complaint all the time, despite the fact that the discussion is not about individuals but about "THE MUSLIM WORLD", and so is with regard to THE MUSLIM WORLD and its cultural mores and behavior. But you refuse to accept evidence and polls about beliefs within that world as expressed by 70%-80%-90% of respondents, and blithely dismiss such views as if they're only that of an occasional extremist. All because your earnest belief that you must defend brown people from any and all criticism. Ninety two percent of women in Egypt have been subjected to FGM but to you, Egypt is a wonderful land of gender equality where women walk the streets proudly. Oh, perhaps there's a little occasional harassment, but hey, nothing like the den of **** and abuse that is Canada, eh!
pretend you can read an individual's mind based on what she is wearing,
Uh, yeah, if someone is wearing a KKK hood I have a pretty good idea what they think of Jews and black people. And if someone is wearing Islamist headgear I have a pretty good idea of what they think of Jews and infidels and gays and women. It's not rocket science. There is no one wearing a KKK outfit who believes in racial equality and there is no one wearing a burka who believes in gender equality.
in other posts you complain about any iota of political status given to women because "Surely there was a guy more qualified" and bemoaning female empowerment generally.
Because I believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of results. I believe in gender equality - clearly unlike you - I think that giving women jobs because they're women, and not because they're the better person for the job, is stupid, demeaning and also inefficient. I'm a firm believer in meritocracy and self reliance, whereas you're a firm believer in identity politics and in doing things FOR people because you believe they're too stupid to do it for themselves.
My opinions are never hypocritical. Just like yours never contain much thought or intelligence.
See, I don't discriminate. I'll call a person a moron whether they're male or female, black or white.
A thoughtful and illuminating cartoon series:
http://bust.com/arts/16202-artist-drags-sexism-toxic-masculinity-and-double-standards-in-epic-comic-takedowns.html
Quote from: MH on July 24, 2017, 04:57:14 pm
I would suggest that your approval of it is more about it agreeing with you than being either quality drawing (it's not) or insightful (it's not).
It's simply more of the sneers progressives like to make towards the people they hate the most - straight white males.
You think I'm diffident and obsequious? Wow. Anyway, yeah - they don't like to be criticized. Neither do you; you and they are rather the same, but you can't delete my posts.
Hogwash. You make so many assumptions about people you know nothing about.
They seem to walk the streets proudly, at least when I was there. Yeah, I am aware of the incidence of FGM in Egypt, and also that it applies equally to Christians in Egypt. That is the part that you consistently ignore: FGM and many other practices within the Middle East are cultural and not specifically Islamic. That is what I object to when you go on about how barbaric Muslims are. And objecting to ignorance that you spew constantly, your xenophobic comments doesn't mean I'm oblivious to the issues or the problems that women and minorities have in the Middle East or even that some of them bring those same practices to Western Countries.
If the only time these people wore a burka was to oppress woman, your analogy might stand. But sadly for you, a woman in a burka may actually not follow the agenda you've set out for her. But again, you make assumptions about people because you are too lazy to look at people as individuals. Instead you put them in groups: lefties, Muslims, Aboriginals, feminists, etc.
Because I believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of results. I believe in gender equality - clearly unlike you -
Nah. You proved that wrong when you argued passionately that the women JT chose for his cabinet could not have been as qualified as any male available.
I think that giving women jobs because they're women, and not because they're the better person for the job, is stupid, demeaning and also inefficient. I'm a firm believer in meritocracy and self reliance, whereas you're a firm believer in identity politics and in doing things FOR people because you believe they're too stupid to do it for themselves.
Nope. You assume that if JT appointed a woman, then it was for political reasons, not because she merited it. You assume that a better-qualified man was available and was passed over in favor of a woman. That is gender-bias right there. You reject the notion that perhaps in previous administrations, fully-qualified women were passed over in favor of men - because in your world, men are the natural recipients of status and power.
Post by: kimmy on July 24, 2017, 07:16:27 pm
simply more of the sneers progressives like to make towards the people they hate the most - straight white males.
whaaaa???
Post by: the_squid on July 24, 2017, 07:36:20 pm
Quote from: kimmy on July 24, 2017, 07:16:27 pm
You didn't know white males were so hard done by?
Quote from: the_squid on July 24, 2017, 07:36:20 pm
I've heard rumors. I'm just trying to piece together how the comic MH linked to could be interpreted as a sneer against straight white males.
Post by: bcsapper on July 24, 2017, 08:07:31 pm
He didn't say they were hard done by. He said progressives hate them the most. Which is pretty much a given, as progressives aren't allowed to hate anyone else.
Me too. It seems like the whole thing is a plea for listening. There is nothing in that that threatens anyone, except those who think that old narratives about gender need to be protected against discussion.
Conservatives need a safe space from social change. It hurst their fragile little sensibilities.
It was a collection of very poorly drawn cliche's which have been around for decades. Why anyone would laud this as some sort of insight into gender relations is beyond me.
Really? And yet nowhere have conservatives ever asked for or designed such a space. Odd, that, don't you think? It always seems to be progressives desperately in need of safe spaces to protect their delicate sensibilities from opinions which might disturb them.
It was part and parcel of the continuing message progressives have been delivering for some time now. Whether it's imaginary '**** culture' on campuses or the plethora of protective rules and regulations around normal human interactions. Progressives claim women are equals but they want them treated and coddled and encouraged like infants.
Maybe you read more feminist comics than I do, then, as some of these ideas were new to me.
You think I'm diffident and obsequious?
I have ZERO doubt on that score, not when you're addressing Muslims. Probably bow your head too.
Anyway, yeah - they don't like to be criticized. Neither do you;
But you weren't criticizing THEM. You were criticizing religion, a topic. Most often when we discuss Islam I am criticizing Islam and you, in turn (as here) are criticizing ME.
I know you don't understand the difference. It outrages you that anyone disagrees with you and you can't restrain yourself from attacking them.
Yeah, I am aware of the incidence of FGM in Egypt, and also that it applies equally to Christians in Egypt. That is the part that you consistently ignore: FGM and many other practices within the Middle East are cultural and not specifically Islamic.
And Egypt is what percentage Muslim? Where does the culture and values of Egypt come from? Not from Christians, who are a despised and endangered minority. Give Egypt another fifty or sixty years and there will be no Christians there anyway.
That is what I object to when you go on about how barbaric Muslims are.
Name one Muslim country anyone sane would choose to live. In every list, be it human rights abuses, educational achievements, violent religious extremism, it is clear that the Muslim world is the slow kid in the class. There are fifty of them and not one is a real democracy.
If the only time these people wore a burka was to oppress woman, your analogy might stand. But sadly for you, a woman in a burka may actually not follow the agenda you've set out for her.
Your continued insistence that a devoted, conservative Muslim who wraps herself in stiffing bedsheets everywhere she goes might not follow the agenda GOD set out for her is as brainless as the thought that someone in a KKK hood has a deep and abiding respect for Jews and Blacks.
You proved that wrong when you argued passionately that the women JT chose for his cabinet could not have been as qualified as any male available.
Again, reality eludes you. I'm the one who believes in equality. Which means, I presume that men and women in Trudeau's caucus are equally talented (which is probably an error in that the ways are greased for women and minorities, but never mind). So if roughly a quarter of his caucus is female but he names half his cabinet as female that is a pretty strong indication - born out by experience now - that he's named women as minister simply because they ARE women.
Nope. You assume that if JT appointed a woman, then it was for political reasons,
Everything Trudeau does is for political reasons. This is the style over substance government, after all.
You reject the notion that perhaps in previous administrations, fully-qualified women were passed over in favor of men - because in your world, men are the natural recipients of status and power.
First, I've never rejected any such notion, as it's never been discussed. Second, what is this but an inference that if there was prejudice against women in the past we should give them jobs now regardless of whether they deserve them?
Name one.
Weird. Seems like you want to help me make my point. I don't think I CAN name one. So I'm at zero. How about you ?
Post by: msj on July 25, 2017, 03:12:50 pm
Conservatives would rather impose spaces upon all of the rest of us to protect themselves and their precious delicate sensibilities.
Well, maybe it's time the rest of us to tell the conservatives to F'off, suck it up, and pee next to other human beings in a civilized manner.
I said they were cliches. You said they were new to you. Now you can't name any which are new and think I'm making your point?
Quote from: msj on July 25, 2017, 03:12:50 pm
What spaces to conservatives want to impose on the 'rest of us' to protect themselves?
Conservatives, unlike progressives, are not obsessed with toilets. Perhaps because, unlike progressives, the majority of our policy beliefs don't belong in them.
Conservatives want to ensure well marked bathrooms with someone checking for **** at the door....
I thought you were asking me to name feminist comics ?
It was part and parcel of the continuing message progressives have been delivering for some time now. Whether it's imaginary '**** culture' on campuses
If you think that "**** culture" is imaginary, I invite you to read about the Steubenville case, or Clinton-nemesis Ken Starr and his efforts to cover up rapes at Baylor University.
or the plethora of protective rules and regulations around normal human interactions. Progressives claim women are equals but they want them treated and coddled and encouraged like infants.
I don't think anything in the comics Mike linked to are calls for rules and regulations. I think they were an attempt to point out blatant double standards. I think the real criticism of the cartoons Mike linked to isn't that they're wrong, but rather that they're so obviously true that one wonders why they even need be pointed out. (answer: they need be pointed out because there are dolts to whom they're not obvious.)
Post by: kimmy on July 26, 2017, 12:04:54 am
I was out tonight and there was a biologically female person there... she was completely masculine in attire and grooming personal style in any respect aside from biology. Anyway, it was completely obvious that she was biologically female, but from her attire and her hairstyle and personal grooming and every other aspect that she had any control over, she was completely masculine. And she was with a male companion. She basically looked like Justin Bieber hanging out with a fellow bro.
Should I have assumed she were a male trapped in a female body? Or a woman who simply adopted a masculine style of dress and deportment (as I myself do, to a lesser degree)? Given the circumstances, would you assume she was a she or a he? Given the situation, would you suppose that she were a cisgendered female who enjoys masculine accoutrements, or a trans person who hasn't attempted to biologically transition?
As it happens I didn't interact with either s/he or er companion, so it's a moot question. Still, it made me think of this conversation.
Anyway, it seems as if "body blitz trans" has virtually disappeared from the radar of news items so I am thinking this controversy may have been a tempest in a tea pot.
I want to get back to the question of "gatekeeping", which I mentioned in previous posts.
I think as the notion of "chicks with dicks" becomes normalized, it will be exploited. We have already seen this, as Christian kooks have been encouraging biologically male individuals to hang out in the womens' rest room at Target stores in the US, supposedly to "protect women". Whether it be from individuals with an ideological axe to grind, or from mooks out for a lark, or from perverts, the idea of biologically male individuals entering women-only safe-spaces *will* become an issue.
And despite the insistence of trans-women and their allies, I think that it is reasonable that some degree of "gate-keeping" be established for biologically male individuals wanting to enter women-only safe spaces.
I don't think some frat-boys should be able to say "I identify as female today" and be taken at their word.
Post by: msj on July 26, 2017, 09:28:36 am
By Trump's Twitter timeline it looks like the gatekeeping to keep Trans people out of the military is his policy (no surprise).
But but but that Hilary would have brought people into the US who would really not like Trans people so all is ok....
Once again, conservatives "keeping us safe." ::)
If it is ruled that trans women must be allowed into female-only safe spaces, I think it's reasonable to request some means of assuring women that the biologically male people entering their safe space are actually trans women, as opposed to kooks or people with an axe to grind or frat-boys out for a lark.
That seems very reasonable to me.
All large institutions try to cover up bad news.
That a drunken girl would be sexually abused by a bunch of drunk/half drunken boys is hardly an example of **** culture. Where is the 'culture' which encourages ****? Even in my time, where getting a girl drunk to 'persuade her' was considered fair game, nobody, even among **** teenage boys, thought **** was acceptable (they just didn't think getting them drunk was **** back then and the law agreed).
But we're a long way from then. I'm continually surprised at how much more respectful (in general) towards girls/women young guys are compared to us in my generation - for whom they were largely odd people who just had attractive body parts. That being said, young men are prone to doing supremely stupid things (young women too) and especially when drinking. But a '**** culture' evokes thoughts of a general agreement on behavior among young men at college that they approve of **** and that's absolutely stupid. The stats don't show young college women are raped more often than their counterparts not in college either.
I don't think anything in the comics Mike linked to are calls for rules and regulations. I think they were an attempt to point out blatant double standards.
Of course there are double standards. But double standards impact both sides, just in different ways. And a lot of those alleged double standards are kind of old and cliched and not really so applicable any more.
Want a double standard? If a drunken girl has willing sex with a drunken boy the boy gets charged with **** if she decides to do so the next day. Why? Because she was drunk and so not able to consent. But what if he was drunk too? Ah, the legislation takes care to say that is no defense whatsoever. So her inebriated and impaired state means she is completely lacking any responsibility for the sex, but his inebriated and impaired state cannot be used to excuse his responsibility for the sex.
Yes, there are double standards about behaviour but in law, the woman generally gets the break in all things, be it family law or criminal law, BECAUSE of those double standards, because women are presumed to be kindly, innocent people who would never do wrong unless some man made them. See the case of Karla Homolka.
Quote from: kimmy on July 26, 2017, 12:15:24 am
Well, my understanding of new human rights legislation means you can't even question their uhm... gender decisions.
But even if they are 'trans', how safe and comforting would, say, a government ID 'proving' a biological male is female be to teenage girls in a dressing room with some 200 lb guy standing around naked?
They also need safe shopping spaces where no one offends them by saying "happy holidays." They need safe schools, where people teach creationism alongside evolution. They need safe militaries where gay people don't come out and transgendered people aren't serving. They need safe theatres where the actors don't talk about politics during an inherently political show. The list goes on and on. But Argus doesn't see those as "safe spaces."
They also need safe shopping spaces where no one offends them by saying "happy holidays."
That's a neat way to turn that around. I'm pretty sure you know that what irritates Conservatives about that phrase is that its a deliberate effort to ignore our traditions and history and culture so as to not offend newcomers. Conservatives tend to value those things rather more than progressives, who will go miles out of their way to avoid offending anyone (other than white straight people, of course, who they love offending).
They need safe schools, where people teach creationism alongside evolution.
Conservatives believe in evolution. Even the freaking pope believes in evolution. Don't call those wack jobs down south in Kansas and such conservatives.
They need safe militaries where gay people don't come out and transgendered people aren't serving.
Again, this is a US religious war thing and not the product of conservatism.
They need safe theatres where the actors don't talk about politics during an inherently political show. The list goes on and on. But Argus doesn't see those as "safe spaces."
Not the crap you make up. The actors in that show were not speaking as part of the show, but afterwards, to Pence (who is a dick, but still). So it was considered inappropriate for the actors to harangue a member of the audience. Not as inappropriate as that fat moron Trump giving a stupid politicized speech to boy scouts ,but still, inappropriate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
ACLU throws cold water on the twitter president:
https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/890255276301070336
Military rules and regulations allow trans people to serve their country. Even the commander-in-chief cannot change those via Twitter.
You mean like, when conservatives express disdain for progressives wanting to eliminate use of the word Christmas so as to create a "safe space" for non-Christians, and then you claim this disdain is itself a demand for a safe space?
Curious as to why male member, appendage, ****, John Thomas, etc... is a curse word.
It's a body part for f's sake.
Stupid filters.
Yep did it again. It starts with "p" and ends with "s."
Here is an example of butt sore conservative snowflake policy affecting people: https://twitter.com/saundramitchell/status/890219554705735681
Rather than sucking it up and treating queer people like humans gotta discharge them as "mentally unfit."
Heaven forbid if a homophobic conservative turd had to share the same trench as a queer.... ::)
The irony over not allowing trans people into the US military is we are supposed to fear being alone with one in a bathroom.
But I guess not all wars are fought in bathrooms!
Quote from: msj on July 27, 2017, 08:35:59 am
No, this is an urban-rural war. Trump (most definitely not and never a conservative) is throwing some meat to his rural base of support. It's not something everyone even who calls themselves a conservative in the US wanted.
Log Cabin Republicans President Gregory T. Angelo said Wednesday that "the president's statement this morning does a disservice to transgender military personnel,"
And from bible thumping Orrin Hatch of Utah, came the following twitter reply to Trump:
"I don't think we should be discriminating against anyone. Transgender people are people, and deserve the best we can do for them. I look forward to getting much more information and clarity from our military about the policy the president tweeted today."
And Republican Sen. Joni Ernst, from Iowa, told the Des Moines Register that she disagrees with the military ban and says anyone who's qualified should be allowed to serve.
Post by: SirJohn on September 11, 2017, 08:58:06 am
How moronic can progressives get when they adopt a 'cause' like transgederism? How about suspending a six year old boy from school because he was confused about why another boy came to school dressed as a girl?
The couple said under the school's bullying policy their son faced being disciplined for "mis-gendering" the six-year-old pupil.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hampshire-41224146 (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hampshire-41224146)
Post by: JMT on September 11, 2017, 08:59:54 am
That'just dumb.
Post by: MH on September 11, 2017, 09:06:14 am
Quote from: SirJohn on September 11, 2017, 08:58:06 am
Right, but a story like that goes Global not because it's especially concerning, not because it calls serious issues into question, but because it's sensational.
The best way to ignore extremism is to ignore it, for the most part.
Quote from: MH on September 11, 2017, 09:06:14 am
Unless government adopts that extremism. There are a lot of people who feel Trudeau's inclusion of transgenders in human rights legislation will leave people open to prosecution for not using what nouns they want to be used to describe themselves, for example, or to harken back on an earlier time in this topic, if they refuse anatomical males who say they're female access to female restrooms and changing rooms.
Post by: cybercoma on September 11, 2017, 11:28:58 am
There's also many people who think Trudeau is a secret Muslim who's instituting Sharia Law in Canada and importing terrorists.
Quote from: cybercoma on September 11, 2017, 11:28:58 am
Well, I don't think he's a secret Muslim. I don't think Trudeau believes in religion at all. As for importing terrorism, since almost all terrorism comes from the Muslim world, the more Muslims you import, the more terrorism you will get. It's no coincidence that terrorism in Europe is heaviest in countries with the most Muslims and non-existent in those with no Muslims.
Post by: Omni on September 11, 2017, 11:51:36 am
"Almost all terrorism comes from the Muslim world"? Think you put your foot in it again there. I'd like to see your stats to back that one up.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/domestic-terrorism-white-supremacists-islamist-extremists_us_594c46e4e4b0da2c731a84df
Post by: cybercoma on September 11, 2017, 12:06:39 pm
As for importing terrorism, since almost all terrorism comes from the Muslim world, the more Muslims you import, the more terrorism you will get.
Aside from the fact that right-wing lone wolf extremism is characterized as a much greater threat to people in the West, this is just entirely wrong.
You think we're just drawing a random sample of people from the Muslim world, including radicals and whatnot? You think the doors are completely open? That's the only possible way you can believe this nonsense. Aside from it being an ecological fallacy, there is a multi-million dollar vetting process that happens for immigrants, as well as refugees. It also ignores the fact that almost every person you would consider from the "Muslim World" (whatever that means anyway) comes here to escape the violence back home. We're not just taking in random samples of people that have the same percentage of radical Islamists in it as the entire demographics in whatever countries you're considering. We take in professionals, families, and people fleeing violence.
Of course, an Arab is an Arab, eh? Forget the Lebanese Christians who come in. They're from the "Muslim World" so they must be terrorists. Forget the Muslim Asians from places like Indonesia. Terrorists. Forget that countries in the Muslim World have elected women leaders, when we've yet to do it ourselves. Those voters must have been terrorists too.
I've said it before, you do not recognize that there's as much differences in Muslim people from around the world as there is between Bernie Sanders and The Westboro Baptist Church. You seem to think we're letting in a bunch of the Westboro Baptists with zero evidence that this is the case. Hell, they don't even have to be Muslims. Look at that woman who was shouting in Jagmeet Singh's face. She's too stupid to even realize what religion he follows, let alone to understand that Islam has no central authority and there's as much difference between Muslims as there are between Christmas and Easter Catholics and Evangelical Hate-Mongers like Westboro. And you too seem to suffer from this ignorance. A Muslim is a Muslim and they aren't welcome in your country because they look funny, they talk funny, and they dress funny, so they all must be terrorists. Surely the government doesn't vet applicants who want to live here. All that money they spend on immigration must be going towards other things.
Post by: SirJohn on September 13, 2017, 07:54:40 pm
Quote from: cybercoma on September 11, 2017, 12:06:39 pm
I've looked at that. The statistics are based on all these far right cranks living out there, survivalist types, anti-government types, extremist rednecks. They're not dangerous except to the authorities who try to police them. They're not going to be setting off car bombs in markets or opening fire in shopping malls or trying to blow up the CN tower. When they commit violence it is, in most cases, by resisting police and authorities. And any groups of more than a half a dozen probably have an FBI/RCMP informant planted among them. And they're not going to be flying fully loaded passenger liners into buildings, either, because suicide is not high on their bucket lists.
You think we're just drawing a random sample of people from the Muslim world, including radicals and whatnot? You think the doors are completely open?
Yes, and yes.
Aside from it being an ecological fallacy, there is a multi-million dollar vetting process that happens for immigrants, as well as refugees.
No, there really isn't. In fact, ninety percent of immigrants never even meet an immigration officer until they land in Canada and go through customs. They send in forms and documentation, some of which might or might not be fake (such as university degrees). Their names are checked against lists of known terrorist organization members, and they're checked to see if they have a criminal record. That's it, as far as security vetting goes. It isn't any better for refugees. How can we check up on a Syrian we find in a refugee camp who has no papers anyway? Ask the Syrian government? If they're not on a terrorist list that's as far as it goes.
And, of course, the political elites have specifically rejected the idea of trying to ascertain whether they're religious/cultural/social views are hostile to the ones we hold.
It also ignores the fact that almost every person you would consider from the "Muslim World" (whatever that means anyway) comes here to escape the violence back home.
Not actually. Almost every person who comes here does so because this is a rich country and they want some of that. They have an opportunity for a better, richer life here, as do their kids. There are lots of peaceful poor countries and nobody wants to go and live there for the peace, now do they? All those migrants that flooded into Europe wanted nothing to do with Turkey, Greece, Italy, Serbia and those other countries they were desperate to get past. They wanted to get to the rich northern European countries like Sweden, the UK and Germany.
Further, I doubt any of them thought the violence was because of Islam, so there's no reason for them to forswear any aspects of Islam.
Of course, an Arab is an Arab, eh? Forget the Lebanese Christians who come in. They're from the "Muslim World" so they must be terrorists.
Why do you people keep resorting to brainless snot like this? I've already said I'd rather have taken twice as many Syrian Christians than Syrian Muslims. I have no problem with Lebanese Christians either. It's not a racial thing. I had my hair cut today by a Lebanese Christian guy and his skin was as white as mine.
You also resort to that knee-jerk accusation that I believe all Muslims are terrorists when I've explicitly stated on MANY occasions I believe no such thing. I don't even believe every Muslim from the Muslim world is extreme in their social beliefs. And I've said that repeatedly, as well.
I've said it before, you do not recognize that there's as much differences in Muslim people from around the world as there is between Bernie Sanders and The Westboro Baptist Church.
Yeah? Which of the 57 Muslim nations around the world treats women equal to men? Which one treats non-Muslims equal to Muslims? Which one has no problem with Jews? Which one has gay pride parades? The rate of female genital mutilation is over 90% in Egypt, and Mali - and in Malaysia - and rising in Indonesia where it was 50% last study. What does Mali have to do with Malaysia other than Islam?
Find me this mythical land of liberal, tolerant, peaceful Muslims that we can import. Do.
My position has always been perfectly clear, clear enough I would have thought anyone of moderate intelligence would have discerned it by now. We get more economically successful immigrants from almost anywhere else, according to the government's own studies. And the ones from other parts of the world don't come with the threat of extreme social views which are hostile to our own, views which are embedded in their religious values. So why should we be bringing in so many from the Muslim world?
You have a university where half the students you hire wind up being fired within the first year for incompetence, and three more universities where almost none get fired in the first year - with lots and lots of candidates. Why the hell would you go recruiting at the first university again? Because you want to prove how inclusive you are? How bloody precious.
Who's going to assimilate faster, an Irishman or an Afghan?
Post by: Omni on September 13, 2017, 09:34:44 pm
Quote from: SirJohn on September 13, 2017, 07:54:40 pm
More unsubstantiated "statistics" from Argus. Our immigration system is at least as stringent if not more than that of the US. The main difference is we don't discriminate based on religion, kinda like your buddy Trump wants to do. The point system launched years ago has proven very successful. We purposefully don't rely on interviewing immigrants because of the potential for bias. Can you imagine if you were an immigration officer conducting interviews? I expect anybody with brown skin would be doomed as soon as they walked in the door.
https://www.geramilaw.com/blog/canadas-immigration-and-refugee-screening-process.html
http://www.chatelaine.com/living/politics/canadian-immigration-citizenship/
You simply don't operate in reality. I've worked with plenty of Muslim people,who,I would rather have as a neighbour and share more in common with than I do with you.
Is this information reflected in my post on MLW ?
http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/26901-freedom-of-speech/?do=findComment&comment=1267387
For a much smaller group, the far-right seems to do a similar amount of damage.
An Irishman. But the question isn't that as such, it's what do they bring, and can they assimilate well enough ?
I have already proposed that the government should (or perhaps does) submit all key variables into a formula and find out what happens.
"I know some nice muslims" is not in any way, shape or form information that should or can be used to discuss broad scale policy with regard to immigrants numbering in the hundreds of thousands.
The concern about terrorism is not what has been done - aside from the major attacks, but what might be done. 106 victims of right wing wackos in the last 16 years? If a Muslim terrorist succeeds in downing one major airliner that will triple overnight. We don't have to show up three hours early at the airport because anyone fears a right wing kook will blow up the plane, you know.
But in any event, this should not be reduced to terrorism. My issue with wide scale immigration has never been mainly about terrorism but about the degree to which a religious backed culture with values inimical to ours can grow and sustain itself in Canada and produce a sub-national group hostile to the rest of us.
Well, according to the government an Irishman is also far more likely to be economically successful than the Afghan - or a Libyan or an Iranian etc. And economics is why we have an immigration system - or at least, it's supposed to be.
There is too much resistance among the progressive set of the political and media elites to the concept that our national culture and values might be 'better' than anyone elses's.
You don't challenge posts. That's your problem. I don't think you even know how to challenge posts. When you see a post you don't like your instant reply is to insult the poster. In reply to something like a fifty line post of mine about various aspects of immigration under discussion all you come back with is we don't discriminate like 'my buddy' Trump and I wouldn't let brown people into the country. Are you really not aware of what a brainless, stupid, non-contribution that is to any sort of intelligent discussion?
Pius I posted 2 links to surveys that clearly contradicted yet another series of assumptions you toss around to try and support your anti immigration stance. You reply with insults, as per usual. not my problem if contradictory data raises your ire.
Post by: JMT on September 14, 2017, 01:35:28 pm
SirJohn - I was just making a point, and I needed it to serve as an example.
I asked about ignore, btw. Never got an answer back.
Point made, so I've now deleted the posts.
Anyway, since we can't ignore eachother, I think it's better to avoid insulting each other. Everyone here makes good points at least sometimes.
Post by: MH on September 14, 2017, 02:37:43 pm
Ok. Well, I would be ok with importing more Irish if it could be quantified however I'm not ok with setting some national quotas at zero. You could emphasize recruiting foreign nationals from better matches though.
Because that's vain and frankly unCanadian. We don't have to say our system is better, we obviously believe it or we would be dismantling it instead of moving it forward.
I'm a big fan of playing off flaws against strengths so to speak. What I mean here is that I would like to use our endless busybody and never-shut-up nitpicky nature (reminder I AM Canadian :) ) against our government services to create some kind of real culture of criticism of our services. There should be endless surveys on quality and volume of service, as well as cost comparisons. Maybe in a forum. We could redirect some of the energy we use discussing diversity to the end of the earth on THAT.
Me, conservative.
Quote from: MH on September 14, 2017, 02:37:43 pm
I don't know as we need to set quotas. I think we should, however, focus our efforts on recruiting people from the nations which A) have a lower failure/high success rate, and B0 have a technological and cultural background which is more compatible with ours.
So honesty is unCanadian?
I have no idea how that relates to gender culture, much less immigration and its impact on gender relations, or even if you're serious or pantomining conservatives. But the comparison of their quality should be with what other nations do. And if you compare our health care or legal system with Europe we come out very far behind despite spending roughly the same.
1. So honesty is unCanadian?
2. I have no idea how that relates to gender culture, much less immigration and its impact on gender relations, or even if you're serious or pantomining conservatives. But the comparison of their quality should be with what other nations do. And if you compare our health care or legal system with Europe we come out very far behind despite spending roughly the same.
1. Honesty doesn't preclude vanity.
2. Thread drift, sorry. "Pantomiming" ? I haven't heard any such suggestion from Conservatives either. Remember the Liberal Red Book ? I was enthusiastic about that one, ie. I was a sucker. I agree that other nations are a benchmark, but if we do this I am convinced we can do better than any nation. We should start by benchmarking ourselves and expecting, as citizens, continual improvement.
Post by: TimG on September 14, 2017, 05:12:26 pm
I would use whichever standard singular pronoun someone wanted me to use (he/she/it). If there was agreement on a new pronoun like 'Ms' for the gender ambiguous such as 'xe' then I would use that too. I would not use 'custom' pronouns and expecting people do use them in discussions with third parties is an unreasonable demand. 'Their' as a singular is as pretentious as the royal 'we' so I would not use that either.
Post by: Bubbermiley on September 14, 2017, 06:11:18 pm
I think the tendency to want to tell people how to speak comes directly from a sense that the language is spiked against you, and maybe just as much from a desire to exercise whatever power you can when you feel otherwise powerless. But I'm an old man too and there's just no way I would use a custom pronoun in normal conversation either. I would never be 100% sure they weren't playing a joke on me and seeing what they can make me do.
There is nothing you've ever presented that leads me to believe that the government vetting process is failing and we are in some sort of imminent danger. There is nothing I've seen from meeting Syrian refugees and working with Muslims from all different cultural backgrounds that makes me fear them as much as you do.
I take it you speak Arabic? You know, from meeting them, what's in their minds and souls and hearts because they've openly discussed it all with you? I once had a manager who was very nice. Well, he WAS very nice. But it turned out he was one of those 'adult baby' people. Totally freaking weird! Hadn't a clue!
Working with someone does not give you a hell of a lot of insight into whether they go home and beat their wives, or like to get spanked, or whether they pray daily for an Islamic state and the death of all Jews, or send their 6 year old daughter back 'home' to have her clitoris removed so she doesn't become a ****.
I know, I know, OUR Muslims are COMPLETELY different from all the rest of the world's Muslims because, well.. they came here! So they must be!
Somehow.
So you get to just make up whatever wild assumptions you want about how awful they are and I'm supposed to just believe you?
This might just blow your mind, but not all Muslims are Arab. You might want to digest that.
What have I made up? What assumptions have I made which are not logically derived from existing evidence? I've looked at the Muslim world and its values and cultures, looked at the religious extremism, looked at the surveys of Muslim world opinions, and the extreme misogyny of things like FGM, and decided I don't want any part of that. Is my decision illogical in some way?
Have I ever suggested every member of the Muslim world believes the same way, that they all hate Jews, all treat women like cattle, all want a global caliphate?
Nope. My position is, though, that many, even, in some countries, most of them do, according to polls and surveys and behavior, and that given what the government says about the economic success of immigrants based on source country it makes little sense for us to be taking so many immigrants from these areas.
Yes, but most of the ones who come to Canada are. And as I stated earlier, Malaysia might not be an Arab country but over 90% of the women there have been subjected to FGM as girls. Islamic extremism is growing in Indonesia, as well. Pakistanis aren't Arabs but those seem like waters we should definitely not be fishing in. Yet it is one of our primary source countries.
You've looked at the Muslim world, have you?
How about you look at the Muslim immigrants and the Canadian-born Muslims here, if you're going to make an argument about our immigration system.
For the umpteenth time, we don't let in just some random sample of Muslims from around the world. There is a lengthy process people go through to get admitted into our country, whether you believe it or not.
Enough. I think you know I'm not exaggerating, which is why neither you nor any other of the people who get so angry about my positions on this topic ignore my repeated queries to give me a list of Muslim states which have gay pride parades, where women have equal rights, or where non-Muslims are treated equally to Muslims. Because you know there aren't any.
I look very closely at any sorts of surveys/polls of Muslim Canadian attitudes, and have discussed them frequently. You missed all that?
The desperation of progressives to assure everyone OUR Muslims are different from THEIR Muslims seems to rest on one of two possible beliefs. Either they follow a different Islam than everyone else. Or they don't really pay much attention to Islamic doctrine. I think this comes from the fact progressive themselves are virtually never very religious and certainly don't take moral lessons from any religion, so they presume nobody else does either (except those horrible fundie Christians).
Of course, that doesn't explain why Muslim women are donning burquas and hijabs in ever greater numbers....
Evidence? None. Simply because you believe it does not make it so.
To repeat, to get into our country you apply by mail. You fill out forms. You send in documents and photocopies (some of which may or may not be faked). This is what attests to whether you qualify to immigrate here. The only security screening consists of checking databases to see if you're listed as a criminal or known terrorist. That's it. There is absolutely no screening done to determine a person's suitability in terms of cultural adaptation, religious extremism, or values that are hostile to ours.
There's literally hundreds of thousands of Muslim immigrants in Canada right now. If there was a concerted effort towards violence, you would already be dead. There's not. You're suffering from a moral panic. Muslims are your folk devil and it clearly pisses you off when others are shaking in their boots like you are. They're not because the situation isn't remotely close to how you characterize it.
As an interesting aside. I found myself wondering about thread drift given I seem to be arguing about Muslims in a topic on thread drift. I went and had a look back to see how this thread drifted into yet another 'sir john is horrible because he doesn't love Muslims like we do' thing, and traced it to post 128. When cybercoma inserted a sarcastic post referencing a post I had made elsewhere.
There's literally hundreds of thousands of Muslim immigrants in Canada right now. If there was a concerted effort towards violence, you would already be dead.
No, they would be. Muslim numbers are still low in Canada as a percentage of the population to get really militant. And a big chunk of them immigrated decades ago, before the Islamic world became as intolerant as it is now.
You're suffering from a moral panic. Muslims are your folk devil and it clearly pisses you off when others are shaking in their boots like you are. They're not because the situation isn't remotely close to how you characterize it.
No, what pisses me off is when dumb people insist on turning the conversation away from whatever we were discussing onto ME, so they can rant about their disapproval of my morality. That being the case, I tend to turn the subject to THEM and my disapproval of their ignorance and fatuous stupidity.
Post by: guest4 on September 15, 2017, 08:41:56 pm
This is hilarious from someone who knows the hearts and minds of people he has never spoken to, merely seen on the street or on TV.
Here's an hijabi wearing gay woman who rolls her eyes at people like you:
https://thequeerness.com/2016/04/14/queer-and-hijabi-its-complicated/
Here's another one .. a girl in a Muslim majority country who decided to wear an hijab at age 14, even though her father said she should wait till she was older; she is also queer.
https://www.bgdblog.org/2014/04/tragic-queer-muslim-story/
Here are 8 more women, all Muslim, all queer, from all over the world.
Yes, I know you will attempt to misrepresent my views so you can keep telling yourself how wrong I am, so here are my qualifying statements:
Islam is generally a misogynistic religion.
Muslim majority countries do not feature equal rights for women or gays.
Finding a few stories about gay Muslim people doesn't change either of the above facts, but what it does do is demonstrate just how wrong you are in your assumptions.
Post by: kimmy on September 16, 2017, 02:15:12 am
I don't think this is particularly an Islam thing, and more of a "crappy cultures" type thing. I don't think East African Muslims are any worse than West African Christians, for example. That's why western Africa has been such fertile ground for US Christian hate-preachers like Scott Lively.
Now, of course most of the Muslims who do arrive in Canada will be from places that are various shades of awful, whereas most of the Christians who arrive here will be from places that are at least slightly civilized. But that's not explicitly an Islam issue.
Quote from: dia on September 15, 2017, 08:41:56 pm
so here are my qualifying statements:
...but you don't get why people are concerned with bringing large numbers of people from places with widespread homophobia and misogyny into Canada?
I expect that we're getting tens of thousands of Rohingyas in the near future. I'm sure they're highly progressive.
Quote from: kimmy on September 16, 2017, 02:50:22 am
Sounds like a little argus influence to me . tsk tsk.
Post by: guest4 on September 16, 2017, 08:19:28 am
Perhaps it's the way in which people present the concerns that has me convinced they are not credible.
Using a survey to "prove" that Muslim Canadians are not integrating into Canada, while denying the parts of the same survey that demonstrate they are, by claiming that the Muslim respondents must have lied about those parts.
Claiming that all Muslims "look and think the same".
Claiming that Muslims can't and won't change, despite clear evidence that they have and do.
Claims that the government is just itching to bring in Sharia law to impose on all Canadians.
Claiming that Sharia law is always brutal, when it has many different forms and, especially in secular countries, is often simply dealing with family matters such as divorce and inheritance (and this might be bad enough, but since there is never any discussion beyond "OMG, Sharia - they'll cut off your head if you aren't Muslim" - well, who knows?).
Claiming that M-103 is actually a bill against Free speech.
Bringing up every misdeed by anyone Muslim, as if non-Muslim Canadians don't do exactly the same kinds of things.
Claiming that when Muslims get to X%, they "take over", when in actuality there are several examples, worldwide, of Muslims having those numbers and yet not "taking over".
Investigating news stories about "Muslims demand (something terrible)" and finding out the actual situation is nothing like described.
Being invited to "look at what is happening in Europe" and not being able to find credible evidence that what is being claimed is accurate. Now, maybe it is - this is one area where I remain unsure because while I can find lots of scary headlines, I can't find much in way of what I would consider credible reports. Still, Europe is quite far away and I may indeed be missing something. So - for example - while I have no doubt that something happened on New Year's in Germany, I remain unsure if it was coordinated, if it really involved 100s of Muslim immigrants, and if all the incidents were sexual assaults, or if most were robberies. Same with the report of the concert that was cancelled because of "Muslims": Something like 12 sexual assaults in a crowd of 30,000 resulted in organizers saying they weren't going to risk women's safety. Good on them. Some sources were only too eager to declare this was because of "Muslim refugees". But were all 12 assaults perpetrated by Muslims - none of the less biased sources claimed they were Muslim. Do similar assaults never happen in Canada when 10s of thousands of people are gathered? Why, yes they do - but again, Muslims are not mentioned. And of course, the claim that "the MSM isn't reporting them because of political correctness" or whatever, just seems like an excuse to believe what one wants to believe, and not really credible either.
So yeah, I'm pretty damn skeptical of a lot of these stories and claims.
I would agree that by and large, Muslims are more conservative than the general population. But so are Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, etc., so I don't see Muslim conservatism as any kind of existential threat.
I recognize that domestic violence is an issue with Muslims (and Hindus and Christians and many other religious groups), and that it tends to be higher among immigrant groups (regardless of origin) than among the general population. In my opinion, domestic violence within the Muslim community can and should be addressed within the wider issue of domestic violence in Canada and within immigrant groups.
I recognize that homophobic attitudes also exist in higher numbers among the Muslim population, but homophobia is not, by any means, limited to Muslims: rednecks all across the country would agree with them. And again, in my opinion, homophobia should be addressed within Canada for all groups, not just Muslims.
I think "large numbers" is relative. Not all of our 250,000 immigrants to Canada are from "conservative" countries (Middle East, Africa, etc). Even for those who are from those countries, not all of them are going to be misogynistic or homophobic. I agree that most will probably have that "man as head of the house" attitude and will disapprove of homosexuality, but most of those will also not be interested in imposing those beliefs on the rest of us. Even in Muslim-majority countries where homosexuality is illegal, homosexuals live - their family/friends even know, and do not turn them in so while they may disapprove, most don't disapprove enough to want to harm that person. As for "misogyny" - that term is somewhat subjective. By some opinion, every Christian household who has man as head, female as submissive is misogynistic. By other opinions, the 'good ol' boys' club in corporate culture isn't the least misogynistic - women are kept in lower/female professions because they 'choose' to be there by having babies and other such frivolous behavior.
This isn't to say that I think there is no misogyny in Islam, because I do - their whole notion that women are entitled to less inheritance or that their word is less credible and similar is pretty disgusting. Cultural practices like FGM and marrying a woman to her rapist, or blaming a woman for being raped - even more disgusting. Still, we have laws against that kind of stuff in Canada and while it's true that not everyone will follow the law, it's also true that as a species, humans are more inclined than not to behave within the norms of their society - that inherent attribute is a key component of why we've managed to live in successfully in large groups, in Saudi Arabia or Canada. There are always outliers, of course, whether it's a woman in SA who wears a miniskirt in public or a man in Canada who kills "his" woman for any reason whatsoever.
The problem I see with deciding that because Muslims come from countries which have laws against gays and fail on gender equality, then all Muslims must agree and so we should limit or eliminate their entry into our country is that we fail the woman in SA who wants to wear a miniskirt, we fail the homosexuals who are trying to live safely within their country, we fail the men and women worldwide who are working to reform Islam, whether from outside or inside their Muslim-majority countries. Instead of giving a battered woman a chance to leave her batterer, we say no - stay where you are until you are just like us. Instead of offering a safe place for a Muslim person who might be gay - we say no - the risk to us is too great because while you might be ok, your family/friends might not be. I personally don't want to do that.
This is hilarious
A series of cites about a few gay Muslims is somehow supposed to answer all the polls and surveys on Muslim attitudes, not to mention the preponderance of FGM in your favorite, woman friendly Muslim country - Egypt? No, of course not. Even you admit that. I'm not even sure what your post is about then, other than to try to once again argue against the straw man I've denied many times, that I believe ALL Muslims are horrid.
Quote from: dia on September 16, 2017, 08:19:28 am
What, with facts and figures and polls, you mean?
As I recall, the survey in question was a much softer duplicate of one taken in the UK. Both asked whether Muslims were proud of being Canadians/British, and both returned very high numbers in the affirmative. You suggested this meant they were integrating. However, the British poll also asked questions the Canadian poll didn't, like should homosexuals be imprisoned. Half of British Muslims said they should be. Is there a reason to believe half of Canadian Muslims wouldn't agree?
Never made any such claim. Although I do believe that devoted Muslims believe in Islam. That seems to bother you endlessly.
Never made that claim either. I simply pointed out that cultural values reinforced by religion are far more difficult to shed than those which derive from a country left behind.
Claiming that Sharia law is always brutal
It is. End of discussion. Anyone who believes in Sharia has no place in Canada. Anyone who supports Sharia has no place in Canada. Deport them all, whether they're Muslims or not.
No, its a bill that calls for a study which would set the stage for laws against free speech.
If I brought up every misdeed by anyone Muslims I wouldn't have time to do anything else but post them 24hrs a day, 7 days a week.
This, once again, is a figment of your tormented imagination.
Most of your claims are just shrill blathering from a person whose entire view of the subject is governed by her in-laws who are nice to her.
The problem I see with deciding that because Muslims come from countries which have laws against gays and fail on gender equality, then all Muslims must agree and so we should limit or eliminate their entry into our country is that we fail the woman in SA who wants to wear a miniskirt,
I'm not interested in what happens to the woman in SA who wants to wear a miniskirt. This is the major failing all you progressives have on immigration. You regard it as a giant welfare scheme intended to create better lives for the world's poor and downtrodden. It's NOT. It's sole intention is to make life better for Canadians.
There is only one genuine reason for mass immigration, and as tenuous as the support for the belief is, that's to improve our economic well-being. That being the case, why are we bringing in so many people from areas of the world the Canadian government has found produce the least economically successful immigrants? When you add on the cultural issues which make it much harder for Muslims to integrate as well as creating potential dangers for gays and Jews in Canada, and potentially increasing the odds of terrorist events, that adds up, to me, to bypassing this region.
There is no way to argue against the logic of that position so you resort to emotionalisms and personal attacks.
Yes, you do sometimes say "Not all Muslims are bad", and then you also say things like "they all look and think alike" and "they can't change" and "they're backwards and ignorant" and only allow the "anti-Muslim" part of a survey to stand as truth. Like the tweets that come from Trump's hand speak more loudly than his teleprompted speeches, your constant anti-Muslim screeds outweigh your occasional acknowledgement that Muslims aren't all horrid.
So, my identification of real Muslims who are nothing like you claim "most" Muslims are is merely the tip of the iceberg you refuse to see. I can admit they are not yet the majority; how about you try seeing the reality that the 'horrid' Muslims are not nearly the monsters you'd have us believe.
Yes, you do sometimes say "Not all Muslims are bad", and then you also say things like "they all look and think alike" and "they can't change" and "they're backwards and ignorant"
I've never said they all look alike or think alike. I've never said they can't change. I do believe anyone who clings to the severe religious dogma of Islam is backwards and ignorant, however.
You mean, those facts/figures/polls that you will only accept the part that supports YOUR anti-Muslim agenda? The Muslims who said "I'm proud of Canada" or "I appreciate Canada's diversity and freedoms" must be lying? Those were YOUR words. If you don't remember, I will find the post. And, incidentally - you are the only one I'm aware of who has actually outright rejected the part of the poll that didn't support his claim by saying the respondents must have lied.
Here is a gay British Muslim's man's thoughts regarding that poll - it both supports the anti-Muslim interpretation and invites people to think a little bit differently about this issue: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/as-a-gay-british-muslim-this-is-what-i-think-of-the-survey-finding-over-half-of-british-muslims-want-a6978881.html
Yeah, you did. Do I have to go find the post? Not that you are the only one that thinks like that - so that statement wasn't just referring to you.
I don't know if you've made this statement or not, but it has been made by many people who share your agenda. Keep in mind, not everything is about you, even if I post it.
I agree it's nonsense, but as I have said before - and which you seem to have trouble understanding - not everything I post is explicitly about you.
Sharia law as practiced in many countries does not include any kind of physical brutality. One may disagree with the family law aspect of Sharia, but the claim that it is always about cutting off limbs/heads or stoning people is simply wrong. And as long as such ignorance continues, then the discussion is not over. And, again a reminder - since many people accept ignorance over knowledge, this statement is not explicitly about you, in case you thought it was.
A true debate cannot happen about anything when people prefer lurid exaggerations over fact and substance.
Funny how the same warning was sounded for the Ottawa Protocol in 2010, yet Canadians are still free to criticize Isreal.
Nov 10, 2010 – Free speech advocates warn that Canadians face severe restrictions on freedom of expression if the definition of anti-Semitism recommended in Ottawa this week is adopted.
The definition of anti-Semitism advocated by the self-styled Inter-Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism (ICCA) would outlaw legitimate political opinion as a means to silence criticism of Israel and its treatment of Palestinians.
According to the Seriously Free Speech Committee, if governments and other bodies adopt the proposed definition contained in the Ottawa Protocol. the following statements would be condemned or criminalized:
• I consider Israel's bombardment of Gaza in 2009 that resulted in the killing of 1,400 Palestinians, many of them children, to be a crime against humanity.
• Israel's apartheid policies make it an appropriate target for an international campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions
https://seriouslyfreespeech.wordpress.com/cpcca/icca-ottawa-protocol/ (https://seriouslyfreespeech.wordpress.com/cpcca/icca-ottawa-protocol/)
So excuse me if I call bunk on a similar claim made against M103.
This is not something that you do. But then my post wasn't specifically about you, despite your conviction that everything I post is about you.
And, once again, not specifically abut you - despite your tormented imagining that I only ever post about you or to you.
Most of your claims are just shrill blathering from a person who seems to have devoted their life to the expansion and protection of Islam.
Islam, along with Christianity and every other religion, can go hang as far as I'm concerned. But the ignorance and hyperbole that is being spread about Muslims as people, and resulting in law-abiding Muslism (not to mention Sikhs and other brown people) being attacked verbally and physically, is as wrong as the religions themselves.
Post by: bcsapper on September 16, 2017, 11:24:11 am
But the ignorance and hyperbole that is being spread about Muslims as people, and resulting in law-abiding Muslism (not to mention Sikhs and other brown people) being attacked verbally and physically, is as wrong as the religions themselves.
Just in today's paper, ISIS has claimed responsibility for yesterday's London bombing fail, and a Christian has been sentenced to death in Pakistan for blasphemy.
At what point do we have to stop talking about such things to avoid them being considered ignorance and hyperbole?
Talking past each other.
Option 1: Blame & Shame Muslims in Canada
Option 2: Stop talking about Islam
Stupid choices.
That was my point...
Then why did you suggest we stop talking about things ?
Quote from: bcsapper on September 16, 2017, 11:24:11 am
Maybe at the point that a Christian who performed an honor killing in Isreal last July is highlighted with screaming headlines, status updates and posts as an example of the barbarity of Christians? Or when the Jewish and Christian practice of circumcising boys is condemned and it's religious adherents have to undergo 'screening' to prove they are worthy of being admitted into Canada? How about noting how many parents who horrendously mistreat their children in American and Canada because they are "Christians"? Or maybe when Christians who disapprove of homosexuality are condemned as roundly as Muslims, because some Christians in Africa and the Middle East kill homosexuals? How about when we start insisting that Nigerian and Russian Christians should not be welcome in Canada because gays are jailed in both of those predominantly Christian countries? Maybe when RW and LW terror groups aren't excused from their crimes because 'they're lone wolves, and not religious'.
How about that, eh? And please don't start with 'but it doesn't happen as much ...', because really that's irrelevant. If you are going to condemn one person or group for some action, you can't give a pass to another person or group who does the same thing because they have a different reason or religion.
Maybe at the point that a Christian who performed an honor killing in Isreal last July is highlighted with screaming headlines, status updates and posts as an example of the barbarity of Christians? Or when the Jewish and Christian practice of circumcising boys is condemned and it's religious adherents have to undergo 'screening' to prove they are worthy of being admitted into Canada? How about noting how many parents who horrendously mistreat their children in American and Canada because they are "Christians"? Or maybe when Christians who disapprove of homosexuality are condemned as roundly as Muslims, because some Christians in Africa and the Middle East kill homosexuals? How about when we start insisting that Nigerian and Russian Christians should not be welcome in Canada because gays are jailed in both of those predominantly Christian countries? Maybe when RW and LW terror groups aren't excused from their crimes because 'they're lone wolves, and not religiious'.
Actually, the prevelance of an action is not at all irrelevant. All of the things you mention have been condemned on this site and the other. (well, I don't know about this site. I haven't been on here as much) I have posted about Christian atrocities, posted against MGM, (not as vociferously, for obvious reasons) posted about barbaric african cultures, including witchcraft and Albino dismembering. I admit Russian Christian immigration has managed to find its way under my radar.
The point is, when something awful happens, how often it happens is very important. The idea that Muslim atrocities are posted on because of racism is nonsense. They are posted on because they are atrocious. And common.
Not an existential threat, just another obstacle against progress.
Earlier in this thread we were talking about how Megan Murphy's view (that trans people with male physiology shouldn't be in female-only safe spaces) makes her a "radical" in the eyes of the progressives, and how they want to "get" her for not being progressive enough.
Meanwhile the same progressives are all in favor of bringing in tens of thousands more people from countries where people don't think men and women should even pray together, let alone shower together, and where trans people would be imprisoned or worse.
Megan Murphy is the devil incarnate for not being progressive enough on trans rights, while bringing in tens of thousands of immigrants and refugees who for the most part think trans people are an abomination is a great idea that should be encouraged.
I just don't get it.
I think "large numbers" is relative. Not all of our 250,000 immigrants to Canada are from "conservative" countries (Middle East, Africa, etc).
I looked at this a while back and concluded that of the roughly 250,000 there were a bit under 100,000 from countries I viewed as being conservative Muslim nations-- North Africa, East Africa, the Middle East aside from Turkey, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan.
Even for those who are from those countries, not all of them are going to be misogynistic or homophobic. I agree that most will probably have that "man as head of the house" attitude and will disapprove of homosexuality, but most of those will also not be interested in imposing those beliefs on the rest of us.
They might not come to Canada with the idea of turning it into the new Saudi Arabia, but when politicians like Jason Kenney reach out to them and say "hey, we oppose gay people too! let's be friends!" they may well listen. That was the basis of the Conservative Party's "ethnic outreach" efforts about 10-12 years ago. Taking out ads in non-English community papers-- the Sikh newspapers, the Arabic newspapers, promoting a socially conservative message that was well to the right of what the party was willing to say in English.
I believe that homosexual people living in Muslim countries are treated by Canada as valid refugee claimants. As for the woman in Saudi Arabia who wants to wear a mini-skirt, she's not coming to Canada. She can't even drive to the airport or leave the house without a male guardian. Saudi Arabia is a dirt-bag country in so many ways that are so much worse than not being able to wear mini-skirts. There's apparently not much we can do about it.
The point is, when something awful happens, how often it happens is very important. The idea the Muslim atrocities are posted on because of racism is nonsense. They are posted on because they are atrocious. And common.
I don't think I've ever 'blamed' Muslims in Canada. Shame, on the other hand, can be useful in remediation of anti social behaviour. Or if not shame then certainly criticism. Certainly if we take the view of progressives, who declare Muslim reformers as 'Islamophobes' we're never going to encourage Muslims to change their archaic and stupid views of society, values and tolerance. The only way they're going to change is by talking about it and pointing out how backward and intolerable everyone else finds the misogyny and religious chauvinism being taught. And being taught HERE. I have no doubt that Irshad Manji's experience in a Muslim school in Richmond is being duplicated today at other Muslim schools.
I agree with pretty much all you've said. I'd just like to point out that it isn't JUST Muslims who have extremely archaic and vicious views of women and gays. We've seen a ton of that in India, as well, a country which is generally acknowledged as among the most misogynistic and racist in the world - not one that thinks much of gays either btw. And India is our number two source country.
My concerns have often been depicted as solely about Muslims but anyone but it's really for any great flood of people with what I view as violently intolerant, anti-Canadian social views, especially when they're supported by deeply held religious beliefs.
More hypberbolic binary choices...
I don't know if you meant to communicate something with that but if so... it didn't work very well.
So one of my guilty pleasures is true crime stories. I've read a lot, and watched a lot on TV. It's quite eye-opening how often some Christian-based belief is implicated in abuse of children and wife-beating. The parents or man may not intend to kill their children/wife, but only to 'discipline' this as part of their Christian duty. When these stories are broadcast (if they are), the religious aspect is rarely reported on unless it's really sensational. With crimes committed by Muslims, it seems the religion is the *only* thing that is considered significant.
In terms of spousal abuse and the death of women at the hands of their partners, even when there is no connection to religion, one wonders why so many men think it's acceptable to beat their woman to the point of death. What is it about our Western culture that makes this acceptable in anyone's mind? Why should a Muslim who beats his wife be more blameworthy than a non-religious person who beats his wife?
Christian apostates in some parts of Africa are killed; why are these less remarkable than stories of Muslim apostates who are killed? Christian groups in Africa also perform conversions by sword; why is this not as remarkable as the same behavior by ISIS? Not knowing about these things does not mean they don't happen; it means that we are being led by the nose to underestimate barbaric behavior by some groups and, by comparison, overestimate it by other groups.
It's all horrible. People are, basically, horrible. Our 'Western' group isn't any better than the "Muslim" group; we're just more oblivious to our own barbarity. However, I believe most individuals within every group are relatively decent human beings who don't wish harm, nor cause harm to others. If it were the other way around, there would be a lot less of all of us in the world.
Post by: bcsapper on September 16, 2017, 01:18:22 pm
I suppose it just gets back to the prevalence. I don't read true crime stories, but I'm addicted to the major news sources. I almost never do not have the internet, TV or radio tuned to the BBC, CBC, NPR, or one of the major British or North American Broadsheets. Muslims make the news more often because Muslims make the news more often.
That's nonsense. No one really even pays attention to crimes by Muslims UNLESS they touch on religion. Do Muslims rob banks? Yes. Do Muslims engage in fraud? Yes. Do Muslims get involved in fights? Yes. Do Muslims steal cars? Yes, sure. Nobody cares.
Who says he is? But here's what you leave out. We have made spousal/domestic violence a high priority for police. There are numerous public campaigns decrying it, organized groups working to end it, shelters available and special laws and specially trained police in every city to deal with it. Thus most of the incidents today generally relate to alcohol and drug abuse.
There are no special laws in the Muslim world dealing with spousal violence, no shelters, and no police units assigned to it. In most Muslim countries it would astonish police to have such a thing reported, and they'd almost certainly ignore it if it were. A man's right to beat his wife is assumed. In some surveys of Muslim women they take it for granted they'd be beaten if they did something like make a doctor's appointment for themselves without their husband's permission, or go out without his permission, or if the house is dirty.
Christian apostates in some parts of Africa are killed; why are these less remarkable than stories of Muslim apostates who are killed? Christian groups in Africa also perform conversions by sword; why is this not as remarkable as the same behavior by ISIS?
Cite? I presume it's some minor cult, not recognized by mainstream Christian Churches. That's a hell of a difference right there. Such things are largely unknown in the Christian world, but common in the Muslim world. No one has said Christians can't be crazy or religious wackos. But there seems an awful lot less of them.
People are, basically, horrible. Our 'Western' group isn't any better than the "Muslim" group; we're just more oblivious to our own barbarity.
Absolute bullshit. Our western culture and values are centuries ahead of the primitivism of the Muslim world in almost every way.
Most of the Muslims coming here are fleeing the assholes. The assholes don't want to live in a plural, democratic and mostly Christian country.
And the horrid ones are not the ones emigrating here.
I don't think I've ever 'blamed' Muslims in Canada.
by going after the immigration system you sure as **** do.
Most of the Muslims coming here are not fleeing the assholes. They're coming here because we're rich and they can have far better lives. The ones who are swarming into Europe aren't stopping at the first safe place. Hell, they didn't even stop at Turkey. They're marching right through the poorer southern and eastern European countries headed for nirvana, the rich northern European countries.
I'm pro Canadian, not anti-foreigner. I'm not afflicted with the desperate guilt so many on the Left have that we aren't losers in life. I think the only immigrants we should bring in are those who can adopt our ways and be an economic benefit to Canada.
I don't see how that is 'blaming' Canadian Muslims.
And if you chose to check any accurate statistics you would find that most of the immigrants that we allow into Canada DO benefit the country economically. But we know that doesn't fit with your "perception" of things.
Quote from: Omni on September 16, 2017, 07:11:38 pm
There are no statistics which show that. The government has never undertake a study justifying the economics of immigration. There are some very lefty think-tanks which will say how immigration is a wonderful thing but there are no realistic statistics or studies which show this.
And even if there were, the fact that the government, as well as others, have found immigrants from the Middle East are the worst economic performers ought, by itself, to persuade any reasonable person that we should be aiming our immigration at other sources.
Sorry to burst your bubble...again.
http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/andrew-coyne-increased-immigration-is-good-for-canada-and-the-reasons-arent-only-economic
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/immigration-is-a-net-economic-benefit-this-is-a-story-canada-should-build-on/article31854798/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&
http://www.immigration.ca/assessing-economic-impact-migration/
I'm going to guess you neither read, nor if you did, understood any of the cites you posted. Nevertheless, I will deal with them one by one.
1. Andrew Coyne and his opinion that Canada should grow to a population of 100 million, not because it will help our economy, but because it will give us clout on the international scene and allow us to 'live bigger lives'. What fatuous blather. There are no statistics here. It is just the opinion of an internationalist who hates Canada as it is. Much like you do.
2. Beesma Momani and her opinion that immigrants are a benefit to Canada - small wonder given she is one, but contains no statistics or evidence. It's simply an opinion piece.
3. The web site of an immigration lawyer recruiting clients which throws out a scattering of quotes from other sources. The only one of note is an OECD study which says, and I quote "Migrants contribute more in taxes and social contributions than they receive in benefits."
Let's leave aside how you quantify their social contribution vs the taxes they consume and look at the study itself. Oh, no link is provided. How odd. Never mind. I found it regardless. And it's very important to the discussion. First, the backup for the above statement.
Recent work on the fiscal impact of migration for all European OECD countries, as well as Australia, Canada and the United States, has provided new and internationally comparative evidence (Liebig and Mo, 2013). The study suggests the impact of the cumulative waves of migration that arrived over the past 50 years in OECD countries is on average
close to zero, rarely exceeding 0.5% of GDP in either positive or negative terms.
Did you understand that? The study was conducted 4 years ago and concluded there was no positive or negative economic benefit. And it was of ALL OECD countries going back 50 years. Most OECD countries don't allow much migration except from very skilled people. Canada and the US are exceptions. And this study examines immigrants as a collective group dating back as far as 1963. Which means most of the immigrants to Canada, the US and Australia for the first 20 years of the study were Europeans. Now here's the kicker from that report.
Cross-country differences in the fiscal position of immigrant households are shaped by the design of tax and benefit systems and, even more so, by differences in the composition of the migrant population in terms of age and migrant-entry category. In countries where recent labour migrants make up a large part of the immigrant population, immigrants have a much more favourable fiscal position than in countries where humanitarian migrants account for a significant part of the immigrant population.
So the more skilled immigrants you get in, the better. Letting in large numbers on humanitarian purposes, as Canada does, both in terms of refugees and 'family class', is not good, economically.
So there you are, defeated by your own cite - AGAIN.
Herein lies the problem with naming 'groups' and claiming they all have the same thoughts - I agree with Murphy that male-looking people don't really need to be in women-only spaces, but because I also don't see a problem with Muslims immigrating to Canada, I'm lumped in with people you might consider hypocritical or inconsistent.
I think Canadian culture is strong enough to withstand conservatism. People from India are generally more 'conservative' than Canadians when it comes to social acceptance of homosexuals or trans people, yet we have still moved ahead with progressive policies despite the hundreds of thousands of Indians that have emigrated to Canada in the last two decades. If conservative immigrants were such a threat to Canadian progressiveness, why does Canadian progressiveness happen despite the ever-increasing number of 'conservative' immigrants within Canada?
Overall, only about 30% of Canadians vote for "Conservative" in any given election, even the immigrants who might want to support a party who espoused family values and whose members were also more likely to disapprove of homosexuality and trans people. The claim is that of course the "immigrants" want to support the party who will 'let more people in', but would they really abandon their intolerance against gays/trans if that were such an inflexible aspect of their culture or religion? Especially since the immigration rate doesn't change much between governments.
According to this source (http://canadaimmigrants.com/canada-immigrants-by-source-country-2016/ (http://canadaimmigrants.com/canada-immigrants-by-source-country-2016/)), in 2016 we accepted about 71,000 immigrants from conservative Muslim nations. If I were worried about "conservatism" and anti-LGBT attitudes, I would also include India, Eritrea and Russia, all of which have legal sanctions against LGBT, which add another ~49,000 for a total of ~120,000 people with alleged "cultural or religious views not in line with Canadian values". We also accepted ~113,000 people from countries which don't criminalize LGBT activity, although social acceptance isn't as certain. Ultimately, Canada is at the forefront of the world in terms of progressive values, so nearly any country we accept immigrants from is likely to be somewhat socially behind us in terms of 'progressive' values.
And I point out, once again, that we have been accepting refugees from the essentially the same countries, in roughly the same ratios for decades, yet we have still managed to implement progressive policies, and have increased the rights of gays, trans and women. It simply does not seem logical that only those from Muslim-majority countries will suddenly turn us on our ear and result in going backwards in this regard.
This flies in the face of the conservative argument that "immigrants will only vote Liberal because of Liberals open door policy on immigration, that's why Liberals let in unlimited numbers of immigrants and refugees". I did a quick search and couldn't find anything I considered credible on voting habits of immigrants, but judging by who I see running for various parties, it looks to me as if immigrants tend towards more socially liberal platforms by a slight margin. But I could be wrong about that.
I believe that homosexual people living in Muslim countries are treated by Canada as valid refugee claimants.
Are homosexuals in Eritrea (50% Christian/50% Islamic), Russia (Catholic official religion) and Uganda (Christian) treated as refugees as well? All three of those countries jail homosexuals, and in Eritrea and Uganda especially, there is not much backlash for attacking and killing them.
As for the woman in Saudi Arabia who wants to wear a mini-skirt, she's not coming to Canada. She can't even drive to the airport or leave the house without a male guardian.
I agree, the girl from SA wearing a miniskirt isn't coming to Canada, and she is one of the many that gets lumped into the 'Muslims are bad' narrative. And sure, not able to wear a miniskirt is pretty mild compared to other abuses women endure in SA - but the yearning and bravery I saw in this stuck with me.
Saudi Arabia is a dirt-bag country in so many ways that are so much worse than not being able to wear mini-skirts. There's apparently not much we can do about it.
SA is a dirtbag country and while we could do something about it, we'd rather have oil.
I can see your fear of/bias against immigration, especially by other than WASP's is deeply seated, and not about to be edified by any amount of data which actually supports the practice, so there you'll likely stay. Luckily others, especially those who operate and monitor the system, know better.
I can see that you believe throwing any piece of crap opinion up there ought to be enough to satisfy anyone who dares to question Immigration, but I'm afraid most of us are a lot less ideologically committed to the program and require actual evidence rather than bland reassurances from columnists and immigration lawyers.
By the way, did you notice that NONE of them supported your statement there were statistics and evidence to support the belief immigration helps the economy? No, I suppose not. I guess that's what life is like when you have a closed mind.
Speaking of a closed mind, I guess you managed to ignore comments such as:
Migrants accounted for 47% of the increase in the workforce in the United States and 70% in Europe over the past ten years.
Migrants fill important niches both in fast-growing and declining sectors of the economy.
Like the native-born, young migrants are better educated than those nearing retirement.
Migrants contribute significantly to labour-market flexibility, notably in Europe.
Public purse
Migrants contribute more in taxes and social contributions than they receive in benefits.
Labour migrants have the most positive impact on the public purse.
Employment is the single biggest determinant of migrants' net fiscal contribution.
Migration boosts the working-age population.
Migrants arrive with skills and contribute to human capital development of receiving countries.
Migrants also contribute to technological progress.
All of that boiled down to a section of the OECD report, which I derived the actual summary facts from. I know you're not interested in actual facts, however, but the point remains even this report said there was no economic basis for immigration. Furthermore it was a wide scale study over 50 years of all OECD countries combined, as I said. Very few nations import hundreds of thousands of third world people every year like Canada does and has been doing for over 30 of those years. Thus the statement in the report that migrants neither helped nor hurt an economy can't be taken as fact for Canada and paid more in taxes than they used in services is not relevant. The only such study done of Canada was by the Fraser Institute, which concluded otherwise.
I know you often ignore information that refutes your opinion, but surely even you must be aware that this country was built by immigrants. And I'm sure you can comprehend the idea that, since we not having many babies, and we are getting older, without immigration we could well end up a country of old folks seeking health care and pensions, with nobody at work to pay for those things. Reality trumps xenophobia I'm afraid to have to tell you.
I know you often ignore information that refutes your opinion, but surely even you must be aware that this country was built by immigrants.
I'm not sure what you mean about 'ignoring' opinions. I read an opinion and then I judge it as to its merit. I'm sorry that it bothers you that I judge almost all of yours to be without merit, but you never have any facts to back up those opinions.
This country was built by immigrants? How is that even relevant? Are you saying that we need to always do what we did a century ago? I could say "This country was built by shoving all the natives aside and ignoring them". Does that mean that's what we should always do? We brought in immigrants when it was in this country's economic interest and in the interest of its people to do so. Those immigrants were, by and large, of the same technological and educational abilities as us and the same or close to the same cultural background for most of the existence of this country. Should we do that again? Bring in mostly immigrants of the same cultural and linguistic background as us?
And I'm sure you can comprehend the idea that, since we not having many babies, and we are getting older, without immigration we could well end up a country of old folks
That argument would hold some merit if every demographics expert I've looked at (and cited) didn't totally refute immigration as a means to address either a low birth rate or an aging population.
seeking health care and pensions, with nobody at work to pay for those things.
It's good to have someone else pay for stuff for you, isn't it? That IS the liberal mantra, after all. Unfortunately, the logic escapes me as to how bringing in masses of people who don't earn enough to pay taxes is going to wind up paying for our health care or pensions.
It's more like the stupidity of your argument fails to trump reality.
Well, here's some reading for you which I'm sure will inspire more, but oh well, we're all used to it.
https://www.cicnews.com/2016/10/canada-needs-immigration-to-balance-aging-population-108568.html#gs.IotxFz0
And once again you show all you can do when challenged and shown wrong is flail around spewing insults. Well, here's some reading for you which I'm sure will inspire more, but oh well, we're all used to it.
First, it provides 5 'scenarios' related to ever increasing immigration, in the top one bringing our population up to 100 million. At the end of listing the five scenarios it says this.
While these scenarios slow the pace of the overall population aging, it is evident that none of them reverse it. In each of these scenarios, the share of the population over the age of 65 exceeds 22 per cent in 2030 (up from 6.1 per cent today). Even in the scenario where Canada's population reaches 100 million by the turn of the next century, the proportion of the population aged 65 and over never falls below 20 per cent.
I'll throw in another quote. This is from scenario one, which is basically not increasing immigration at all, but keeping it at 268,000, where it was before the Liberals increased it.
If Canada's current fertility rate of 1.55 continues, the natural increase in the population (births minus deaths) becomes negative by 2034, despite the continued downward trend in death rates. immigration levels rise gradually, but immigration as a share of the population remains the same throughout the forecast. in this scenario, Canada's population reaches 53.7 million in 2100.
A population of 53.7 million by 2100! I know I'm not worried! Why then do they call for increasing immigration? Because the entire report is based on a macroeconomic desire for growth. Ie, all it cares about is growth in GDP. It only focuses on growing the pie. But with so many extra mouths at the table, growing the pie doesn't necessarily help any of us. Further, the report says absolutely nothing about the type of immigrants coming in. The assumption seems to be that all immigrants will come in and pay taxes to help support the government. Bringing in masses of third world rabble who can only do low skilled jobs is not going to do that. Particularly as low skilled jobs, like taxi driver, are going to disappear over the coming decade or two.
You really have to stop sniveling when people insult you back. If you can't take it then stop insulting people. Now, as to your cite, which again, I know you are too intellectually lazy to have actually checked out, let me quote you from the actual report. First, it provides 5 'scenarios' related to ever increasing immigration, in the top one bringing our population up to 100 million. At the end of listing the five scenarios it says this.
Now I know all this analyses is just going to fly right over your head and you'll come back with something insulting, probably about xenophobia, so go ahead.
The majority of immigrants that do arrive in Canada do go to work, do pay taxes, and do contribute to our society. Yes there are Syrian refugees for instance who may take a bit more time to integrate fully, but then again they are escaping a war zone they had nothing to do with creating. We have to be compassionate, at least in my opinion, but apparently it's not yours.
I see Trump has changed his approach to immigration and people of your ilk are burning their MAGA hats. Have you burned yours yet?
Guys, really - you can not like eachother, that's fine, but shut up about it.
Have a discussion. If you don't want to, just don't talk.
The majority of immigrants that do arrive in Canada do go to work, do pay taxes, and do contribute to our society.
So given I have completely demolished your argument you've shifted to this. The problem with it is, of course, the total lack of supporting evidence. Further, the illogical nature of it almost goes without saying. If the majority of people don't commit murder does that make society a peaceful place? Hardly. If the majority of employees at a business actualy do some work does that make the place efficient? Clearly not. Multiple reports from multiple sources have documented the deteriorating economic success ratio of our immgriants, largely due to the growing gap between the technological nature of the workplace here vs the third world shitholes they come from.
Given our progressive taxation system means the lower earning 50% of the population is only responsible for 3% of income taxes I don't want to import a bunch of taxi drivers, security guards, janitors and shop clerks. They're not going to do anything but consume taxes.
Yes there are Syrian refugees for instance who may take a bit more time to integrate fully,
In all likelihood they will NEVER integrate fully, and most will never be taxpayers.
but then again they are escaping a war zone
They were living safely in Turkey.
We have to be compassionate, at least in my opinion, but apparently it's not yours.
Compassionate with other people's money. If you want to be compassionate take YOUR money, presuming you have any, and send it to a relief fund that takes care of refugees in Turkey or Lebanon or Jordan. I prefer to be compassionate to people here.
I have always been in favour of allowing children who have grown up in the US to stay there. Further, my opinion of Trump is a matter of substantial record you couldn't possibly fail to have noticed.
So given I have completely demolished your argument you've shifted to this.
You've demolished nothing. You continue to try and distance yourself from Trump, but at the same time continue to espouse similar concepts as to immigration.
Post by: kimmy on September 18, 2017, 11:19:15 pm
I really don't think they're coming here because they have a thirst for democracy, or pluralism, or multiculturalism. I think that for the most part they're coming here because they want a higher standard of living, or because their home countries are being torn apart by sectarian strife. Not because they're upset at the way religious minorities or gay people get treated back home.
Clearly plenty of horrid ones have emigrated to England and France and Germany and other parts of Europe. What makes you think we're any different?
Alert the authorities....religious people go to religious services!
The disappointing (I did use the word disappointing, not alarming) is that this number is increasing rather than decreasing. I've always assumed that as newcomers come to Canada they'll become more secular, as religious Canadians have over the years. Clearly that isn't happening.
Considering I'd be put in prison or worse if I went to their countries, I don't think I'm being unreasonable in feeling concerned that these attitudes are growing in Canada.
Not necessarily hypocritical or inconsistent. But unconditional support for trans rights is a huge litmus test for progressives, and support for mass third world immigration is also a huge litmus test for progressives, and if you're not in favor of both, you might not be very progressive after all-- ask Megan Murphy.
While the ratios may be the same, the numbers have risen dramatically in recent years. Sooner or later, if it's not already happening, we're going to have Muslim enclaves, kind of like Richmond has become essentially a Chinese city within Canada. And when you do get these areas where immigrants can go through all your business in a day without interacting with anybody from outside their culture, integrating with the Canadian mainstream is no longer a priority. They have this in England. We'll have it in Canada before long. Is that good?
My hunch is that immigrants vote Liberal because they're worried that Conservatives don't want immigration, not because they're socially liberal.
I believe Canada's stance is that you're in a country where you're likely to suffer persecution due to your sexual orientation, you've got a valid refugee claim. Uganda certainly qualifies. Not sure what the status is in Eritrea. Not sure about Russia-- it's not just a matter of "people don't like gays here", it's a question of actual persecution. Recent news items indicate that Chechnya would certainly qualify. It's not just Muslim countries.
The truly sickening thing about Saudi Arabia is the treatment of foreign workers who go there only to discover they've become virtually slaves, with no real rights and no way to get back home. It's a disgusting place. If the god of Abraham were real, he'd rain down punishment on that place that would make Sodom and Gomorrah look like an amusement park.
Quote from: kimmy on September 18, 2017, 11:19:15 pm
I know Islam is the religion most talked about, but did you realize the Catholics, Hindus and Sikhs are also increasing in number in Canada? And, they follow a similar pattern to Muslims: it is the younger generation who tends to be more devout than their parents.
The exact opposite is the case for those born outside Canada: almost half of those aged 18 to 34 said they attend a religious service at least once a month. A smaller number, 27 per cent of the foreign-born older than 55, make the same claim.
Christianity has certainly benefited from the arrival of newcomers. Bibby's prior research, which looked at 2011 Statistics Canada and National Household Survey data, found that about one in every two immigrants to Canada between 2001 and 2011 was either a Catholic or a Protestant. Nearly 500,000 immigrants who arrived in Canada during that span identified as Roman Catholic.
http://www.macleans.ca/society/life/what-canadians-really-believe/ (http://www.macleans.ca/society/life/what-canadians-really-believe/)
Your own cite? The one you linked to just a couple of days ago?
That one? Remember that? No? Forgot that already? Alright then.
Apparently you missed the point as to counter argus' attempt to state that the majority of Muslim women in Canada wear the hijab etc. 48% is not a majority just to correct the math. And also it has been shown that women who do wear scarfs do so to celebrate their religion, not unlike Christian's who wear crosses, and not because they might be beaten senseless by their husbands if they don't as your ilk seem to suggest.
Quote from: Omni on September 19, 2017, 12:30:51 am
So first off, the article said that 48% wear the hijab, plus an additional 6% wear the burqa or chador, for a total of 54%. Which everybody except you seemed to recognize constitutes a majority.
But the main point I was addressing is that that number has increased-- by 10% since the previous survey. And that the religious attendance has also increased by 7% since the previous survey. In short, Canadian Muslims are becoming increasingly religious, not secular.
Sorry if my sites contradict your concepts, and I choose not to succumb to your xenophobia.
Your site supports exactly what I said. The only thing you've succumb to is your unfailing ability to be a failure.
I'm certainly aware that there are lots of cultures with ideas I don't agree with... I believe we just agreed to extradite a Hindu couple to India to stand trial for having had their daughter killed for marrying someone from a lower caste. I'm not wild about any of it.
OK you have mixed up the numbers, but I will agree surveys show that Muslim women have increased their comfort with displaying their religious affiliation. But it's not because their husbands are beating them into it as seems to be the red neck xenophobic assumption, but rather that their compatriots are learning that displays of religious affiliation are no more threatening than that of Christians with their crosses.
Muslims still, huh ?
This thread is closed for 24 hours to allow everyone to calm the **** down.
So, just to brainstorm this, can anybody suggest reasons why increasing religiosity is a Good Thing in our present day? It seems to me as if many of the problems we're grappling with are in some way or another linked to religious attitudes in our distant or not-so-distant past.
They're really about culture clash. 'Increasing religiosity' is only a side-effect of applying our laws to new immigrant groups. My wife works in a school that took in Syrian kids and they learned English well, albeit with an accent, in their first school year. They're starting to mix with other kids too. If you go to the Eaton Centre, a big mall downtown, you see kids that are evenly mixed between groups. That means you will see a group with black, Asian, Muslim and white kids. I remember seeing that in Cuba in the 1980s. Surely I admit that I have rose-coloured hippie glasses but socialization is a strong societal force and I don't see why it shouldn't happen with these new groups.
I sure don't. I don't have time to find it again, but I ran across a Pew study that said the more religious a culture or society was, the more oppression against gays, women and minorities existed. It didn't matter which religion, it was essentially across the board. And, in Alabama the 10-Commandments Judge, Roy Moore, could become governor(1); he thinks gay people should be in jail(2).
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/28/ten-commandments-judge-roy-moores-star-rising-in-alabama-senate-runoff-race.html (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/28/ten-commandments-judge-roy-moores-star-rising-in-alabama-senate-runoff-race.html)
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/21/politics/kfile-roy-moore-homosexuality-illegal/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/21/politics/kfile-roy-moore-homosexuality-illegal/index.html)
Lots of people are afraid Muslims are going to impose Sharia on Western society, but I think Christians are in a much better position to impose the Christian equivalent, whatever that is. I don't think that will happen, but it amazes me how many people condemn one group but not the other for what are essentially the same beliefs (aside from apostate penalty; that is one place Islam has it over on Christianity) and miss the increasing power that group has over American politics.
Is there a way to embed links that I haven't figured out yet?
Post by: Goddess on September 22, 2017, 10:16:24 am
Looks like it's not gonna happen:
http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/extradition-of-bc-mother-uncle-for-alleged-honour-killing-halted-by-last-minute-ruling/ar-AAskiW2?li=AAggFp5
What will happen now? Do they just get away with it because they are in Canada?
Quote from: Goddess on September 22, 2017, 10:16:24 am
This is Canada. Everyone has their right to ten or twenty years in court.
If this was the UK they'd have been extradited years ago and already be serving their time.
They're really about culture clash. 'Increasing religiosity' is only a side-effect of applying our laws to new immigrant groups.
No, it's not about culture, except culture inspired by religion. And the increasing religiosity is among Muslims as compared to ten years ago, not related to our laws. We see this increasing religious devotion and conservatism throughout the Muslim world, not just in Canada. The most visible aspects are men growing beards and women enveloping themselves in cloth (the latter being more predictable than the former). Of course, these are merely the visible aspects of a religion which, as Michael Cook states:
"the historical salience of warfare against unbelievers … was thus written into the foundational texts" of Islam.
To bring in a few things which have come up in ... other discussions( thanks Goddess). I would like to cite Ayaan Hirsi Ali for her excellent piece in Foreign Policy Magazine on why Islam is violent, and the difficulty of interpreting it. It's an easy read and I urge anyone interested in the subject to do so.
The fundamental problem is that the majority of otherwise peaceful and law-abiding Muslims are unwilling to acknowledge, much less to repudiate, the theological warrant for intolerance and violence embedded in their own religious texts
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/11/09/islam-is-a-religion-of-violence-ayaan-hirsi-ali-debate-islamic-state/ (http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/11/09/islam-is-a-religion-of-violence-ayaan-hirsi-ali-debate-islamic-state/)
Lots of people are afraid Muslims are going to impose Sharia on Western society, but I think Christians are in a much better position to impose the Christian equivalent, whatever that is.
And yet Christians never have, even when the West was much more religious, and it has grown increasingly less religious and more secular over the centuries. Why even compare it to Islam, then which is going in the opposite direction?
And yet Christians never have, even when the West was much more religious
I hope you weren't making a serious statement.
He never heard of Fruit Machines. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_machine_(homosexuality_test)
Or maybe he thinks those came from liberal secular values. Who knows.
Quote from: JMT on September 22, 2017, 11:57:36 am
There IS no equivalent of Sharia among Christians. It would have to be invented. Christianity has never sought to do so.
They came from disliking homosexuals, likely from aversion to the thought of men having sex together. You think that's something unique to Christianity? There were laws on homosexual men being castrated in Assyria over a thousand years before Christ was born.
Try perusing the Old Testament some time. You'll find a lot of equivalencies to Sharia.
Post by: Goddess on September 22, 2017, 04:42:28 pm
This kind of **** answer is getting really annoying. You don't see masses of Christians demanding in countries to institute the Old Testament. There may a few here and there, but they are laughingstocks to the rest of the Christian community, not heroes.
Quote from: Goddess on September 22, 2017, 04:42:28 pm
This kind of **** answer is getting really annoying. You don't see masses of Christians rioting in countries trying to institute the Old Testament. There may a few here and there, but they are laughingstocks to the rest of the Christian community, not heroes.
Speaking of annoying "answers", perhaps try reading the post I was replying to. Specifically the part about the claim Christianity NEVER had anything similar to Sharia.
Post by: BC_cheque on September 22, 2017, 06:03:47 pm
And yet Christians never have [imposed religion], even when the West was much more religious, and it has grown increasingly less religious and more secular over the centuries. Why even compare it to Islam, then which is going in the opposite direction?
You've got to be kidding. The Middles Ages were the epitome of religious laws, heresy, witchcraft, sexual sins, marriage laws, and the only reason things have evolved is not thanks to Christians who fought progress every step of the way, but because of secular liberalism.
Don't kid yourself, the anti-choice, flat-earthers who deny evolution would love to inject a little Christian morality into the legal system again if they could.
Harper and Mulroney did little to change immigration, so I think it goes beyond that.
My hunch is immigrants vote Liberal because they are tired of Conservatives not being vocally against the xenophobic sub-groups that support them.
Quote from: BC_cheque on September 22, 2017, 06:03:47 pm
The Middle Ages were a time of barbarism and ignorance, but even so I only found a dozen cases of gays being executed over something like a 500 year period. The last time almost two hundred years ago. Yes, the Inquisition. Let's not forget that, but it's impact is also hugely exaggerated, with around 1000 people executed over a period of a couple of centuries. Iran executes more people in a year, and often for moral offenses, including homosexuality.
But yes, I'm not denying the Middle ages were a time of extremely conservative religious beliefs. But there was never a 'religious law' code implemented which bore any resemblance to Sharia law.
By the way, who came up with the concept of secular liberalism but Christian people? Who liberalized the Christian churches but Christians? Who liberalized western society but Christians. When are Muslims going to do the same thing?
Immigrants vote for the party in power which brings them over. Immigrants (except Muslims) were MORE likely, not less, to vote Conservative in the last several elections. The Conservatives are popular with Asians while the Liberals are, of course, popular with Muslims. During the last election Trudeau's promise to double the number of immigrant seniors coming here was designed to buy the votes of Indo-Canadians and other immigrants from Southeast Asia, which was why he made the promise. It only cost Canada a couple of billion dollars a year, after all.
Simply false.
https://globalnews.ca/news/2291301/immigrants-voted-liberal-by-a-landslide-and-other-things-we-learned-from-the-federal-election-results/
This is a meaningless statistic. It doesn't say what immigrants voted for. It says that the ridings with the most immigrants voted Liberal. Uhm, but it could easily say the major urban ridings tended to vote Liberal. They always do. Sometimes the suburbs go Tory and sometimes Liberal and that tends to decide elections.
Well, British law was never been coded since we follow common law so therein lies a huge difference.
As for Christian countries who do follow coded laws, yes, I believe Canon law could very well be compared to Sharia law.
PS, for the record, I'm not arguing anything of the sort can be compared in the modern world, but you did make a ridiculous claim when you said:
And yet Christians never have [imposed religion], even when the West was much more religious,
Well, it's more than you provided for your claim. I believe you provided nothing.
Do you have anything to back this up?
Immigrants (except Muslims) were MORE likely, not less, to vote Conservative in the last several elections.
I don't think you can compare this to Sharia law. Where's the horrendously bloody punishments?
https://www.ourladyswarriors.org/canon/c1311-1363.htm (https://www.ourladyswarriors.org/canon/c1311-1363.htm)
I've looked around but there's very little now on which immigrants voted for which groups. The closest I see without putting too much time in is this, from a very left wing columnist for the Globe.
The first is that the Conservatives became a preferred party of immigrants and of many racial and religious minorities. In the 2011 federal election, the Tories attracted 42 per cent of the vote from foreign-born Canadians, higher than their 37-per-cent share among native-born Canadians. The Tories' share of the racial-minority vote rose from 9 per cent in 2000 to a substantial 31 per cent in 2011.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/tories-gain-from-anti-immigrant-messaging-among-immigrants-what-gives/article26749675/?arc404=true (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/tories-gain-from-anti-immigrant-messaging-among-immigrants-what-gives/article26749675/?arc404=true)
Certainly hatred of homosexuals is hardly unique to "the big three" Abramaic religions (the Jews were also murdering homosexual men well over a thousand years before Christ was born, for what it's worth).
However: Christians are always eager to point out the Judeo-Christian roots of our laws. Whether Canadian, American, or English, our lawmakers have been, for centuries, practicing Christians, and this has been reflected in our laws. Even disregarding laws specifically related o homosexuality, there have still been a significant body of law devoted to imposing the moral views of Christian lawmakers via the power of the state. One could look at laws regarding pornography, contraception, adultery, or various sex acts.
We know that Christians aren't the only ones who have a problem with homosexuality, but we also know that Governor Rick Perry's anger at Texas anti-sodomy laws being struck down wasn't based on ancient Assyrian beliefs. Catholics might not be the only ones who oppose contraception, but we do know where Rick Santorum's fanatical opposition to the Griswold v Connecticut Supreme Court Ruling is founded. Going back further, we know that the gross indecency law under which Alan Turing was persecuted and chemically castrated was not written because of the beliefs of ancient Assyrians.
However: Christians are always eager to point out the Judeo-Christian roots of our laws. Whether Canadian, American, or English, our lawmakers have been, for centuries, practicing Christians, and this has been reflected in our laws.
Yes, certainly. Just as the law makers in the Muslim world are practicing and devout Muslims and so their laws reflect that.
Even disregarding laws specifically related o homosexuality, there have still been a significant body of law devoted to imposing the moral views of Christian lawmakers via the power of the state. One could look at laws regarding pornography, contraception, adultery, or various sex acts.
Sure. But let's look at what those laws involved in the West about a century ago. Now compare that to the laws in Muslim countries - not a century ago, but TODAY. Is there any real comparison in terms of the brutality, particularly over public morals laws? I mean, did Christian countries ever execute a woman for adultery? Let me cite from a wiki article I just looked up.
In the passage, Jesus has sat down in the temple to teach some of the people, after he spent the previous night at the Mount of Olives. A group of scribes and Pharisees confront Jesus, interrupting his teaching session. They bring in a woman, accusing her of committing adultery, claiming she was caught in the very act. They ask Jesus whether the punishment for someone like her should be stoning, as proscribed by Mosaic Law.[2] Jesus first ignores the interruption, and writes on the ground as though he does not hear them. But when the woman's accusers continue their challenge, he states that the one who is without sin is the one who should cast the first stone. The accusers and congregants depart, leaving Jesus alone with the woman. Jesus asks the woman if anyone has condemned her. She answers that no one has condemned her. Jesus says that he, too, does not condemn her, and tells her to go and sin no more.
Now lets' look at Muslim law, also from Wiki
Zināʾ (زِنَاء) or zina (زِنًى or زِنًا) is an Islamic legal term referring to unlawful sexual intercourse.[1] According to traditional jurisprudence, zina can include adultery (of married parties), fornication (of unmarried parties), prostitution, bestiality, and ****.[1] Classification of homosexual intercourse as zina differs according to legal school.[2] The Quran disapproved of the promiscuity prevailing in Arabia at the time, and several verses refer to unlawful sexual intercourse, including one that prescribes the punishment of 100 lashes for fornicators.[2] Four witnesses are required to prove the offense.[2] Zina thus belongs to the class of hadd (pl. hudud) crimes which have Quranically specified punishments.[2]
Although stoning for zina is not mentioned in the Quran, all schools of traditional jurisprudence agreed on the basis of hadith that it is to be punished by stoning if the offender is muhsan (adult, free, Muslim, and having been married), with some extending this punishment to certain other cases and milder punishment prescribed in other scenarios
So even if Christians sometimes incorporate aspects of their religion into law, it just isn't the same thing as the harshness and cruelty of Islamic law.
Sure, but your premise was that Christian lawmakers don't bring religion into the law, and clearly that's not true.
Yeah the goal post definitely got moved on that one.
To be more precise, my premise was that Christians would not bring in the 'Christian equivalent' of Sharia law, principally because there IS no equivalent to Sharia. Someone mentioned Canon law, but as I posted, that relates to discipline within the Church and the worst punishment is excommunication. The Church has never developed a set of 'holy laws' for the behavior of the public at large. That doesn't mean uptight Christians haven't, over the years, let the morality they learned from the Church leach into the laws they write. But I never suggested that. I'm sure that even happens today in Texas or Georgia. But you know what, Texas and Georgia aren't Iran or Saudi Arabia. And I don't think they would want to be if they could.
Post by: SirJohn on October 10, 2017, 07:59:08 pm
Douglas Murray and Sam Harris talk about the gender pronoun stuff. Kind of funny, in a way, or kind of sad. Murray is disgusted with it all and says this is what we'll all be talking about and arguing about and fighting about when the Islamists nuke us all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CQD_oML0nI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CQD_oML0nI)
Post by: SirJohn on November 12, 2017, 10:17:30 am
A teacher in the UK accidentally called a girl who wants to be a boy a girl and may now be fired for it.
A teacher has been suspended and could face the sack after he 'accidentally' called a transgender pupil a 'girl' in class when the student identifies as a boy. Joshua Sutcliffe, 27, who teaches maths at a state secondary school in Oxfordshire, said 'Well done girls' to the teenager and a friend when he spotted them working hard.
He apologised when corrected by the pupil, but six weeks later he was suspended from teaching after the pupil's mother lodged a complaint. Following an investigation, he has been summoned to a formal disciplinary hearing this week to face misconduct charges for 'misgendering'.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5073511/Teacher-suspended-praising-pupil-using-wrong-gender.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5073511/Teacher-suspended-praising-pupil-using-wrong-gender.html)
Post by: bcsapper on November 12, 2017, 10:34:46 am
Quote from: SirJohn on November 12, 2017, 10:17:30 am
A pound of flesh to pay for the outrage. To make up for the horror. Funds for the many years of therapy required to assuage the effects of this cruel atrocity must surely be forthcoming from the associated lawsuits.
Post by: MH on November 12, 2017, 10:41:58 am
Something in England happened according to a British tabloid.
Therefore... something. PC is madness ? Who knows.
Quote from: MH on November 12, 2017, 10:41:58 am
Is it possible to comment on a single ridiculous outrage? Or are we tarring all transgender students with the same brush? Or their mothers, to be more precise?
Do you think someone should lose their job over that?
Quote from: bcsapper on November 12, 2017, 10:56:05 am
Is it possible to comment on a single ridiculous outrage?
Of course. If I post something about pervasive and systemic abuse of the legal system. Then I post something about a single person who did something bad, then why am I posting ? What are the audiences ?
Posting because you are pissed off at a caricature idiot is fine, but people don't/won't care about it as much as a larger issue.
Over a slip of the tongue ? Of course not. But it's outrage **** from a tabloid. Maybe a Senator who slept with an underage person is an isolated incident of more importance, in the domain of etiquette.
How about a separate forum for outrage **** ? That might help actually. And to be fair there's liberal stuff in there too, maybe more maybe less.
Outrage ****? Don't report it then?
To the mods ? I haven't reported it. It's fair game, I suppose, but it's just a different type of discussion in my books. If I could get some kind of token by admitting to a liberal one to get a conservative one off the board I would love that...
To the mods? Good one. Who says you don't have a sense of humour?
I'm totally confused. "Outrage **** ? Don't report it then ?" - dunno what that means, nor this latest one. Ok, I just missed the bus. Moving on.
I'm totally confused.
No you're not. You're pretending to be.
Just my opinion. No cites.
Well you are accusing me of lying. Do you think I lie a lot, or.... ?
Post by: bcsapper on November 12, 2017, 12:04:10 pm
Okay, if you're going to get all serious, I apologise. I don't think you are a liar. I thought you were being deliberately obtuse in order to be annoying.
Sheesh...
Post by: MH on November 12, 2017, 12:17:33 pm
Quote from: bcsapper on November 12, 2017, 12:04:10 pm
Okay, if you're going to get all serious, I apologise. I don't think you are a liar. I thought you being deliberately obtuse in order to be annoying.
Well, I wasn't. And I still don't understand what was being said. But I posted my idea for tagging outrage **** in another thread, so all good.
Quote from: MH on November 12, 2017, 12:17:33 pm
But you know what'll happen. The argument will be then become about what was tagged and by whom, instead of the subject itself.
The xenophobic/snowflake tagging of my concerns, dammit!
Notice how I was fair there?
Post by: SirJohn on November 12, 2017, 04:30:11 pm
But this IS a larger issue. And it's not a single idiot, but an organization. It also falls into line with what professors at universities in Canada and the US have said about all those scurrying human resources discrimination and diversity workers urging students to file formal complaints at anything that annoys them. And it's a warning of what our new government bill might bring to us here.
I remember when the first child **** law was introduced. Back then it was okay to be against it and almost everyone was. Anyway, artists warned that under the broad legislation the police could march into galleries and arrest respected artists. The Tories sneered at that as ridiculous. Once the bill was passed into law the first thing the police did was march into galleries and arrest artists.
People defending Bill C-16 sneered at the idea it could get people in trouble for using the wrong made-up pronouns. I don't think so.
Quote from: SirJohn on November 12, 2017, 04:30:11 pm
I disagree. I posted on this thread, or the other one, about Kellog's being accused of racism. That's really indicative of nothing. It's easy moralizing and I for one don't see a need to discuss it. If you do, fine. But I'd like to be able to get to larger discussions somehow if people don't mind the tagging.
Your example has nothing to do with what I am calling outrage ****. That's a discussion about policy.
"A librarian in Vermont who is black said a white person couldn't check out a book."
Who. Cares.
It's probably because someone would care if a white librarian said a black person couldn't check out a book. Either way someone gets nothing to read, purely based on their skin colour.
This isn't the UN. It's an internet forum. I always assumed that if someone posted, they cared. Likewise if someone responded.
And that Kellog's thing is weird, like it or not. I for one am glad you posted it.
But we don't HAVE to care about that do we ? Is a grown adult surprised to discover that there are assholes in the world ?
Here's something: A guy called somebody the n-word in Alabama yesterday ! National news !
Basically, it's entertainment and that is all. That's why I would like to separate it from the other kind of discussion.
I have a thread where I put personal observations about stupid little parts of my life. It's my own thread and I am not going to pollute the forum with a separate thread on that every day.
Maybe this is just housekeeping.
Well, maybe it works as weird news because it's kind of funny but still...
I disagree. I posted on this thread, or the other one, about Kellog's being accused of racism. That's really indicative of nothing. It's easy moralizing and I for one don't see a need to discuss it. If you do, fine.
But I DIDN'T find the need to discuss that. And the difference is that didn't involve government mandated behaviour or the possibility of naive, if well-meaning legislation running amok through the human rights industry. Or the way the Left seems to find its beliefs so incredibly obvious and moral and just that they insist everyone else must bow to them - or else.
As an example, the law society of Ontario is attempting to mandate that all lawyers commit to a 'statement of principles' to promote 'equality, diversity and inclusion' which will include a commitment that will be enforced in some way by the law society. Where does the law society get off on forcing private individuals to commit to affirmative action anyway? http://nationalpost.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-its-1984-all-over-again-for-ontario-lawyers-arguing-against-compelled-speech
And the difference is that didn't involve government mandated behaviour or the possibility of naive, if well-meaning legislation running amok through the human rights industry. Or the way the Left seems to find its beliefs so incredibly obvious and moral and just that they insist everyone else must bow to them - or else.
I'm sure I could find a reason to make a big deal about the Kellogs thing if I wanted too. The fact is, it's just a couple of idiot students. I just let it go. It's not the leading edge of anything, it's just the outrage du jour.
You are unable to assess scale, that is clear to me.
Nobody gives a **** about your Kellogg's story. Why you keep drawing this up to wave like a flag at anyone who posts anything you disapprove of is really quite beyond me.
I already pointed out the vast difference between the Kellogg's story and this. Since you didn't choose to argue the point why are you still complaining?
No, I just have a different scale than yours. Yours is based on issues that matter to the Left and mine is based on issues that matter to the Right.
The difference being when you post something stupid I have no interest in talking about I simply don't talk about it. Whereas when I or anyone else posts something you don't want to talk about you insist on giving us your opinion about how beneath you the topic is and how we should instead be discussing something you care about.
It was in the news, so somebody cares.
You totally missed my point. The Osgoode Hall deal is not at all the same scale.
Post by: SirJohn on October 07, 2018, 10:35:48 am
So to see to just what idiocy the progressives can plunge us, it's always good to look abroad. None of their ideas originate here, after all, and that includes their fixation on 'trans rights'. And as always, the Europeans, being more 'progressive' are more idiotic about what they consider to be social justice issues, and their politicians more cowardly.
In the past month, the casual consumer of news media might have seen any or all of the following stories in the headlines: a transgender rapist was sent to a women's prison where she used 'her ****' to sexually assault women; Girl Guide leaders were expelled for questioning a policy of allowing transgender girls (with penises) to share tents and showers with girls born female; a Durham university student sacked as editor of a philosophy journal for tweeting an article (by me) which asked if it is a crime to say women don't have penises; the removal on grounds of transphobia of a billboard which repeated the dictionary definition of 'woman' as 'adult human female'.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/10/trans-rights-have-gone-wrong/
Post by: MH on October 07, 2018, 10:58:44 am
Quote from: SirJohn on October 07, 2018, 10:35:48 am
1. None of their ideas originate here, after all, and that includes their fixation on 'trans rights'.
2. And as always, the Europeans, being more 'progressive' are more idiotic about what they consider to be social justice issues, and their politicians more cowardly.
1. Well... depending on what you mean I might disagree. The idea of "human rights" originated with French Enlightenment philosophy so ok on that... but my gay friends will universally name "Stonewall" as being THE spark to gay rights, and they happened in 1969 in NYC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_liberation#Origins_and_history_of_movement
2. Well... maybe ? 3 European nations legalized same sex marriage before Canada and Canada was at 51% as I remember reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage
Does "cowardly" mean agreeing with popular opinion or defying it ? Hmmm.
3. The "in the news" stuff doesn't affect me. The "news" will send us whatever we eat up. I think the Spectator article is serious enough though, so I will look at that in particular.
So far, I have a problem with these terms used by the article:
'social contagion'
'disproportionate number of girls'
'prominent campaigner for transgender rights'
'Trans rights have gone wrong'
These are all subjective terms and claims, or pejoratives, and the culmination of fears is presented as:
'All raise serious issues of public policy, yet politicians are silent, fearful of questioning the trans-rights advocates and the consequences of their orthodoxy.'
My response is: be brave and state your case. If you have a valid point you will have people behind you. That is, after all, the role of a public figure: to speak out.
As for the concerns, maybe start with a more established group such as:
http://www.pfc.org.uk/index.html
As the article itself states: 'Under reforms advocated by many (but not all) transgender campaigners, '. Yes, that is to say that all LGBT and feminists are not on the same page with regards to gatekeepers or the sometimes-vague situations conveyed in the article.
And please keep in mind as all of this becomes law, conservatives will be stating how Canada's progressive trans rights are a good reason to screen Muslims who want to come to Canada...
Quote from: MH on October 07, 2018, 11:21:00 am
That would be nice but we know that isn't always the case. You can speak out, here or there, on some issue with which many, even most people agree, and still be castigated by your own party, not to mention the media. We saw the same here with Maxime Bernier, as one example. Kellie Lietch might be another example, though I'm not certain how seriously she believed in her issue. And if you're not a politician you can still be easily fired, as the article points out, if accused of 'transphobia'.
I think the main point of the article, though, was that there is no serious agreement from science on this issue, and that society is moving to change laws on the basis of claims made by activists which have no scientific validity and no common sense. I vaguely recall from early on in this topic people suggesting men could shower with women by claiming to be women and that being ridiculed as absurd, as if common sense would not allow it. Well, it's actually happening in the UK.
I think conservatives mainly use these sorts of claims to attempt to point out to those, mainly on the Left, who are ardent supporters of Islamic rights and Muslim immigration that the way in which Canada's values will inevitably be influenced by them is in the opposite direction to everything they state they believe in.
Fair enough - and you and I will disagree on whether they were given a fair hearing for their ideas. For the time being, let me agree with you that immigration reform was a good idea that needed to be heard, and that the media, the establishment and people weren't ready hear it.
You can't say, as the article did, that they were 'silenced'. They continue to speak out and their ideas are getting some reception.
And in Canada. There's little evidence as far as I can see that science is being told they can't research this and that will be part of the conversation.
Why 'inevitably' ? Why should the influence of a new religion, with no roots, and low amounts of representation be inevitable ?
Post by: kimmy on October 07, 2018, 12:44:12 pm
The story about the rapist deciding to "transition" and being relocated to a women's prison makes my blood boil. I am speechless at the scale of idiocy involved in that decision. Hopefully people were sacked and sued.
Remember Rachel Dolezal, the white woman who "identifies" as black, worked at the NAACP, darkens her skin, wears her hair in African styles, and so-on? One of the reasons that progressives found her so offensive is that they felt it was impossible for somebody who grew up in a life of white privilege to actually understand the black experience.
Has anybody bothered to apply the same logic to trans women?
Didn't Toronto already provide gender-segregated swimming hours at public pools to accommodate Muslims? Never mind 'inevitable,' it seems like this influence is already underway.
Ponder for a moment that on the one hand we're being told that women should accept biologically male persons in their showers and changing rooms without complaint, while simultaneously that religious groups desire for gender-segregated activities should be accepted.
I hope some transgender activist brings her dong to Muslima swim day to fully square this circle.
Post by: MH on October 07, 2018, 01:01:05 pm
Quote from: kimmy on October 07, 2018, 12:44:12 pm
Was it reversed ?
Ok - well I will firstly acknowledge that you are all right, and I haven't considered the level of influence, and it's more than I thought. But if accommodation is part of our values, as evidenced from things like Sikh headgarments being allowed in Legion halls (1980s) then certainly accommodation is about an ongoing discussion and some back-and-forth also.
So, although I will say that I didn't consider the pool decision I still think this is an overstatement:
"Canada's values will inevitably be influenced by them is in the opposite direction to everything they state they believe in
I continue to harken back to the Lietch thing since the poobahs of the party united against it despite a poll showing 89% of tory supporters agreed with her. And you'll note it's NOT being discussed any more. As for Bernier, even his extremely mild comments caused him to have to leave his party before they could throw him out. The people were certainly ready to hear such things, but the media and political elites most definitely are NOT.
Let's get real here. Science does not research much of anything without someone funding it. Usually government. Government is not funding any research. Who else will? And what independent social science/psychology researcher will get into this and dig out information which might get him or her labelled as bigoted by their peers and the university community?
That religion is growing rapidly, and there is no case on record, in all of history, of Islam fading away from anywhere except under military force. And what is Canada and its values and beliefs but the sum of the people who make up it's constituent communities?
Quote from: MH on October 07, 2018, 01:01:05 pm
Hard to find a lot on this since all the 'respectable' papers are behind pay walls. But this from the Daily Mail suggests it's not limited to him. The problem is the insistence that if a person SAYS they're of the other gender then that must be respected. No other evidence is really required. At the moment, under actual law, their claim can be looked at and a decision made, but as was reported in the Spectator report, there is a move to change that to make respect for their claim absolute, no matter the lack of evidence.
The latest figures showed there were 125 transgender prisoners in England and Wales up to the end of March 2017, an increase from 70 in the previous year.
About 25 of those are thought to be in women's jails — and media reports suggest six of them are sex offenders.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6169813/Rapist-Karen-Whites-ex-girlfriend-says-gender-change-sham.html
Quote from: SirJohn on October 07, 2018, 02:12:43 pm
I continue to harken back to the Lietch thing since the poobahs of the party united against it despite a poll showing 89% of tory supporters agreed with her.
Sure, but she was not silenced. Harper pushed some of the ideas and Bernier founded a whole party on renewing immigration policy.
So when you say silenced it sounds hyperbolic and conspiratorial.
I don't know who does/is researching it, so I'd like to see a cite.
I am acknowledging the last point.
You can't use history as evidence of the religion as evidence that they're immutable. Christianity was burning people at the same time. Also I have posted studies showing that attitudes in US Muslims are mutable, so we may be seeing the effect of Westernization.
Hard to find a lot on this since all the 'respectable' papers are behind pay walls.
Six sex offenders seems like enough to start a public conversation.
Yes... after four complaints of sexual assault over 3 months, he was returned to a men's prison.
Prison Service: "lol, oops!" (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/09/sexual-assaults-in-womens-prison-reignite-debate-over-transgender-inmates-karen-white)
Gotta break a few eggs, right?
I'm not sure it's an overstatement. Most of our newcomers are from places that are far more socially conservative than we are and bring with them cultural and religious values that are in direct conflict with progressive views. This is a dilemma that has plagued progressives on more than a few occasions. Debates in many countries over oppressive garments for women are an obvious example.
I'm not sure it's an overstatement.
I'm not either.
The thing that bothered me about the debate around Kellie Leitch's "Canadian values screening" idea is that while she was frequently compared to Trump, and many people called the idea racist or xenophobic or whatever... I don't recall anybody ever actually explaining what was wrong with it.
When people were challenged for explanations of what was actually so awful about it, I recall hearing responses like "well, they could just lie to get in" or "it would take too many interviewers". Ok, those are reasonable arguments against the proposal. But those shortcomings only get you to "impractical" or "expensive", not "Trumpian" or "racist".
A lot of our newcomers come from places where people like me are publicly flogged or sent to prison. I don't think it would be such a bad thing if people coming from those places were screened.
I replied here:
https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/canada-discussion-forum/immigration-policy/msg33387/#msg33387
As its more on topic there and I want to post something actually about gender here.
https://hazlitt.net/feature/between-space
An outstanding essay on 'in-between' gender.
I feel like my entire life has been spent as an intellectual. Per the definition:
1. relating to the intellect.
"children need intellectual stimulation"
synonyms: mental, cerebral, cognitive, psychological; More
It has nothing to do with being intelligent. I have met people who were actually not bright who were fascinating intellectuals, with whom I could share knowledge theories and so on. It's really a body of interest.
But being an intellectual, growing up in the 1960s and 1970s, made you suspect as a male. The strong gender typing was nothing like it was in the 1950s but still worse than the 1980s where 'gender bending' came into vogue in pop culture, and the 1990s when taboos around homosexuality broke, and eventually there was a galaxy of recognizable types of masculinity/femininity and sexual preference.
Today's world of incels and TERFs is probably impossible for someone older than me to understand, and most men my age just shut up about it. But to me, the issues around gender are defined around freedoms and unity, ie. how to allow freedoms and also unity. Liberalism seems like the natural place from which to grow unity, but the conflicts come when freedoms come into conflict.
I wonder what the world will be like in 20 years.
The point of both this and the Spectator story is that this has been rushed forward in a very few years because progressives have enthusiastically embraced transgender as the cause du jour. Confusion and uncertainty about sexuality, gender and social roles is perfectly normal among kids, esp as they reach adolescence. It doesn't mean you're bloody trans anything. But ignorant adults are rushing to embrace the notion and change these confused kids lives and imposing a stern orthodoxy on anyone who complains.
Look at those two girl guide councilors questioning having young girls and boys in tents and showers together - fired. Look at the mother whose 13 year old daughter was complaining about the 'girl' with an **** staring at her in the shower. The school said it was her daughter who had a problem. Yet in most of these cases there's damn all science or even psychological counselling involved.
That self-declared woman who raped women in prison had done nothing to transition to anything. But they simply took him at his word - excuse me, her word - and stuck him into a prison with women. It's become politically incorrect to question people's self-assigned gender.
The point of both this and the Spectator story is that this has been rushed forward in a very few years because progressives have enthusiastically embraced transgender as the cause du jour.
It's hard to defend putting a male liar in a women's prison to re-offend, so of course I will not do that. So if you want to define "rushed forward" as THAT policy I of course will degree. The devil is in the details. A dumb policy like that may cause us to consider absolutes and practicalities, which is part of making change happen.
Confusion and uncertainty about sexuality, gender and social roles is perfectly normal among kids, esp as they reach adolescence. It doesn't mean you're bloody trans anything. But ignorant adults are rushing to embrace the notion and change these confused kids lives and imposing a stern orthodoxy on anyone who complains.
I agree. Again, we're implementing change now, so we have to discuss the details. We are not at the point of considering whether trans rights should exist or not.
Here's one from Canada, that I'd never heard of before. I found a number of references to this case, but a Toronto Sun article about the sentencing is the only cite I could find.
Serial sex predator claims to be transgender so that he can gain access to a womens' shelter and commit sex assaults.
(https://torontosun.com/2014/02/26/predator-who-claimed-to-be-transgender-declared-dangerous-offender/wcm/fc2c70f0-b1a1-41e2-85db-bec9d0012ce5)
A self-declaration of gender-identity is simply not adequate to provide for the safety of women. It invites frivolous abuse, by anybody from frat-boys who think it would be hilarious to stroll into the cheerleaders' locker room as a group, to actual sex predators like Christopher Hambrook or the English prison rapist mentioned above.
The notion of a female-only space is null and void if anyone can get in by spontaneous self-declaration. This is not okay.
And yet, that is what trans activists are demanding. There is currently a conflict in the UK between feminists and trans activists over proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act that would remove any sort of gate-keeping.
Trans activists' take:
https://www.stonewall.org.uk/gender-recognition-act
Article regarding the UK GRA debate:
https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/07/03/a-system-of-gender-self-identification-would-put-women-at-risk
Some trans activists, not all, as per the article SJ posted. Is there any case at all for allowing dangerous offenders into safe spaces for women ?
Some trans activists, not all, as per the article SJ posted.
Well that seems to be where it is heading in the UK discussion. The major advocacy groups all seem to support unqualified self-declaration, and those who oppose are being targeted with accusations of hate and even threats of violence.
Is there any case at all for allowing dangerous offenders into safe spaces for women ?
Obviously not. Advocates would state that such cases have been (to date) rare, which demonstrates that this does not actually pose a serious threat to womens' safety.
Cite ? The article posted talked about a group that seems to be a minor player, at best. That makes the article seem like bait, also.
The main group I found for the UK is in 'restructuring'. What you'll find, even within advocacy groups, is a spectrum of opinions on practical matters.
Well, that itself is a response. If that's what they're saying then it's a tacit statement of the attacked women being acceptable losses, which I disagree with.
I don't actually know that the Stonewall group I linked to are significant or not. They seem to portray themselves that way... should self-identification of significance be accepted, or should there be some sort of gatekeeping here? This is a complicated issue indeed.
Amnesty International's UK branch is onboard with self-declaration:
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/have-your-say-gender-recognition-act
The UK firefighters union has endorsed self-declaration for its members:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/09/20/backlash-fire-brigades-union-votes-favour-gender-self-identification/
I don't know who to look at as representing the mainstream of thought among trans advocates on this issue, but as far as I can see, self-declaration seems to be the preference.
Right, but what about male-born sex offenders declaring themselves women or any sex offenders using the rules to their advantage ?
And... is this surprising in a system that does things like this:
https://www.nsnews.com/ontario-student-leaves-n-s-university-after-alleged-rapist-returns-to-campus-1.23456296
I'm not saying that the system shouldn't take care of every single victim: it should. But this issue may be about offenders gaming the system more than it is about trans issues specifically.
I'm sure that there are all kinds of situations where predators or some sort or another could find a way to slip through the rules that nobody had anticipated.
In the two instances that have been mentioned, what I find upsetting is that the kind of common-sense gate-keeping that could have prevented these incidents is exactly the kind of thing that some significant portion of the trans activists movement is directly arguing against.
Well, yes. I mean we kind of have one in front of us already.
What we know is that the system appears to have failed. They owe us an explanation when this happens.
I'm saying I agree that this shouldn't happen, but the broader implications aren't clear to me.
While browsing articles about trans activism, TERFs, and so-on, I stumbled onto something that left me pretty much speechless: "the Cotton Ceiling". Cotton, as in underwear.
Basically, the premise is that cisgender lesbians will let trans lesbians into their social circles and their safe-spaces... but not into their panties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_ceiling
Shockingly, the large majority of cisgender lesbians just aren't interested in having sex with people who have male anatomy. Astounding! Who could have imagined this?
This is apparently very frustrating for some portion of the trans lesbian community, who blame it on ... transphobia! While many people might assume that cis lesbians aren't into penises because they're lesbians, some trans activists have decided that cis lesbians are hiding behind the excuse of their sexual preference because they're actually transphobic. The whole notion basically comes down to the idea that trans women are women because they say they are women, and therefore lesbians should acknowledge them as such by considering them as potential sex partners, **** or not.
To me this comes across as being incredibly invalidating. For a group that constantly complains that their identity is being invalidated, I would expect them to have a little more consideration to others on that front.
I also find it paternalistic and vaguely reminiscent of the ol' "if you think you don't like dick, you probably just haven't tried the right one yet!"
I read it, and I just couldn't quite get what she was trying to express. I've read similar things before, and as before this one just doesn't connect me with what dysphoria actually feels like. She talks about things that I can relate to-- feeling drawn to 'tomboy' activities, feeling insecure about her body, feeling insecure against conventional beauty standards, feeling insecure about the image she projected to the public-- but those are very widespread female experiences and they don't lead most girls to doubt their gender identity.
I think she is trying to express something that you can't actually understand unless you've felt it. Like, I've had anxiety over my weight before, but I've never felt the body image dysphoria that people who suffer eating disorders do.
Post by: TimG on October 08, 2018, 07:46:27 pm
This is apparently very frustrating for some portion of the trans lesbian community, who blame it on ... transphobia!
I saw the same data reported elsewhere which established that trans had the most success dating based on their actual sex. i.e. gay males and trans women, straight males and trans men, etc. It is almost as if their imaginary gender identity was irrelevant to potential mates! Of course, it was all blamed on trans-phobia which made me wonder. Are gay men misogynist because they don't date women?
I've never felt the body image dysphoria that people who suffer eating disorders do.
Ironically, when they treat eating disorders getting the patient to accept their body the primary objective. If they treated eating disorders like gender dysphoria they would tell patients that they are a thin person trapped in a fat persons body and offer surgery and drugs to make their body better match their self image. Why exactly am I supposed to think that treatment of gender dysphoria is not medical malpractice?
I have a friend who is going through the mirror-image of this problem. Luckily, the politics precludes me from actually commenting on it....
Dunno. Do people find it racist for folks to be attracted to the same race ?
I file this under the "some people are nutty" category...
It seems to me she is talking about masculine and feminine typing taking attention away from the middle ground. I don't know it's dysphoric as much as it is the blocking of a range of visible identities.
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on October 08, 2018, 10:07:53 pm
Here's a trans person arguing that if you say you won't date a trans person then you're being discriminatory. I imagine it's pretty frustrating being trans since the dating pool is so small, but don't try to make people feel bad for not being attracted to women with penises.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X-PgHSZh6U
I am pretty sure that this question isn't settled, ie. What people think of the phenomenon of ... this kind of rejection.
Post by: kimmy on October 09, 2018, 10:06:19 am
It's settled. The only possible answer is that people are entitled to their preferences. You have to accept it... the only alternative is, I guess, rent a van.
Rejected trans people can protest the unfairness of it, just as fat people, short people, and ugly people have always done... but what else is there? People are rejected every day for the most arbitrary, unfair, and irrational reasons, but that's life. Dating is complicated for anybody, even more complicated for gay people, and even more complicated for trans people. But a painfully unattractive cisgendered heterosexual person will probably experience an an enormous amount of rejection in their life as well, and I'm not sure that they're any less deserving of sympathy and compassion than a trans person who feels they've been "cotton ceiling"-ed.
Why is it settled?
Because people are entitled to their preferences. If i'm not attracted to people with blonde hair or hairy arms or any other criteria possibly imaginable then yeah I guess that's discriminatory, but there's nothing that can or should be done about it and there's nothing ethically wrong with it. That's life.
Settled, to me, means that there isn't significant disagreement... And I mean off this board.
That is my impression, too. And bringing up firefighters brings to mind the degree of affirmative action programs designed to help women get hired by organizations like the fire department. If self designation must be recognized at all times, without reference to evidence, what's to stop every man who wants to be a firefighter or police officer from declaring they're now 'women'? Wouldn't that require, under existing laws, departments to advance their application above that of males? How about the efforts to put more men on boards of directors? If a few of the men there decide to self identity as women does that take care of the problem? What about sports teams? If a male decides to call himself a woman can he play on womens basketball, baseball, and other sports teams? Can he be on the womens swim team and change in their locker room with them?
That is my impression, too. And bringing up firefighters brings to mind the degree of affirmative action programs designed to help women get hired by organizations like the fire department. If self designation must be recognized at all times, without reference to evidence, what's to stop every man who wants to be a firefighter or police officer from declaring they're now 'women'?
Well... let's see.... uh... nothing ?
Wouldn't that require, under existing laws, departments to advance their application above that of males?
How about the efforts to put more men on boards of directors? If a few of the men there decide to self identity as women does that take care of the problem? What about sports teams? If a male decides to call himself a woman can he play on womens basketball, baseball, and other sports teams? Can he be on the womens swim team and change in their locker room with them?
Clearly you just started finding out about this stuff.
And it will be 'settled' when somebody can convey that there is wide agreement on that...
No? There isn't a single piece of legislation or policy written that makes ANY distinction between people who are born as women and people who declare themselves to be women. If you make a law that says anyone who declares themselves a woman has to be treated like one then they have to be allowed on those teams and have to be accorded the same privileges.
Quote from: kimmy on October 09, 2018, 10:06:19 am
I read and watched several rants from people who believe in this "cotton ceiling" idea. They insist that they're not trying to pressure anybody to have sex with anyone they don't want to, and they agree that everyone is entitled to their own preferences. They contend that they're raising this critique as a means of highlighting transphobia among cis-lesbians, and to challenge cis-lesbians to "re-examine their biases".
There's really nothing there to discuss, other than "how guilty should I feel for having preferences?" I don't think that's a useful topic for discussion. It's really nobody else's business how much or how little guilt I should have for having preferences.
Sorry, I misunderstood. Women are eligible for affirmative action programs, yes.
There is also a case against me, for not wanting to be with a penised woman. Sounds like it's not settled.
I didn't even know this was a known phenomena with its own term "cotton ceiling" until i just googled it after seeing you post it.
It probably comes mainly from a frustration from trans people in the difficulty of finding partners, especially non-trans partners. I feel honest empathy for them. Imagine going through difficult transition procedures and looking amazing but then still being rejected constantly. I can see how it kind of feels like discrimination like in every other aspect of life of being trans.
I don't feel guilty but i feel sympathy, trans people have a damn tough road.
Do you feel guilty for not wanting to be with a penised man? Lay naked with me Michael. Please.
Quote from: Poonlight Graham on October 09, 2018, 08:07:27 pm
I knew that people on here would start begging me for my body.... eventually.
I don't want penises but it's not a rule... I just have never wanted one...
So...what you're saying is there's still a chance?
There's not a case. You're entitled to your preference. Nobody would tell you otherwise-- some would however tell you you should feel guilty for your preferences. That's a personal issue between you and your conscience.
People reject other people all the time, and usually for reasons far more arbitrary and capricious than being incompatible with their physical anatomy. Height, weight, smokes, talks too much, annoying personality, thinks "The Real Housewives of..." is great TV, has weird-ass fake-looking Instagram style eyebrows, they're a Canucks fan, they wish Canada had a guy like Trump running things, they think the moon-landing is fake and chem-trails are real, ... I mean, there's an endless list of things that are potentially huge buzz-kills for one person or another. You can feel what works for you or what doesn't.
These things often work at a subconscious level... they're often not a deliberate decision that someone makes. What attracts you to a potential partner might be as innate as what draws a female peacock to the male with the most appealing plumage. And I feel this is why the people who ask that you rethink what makes you find some partners unattractive are out to lunch-- because there isn't a conscious thought process behind it at all. And if there were a conscious thought process that people could simply revise, I would imagine that most people would simply revise themselves to be cisgendered and heterosexual-- because life would be so much easier in many different ways.
I feel like there's a huge disconnect between the idea that sexual orientation is not a choice-- which I think most people agree with-- and idea that lesbians could simply rewire themselves to find male physiology attractive if it were presented by someone who identifies herself as female. It just doesn't work that way.
And oddly (or perhaps not oddly...) I haven't seen a male-related corollary to the "cotton ceiling". I can't find anybody arguing that straight men ought to be taking trans women as sex partners, for example. This seems to be an idea aimed specifically at women. Perhaps it's based on the idea that women are just inherently flexible and men aren't. Perhaps somebody heard "every woman is just a couple of drinks away from being a lesbian" and extrapolated. I really don't know.
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on October 10, 2018, 12:03:09 am
I find it odd that it's directed at gay/lesbians. What's the difference is they reject trans people and straight people? Do trans people think "well, they've made the leap to homosexuality, can't they make one more leap for trans people". I really don't think it's a matter of open-mindedness. Trans people are kind of caught in the middle, literally: not quite a man, not quite a woman.
Oh most definitely. How could anyone say that they would "never". You live a long time, you know. Of course, my opinion is that there is 0% chance of it happening but there are plenty of stories of guys switching teams in later life so you never know...
I think I posted before that I am in a tiny minority of folks with no same-sex experience whatsoever...
If you should "feel guilty" then it seems to me they're saying you AREN'T entitled to your preference.
I made my mind on someone once, because she hated Win Wenders' "Wings of Desire".
I agree that it's not as simple as a thought process. But I think the flip side of that is that you equally can't say you KNOW the reasons you like or dislike something. It's a cat and mouse game between your brain and your ... I don't know ... maybe your subconscious ?
I think so too, but also wonder if some groups are going to have people talk themselves into trying it to show how liberal they are.
I have seen it, I think. It doesn't matter because the prevailing belief is that you pick your partner.
Some might see this as a great achievement for human rights. I see it as a giant debacle for the whole of womens' athletics.
Canadian trans woman wins cycling championship. (https://www.cbc.ca/sports/transgender-woman-track-cycling-1.4863381)
The rules apparently allow a trans woman to compete against biologically female women as long as her male hormone levels are below a certain level.
The picture in the article illustrates why that in itself is hardly satisfactory to present a level playing field:
(https://i.imgur.com/6DyDxEh.jpg)
Dr Rachel McKinnon-- she is a professor of philosophy at the College of Charleston in South Carolina-- argues that the question of level playing field is irrelevant because it's a question of human rights:
"We cannot have a woman legally recognized as a trans woman in society, and not be recognized that way in sports," McKinnon was quoted as saying. "Focusing on performance advantage is largely irrelevant because this is a rights issue. We shouldn't be worried about trans people taking over the Olympics. We should be worried about their fairness and human rights instead."
I strongly disagree. The whole reason women's athletics exist is to provide biologically female girls and women, who make up roughly half the human race, a venue in which they can compete on an equal basis. But apparently fairness to them is a secondary concern even in their own sports.
This is a total joke.
Yes. And SJ even brought this up as a 'what if..' thinking it was ridiculous but this is where women's sports is indeed going.
For how long? I can't imagine there won't be a pushback at some point. Perhaps in a sport that nobody gives a crap about like short-track cycling this will fly under the radar, but I have to imagine that if this comes to tennis or gymnastics it will get shut down in a hurry.
Post by: cybercoma on October 17, 2018, 12:44:11 pm
I strongly disagree. The whole reason women's athletics exist is to provide biologically female girls and women, who make up roughly half the human race, a venue in which they can compete on an equal basis.
But they don't compete on an equal basis. The assumption is that biological women lack the hormones to produce the kind of power and endurance that biological men can produce with their hormone levels. The fact of the matter is, women are not tested for their hormone levels to see if they're truly competing on a "level" playing field. A genetically female athlete could naturally produce more hormones that make her naturally more competitive than other females. With a transgender female athlete, they are often on hormone regimens that severely limit their genetically male hormones to such a degree that it is far lower than some cisgender female athletes who produce greater levels of the hormones that transgender athletes are having inhibited.
So here's the question, do we test athletes for their hormone ratios and then divide them into categories that way instead of by biological sex. Because there could be far greater biological differences in hormone levels amongst cisgender athletes than between cisgender athletes and transgender athletes. Look at the African women who were running endurance races in the Olympics and all the controversy there. And what do you do about intersexed athletes?
Personally, I don't know, but I think a hormone level test might be the answer, which makes genetic sex irrelevant and also allows an opportunity for intersex athletes to compete. Nevertheless, the cut-off is going to be arbitrary because those near the bottom of the cut-off for men and those near the top of the cut-off for women may be more closely matched than those at other levels. Perhaps we create competition strata. I really don't know.
Post by: the_squid on October 17, 2018, 02:02:02 pm
Quote from: cybercoma on October 17, 2018, 12:44:11 pm
What do you think of a 6'5" transgender female competing in hockey? Fair?
Quote from: the_squid on October 17, 2018, 02:02:02 pm
What do you think of a 5'4" guy competing in men's hockey? Fair?
So he should play in the women's league? Is that what you're saying? Or are you just evading the question?
You go ahead and read my post that you responded to any time. I feel I've sufficiently addressed your question.
You evaded the question. It's not that hard of a question. But it must be difficult to put aside all common sense to say that this would be OK.
It's not equivalent. This is not just about height. Men have more upper body strength, muscle and physical stamina than women. There's a reason there are no unisex sports. Whether it's non-contact like tennis or volleyball or track and field, or contact sports like hockey, men have a physical advantage over women.
This is not rocket science. You know this. Why are you so resistant to admitting that it makes no sense and is blatantly unfair to let men compete against women - regardless of whether they see themselves as female?
What people seem to be missing is all sports are funded by fans willing to watch the sports. If fans see women sports turned into competitions between men pretending to women they could find something else to watch and the sport will die.
We need to acknowledge that genetic females are not the same biologically as trans females. They are two separate categories. Sports don't care about your gender identity or sexual preference etc, they care about your biological category "male" or "female" to broadly level the playing field.
I support trans people being and doing whatever they want, but I don't support pretending a trans woman is the same biologically as a genetic woman. Hormones and plastic surgery don't change your genes or the years in puberty where biological males have far more bone, muscle, ligament growth etc. than females. Otherwise if LeBron James or Usain Bolt discover they identify as trans women they can take hormones and still destroy most other women and turn the olympics etc into a joke. How could that trans woman cyclists have any satisfaction in beating a bunch of genetic females? It's ridiculous.
To me the obvious answer is to have completely separate categories for trans men and women to compete against each other, where they can also regulate artificial hormone levels and have a broadly level playing field. Otherwise compete in your genetic category without any artificial hormone advantages.
You guys have seen Jessie Graf absolutely crush guys' times in American Ninja Warrior, right? You're trying to boil this down to biological sex, when I'm saying that it's more complicated than that because it's about the benefits that biological sex offers. Size, strength, endurance, can all show more variability within the sexes than between. We're not talking about the factors that affect the disparities in ability, but instead you're focusing solely on the sex someone is assigned at birth.
But by all means, continue freaking out about dudes playing sports with women because it's "unnatural," as if women are fragile little dolls who can't possibly have strength, size, and endurance that exceeds that of many men.
This is the "exception fallacy". Using an individual case to ascribe attributes to the whole. You know full well that, in general, biological males have increased muscle mass, lung capacity, etc, etc that makes them excel more in sports.
Also, no one said anything about it being "unnatural". Straw man.
You're trying to boil this down to biological sex, when I'm saying that it's more complicated than that because it's about the benefits that biological sex offers...We're not talking about the factors that affect the disparities in ability, but instead you're focusing solely on the sex someone is assigned at birth.
How do you measure how much growth hormones somebody was exposed to at birth, during puberty, their current hormone level, then look at genetic makeup ie: fast-twitch/slow-twitch fibers, tendons, ligaments etc? Then how do you weigh all these factors? And by what categories do you slot people into?
Even if it could be done, from a practical standpoint it seems not very doable to completely reconfigure the sports world to accommodate a very tiny % of the population. Gold medal in moderate pre-natal testosterone, below-median pubescent testosterone 4 x 100 relay?
Boobies.
Trying to reduce the argument to strictly a question of testosterone levels (as McKinnon herself does) is simply ridiculous because it ignores the effect of male hormones and growth hormones during the developmental years. The average male grows to a size that only a small percentage of women reach.
Even women like Serena Willians and Maria Sharapova, who are absolute units compared to the typical woman, are barely average size by male standards. Willians is like 5'10 and 180, so she's somewhere around average size for a man. At 6'2 Sharapova is taller than the average man, but she's also only about 150-160 pounds.
And that's just size... then there's bone structure-- bigger, thicker, denser bones, broad chest, broad shoulders... the picture I posted earlier of McKinnon and her competitors illustrates the point.
Body composition-- men have lower body fat percentage. A body fat percentage that's considered very fit for a woman is still average or unhealthy for a man. Even at the same weight women carry far less muscle. This is one point I am willing to concede McKinnon: having her testosterone level cut back to typical female levels might prevent her from maintaining the same amount of lean skeletal muscle that a male athlete carries, but I also doubt her body fat percentage is any higher than a woman who has had typical female hormone levels since the onset of puberty.
Even an average male who transitions to female as an adult has already got a genetic advantage that's available to only a tiny percentage of women. And an above average male would have a physical advantage that would exceed almost all women.
So this is a good point.
Life isn't fair. If you're a 5'4 guy, you can play hockey. You might even be good at it. You might have a great time in your rec league. And if you're really extraordinary, you might even make the pros. (Wasn't Theoren Fleury 5'4 of something like that?) But most likely, your size is going to be too much of a hurdle to overcome in reaching the highest reaches of the sport. Life isn't fair.
I had notions of being a competitive runner-- maybe getting a college scholarship, traveling the world, all that stuff. I was exceptional, especially at distance running. But as I got closer to adulthood I began to lose ground against the top girls who were just built better for running. I was heavier and shorter than them. As hard as I trained, I couldn't make my legs 2" longer. Genetics began to come into play. Having asthma didn't help either. As much as I wanted it, and as hard as I worked at it, it just wasn't going to happen for me. Life's not fair.
And I think maybe Rachel McKinnon and people like her should also accept that life's not fair. If it's a question of excluding some number of trans women or turning the whole of womens' athletics into a joke, I think you have to choose the greater good.
Exceeds that of many men... but not many men who are athletes.
I don't follow the "Ninja Warrior" stuff, but I gather the remarkable thing about Jessie Graff is not that her times are top times (they aren't) but simply that she's been able to finish courses that no other women have completed. Her athletic ability is remarkable by comparison to other women, but not in comparison with the male competitors in her sport.
(Also, I saw a clip of her doing a standing backflip while wearing an evening gown and high heels at a red carpet event. That's pretty remarkable too. Also, she's somewhat attractive.)
(https://i.imgur.com/jYXSfOg.jpg)
(she seems nice.)
Post by: cybercoma on October 19, 2018, 07:29:03 am
And you're committing the fallacy of focusing on the example that I gave without addressing the substance of my point. The general person isn't an athlete. A transgender woman is also not the prototypical male athlete either. They don't have the same genetic advantages after undergoing hormone therapy, but you completely refuse to acknowledge that point so I see no point in addressing you any further until you do.
They don't have the same genetic advantages after undergoing hormone therapy,
Cite please.
An interesting story of a radical feminist and gay rights activist relentlessly hounded by transexuals for daring to suggest that women don't have a ****.
Feminists now are routinely beaten up, slandered, fired from their jobs and de-platformed if they offer even the mildest caveat in regard to the demands of transgender extremists. Just this week, in fact, a female lecturer at Liverpool John Moores University was mobbed, with potentially career-ending ramifications, after raising concerns about male-bodied individuals being sent to female prisons.
https://quillette.com/2018/10/31/silencing-women-in-the-name-of-trans-activism/
TERFs. The new Nazis. Go figure.
These fights get really viscious. I have a few old feminists in my FB feed, and they get very viscous when describing trans people. Then the younger feminists give it back to them.
Like all of these political fights, there is little entertainment value in someone staking out a reasonable middle ground and trying to build some kind of understanding. For example, even the pro-trans feminists can relate to feeling strange about seeing a **** in a change room so just say that.
Post by: kimmy on November 05, 2018, 01:23:45 am
The hatred and is incredibly intense, and the violent ideation being expressed is frightening. The following page has a huge compilation of social media screenshots from trans activists who want to fight, shoot, burn, or sodomize "TERFs". (is it just me, or is there something kind of ... male ... about this ideation? have a look and see if you agree.)
https://terfisaslur.com/
Some images from a San Francisco "art exhibit" created (https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2018/04/27/san-francisco-public-library-hosts-transgender-art-exhibit-featuring-weapons-intended-to-kill-feminists/)by this group. (https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2017/06/27/transdykes-the-anti-lesbian-antifa/) Bloodied shirts with anti-TERF slogans. Baseball bats wrapped in barbed wire, axes, and sledge-hammers for smashing TERFs.
(https://i.imgur.com/kemQ3by.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/zfGBGZb.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Qne1fje.jpg)
https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2018/04/27/san-francisco-public-library-hosts-transgender-art-exhibit-featuring-weapons-intended-to-kill-feminists/
This is **** insanity. That it's accepted and even encouraged is deeply disturbing.
I used to think I was ok with trans rights. Back when it was about pronouns and non-discrimination and simply being able to use the washroom, I was all on board. I am still on board with those things.
But lately, they have completely lost me. The Body Blitz thing was probably the start of it. I know that I would not have been comfortable in that situation. The idea that this made me a "TERF" was pretty upsetting for me. I wasn't sure that wanting personal privacy is "trans exclusionary" and I'm sure it wasn't "radical". But with that I could at least accept that maybe I'm just a prude and others won't see it that way.
But lately... the sheer idiocy of this male-bodied person competing in women's sports.
The "cotton ceiling" idea. This idea that they haven't achieved real equality until lesbians will accept trans-women's "lady-penises". I **** hate it. And I'm sure that nobody who grew up as a female would have picked the "cotton ceiling" metaphor, because the image of some man-hand tearing your underwear is deeply unsettling for people who grew up female.
I read some trans woman writing that she finds feminism's focus on reproductive rights to be alienating, because not all women have a uterus. I read another trans woman explaining that all trans women understand what it's like to be women, but not all women understand what it's like to be trans women, and therefore trans women are the only women who fully understand the needs of all women, and therefore are uniquely positioned to lead feminism going forward.
I'm **** done with it. I'm completely over it. I feel like I'm a pretty fair minded and balanced person, but I can't deal with this idiocy anymore. And I feel like if you've lost me, you've probably lost most people.
Quote from: kimmy on November 05, 2018, 01:23:45 am
The intent of the exhibit is the question I have, and I can't buy the source article's take on this as they appear to be biased.
You're not a TERF, but you have issues with some questions of trans rights. The 'cotton ceiling' thing we discussed, and nobody expects you to date people you're not attracted to. I don't know why you include that in the mix at all.
Post by: TimG on November 05, 2018, 04:39:28 am
What lost it for me are the trans-activists who want to teach kids that the normal "who-am-i" issues many kids experience can/should be solved with hormones and hacking off body parts. On top of this these activists push for legislation/regulation to prevent parents from teaching their kids that they should love the body they have. Child abuse is the only reasonable way to describe what trans-activists are demanding for in schools now.
Quote from: TimG on November 05, 2018, 04:39:28 am
Again, not indicative of anything.
If I'm reading what these freaks are saying, her refusal to have sex with a 'woman' who has a male body does indeed make her a TERF and a bigot.
No, she isn't a TERF as she accepts transgender people.
Taking a wide spectrum of opinions and finding a dividing line serves some reasons but also divides people when you use a term like 'TERF'.
She is 'exclusionary' so yes she is. You can't approach these things with a common sense outlook. Either she completely and fully accepts 'trans' women as full and absolutely equal women in every way, shape and form, or she's the enemy.
There is no room in the dialogue of social activists for a middle path. Like those lefty loonies outside the debate between Frum and Bannon calling everyone Nazis. To them, either you're on the Left or you're a Nazi. There's no in between.
She is 'exclusionary' so yes she is.
I disagree. Let's ask her, though, if she wants to apply this very binary term to her. It implies that you don't accept trans women as anything but men pretending to be women.
You can't approach these things with a common sense outlook. Either she completely and fully accepts 'trans' women as full and absolutely equal women in every way, shape and form, or she's the enemy.
That's horseshit. Following that logic means you are alt-right. These labels are being used to demonize people.
Well... you're doing that too. If you want to call her a TERF because she doesn't want trans women to compete against biological women, then you're making the same mistake.
Maybe I haven't read enough on the subject, but I think you're wrong. If someone uses the word TERF to demonize someone, how does that make someone who sees that and acknowledges it, alt-right? It doesn't have to be all Trans people or supporters.
Is this one of those instances where the left refuses to see poor behaviour by those it has previously championed just because it doesn't want to?
Post by: kimmy on November 05, 2018, 11:18:10 pm
It's a blood-stained shirt that says "I punch TERFS". Is it really that ambiguous?
If a public library had hung up a shirt that read "I punch Muslims", would you need to check with the "artist" before you decided how upset you needed to be?
As someone of Muslim descent, I see both something very different and very familiar in how the marginalized groups of Muslims and women are treated. If SFPL had exhibited a t-shirt that said "I punch Muslims", I know that Bay Area community organizations and activists would have raised hell and had it shut down. But women? That nagging underclass of humanity? Nobody cares about us, be it on the left or the right.
There is also a chilling similarity. Violence is often justified by presenting the aggressor as the victim. When I see the lies and histrionics about radical feminists who "want all trans people to die" it reminds me of claims like "Muslims want to destroy the West/kill all Christians". I have never seen any radical feminist advocate for violence against or wish death upon transpeople. Radical feminists simply do not believe that gender is natural or innate, and therefore do not agree with the current dogma that a woman is "anybody who identifies as a woman". And in the ultra-privileged bubble and navel-gazing culture of American identitarians, disagreeing with someone's beliefs about themselves is construed as the ultimate violence.
The Degenderettes exhibit is nothing more than misogyny and male entitlement and violence repackaged with the help of some eyeliner. As to the "liberals" who condone this, they have so wrapped their self-worth and social capital around being "woke" and supporting progressive causes, and they are so skittish about being reprimanded for wrongthink, that they allow themselves no room for critical thought.
https://crackinthesystem.org/2018/05/11/degenderettes-exhibit-at-sfpl/
SJ's point is not that I am or am not a TERF. It's that expressing my discomfort with some of these ideas makes me a TERF in the eyes of these activists.
Early in the thread you wrote this, regarding your Facebook friends' reaction to a column by Megan Murphy (https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/women-only-spa-counterpoint-1.4170158).
I liked the column, I thought it made a lot of sense. I gather your friends didn't. I read about people talking about boycotting Murphy's website and so-on.
Women are being threatened and deplatformed and losing their jobs for expressing concern over things like male-bodied prisoners being put in the women's prison. It's not people interested in having a discussion who are calling for their heads (figuratively or literally.) The Quillette article SJ posted yesterday talks about this.
If your Facebook friends think Megan Murphy is The Enemy, they'd probably think I'm the enemy too. And I can live with that. But don't put the blame on me. I'm not the one who decided that there's no middle ground here. That would be your Facebook friend and these trans rights activists who've decided that nothing less than total agreement is acceptable.
I didn't do a good job of explaining myself. I'm saying if you follow the principle of labelling people TERFs based on "if you don't agree with the most extreme trans radical you are not accepting of them and you are a TERF" ... means that your group definition is off. That means one person can call you alt-right and therefore you are alt-right.
I didn't mean to associate opinions on trans people to the alt-right.
Well not you, obviously, if I completely misread your point. Sorry about that.
Post by: cybercoma on November 06, 2018, 06:43:01 am
She is 'exclusionary'
YOU criticizing people for being exclusionary? LMFAO :D
Quote from: kimmy on November 05, 2018, 11:18:10 pm
The importance of this art is to show the visceral reaction people have to this in comparison to their reaction when trans people are beaten and killed in the streets. Apparently an art exhibit is more newsworthy and gets more contempt than the actual people who've been beaten and murdered for the crime of being transgender.
Not at all. I was unclear. I'm thinking about 'labels' again and how difficult they are to apply.
Especially every time I see a Facebook troll post about 'the left' referring to the Democrats...
Quote from: cybercoma on November 06, 2018, 06:43:01 am
He's not. He's just saying what he thinks she is. Certainly she is partially exclusionary but a TERF ?
This is not a pipe - this is a conversation about labels.
Makes sense. The article didn't mention that, I don't think. But it was clearly pre-loaded anyway which is why I didn't look at it too closely.
Again, he's not calling me a TERF, he's pointing out that by the standards set by the trans activists, I'm a TERF.
This is the unease that hit me when you first talked about how furious your Facebook friends are at Megan Murphy-- the surprise of finding out that the position I took was considered radical and hate-filled by some people.
Which ones ?
If you want to declare trans rights an unreasonable proposition, an easy way to do it is to find the most extreme activist - who says children need surgery or example - and make them the spokespeople for the movement.
This is what the tabloids do.
Right, but my facebook friends are not the centre of the movement either.
Kimmy got it right. I was commenting on the zealotry involved. Which is why I mentioned the loonies screaming and attacking people outside the Munk debate as Nazis. There is no middle ground to these activists. Kimmy is a TERF in their eyes, not mine. Because from what I see and read they don't accept 'partial' acceptance. Either you're 100% in agreement or you're the enemy.
I can't help noticing that they attack women who are feminists. Why not attack social conservatives instead? I mean, feminists are going to be way more accepting of trans people than social conservatives. Is it just easier to attack feminists who are mostly women? Why doesn't the t-shirt say I punch fundamentalists rather than I punch "terfs"?
The importance of this art
It's not art. It's dreck. And you'd be hyperventilating if it was attacking Muslims or gays or blacks because someone was expressing their 'visceral reaction' to them.
Post by: cybercoma on November 06, 2018, 12:45:32 pm
Because there's a clear difference between punching up and punching down....at least to anyone with two brain cells to rub together.
Post by: ?Impact on November 06, 2018, 01:46:13 pm
If someone uses the word TERF to demonize someone...
Is this one of those instances where the left refuses to see
The term "leftist" is thrown around continually to demonize people.
Quote from: cybercoma on November 06, 2018, 12:45:32 pm
No, there **** well isn't. This assumption that everyone in a particular identity group is ranked according to the degree to which that group has, to your mind, been disadvantaged is a big part of what is turning so many people away from the Left. The idea you can threaten and sneer at and intimidate someone if you're in a 'more disadvantaged' identity group than they are is poisonous bullshit.
You think it's okay for a bunch of muscular six foot tall guys to threaten to punch out women because they claim that being trans means they're more disadvantaged. That's **** nuts.
No, there **** well isn't.
Well, I'm sorry, but you're not just wrong.
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on November 06, 2018, 10:18:14 pm
I want to know what happens to the penises and **** lips after the surgeon cuts them off? And where do the balls go?
Do the balls become ovaries?
Post by: Omni on November 06, 2018, 10:28:20 pm
Getting creepy. Why am I not surprised.
If i were talking about your **** lips then THAT would be creepy.
Stop TERFing me.
I don't think the activists demanding that people they consider "TERFs" be silenced are extremists within the movement... they seem to be the mainstream of the movement. Judging from the success they've had, they're being treated as if they're the mainstream, at least.
Your friends might not be the brains of the movement, but they're helping provide the muscle. Their social media voices, along with large numbers of others like them, is what gives these activists the clout to demand that professors be fired or that speakers be deplatformed or that Body Blitz change their policy.
This is a feeble excuse for the indefensible. Put up a display advocating violence against some group in Canada, and when the Human Rights Commission comes knocking on your door, tell them that you're just trying to draw attention to the plight of the Rohingas, and let us know how that works out for you.
Taking on the TERFs is "punching up"? Because feminists are such a powerful group in society?
The fantasy: they're defending themselves against genocidal fascists.
The reality: male-bodied thugs beating up little old ladies. (https://www.feministcurrent.com/2018/04/27/trans-identified-male-tara-wolf-charged-assault-hyde-park-attack/)
But I'm saying that the definition of TERF is different for fringe dwellers vs the mainstream.
Look, if you're just going to conflate an art exhibit with an actual criminal offence, then you've missed the point entirely. Also, the fact that you point out THIS assault, but not the literal murders of transgender people with the same staunch criticism is an illustration of the hypocrisy that the art exhibit is meant to elicit.
If the fringe-dweller says "hey, this person's a TERF! Get 'em!" and your well-meaning friends grab their social media torches and social media pitchforks... does it matter what the moderates think? If the mob follows the fringe-dweller, then the fringe-dweller is the mainstream, and the moderates are not.
I'm well aware that there is real-world violence directed against trans people. I'm not sure how anybody could think that fomenting hate and violence towards "TERFs" will help solve that problem. Blood-stained shirts with violent slogans are not going to make women feel safer with the idea of letting trans women into women's shelters.
I mentioned the real-world assault by the trans activist on the alleged TERF to point out that this hatred isn't a hypothetical or imaginary thing, it exists in the real world as well. I posted a link earlier that has a vast number of examples of social media screenshots illustrating the point. I saw more examples just checking out some trans-related areas of reddit last week.
These people have demonized women who are concerned about the impact of trans rights on women's safety. They've campaigned to silence them. They've driven them out of LGBT spaces. They've promoted hate and violence against these women.
Quote from: Poonlight Graham on November 06, 2018, 10:18:14 pm
Trans people don't bother to go in for that stuff. Besides, they might be men again tomorrow - or women, depending on how they feel.
Trans people are being murdered by feminists? GTFO.
Trans people are being murdered by feminists? Get the **** out of here.
I know. A tranny is a tranny to you, but if anyone dared to lump you in with the worst elements of conservatism, you would claim those people aren't "real" conservatives, etc. So maybe stop conflating separate situations and painting entire groups of people by the worst examples you have.
Of course, the clear and obvious difference is anyone on the far right who says or does anything extreme is instantly booted from the ranks of conservatives. I don't see that happening here. I don't see any attempt at dissociating this from 'mainstream' trans activism. If these people are running the show then, as Kimmy says, they're the mainstream.
1. does it matter what the moderates think?
2. If the mob follows the fringe-dweller, then the fringe-dweller is the mainstream, and the moderates are not.
1. of course, it always matters politically
2. maybe we should start by defining the centre then. I don't know where some mob figures into it.
How does it matter? If the moderates don't make their views heard, then what good are they? If you're running a spa and you have dozens or hundreds of angry messages from trans supporters telling you your policy is bad, and almost nobody writes to tell you they like the current policy, then you probably conclude that the overwhelming majority thinks your policy needs to be changed. The spa owner will hear from the angry activists immediately, but probably won't find out what mild middle thinks for months, when people start voting with their wallets on whether they like the new policy or not.
I am as guilty as anybody, of course, because I've almost never written to a business or a media outlet to make my views known.
If the mob are the ones who get to decide which books get taken off the shelf at the LGBT book store, or get to decide who gets removed from the Dyke March, or which professors get censured or fired by the university, that's where the mob figures into it. If the mob makes the rules, then the people trying to find a compromise are irrelevant.
I don't know where the center is. I used to think I was the center. But it seems like I'm well to the exclusionary side of center, judging from where real-world policy decisions are landing. If that's the case then all people like me have left is to vote with our feet and our wallets.
I'm assuming that the moderates are counted... the 'silent majority' and so on.
But because you're in the mainstream you have a majority of opinion with you so that must be reflected somehow.
That 'not knowing' is uneasy and is unfortunately the new 'centre' in a world with changing media. This is why our world is so scary right now: we don't know.
How many incels are there ? How many alt-right ? Why is Trump winning ?
Our mirror to look at ourselves at a society is media and when that changes all bets are off.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/sports/transgender-cycling-champion-faces-backlash-after-winning-gold-1.4173127
Rachel McKinnon - Canadian transgender athlete - cycling champion faces backlash after winning gold.
The public will soon wake up and start to digest this. Interesting point I got from these articles is that they assert there's no proof that testosterone is correlated with better competition results. Also the assertion that male dominance in sport is sociological. Hmmmm.
I'm not at the table here, though. Do trans women have an advantage in women's sports and should something be done ? Not a question for me, other than as the wider 'public...
Post by: Rue on November 13, 2018, 10:24:58 am
I don't know anymore what gender culture is in the Western world. Obviously in other world's it can be rigid concepts of what are the roles of male and female.
I do know in all life forms is homosexuality and its clearly a built in population control feature and if it was "abnormal" it would not be in all pro-creating life forms as it has been found to be.
We also know now definitively that unlike what was thought in the past they have now proven genetic predisposition to being homosexual.
I really am not that interested in who people phack as long as its not done without consent, with violence or with children or animals. I am not sure if that is gender though or sexual practice.
In regards to Gender, there is an agenda to define sexuality as fluid today. I don't know what that means. People want to leave gender as this wide open, unlimited definition. I am not sure if that is self-indulgence, maladjustment, adjustment, narcissism, confusion, or creativity. For me it comes down to the individual and what they decide with their doctor in private. I don't judge what someone wants to do with their pee pee but I when it comes down to it do resent sometimes people promoting it excessively. I feel your feelings about yourself expressed publically including your feelings about your pee pee or vee vee should be done in a modest manner in public if for no other reason you end up being Kim Kardashian if you go too far with thi and she is annoying and I know her real name is Clyde.
Its it unfair to suggest there are far too many people today who want to have it all and be a little bit pregnant? The fact is you can't be a little bit pregnant when it cones to your pee pee vee vee.
I think some not all of the gender dialogue has become too self indulgent and narcissistic.
There is too much focus on people making demands and demanding entitlements and not enough quiet calm self acceptance..
Nature is what it is. This need to control it by humans is ancient. Humans always want to control nature. In medicine, it is supposed to be benevolent when we do that to keep us alive longer. O.k. so it works of course, but then we live longer with diseases to the point where we are placed in a position of living with diseases that consume and overwhelm us and trap us in non stop pain. When is enough, enough with all this discontent and confusion as to what nature has defined?
I would conclude by saying I would hope some people just don't change their bodies because they can't accept being gay. I am told people who g o for the operation are tested for that and screened, etc., so that their decision is based on positive not negative reasons but sometimes I think its sad some people change themselves gender wise and like anyone who changes their bodies, their inner selves do not change.
Sometimes the emphasis on our piping and sex facilities misses the point that who we are is not just about the testes.
https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/10/16/should-men-who-identify-women-compete-womens-sports-13518
More on this from a science organization of some kind. The article is not written in objective voice, though.
Do trans women have an advantage in women's sports and should something be done ? Not a question for me, other than as the wider 'public...
Your question is "Do men have an advantage over women in sports." The answer is, obviously yes.
I don't care what they feel they are. Physically, they are men, and have the same physical advantage over women that any other man would have.
Post by: TimG on November 21, 2018, 04:31:12 pm
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/briannaheldt/2018/11/21/university-cancels-production-of-the-****-monologues-for-not-being-inclusive-enough-of-trans-people-n2536352
A Michigan university has decided to cancel a scheduled performance of "The **** Monologues" because, according to the university, "not all women have vaginas.
A trans woman on hormone treatment would have a disadvantage over an average man, but the average trans woman on hormones would still have an advantage over most women.
Quote from: TimG on November 21, 2018, 04:31:12 pm
(https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.themarysue.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F08%2FJway-facepalm.jpg&hash=d9467cf32c4ff1ffaced0a98fd3ebb695896387e)
Well that's the stupidest god damned **** thing I've read all week.
I thought "Cleveland Browns considering Condoleezza Rice for coaching position" was going to be the stupidest thing I read this week, but I was wrong. April Fools Day is months away. What the **** is going on?
This is no longer about people being treated with respect and dignity, and living safely without fear. This has turned into a concerted effort to tear down everything women have built in the past 60 years.
It seems like the new goal is to eradicate every shred of the female experience from the word "woman" and replace it with a new definition based on an affinity for traditional gender roles and clothing and some ill-defined "feeling". This is total **** dog ****. These people need to be told to **** off.
Nice going, Tim, you got me all agitated.
This has turned into a concerted effort to tear down everything women have built in the past 60 years.
'Concerted effort' ? So someone is orchestrating this ? It's not just ONE person at "The Women's Resource Center (WRC) at Eastern Michigan University (EMU)" who made a decision that you disagree with ?
Never forget the 'War on Christmas' ... Wherein 'Happy Holidays' constituted proof of a concerned effort to destroy Christianity and Santa.
It's not just ONE person at "The Women's Resource Center (WRC) at Eastern Michigan University (EMU)" who made a decision that you disagree with ?
You are missing the point. This is one example in a US university but it does demonstrate how absurd the notion of "inclusiveness" has become.
Such actions also put people who recognize the unfairness and absurdity of this "inclusiveness" obsession in a difficult situation: do they tell such people to f-off and live with being called a TERF or worse or do they keep silent while they are being denied their rights in the name of "inclusiveness"?
If you are OK with people pushing back and insisting on limits to the "inclusiveness" obsession then you can argue this is just one example.
If you expect people too meekly shut up whenever someone pulls a stunt like the EMU did then this one example is a symptom of a much bigger social problem.
So, government should step in to modify peoples' opinions and ideas but only if those ideas err on the side of inclusiveness ? Is that what you are suggesting ? Should we be more concerned about anti-semitism and political violence ? Or play readings ?
Loaded question, I know.
So by posting it here, you will convince the already-convinced. If you can pierce the bubble of progressives and make them understand your concern, let me know and I will use your tactics against the mouth-breathing deplorables...
People shouldn't meekly shut up, that is, if it's in their area of concern. I would argue that Jews getting machine-gunned in Pittsburgh is more in my area of concern than feminist play readings at East Michigan University are in yours.
Being 'concerned' about social problems is supposed to be a leftist thing. I thought Conservatives were about live and let live. Meh.
It also seems completely lost on people that sometimes individuals do completely outlandish things to draw attention to important issues.
Who says people can only be concerned about one problem at a time? People can be concerned about both.
I thought Conservatives were about live and let live.
Live and let live means if someone want to stage a play that is not "inclusive" then there is nothing wrong with it. If they don't want to stage a play for whatever reason then that is fine as well. The conflict happens when people want to impose their will on others. i.e. if the someone wanted to stage the play but was a afraid of being attacked by mobs of zealots then that is a big problem. It is not clear why the decision was made at EMU.
"not all women have vaginas" and the push to redefine womanhood into something "inclusive" is an ideology being pushed by trans activists and academics. If you want to quibble over whether that's 'concerted' or not, you can go it alone.
This is not the first time **** Monologues has been canceled for this reason.
"Happy Holidays" originated a long time before the recent "persecuted Christians" meme.
Are you proposing a parallel between the "persecuted Christians" meme and my reaction to this incident?
Hey, there's millions of kids starving to death in Africa right now. How can we be talking about a few deaths at a synogogue when there's millions of kids starving to death in Africa?
If you only get to talk about academic issues when there's no pressing real-world problems to solve, one might as well shut down the entire field of liberal arts, because there's always a pressing real-world problem that needs solving. I'd think a guy who spent so much time studying Marshall McLuhan would appreciate this more than most. Hey, Mike, how can you be reading that stuff when there's kids starving in Africa?
You could post this topic to your facebook feed. You've mentioned that your facebook circle includes those people who are trans and gender-flexible and whatever else people are self-identifying as these days. Post this and see how people react.
And in this case the important issue that our attention is being drawn to is that talking about the physical experiences of women hurts the feelings of trans women?
Post by: the_squid on November 22, 2018, 02:49:14 pm
So you do think the cancellation is outlandish then?
The university is the one that cancelled the play. That's not an individual, but an institution of (supposed) higher learning.
It seems like the new goal is to eradicate every shred of the female experience from the word "woman" and replace it with a new definition based on an affinity for traditional gender roles and clothing and some ill-defined "feeling".
What do you mean by what i bolded? Did you mean a rejection of traditional gender roles and clothing, rather than "affinity"? Please clarify.
It's a concerted effort by certain feminists. The thing is, often when you create one thing, you destroy another in order to do so . This is basic physics. And sometimes, what you create has positives but what you destroy to create it has positives too, that are now lost.
These people are trying to do something genuinely good and have the best of intentions, which is to be inclusive and make trans women feel included because they're often not included, and are so often alienated from society in general, which is terrible.
But at the same time, they are denying non-trans women a space & platform to talk about their unique issues, that being having a **** and all that this comes with. I just don't think its practical or fair to deny a platform for an issue that effects 99% of women in order to make the less than 1% of women who don't have vaginas feel included. If we should only talk about issues that affects all members of a particular group, we'd never talk about anything.
Quote from: the_squid on November 22, 2018, 02:49:14 pm
The university is the one that cancelled the play.
The university - when you say it like that it seems like some monolithic entity controlled by an overlord. I guess if I want to apply to study at Eastern Michigan University then visit the Women's Resource Center there because obviously that is THE UNIVERSITY.
Society needs to accept that trans women are female in gender and are women but that they are a particular kind of woman, and that there's distinct biological differences between trans women and genetic women. We need to stop pretending that trans women and biological women are exactly the same in name of inclusivity. If trans women can't accept that, then they aren't being rational but delusional instead. There's a reason why we call a woman a woman & why we call a trans woman a trans woman: they aren't the same.
If on my dating profile i say i want to date a woman, you better not show up to the date with the jawline of Channing Tatum and get mad me when I end the date early by arguing "but I AM a real woman sir, you're transphobic!". No, if you're a trans woman you better have that fact in your dating profile, because yes there's a difference.
Does art exist to make people feel comfortable or included?
If art is expressing a view we don't share or sharing an experience that we haven't experienced ourselves, is that a bad thing?
Did they only make Mississippi Burning for people who lived in the Deep South during the Civil Rights era? Did people who didn't live there at the time feel hurt and excluded? Was Philadelphia only for people suffering from AIDS?
If we remove from art everything except that which makes people feel happy and comfortable and included, doesn't that just leave us with pablum? "Hang in there kitty" posters and shopping-mall artists who paint relaxing lakeside landscapes and stuff like that?
I have never seen or read "The **** Monologues". I understand it's a series of stories that talk about a wide variety of female experiences, from first menstruation to sex to giving birth to **** to sex work and others as well. Trans women might not have vaginas, but the overwhelming majority of women do, and sharing these thoughts and experiences was considered important and empowering for women. But apparently being important and empowering for women is trumped by the hurt feelings of a tiny minority who feel excluded.
People talking about the cancellation of this production at Eastern Michigan University and other venues have paid lip-service to its historical importance. It was important in its time, but we're working with a changing concept of what it means to be a woman, blah blah etc. But its time was just 20 years ago, and what it means to be a woman hasn't changed a whole lot since 1996.
Trans people say they identify with being a woman. But they're obviously not talking about physiology. So what are they actually identifying with? A socially-constructed concept of femininity... external presentation, traditional gender roles, "pink jobs" rather than "blue jobs", this sort of thing.
While women have been less constrained to girly clothes and girly toys and girly jobs than they used to be, trans women have jumped in and declared that this stuff-- girly clothes, girly toys, girly jobs-- this stuff is the real meaning of womanhood.
Sure, but they should not devote equal time nor volume to non-problems. We have mentally ill people being whipped up into violence against minority groups and politicians. I think that's a clear and growing danger.
It seems that people are upset about this even though it's not clear that there were mobs ready to attack.
'Concerted' means 'organized' and has an insidious implication that there is a manipulation at hand. You could, I suppose, argue that opposition and protests against Apartheid were concerted so it's not a bad word. But then why use it ?
I'm asking what the difference is. Are you upset that the definition of 'woman' is changing, or are you pushing against it because the extremists are trying to push crazy ideas there ?
More like: there's a PLAY BEING CANCELLED AT EMU ! WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT THIS.
It outrages you, and others it seems. No wonder it's in the news.
You're being played by FOX news, I fear. They seek out these outrage morsels to get buttons pushed.
Unless I'm mistaken, they don't have a regular "East Michigan theatre beat" reporter over there.
Post the EMU cancellation ? No chance. I'm sure I would be vilified for it.
I don't think that's clear. It could well be an individual, like an artistic director.
I first heard "you must destroy in order to create" in an interview with Johnny Rotten on The Great Rock N Roll Swindle. It made sense, but it referred to art not physics. So I guess I agree with it, in terms of philosophy and specifically public philosophy and the moral sphere. That's an art too.
I became more vocal/interested when I read a Toronto Police report that said 100% of trans women surveyed had been assaulted. Then I realized my trans friends were likely all victims of assault and abuse.
It probably isn't. But why are we - two Canadian males, far from "East Michigan" - talking about it ? We're not in the stakeholder group and have only been brought in because someone wanted to outrage people.
I'm pretty sure that the women of East Michigan didn't ask for me to come online and help support them.
So to be clear: I think the **** Monologues is great. I have seen it performed. I think women who are not trans have things to talk about and discuss, and can figure out how to engage with trans women in those spheres. I doubt that there's any good reason for cancelling a whole play to spare the feelings of the trans women of East Michigan. I think the real purpose of publicizing these things is to create a narrative of trans conspiracy of sorts.
Sounds reasonable, and I'm pretty sure they will figure this out and I will have no input to that discussion or maybe no use for the outcome either.
There's an episode of Louis CK's "Horace and Pete" where he has all-night sex with a hottie and she jokes to him in the morning that he used to be a man. It's a weird idea but an interesting one.
Aaaand... I just checked. I can still tell trans women from non-trans from photos. There's just something extra in the feminine aspect.
People feeling 'excluded' isn't a problem, of course not. People telling others who they are, that might be a problem.
Sure, but for themselves. It's only possible after 3rd wave feminism, I think, wherein any depiction, dress, uniform, what have you is an expression of the wearer's freedom.
Personally I can't wait until this stuff hits the bank. I will be in my mid-60s and I'm pretty sure they'll be surprised at my reaction when I welcome it with open arms.
Your reaction seems to indicate that you don't feel I should be outraged and that you don't think people need to talk about this.
If something is going on but people aren't supposed to talk about it, isn't that kind of troubling?
Yes, there's some amusing irony that these conservative-leaning news outlets like Townhall have been the ones publicizing this incident.
Conservatives have always thought The **** Monologues was pornographic trash promoting immoral sexual ideas that ought to be banned. Conservatives used to be the ones protesting **** Monologues, and even got it cancelled once upon a time. But now that it gives them a venue to attack "the trans agenda", they love "Monologues" and they love gender-critical feminists like Megan Murphy.
It's kind of like how conservative Christians realized that they actually care very deeply about gay people, once it gave them an excuse to blast the Islams for homophobia.
Still, regardless of why it's in the news, this is a real incident, which really happened. Similar things have happened elsewhere. Your view seems to be that the problem isn't that it's happening, but rather that people are talking about it.
You're not allowed to question the hive mind?
Sure, but for themselves.
No, not just for themselves. This EMU episode illustrates the point. Their quest to remove any biological factors from the definition of "women" means cancelling "The **** Monologues".
Things like menstruation, contraception, reproductive care, these are no longer "women's issues", these are now "bleeder issues". Menstruation isn't a women's experience anymore, it's for "bleeders" and "roasties".
It's only possible after 3rd wave feminism, I think, wherein any depiction, dress, uniform, what have you is an expression of the wearer's freedom.
"Middle Age Man Welcomes New Definition Of Womanhood". That's real magnanimous of you, Michael.
Are you upset that the definition of 'woman' is changing, or are you pushing against it because the extremists are trying to push crazy ideas there ?
The idea the definition of a woman is changing is a crazy idea pushed by extremists.
No one with a **** is a woman. End of story.
I know the progressives will get all bug eyed with outrage over that but almost everyone else would agree.
I think we all understand who is having the "bug eyed rage".
You can feel it, but you are being played is all.
Yes, that.
Sure, go ahead. It's not a significant event, though. It's playing because of the reaction...
They won't be expecting it, that's for sure.
...aaand new start of story: many people accept that women have penises.... end of story.
I couldn't find a poll. Let me know if you have one that supports this.
Many people think the world was created in 7 days 6000 years ago. What is your point? That everyone has to believe in a falsehood because some people do?
I think the real conflict here is not that some people think that transgender are women. But that people that disagree are threatened with legal reprisals. The freedom to believe your neighbor's religion is a pile a crap is a fundamental right. It makes no difference if the religion is based on a old book or new cult.
Define 'many'.
You're talking about something like half a percent of the population who are, to some extent, transgendered. And of those, the majority aren't interested in getting in everyone's faces. Ie., they're not interested in stripping naked in a woman's shower room, for example, and would probably understand how a 'woman with a ****' ought to not be sent to a womens prison. So what we're really talking about is probably an eighth of a percent or less of people. And we're supposed to change society to accommodate them?
I have not found anyone who agrees with that. Not even the guy I almost came to blows with over raising minimum wage and whether Tim Horon's employees "deserve" a decent living wage.
There'll be quite a few on those nights when drinks are half off.
Quote from: Omni on November 23, 2018, 12:12:48 pm
It's me. Let there be no confusion as to that. I am god-damned livid.
I don't care why it's in the news, the fact that it happened is rage-inducing.
You say it's not a significant event. You've dismissed it as one decision made by one women's department at one university.
And then you told me you wouldn't dare post this to your Facebook feed because you'd be "vilified" for it. It sounds to me like your Facebook friends have all made up their minds and would be angry at you for questioning this.
If that's the case, then this Eastern Michigan University decision isn't actually an outlier at all. It's an indicator, a sign-post of what you earlier referred to as "an emerging consensus". Somewhere along the way, this debate already decided before I even knew it was happening.
Because these things won't stay in east michigan.
It's only an 'emerging consensus' among the more precious and self-congratulatory members of the progressive Left.
My point is that you can't state your opinion, then 'end of story' and expect that to be a point. And yet you questioned me and not SJ. Ok then.
I think it's ok to have legally mandated morality. There are lots of examples of this, and I'm sure you're in favour of some also.
More than a few dozen ? I already said (I think) that I can't find any polls but I found polls that accept transgender rights as a large minority or majority.
So what we're really talking about is probably an eighth of a percent or less of people. And we're supposed to change society to accommodate them?
I'm not saying that.
Apparently you are still confused as to the difference between sex and gender. There are women with penises.
The legally mandated morally should be the bare minimum. When you get into a questions ideology rather than fact like this 'transgender are the same as biological women' nonsense then a free society must respect the right to disagree.
For example, I doubt you would be so sanguine about 'legally mandated morality' that prohibited abortion which would be a plausible outcome in the southern us. It is incredibly naive to assume that you would agree with any state mandated morality that might appear in the future. Protecting the right to disagree is about protecting your own right to disagree should society evolve in way you don't like.
Except that actual science shows that what you quote and call nonsense is actually verifiable. Agasin, there can be a difference betweeen sex and gender.
Except that actual science shows that what you quote and call nonsense is actually verifiable.
There is no science that shows that a biological man is the same as biological woman just because he believes he is a woman. Lots of people have mental health issues and do not expect the rest of society to validate their delusions.
Well yes there is actually. Being born with a certain genitalia does not dictate what goes on in your brain. And such things as hormones have been shown to be influenced by what goes on in your brain more than how you pee.
I do have a solution to the issue of transgender females being allowed to compete against women. Base sports on chromosomes, not "men's sports"and women's sports". Since "men" and "women" seem to now be a social or psychological construct that can mean anything to anyone.
XX sports and XY sports.
This would stop the farce of that "women's" bicycle race that was won by someone with different chromosomes to all the other competitors.
You seem to think that you get to decide want defines gender. For many people biology is what matters and they could not care less about what people "feel". It is not a big deal if someone wants to wear women's clothing and change their name. Live and let live after all. It only becomes an issue when these people insist on pushing their ideology driven concepts on others by demanding that others pretend they are women too.
Yes? And defined how? I bet it wasn't defined as "trangender women with penises get to go into female shower rooms and get sent to female prisons and can beat up lesbians if they won't sleep with them."
You're certainly pushing back against anyone who says otherwise.
Nope. If they want to be a woman they can have it cut off. Otherwise they're male.
Any discussion of transgender has to has to separate the tiny percentage of people who are biologically ambiguous from those who are biologically unambiguous and just "feel" they are different gender. Simple chromosome tests don't work for the biologically ambiguous. Apparently there are additional mutations such as XXXY or XXYY.
You seem to think that you get to decide want defines gender. For many people biology is what matters and they could not care less about what people "feel". It is not a big deal if someone wants to where women's clothing and change their name. Live and let live after all. It only becomes an issue when these people insist on pushing their ideology driven concepts on others by demanding that other pretend they are women too.
No I don't get to decide that. Nor do I want to. But biology does, and it has been shown that people's biology can deviate away from the original based on how they evolve.
Ah that's funny. But what if they don't want to have it cut off?
I mean that if you were assigned at birth with let's sat a ****, it does not mean that your are therefore assigned forever to be a male. If you choose to reassign yourself your biology has been shown to follow, whether or not you cut your **** off as argus suggests.
I believe there's a difference between gender and sex, as most do. I believe gender can be fluid and socially constructed, but that sex isn't and is quite static.
There's provinces in this country where you can get the sex designation on your birth certificate changed from male to female and vice versa, which is categorically insane. There's provinces in this country where you can get an official sex change certificate after surgery because somehow some people think that by cutting off your **** etc. that then makes your sex female, which is categorically insane.
Let's support people expressing themselves however they want, but let's not enable delusion based on wishful thinking.
Why wouldn't they? Women don't have penises. They want to be a woman then they shouldn't want a ****.
Well it's not "categorically insane" if you dig into the biology. And it's not delusion but based on preference.
Not a lot of women do, that's true. But those that do maybe don't want pieces cut from their bodies.
They want to be a woman then they shouldn't want a ****.
More of that live and let live we all love from conservatives...
"Hey you: CUT OFF YOUR DICK !" :D
I don't imagine you are a participant in a lot of public change rooms any more, but if you were, would you be focused on everybody's genitals so as to make sure they all resembled yours? And if they didn't what would you do?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on November 25, 2018, 06:42:02 am
You can change your gender expression, you can change the outward appearance of your body & some secondary sex characteristics through surgery & other methods, but you can't change your biological sex by choice, your genes & chromosomes aren't subject to preference.. Just like you can't change your race by painting your skin black or bleaching it whiter.
I'm not saying we're "supposed to change", necessarily. I'm pushing back against statements like this:
"No one with a **** is a woman. End of story. "
You can't take a hard line, then accuse me of taking a hard line (ie. we're SUPPOSED to change) when I push back against your hard line. Everybody settle down and this stuff can mostly be worked through pretty straightforward.
More like the sanity your side lacks.
And your complaint is irrational given that I'm perfectly willing to 'live and let live'. You can call yourself a girl if you want to. I really don't care. Don't demand I recognize you as one while you're waving your **** about, and showing us your manly physique, though.
I'm fairly sure if I was in a public change room and one of the guys had a **** I'd have taken notice.
You can call yourself what you like. But demanding I recognize you as something you categorically are not is just not going to fly with me.
There was an incident a couple of years back with Benjamin Shapiro on some talk show or other where he reiterated his belief that men were men and women were women. He was sat next to a transgender "woman" who was a former soldier. The first thing this 'woman' did when Shapiro calmly said he didn't recognize him as a her was to grab him by the neck and threaten to beat him up. The 'woman' being considerably larger and stronger than the diminutive Shapiro this was a pretty blatant example that HE was most definitely not a SHE.
Ffft... Your side killed 6 million jews, then; if you are allowed to put me with someone at your whim, then so am I.
And your complaint is irrational given that I'm perfectly willing to 'live and let live'. You can call yourself a girl if you want to. I really don't care.
As long as you get your **** removed.
Anyway, your position is more centrist than your tough words attempt to show.
"not going to fly with me" is fine. I can get behind you expressing your perspective, but when you ambiguously declare universal truth then you will invite a response and a push back.
My declaration of universal truth arises from an interesting series of consultations with a varied group of citizenry. Most were willing to 'live and let live' as you say, but all drew a very heavy and thick line at the thought of girls with penises going to womens prisons or taking showers with girls without penises or playing on the sports teams of girls without penises. The universal declaration of such ideas was 'that's insane'.
Your buddies making an assertion doesn't constitute universal truth.
You seem to be confused as to why I push back on certain things and not others. You just need to be very clear and specific with your assertions. If you disagree then that's your right, but don't try to say people are imposing things on you when that is what you are doing.
I would like to have a dialogue around accommodation then move forward with a practical solution that accommodates rights and social cohesion.
Well, mostly they just thought the whole thing idiotic. The people really frosted about it were their wives.
If you disagree then that's your right, but don't try to say people are imposing things on you when that is what you are doing.
I am not imposing gender on anyone. Nature did that. But demanding I accept that a woman is a man or a man is woman is imposing illogical on me.
None of this directly impacts me. So I would suggest you reach accommodation with Kimmy.
The other day Algonquin college proudly announced they would henceforth reserve 30% of the spaces in various tech courses for women. Only after 30% of the spaces were taken would women be required to compete with men for remaining spaces (currently it's at 10%). The thought occurs to me how a preciously politically correct diversity team would greet men suddenly discovering their feminine gender, and demanding to be taken into those reserved spaces since they now identify as women.
Denying the gender choice of a person who calls themselves a woman is now reaching the same levels of blaspheme and anathema as suggesting someone be hired out of merit, so I can't imagine them doing so very easily. On the other hand, if men can simply call themselves women and be accepted into these reserved seats it pretty much makes a mockery of their whole idiotic affirmative action program.
I am not imposing gender on anyone.
Sure sounds like it: "No one with a **** is a woman. End of story. "
Nature did that. But demanding I accept that a woman is a man or a man is woman is imposing illogical on me.
Well, if I had the same stance as you, I would not be trying to discuss this with you. Rather I would be saying "anyone can be a women, disagree if you want and I will be glad when they send you to jail for doing so".
Exactly. And your entitlement and privilege ensures that you will bellow about this topic and assert yourself.
Here's what you don't realize: Liberals are actually your allies in this discussion, as they will defend your right to dissent, as I do. You are so entitled, though, that you can't see the difference and group me with the most extreme radicals.
I am starting to call this "a war footing" and it's not going to end well for either side, but especially yours.
Post by: Omni on November 25, 2018, 11:46:58 am
You failed to finish answering the question: what would you do about those dissimilar genitalia?
The other day Algonquin college proudly announced they would henceforth reserve 30% of the spaces in various tech courses for women.
Well, I think that's actually ridiculous but I am not goign to bother to speak up against it since you are unwilling to compromise anyway, as evidenced in your constant "my way or the highway approach".
They will eventually increase the quote to 50% and 60%. You will expect a huge uprising but there won't be one because your type will be vilified for their inflexibility, as well as their gender and skin colour.
Post by: guest4 on November 25, 2018, 12:58:35 pm
The 'woman' being considerably larger and stronger than the diminutive Shapiro this was a pretty blatant example that HE was most definitely not a SHE.
Really? The implication here is that no woman can be larger and stronger, and more violently inclined than a diminutive male. Does being larger, stronger and violent = being male, then?
The person in question proved nothing about her gender; she only proved that she is, perhaps, a little too prone to violence.
since you are unwilling to compromise anyway, as evidenced in your constant "my way or the highway approach".
You finally noticed.
That just isn't true. There's a reason why the trans people who do want to physically transition (which is a minority of them, I have heard) use a regimen of hormone injections and hormone inhibitors. Your body's various glands don't just start producing different hormones than the ones they are built to produce. Your testicles aren't going to stop producing testosterone and start producing estrogen just because you wish they would.
Women also produce testosterone and evidence shows that the production of it can be influenced simply by her sexual preference. Research has shown that the hard line between genders isn't always as hard as we thought it was.
Yes, the devil is in the details.
I think all of us support the idea that trans people should be allowed to dress as they wish, and live free from threat of violence, and not be fired from their jobs for being trans, and generally be treated with the same dignity as any other human being. The live and let live thing. I think those ideas would be supported by a majority in a poll.
I think most of us probably support them using the washroom of their chosen gender, and the pronouns, and so on. Probably still broadly supported.
But from there, I think things get a lot less clear. I'm skeptical that a broad portion of the public supports male-bodied individuals competing in women's sports. I'm skeptical that a broad portion of the public supports male-bodied individuals sharing the showers and locker rooms with women.
And I'm very doubtful that that the public supports male inmates deciding that they're women so that they can share cells with female inmates. Or relegating female art and writing to the dustbin of history if it doesn't support this new notion that talking about women's anatomic reality is "exclusive" and "hurtful" to trans people.
There might be some general level of support for trans people being allowed to live as they wish, but I don't think people should assume that this general sort of support means the public supports every radical idea that trans rights activists come up with.
I'm highly skeptical that if this is true at all, that the hormonal change is anything more than miniscule. I'm highly skeptical of the research methodology. How could they possibly construct a controlled experiment to determine that? Did they measure some woman's testosterone level, tell her to become gay, and recheck it? That's not how any of this works. I think you're peddling a myth here.
I have never heard of someone's biological sex changing in response to their gender identification. As I said, there's a reason they need to use hormone injections and hormone inhibitors when they're transistioning.
Excuse me for having a basic familiarity with anatomy and biology.
You think the 2% of fanatics on the far left should be able to impose their brainless fad beliefs on the rest of society by force?
My entitlement and privilege? I tend to discount the IQ of people who use those terms by about 50%
It seems to me you believe people should certainly have their say, and then shut up and do as you tell them to.
Because my side only has 90% of the population on it but yours has brave, fanatical progressives?
And then we will have more Donald Trumps. Only worse.
Hormone tampering can certainly augment transitioning but it also appears to happen naturally based simply on ones desire.
No. I already said that I support your right to dissent. But 'support' is a verb. What you don't get is that you will need people to speak out for people like you more and more often. Given your self-righteousness, I'm less inclined to help you.
Your side will be in the minority in a few years, and will need liberals to support you.
And what is going to make 'my side' a minority? The hundreds of thousands of extremely religious Muslims your side is bringing into Canada? You think those are the people who are eagerly going to support womens rights, never mind gay rights, never mind absurdist fiction about men in dresses being women? You think the huge number of Asians coming in is any more thrilled by the lunacy of the far left's extremist social views? The mainland Chinese coming in now are extremely conservative, if not very religious. They're not going to endorse any of this ****. The Filipinos are very Catholic. They're not going to endorse it either. Indians tend to be very conservative about sex, too.
Generally speaking 'my side' is mostly concerned about fiscal responsibility and reasonably sane social policy. Your side is obsessed with every little faddish bit of identity politics, elevating it to a breathtaking level of importance which eclipses all other everyday concerns. I think it was Douglas Murray who remarked at one point that western governments will be fixated on the shrill complaints of sanctimonious progressives when the Russians roll across Europe.
\ I already said that I support your right to dissent.
His right to dissent includes the right to day that transgender are not women without being threatened with human rights actions or any form of mob actions that are completely disproportionate and designed to suppress dissent rather than simply express a counter opinion.
And what is going to make 'my side' a minority?
Really only a few ticks of the clock.
You put me on a side that I'm not on. I'm actually a liberal, which crosses over a lot of lines you have written here.
Sounds like your side have the same narrow mindedness, especially on this issue, as all those migrant hordes you are always in a panic about. The fact is trans gender has been around for a long long time and it will exist for a long long time.
Not a bad idea.
We could also simply base "male" sports and "female" sports on biological sex, as it has always been, rather than anything to do with gender expression, which is completely subjective & fluid. That would also stop the farce of the biological male winning a women's bike race. To bring in your idea, we can define a "man" in sports as XY and a woman as "XX". ie: If you are XY you can't compete in women's categories.
A discussion on the issue with a neuroscientist.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/scientist-refutes-notion-that-gender-identity-is-an-unscientific-liberal-ideology-1.4916508
CBC letting a scientist/activist make claims without being challenged or questioned about the reliability/credibility of the underlying science does not count as a refutation of anything. At best is was a sermon from the church of SJW. If the CBC actually wanted to do something other than spread propaganda it would interview a multiple scientists with different opinions so listeners could make up their own mind on who has the most credible scientific argument.
Do a little research. There is ample science that indicates that things aren't as black and white, (or male/female) as we may have thought.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hormones-and-the-brain/201608/gender-identity-is-in-the-brain-what-does-tell-us
Also - we tried science with the much more impactful issue of climate and people opted out. It's about the "feels" now, so the neo-cons who undermined it are barred from using it in this subject.
This means you.
Nothing in either of those articles actually supports the ridiculous notion that deciding you're trans will cause your hormones to change your body to reflect your gender preference.
Correct. Nobody suggested the ridiculous notion that your choice to change gender would cause your **** to fall off.
Liberals are on the same side as Progressives. There is no airpsace between the position of Justin Trudeau and the transactivists and their progressive allies.
It seems to me that what some of us denied wasn't so much science as basic arithmetic. Because we can count.
I think an opinion piece I read in the Sun put it best.
We hear the Liberal fable practically every day from Environment Minister Catherine McKenna, in the claim the Liberals' carbon tax/plan will work and that it would matter if it did.
No credible body — not the federal environmental commissioner, not nine of 10 provincial auditors general, not the United Nations, not the federal government's own studies — endorses the view Canada is going to meet the greenhouse gas reduction targets Prime Minister Justin Trudeau agreed to in the Paris accord in 2015.
Not for 2020 — which has already been abandoned as unrealistic — and not for 2030.
We're not going to miss our targets by a little. We're going to miss them by a country mile, particularly under the latest UN targets, which are far more stringent than the already unattainable ones Trudeau agreed to in 2015, which used to be the Harper government's targets.
Even if we miraculously hit our unattainable targets, our contribution is insignificant given that we're responsible for 1.6% of industrial greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change.
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-federal-liberal-and-tory-climate-plans-are-fantasy
So I don't oppose the Liberal plan because I deny climate science, I oppose it because it's incredibly stupid and pointless and won't work.
Same reason I oppose this trans ****, beyond the respect we'd give anyone to live their own life as they choose without harassment. But stupid ass ideas like letting men who claim to be women compete in sports events against women, or letting them force their way into womens or little girls showers or into womens prisons is moronic idiocy.
I didn't say Liberal, I said liberal. Your understanding of these things is low. You actually believe the Liberals are 'left'. Too bad.
So the Liberals aren't as "left" as some say then.
I get that that is your point of view. I myself don't care what happens with rulings on womens' sports, specifically. I really don't.
Meghan Murphy now banned from Twitter.
https://heavy.com/news/2018/11/meghan-murphy/
Considering that Twitter continually turns a blind eye to threats of **** and violence and all manner of hate speech, banning someone for writing "Men are not women" is pretty extraordinary.
The "Gendertrender" page has been banned from Wordpress as well. The trans activists are handily winning the censorship battle.
The trans activists are handily winning the censorship battle.
Guys - let me know if you need the liberals to help you out, k ?
Things become "truth" much easier when you're censored and socially vilified for daring even questioning the possibility of it being incorrect. Imagine us having this same convo on Facebook, we'd be unfriended by a bunch of our friends or at least labeled transphobic assholes or something, even if they simply thought it to themselves. **** the world. This is why I support people having the right to talk about holocaust denial etc., as long as nobody is threatening anyone with violence or harassing them I support free speech & generally think hate speech laws are **** because it can be used by human rights tribunals etc as thought policing. Who determines what is hate vs just controversial? The **** PC Popo Police that's who.
"Murphy, a native of Vancouver, earned her BA in women's studies at Simon Fraser University. She earned an MA in Gender, Sexuality, and Women's Studies at the same university."
WHAT THE BLOODY FUUUCK!?!?
Man i'm tired of being politically correct (yes i actually hold myself back a lot GASP), **** everybody.
**** the system, **** the world, **** society. I'm going to go live in the woods.
Lol! You'll sit quietly and watch, because your woke friends will yell at you if you question it.
I've been reading a feminist message board at Reddit that has a thread where women talk about the point where they realized the trans movement has "jumped the shark". One woman's story:
My 7 year old nephew is very adorable and I love him like he is my own son, so I am very protective of what people say to him or about him. My sister is pretty liberal and decided years ago that she would not enforce gender roles on him. She isn't against stereotypical gender roles, she just doesn't want to force them on him and instead wants him to do whatever makes him happy and grow up as a person with as little outside influence as possible.
He is actually a pretty stereotypical boy in most aspects (loves cars, wrestling, video games, legos, getting dirty, etc), but he does have a few traits that are not typical. His favorite color is pink and purple, he loves dolls, and he likes girly shows (like Sailor Moon and My Little Pony).
Over the last year I've had moments of peak trans but not quite fully there yet. Cause every time any of my liberal friends sees him acting "girly" in any way, they always say the same thing: "Oh MY GOD! That is SO cute how he likes girly things! Maybe he's trans?"
No damn it! He's just a kid that does what he likes and doesn't give a **** if it's "girly" or not. What kills me is how my liberal friends say this **** as if they're being oh so progressive, but all they're really doing is forcing my nephew into a gendered box. Every time me or my sister try to (politely) tell these people that he isn't trans, he's just a kid, they almost always shoot back "But he COULD be trans! What if he is?" Okay? There's no indication that he is trans though. Him playing with dolls or watching Sailor Moon says doesn't prove anything other than he likes dolls and Sailor Moon.
What made me hit peak trans last week was a fall out with a lesbian friend, let's call her Tammy. She's dating a "non-binary" woman and ever since she started dating her she has become insufferable. I've mostly ignored her dumb facebook posts (especially the ones about it being transphobic to not date trans women) but last week she commented on a post I made. I had a picture of my nephew playing with a Sailor Moon wand and the response was over all positive, just commenting how cute he was. Then of course 2 people had to comment that he might be either gay or trans. I politely told them that he was just a 7 year old little kid that had no concept of gender identity, and he was just playing with toys.
Tammy steps in and implies that I shouldn't get upset over people saying my nephew might be trans. I tell her (again, politely as can be) that I do have a problem with people suggesting it, because I don't want him to ever feel like he can only like Sailor Moon if he's gay or trans. I tell her I have no problem with trans people and if my nephew ever came out as trans I would still love him and respect him, but I don't want him to feel pressured into being something he isn't. Why do we have to make it such a big deal? Why can't we just let him play with his damn toys and not act like he's doing something weird or unique just because people think they're meant for girls only?
Tammy goes into a rant: "no one chooses to be trans! You can't be pressured into it! Being trans is dangerous and torturous" blah blah blah. I told her, "you believe that kids are pressured into being straight due to the way society tells them to hate gay/lesbian people right?", she agrees that society does have a hand in shaping how people grow up with homophobia. I then tell her "okay, if you believe that, then why is it hard to believe that kids can be pressured into thinking they're trans when they aren't?". Oh boy, that really pissed her off. She again said that it's different and that no one would choose to be trans and that I'm only worrying about my nephew learning about trans people because I don't like trans people. WHAT?!
Keep in mind, my nephew has an out and obvious transgender day care worker, so obviously my sister doesn't give a **** if he knows about trans people. The thing that me and my sister don't like is suggesting that you are trans if you like Sailor Moon. Two of Tammy's trans friends some how saw the conversation and joined in. I eventually blocked all three of them and deleted all their comments.
**** her and **** this ****. I don't hate trans people, but I hate these insane ideas that have been picking up steam and spreading like a virus.
I spent as much time as possible with my dad when I was a kid. Watching sports on TV, fixing stuff around the house, working on the car, whatever. I'm so grateful that this kind of stuff wasn't going on back then, because I can only imagine what kind of damage well-meaning idiots might have done to my psyche and my body.
Post by: the_squid on November 26, 2018, 12:07:09 am
You didn't provide a cite for your assertion. You've cited 2 articles that have nothing to do with your assertion.
You think Kimmy is conservative? ::)
Quote from: the_squid on November 26, 2018, 12:07:09 am
Well it was spoken about quite clearly in the discussion article but here's another one for you.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-new-science-of-sex-and-gender/
Here is your assertion:
Your latest article says nothing to support this. Try again? ::)
Here is your assertion.
It's not my assertion, it is one that scientific research is showing that what you are born with between your legs does not in all cases dictate how you must conduct your life. I have never had to deal with such a conundrum, but I am understanding how it can be a valid one to some.
Quote from: Omni on November 26, 2018, 01:25:48 am
No, now you're pretending that you didn't actually say what you said. Provide a cite for your hormones changing based on desire remark.
Try listening to the interview again. She distinctly mentions that there is evidence to show gender preference may influence how hormones react. I remind you that I'm not the biological scientist here, so I have to sit up and take notice to what their research has revealed.
Cite the research then. "Someone said something" is not research.
Here's what the article actually says:
Van Anders led a recent study looking at the relationship between the "masculine" hormone testosterone and behaviours such as competition and aggression.
She found that the act of engaging in these behaviours was enough to increase testosterone in both men and women — meaning the behaviour was affecting hormones, instead of the other way around.
"So we know that living life as women or men, or as non-binary people, and the gender norms that that involves, can actually influence the ways our hormones act."
She's making one extremely dubious assumption here, and I've bolded it so that even the truly dense can spot it.
If her research indicates that aggressive behavior triggers increased levels of testosterone production, ok. That's plausible.
Where this jumps the shark is the notion that living as a man in our society involves high levels of aggression and competitiveness, while living as a woman is a peaceful tranquil existence free from such mannishness.
Maybe at some points in human history, when a male life meant being a hunter/warrior and a female life meant nurturing children and gathering fruit and seeds, that would be the case. But in our society "the gender norms that involves" don't really differ that much from each other. The idea that a "typical male job" like solving problems at a computer is more aggressive than a "typical female job" like doing invoices at a computer doesn't add up. I'd also suggest that if trans peoples' lives are as stressful and full of confrontation as we're told, it's quite possible that their typical day involves higher-than-average amounts of these "mannish" emotions that apparently cause increases in testosterone production.
But from there, I think things get a lot less clear.
You have articulated a general mapping of rights and accommodations which is exactly how a productive discussion starts. To me, these boards are about exploring what is possible and how we can 'get along'.
Those who say "this is how it is, deal with it" effectively burn up my goodwill in accommodating their side of the discussion.
Fair jab, but no.
Both of us have traits of both, I would say.
Triggered snowflake.
I assumed that you were poking fun at me for some reason or another. But seriously, though, isn't what I said the truth? How would the mushy middle-ground make their voices heard in this fracas?
If you believe the Liberals are right then you are so far left that your claim to being in the middle is laughable.
So far it's by smiling and nodding agreement at anything transactivists say or do, and at their progressive idiot allies screaming abuse at anyone who questions the sanctity of transactivist demands, and scowling and chiding anyone who disagrees. Also, if progressives want laws banning anyone questioning gender roles liberals will nod judicially and vote for that. You think Trudeau would have a problem with such laws? You think the people at Twitter who banned Megan Murphy are conservatives?
Post by: waldo on November 26, 2018, 12:53:15 pm
You think the people at Twitter who banned Megan Murphy are conservatives?
Argus, good on ya for whiteknightin' Ms. Murphy... JT's helped to unleash your inner-feminist! Good on ya!
Quote from: waldo on November 26, 2018, 12:53:15 pm
Oh God, it's Waldo, waddling in to look for more ways to insult people. ::)
Oh but he does so much more intelligently than you.
Waldo is just your more flatulent counterpart.
I didn't say that.
The mushies have a lot of power.
I'm not feeling that powerful right now.
The banning of Meghan Murphy from Twitter and Gendertrender from WordPress both relate to current events in Vancouver.
An anonymous Vancouver trans woman (or, allegedly trans, at least) with the initials JY has filed BC Human Rights complaints against 16 Vancouver area aestheticians who refused to wax her lady-testicles. There are Vancouver businesses that will happily perform a "Bro-Zillian" wax on male customers, but JY specifically sought out independent aestheticians who stated "women only" in their advertisements. One tends to suspect that JY was more interested in filing Human Rights complaints than in actually getting her balls waxed.
Lawyer John Carpay represented one of these women pro-bono. If the name John Carpay rights a bell, it's probably because he was in hot water earlier this month after comparing the gay rights rainbow flag to the banners of the Nazis or the communists. Carpay runs the "Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms", which I suspect is a pro-Jesus anti-gay think-tank. Carpay wrote this piece for the "Post-Millennial", (https://www.thepostmillennial.com/carpay-16-vancouver-women-facing-human-rights-complaints-for-refusing-to-wax-transgender-womans-male-genitalia/)which provides some further information about JY and the nature of the complaints against these aestheticians. I have a hunch that the "Post-Millennial" is a right-wing website of some kind. I really don't know.
The Justice Centre has been connected with only two of the 16 women, and has provided legal representation to both, without charge.
One of them, Shelah Poyer, is a single mom who works out of her home. JY was willing to withdraw his complaint in exchange for $2,500.
If JY is demanding similar sums from the other 14 women, he stands to receive as much as $35,000 for dropping his human rights complaints.
For the women without legal representation, the temptation to settle is very strong.
Fighting JY's discrimination complaint all the way through to a hearing would cost each esthetician $20,000 or $30,000 or more.
Further, those facing a complaint of "gender identity" discrimination may find it extremely difficult to obtain legal representation.
One of the women represented by the Justice Centre had approached, and had been turned down by 26 different lawyers and law firms. All of which cited lack of expertise in human rights proceedings, or fear of offending the transgender lobby, or both.
So how do Meghan Murphy and Gendertrender fit into this? Gendertrender wrote a column about the situation that mentioned JY by name, and JY filed a complaint. Someone asked Meghan Murphy if the JY in the HRC complaints was so-and-so, and she replied "yes, it's him." And now they're both gone.
JY's identity is no secret. And, as the John Carpay column explains, the tribunal's order of anonymity is bogus anyway. It's not like JY would be harmed by being "outed", because she refers to herself in female pronouns on her website. (even though she also refers to herself by her masculine first name throughout her website... "Matthew started her first business in 1997..." and so on.) JY is "out", although it seems as though she only actually uses her female name and gender when she goes to the ladies gym. Regardless, that she identifies as trans is public information.
Nonetheless, Gendertrender and Meghan Murphy have apparently received permanent bans for maliciously "outing" someone who is already "out".
JY is furiously filing all kinds of other complaints as well, to have damaging information removed from all over the internet. JY has a very large digital footprint, and screenshots of her social network activity paint a very unflattering picture. From complaining that when he goes in the locker room he never sees **** and **** to asking creepy questions about how to approach adolescent girls to talk about tampons, this is a disturbing individual. I've viewed a lot of these screenshots myself, and there is no doubt in my mind that JY is just a creepy incel who has decided to call himself transgender in an effort to force himself into womens' safe spaces, and to get female aestheticians to handle his dick.
edit to add: Statement from the (former) operator of Gendertrender (https://4thwavenow.com/2018/11/17/wordpress-dumps-gendertrender-gallus-mag-responds/).
Some notes:
The 'system' doesn't guarantee that good people win. It consists of a set of rules that are played for various purposes. Overall, it works but there are lots of things that don't make sense along the way.
As such, the people who outed the person in question broke rules and what happened happened. JY can 'game' the system to get their way, also.
I agree that the system has power over us, but keep in mind that nothing here has been decided yet.
Overall, it works but there are lots of things that don't make sense along the way.
Says who? The HRC is an unaccountable Kangaroo court that only benefits scammers who exploit it. Its basic operating rules need to overhauled and it needs to be written into its mandate that is cannot automatically assume that a complainant are sincere and the real victim may be the accused and that the HRC is only allowed to consider the intent of the accused (i.e. it makes no difference is the complainant "felt" like they were discriminated against. The only thing that matters is if it can be shown, on the balance of probabilities, that the accused intended to discriminate).
Some notes of my own:
"The mushies" are nowhere in sight. The only people talking about this are radical feminists, some far-right websites, and a lawyer who compared the rainbow flag to the swastika and the hammer and sickle. Not a peep from any mainstream news source or commentator or platform about any of this.
The far right and the Jesus lawyer and so-on aren't in this because they love feminists. They're in this because they hate trans people even more than they hate feminists. I don't like that this situation has put me in the position of cheering for a lawyer who compared the gay rights movement to fascists. I don't like that this situation has me scouring right-wing websites for information. I'm sure that Meghan Murphy hates that she has become the latest darling of the alt-right, just as Lindsay Shepherd did earlier.
The claim that the one woman was turned down by 26 lawyers before "Justice Center for Constitutional Freedom" took on her case is troubling. Even murderers and rapists and child molesters deserve a legal defense in court, but apparently accused transphobes don't.
The Human Rights complaint process seems terribly tilted.
This "JY" person has provided a sterling example of why many of us are mistrustful of the "identity on demand" mantra favored by the trans rights movement. It's tailor made to be abused by creeps and predators.
Says who? The HRC is a...
I was talking about THE system, not any particular subsystem.
You speak as if the system is flawless. It's clearly broken if the idiot who wants his balls shaved can use it to their benefit.
You speak as if the system is flawless.
Let me requote myself:
Why should the mushies care though ?
You've expressed the view that the moderates, "the silent majority", are counted, and that "the mushies have a lot of power". But if the mushies just don't give a ****, that really doesn't matter. If it was just an ivory tower debate between two opposing groups of extremists then maybe the mushies don't care. But they should, because this isn't staying in the ivory tower. This is entering the real world through laws and policies.
The mushies might not care right now, but they will. Sooner or later these changes will start impacting real people in greater numbers.
People who might not care right now will care a lot when their daughter goes off to college and is assigned to share a dorm room with some dude who decided to check the "female" box on his residency application. Or when their sister gets sued for not wanting to handle someone's "lady ****" at the salon. Or when they go to the gym and Wax My Lady Balls Guy is wandering around the locker room looking for **** and ****.
If the mushies don't care yet, they'll find out they care later. And the pendulum will swing back the other way.
You've expressed the view that the moderates, "the silent majority", are counted, and that "the mushies have a lot of power".
Yes they are and they do.
But if the mushies just don't give a ****, that really doesn't matter. If it was just an ivory tower debate between two opposing groups of extremists then maybe the mushies don't care. But they should, because this isn't staying in the ivory tower. This is entering the real world through laws and policies.
But on what scale ? An individual pervert gaming the system isn't something the system isn't set up to prevent - at least not every time.
I'm not sure that's true. Why do you think that ?
But, why do you think a problem like that wouldn't be addressed if it grew to a common scale ? Remember that same-sex marriage was simply not allowed, for no legal reason, effectively because less than 50% of Canadians didn't like the idea. How does that get flipped around into your nightmare scenarios ?
Of course, I am assuming that people will say something at some point, and that there will be a pushback.
Yes, exactly. I wouldn't resent your alarm at this one case but I myself am not alarmed yet; just not sure that it's time to get upset.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/11/26/mom-dresses-six-year-old-son-girl-threatens-dad-losing-son-disagreeing/
When James is away from his mother, he consistently rejects the idea that he is "Luna girl" or that he wants to be a girl. Because the court prohibits dad from dressing James as a boy or from teaching him that he is a boy by sharing religious or science-based teachings on sexuality, dad presents James with male and female clothing options and James always chooses, even insists on, his boy clothes. Dad told me, "James violently refuses to wear girl's clothes at my home." This is not a sign of gender dysphoria.
This kind of court ordered child abuse has to end. Diagnosing young kids with "gender dysphoria" is simply wrong.
Post by: guest4 on November 29, 2018, 10:02:58 am
Based on the article, I agree that caution is called for.
I have concerns, however. There is no information as to why the mother is insisting James is transgender but not his twin brother. Mom may well be nuts, but if the boy can be said to be choosing "girl" to please mom, why could he not be choosing "boy" to please dad, friends of dad and other people he may believe would prefer him to be a boy?
I am also concerned that real names are used and that the court documents the article links to gives the names of both boys, their ages and general location.
I agree with the author that a wrongful diagnoses is extremely harmful and that chemical castration at 8 years old should not be a consideration. But the one-sidedness of this story leaves me skeptical of the author's motivation and just how accurately he is presenting the facts.
I think it is important to point out that in the estimation of the trans rights activists, everything "JY" is doing is completely legitimate. He is completely within his rights to declare himself a woman when he wishes to. He's completely within his rights to access women's locker rooms and demand services from aestheticians. The trans rights activist position is that "JY" isn't "gaming the system" at all, he's demanding what's rightfully his.
How could this do anything but increase? This is just the nascent stage of this "emerging consensus". A few short years ago this would have all seemed nonsensical. A few short years ago we were fighting for trans people to have the right to use public washrooms, not shower with women or get their lady-balls waxed. This has moved forward so rapidly that it's hard to imagine where things will be in a short while. Trans-everything is becoming increasingly accepted and normalized, and dare I say trendy?
Even with it being quite on the fringes, cases of predators abusing a claim of gender identification to gain access to victims were already known to have occurred. As this becomes more and more common, how can it do anything but increase?
In particular I think this idea is very popular among misogynist incel types. It gives them 2 things they crave: validation their sense of victimhood, and access to women's spaces. I think that on this front, "JY" is just the thin edge of the wedge.
I have to point out that these "nightmare scenarios" are real life for some people already. I made up the college dorm one, but I'm sure it's on the way if it isn't already here. Trans people will definitely be demanding to be assigned to the living quarters of their choice. Trans people are already sharing rooms with women in women's shelters so why not colleges.
So how common does it have to be for it to become addressed?
I posted an article not that long ago here with several such cases, including a mother in the UK who was lectured by the school when she complained that her 13 year old daughter was uncomfortable sharing a shower with a 'girl' who had a **** - which was often erect as 'she' stared at the other girls. Instead of paying any attention to her complaint they wanted her and her daughter to get counselling.
But then, you know how those menstruaters are...
Yes, that was the term the Guardian settled on for describing women who don't have penises, before, apparently, ridicule and abuse got them to change it. The more popular word going around there is womxn.
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/in-england-womxn-is-in-as-activists-try-to-replace-word-woman-in-the-name-of-inclusiveness
Quote from: dia on November 29, 2018, 10:02:58 am
No matter what is true it does not justify the court getting involved to dictate that a child be treated in a certain way. Parents have arguments all the time about what children really want from joining the hockey team to piano lessons. No where does the court show this level of heavy handedness.
I agree with the author that a wrongful diagnoses is extremely harmful and that chemical castration at 8 years old should not be a consideration.
If one side is considering chemical castration of an 8 year old then that side is in the wrong no matter what other facts might exist. If the world had any justice a mother considering such a thing would be declared an unfit parent and the father given full custody.
No matter what is true it does not justify the court getting involved to dictate that a child be treated in a certain way.
This is a pretty irrational position if you change the context. Courts do get involved in dictating how children should be treated. All the time in fact. There are legal and illegal ways for handling a child's upbringing. Parents are obligated by law to treat their children in particular ways. So your premise here is false. Granted it's your opinion, but even then it's a dangerous one because you're arguing "no matter what is true" the courts are "not justified in" enforcing parents' proper behaviour towards their children. This means that even if a parent is violently abusive or harmfully negligent or neglectful the courts are not justified in dictating to a parent that they are not to treat a child that way. This is a completely irrational stance.
So what I have to assume you mean is that a court shouldn't get involved when a child identifies as transgender. And of course that's your opinion because you hate transgender people and vehemently oppose anything to do with a person's right to their own identity. Time and again you argue that gender should be imposed on a person and they should be forced to identify in contradiction to their self-consciousness. You're completely incapable of recognizing that this would be like a court imposing upon you that you identify as a woman and equally as futile.
The issue that the paper seems to make is that it's a misdiagnosis. If you think being forced to wear a chiffon dress is wrong, you must also agree that being forced to wear overalls is also.
Which activists now ? Are all 'activists' bad ? What are the homosexual activists up to these days ? Do activists just quit after equality reaches near-total acceptance.
People used to say that if we allowed gays to marry people would start marrying dogs next. What is likely to happen ? We don't know but I would guess that at a certain point, the public will wake up and see what's happening and either people will be ok with it or they will push back and something will change.
So you're saying that as assault becomes more common, there will be more of it. I would think that as something becomes a problem the public becomes aware and there's a reaction.
Your nightmare scenario doesn't seem realistic to me.
My issue with transgender labeling of children is:
1) Psychologists who label a child going through a normal phase of growing up as "transgender" and then declare that this label is a immutable aspect of the child's identity are peddling quackery. Children evolve. Their futures are not predetermined. Especially when it comes to something like gender identity.
2) Suggesting to children (who are very suggestible) that there is something wrong with them that may require hormone injections and/or body mutilation is criminal child abuse.
The healthiest message for children is to learn to love the body they have. The state has no business interfering if this is the lesson they want to teach their children. Furthermore, parents have to teach children that doing things they don't like to do, such as wearing particular clothing, is a necessary fact of life. Again the the state has no business getting involved the clothing decisions that parents make for their children.
To re-iterate: the problem here is the state is going too far to micromanage how parents raise their children.
So you're saying that the mother is right to force a dress on the boy?
I am saying the state has no business getting involved in the clothing requirements a parent sets out for a child. Question of right or wrong does not enter into the discussion.
At what point should the state get involved in psychologically damaging parenting.
"Psychologically damaging" is a loaded term because it presumes there is some sort of agreement what is "psychologically damaging" and what is not. For example, these parents would probably be very high on the list of "psychologically damaging" actions for most people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toddlers_%26_Tiaras
Yet, no one is seriously talking about government regulation to stop that kind of parenting.
I think the state needs to limit its interventions to parents who are physically abusive or fail to provide the necessities of life.
Doesn't seem to me to be enough but ok.
State power is a blunt instrument. Too many vague rules and the state will cause more harm than it prevents.
It certainly is not enough. The state is responsible for the operation of schools across the country and need to be aware of and react to current social environment.
TimG doesn't trust the government enough, although that may not apply to fields beyond education and science, such as policing. I know a lot of people who profess a distrust of government still trust them to execute convicted killers without error, for example.
Now that's an interesting juxtaposition for sure. And we know the latter part has gone wrong a number of times. lucky for us we had the good sense to focus more on education and less on execution.
Not me. Not against capital punishment but I don't trust that the government won't execute innocent people. The issue is not government but people. There are too many people that will abuse power and the reducing the amount of power bureaucrats have reduces the potential for abuse.
Not me. Not against capital punishment but I don't trust that the government won't execute innocent people.
Well, at least you apply your principles consistently...
Wait, wait wait. Lets ignore the tail end of you babble and deal with the idea you suggest that you don't really care if the government executes innocent people? WOW!
Which activists? Any and all activists who are calling for gender identity recognition on demand, and any and all activists who demand that trans-women be treated identically to cisgendered women. As far as I can tell, those positions seem to be near universal among trans rights activists.
If you agree with those two positions, then you have to agree that "JY" has done nothing wrong and that the villains here are those 16 aestheticians who refused service.
If you accept those two positions staked out by trans rights activists, then you can't argue that "JY" is doing anything wrong, and you can't suggest he is "gaming the system".
People marrying dogs as a result of gay marriage was a poorly reasoned attempt at "slippery-sloping". It's a poor analogy to what we're discussing.
People were never really that interested in marrying dogs, so marrying dogs just never took off the way that some people seemed to think it would.
On the other hand, perverts and predators are very interested in gaining access to women's safe spaces.
I am saying that as men identifying themselves as women becomes more common and more accepted, more people will do so for malicious reasons. ie, not because they sincerely believe they are women or because they suffer genuine gender dysphoria, but because they want to invade women's privacy, or live out their sexual fetishes, or claim victimhood, or access to things that have been set aside for women-- like scholarships for girls or equal opportunity placements or women's athletics.
They're creating a system that's tailor made to be abused, and it's going to be abused. It already is being abused.
This stuff is happening in real life. Why do you find it unrealistic when it's already happening?
The tough thing is that if you're really transgender, you're going to know it from an early age most likely. Like being homosexual. Then as a truly transgender kid, is being forced into a gender you don't identify with also a form of child abuse?
I say bring your kid to the clothes section at walmart and let them choose whatever clothes they want. I honestly probably wouldn't care, unless it was sexually suggestive. Johnny likes rocking a dress. Who cares.
So... which ones specifically ? You seemed to be saying that there were people supporting this person's case.
Aren't you saying that Incels in drag will soon be inundating teenage girls in change rooms ? Or ...
Because there's no scale to it. As I said, if this is one of those things where a single case upsets you then I understand your concern.
Alberta man changes gender to get reduced insurance rates:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/change-gender-identification-insurance-alberta-1.4754416
This is just the tip of the iceberg. The problem with a lot of well meaning people is they never consider the fact that people will abuse whatever system is put in place so you can never change rules without considering the potential for abuse. Simply dismissing the potential for abuse is naive.
"Tip of the iceberg"? good god give us a break! I doubt there is a wave of people faking their identity to save $91 bucks a month. You wanna real project, go after Canadian tax dogers who hide the money off shore and cheat the tax man in the order of $14 Billion/year.
I have yet to see any trans rights activists address this situation in the slightest. But they're demanding an honor-system approach to gender self-identification, and this "JY" situation is an inevitable result to an honor-system approach. So what is there for them to say, other than "well you gotta break a few eggs"?
Has there ever been an honor-system anything that wasn't abused by dishonorable people?
I also have yet to see any mainstream media coverage of the situation. I assume they're afraid of being deemed transphobic.
I don't think I said "inundating" or specified teenage girls in particular.
But yes. Create a system that's begging to be abused, and people are going to abuse it, and we already know it's being abused.
This isn't a single case, this is just the latest case. We don't yet know to what degree it's going to be abused, but we know that it's already happening.
The problem with a lot of well meaning people is they never consider the fact that people will abuse whatever system is put in place so you can never change rules without considering the potential for abuse. Simply dismissing the potential for abuse is naive.
Exactly right. I am a typical L/liberal in that I am too trusting and I recognize this. As SJ has posted, it's a personality type that may left-of-centres share.
To my mind, our evolving collective view of ourselves happens due to a tough dialogue between my mindset and the opposite one. You will never hear me say conservatives need to be eliminated.
For the case in question, the system can either sustain an honour system or it can't. Part of the reason why the system is sustainable is that morality exists. Both liberals and conservatives have morality.
Ok. I take your word for it. But we're also saying that the mainstream isn't aware of the system either at the moment right ?
Honour systems are abused all the time, but the public sphere absorbs that behaviour and either accepts it or doesn't, in the end. People cheat EI all the time, cheat on taxes, white collar crime, shoplifting. Acceptable ? Well mostly yes.
Now compare to: Stealing poppy boxes, parking in handicapped parking, or (downtown Toronto) stealing a bike. All of a sudden a crime that is equal in the law is seen as much worse.
I have to say that guys lying about their gender to dress as women, to get into change rooms seems like it would happen infrequently. And isn't the main issue behaviour ? Anybody leering or approaching anybody in a change room would normally register a complaint no ?
If people don't want to see penises in change rooms, isn't it an option to demand no nudity in open spaces ?
Burning Man is a crazy and open party in the desert but having sex in public is pretty much a no-no. It's called public lewdness and not allowed. For that matter, public NUDITY isn't allowed still.
Or, this is just outrage-bait and not enough of a story. How much did the CBC cover the war on Christmas ?
I know. I'm painting your words as extreme, and am doing so insincerely. I realize your concerns are rooted in reality, but I am also trying to show how perspectives and wording can paint things as being ok-vs-extreme.
Latest case in what jurisdiction ? I believe more than a few cases will be noticed if it happens in the same area.
https://www.google.ca/search?ei=VDQBXOLkIenm_QaptLHQDA&q=toronto+trans++%27body+blitz%27&oq=toronto+trans++%27body+blitz%27&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i8i30.7404.7404..7977...0.0..0.68.68.1......0....1..gws-wiz.bxqQ81SY-Tc
Body Blitz happened over a year ago and nothing since. By 'nothing' I mean nothing on the web. It strikes me that these are not real problems for most people, but more like legal and human rights test cases.
I was trying to find the Montreal one where the guy said he was trans to get into a women's shelter and assaulted a woman.
Menstruators... That's ... I guess not quite as bad as the "bleeders" and "roasties" that trans women and incels use. It's still pretty gross and insulting. Perhaps Guardian employees should be referred to as "defecators" and "people with sphincters" henceforth.
Our society could not function without the fact that most people, no matter what their politics, do the right thing. However, you are confusing the fact that people will follow rules and laws even if not forced to and expecting people to not take advantage of rules. A good analogy is the tax system where people constantly seek ways to reduce their taxes by following the rules which sometimes have loop holes. When the tax dept closes these loop holes the people who used them while they were there did not do anything wrong.
That is why it is necessary to ask whenever a rule change is made is how incentives will be created for people to follow the rules to maximize their personal benefit. For example, changing gender to get lower insurance rates is a perfectly rational use of the rules yet it was not intended. Changing gender to get access to places for sexual gratification is another. At some point the potential for abuse is so large that some limits have to be put in place even if that means creating barriers for people who legitimately needed the rule change.
They're certainly aware of it. Meghan Murphy's ban from Twitter has attracted international attention, and the backstory behind it is easily discoverable. The senator-elect from Missouri even tweeted about Murphy's ban in challenging Twitter's claim that they're not politically biased. I've seen articles from the US, Australia, and England in regard to Meghan Murphy. The website "AfterEllen", which is *the* lesbian website, reported on the Meghan Murphy ban and described the"JY" situation in some detail. Do you really think it's likely that something like this has received international attention, yet reporters in Vancouver are unaware of this situation going on right in their back yard?
I strongly doubt that.
The only Canadian coverage I've seen on the "JY" situation is this one from August, which takes at face value his claim of being a woman:
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/not-for-men-sorry-transgender-woman-files-human-rights-complaint-after-being-denied-brazilian-wax?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1534984166
Wait, are you suggesting that cheating on your taxes or shoplifting is more or less equivalent to being confronted by a naked pervert while you're showering?
Body Blitz quietly changed their policy. They're no longer a clothing optional facility.
US case involving a homeless shelter:
https://abc30.com/homeless-women-harassed-in-shower-lawsuit-says/3514544/
I bet those women feel like it was a real problem.
It's worse than that... it would be the equivalent of the shoplifter being caught, but told by the human rights tribunal that they have a right to shoplift and given a monetary award for being stopped from shoplifting by the shop owner.
"Tip of the iceberg"? good god give us a break! I doubt there is a wave of people faking their identity to save $91 bucks a month.
Why WOULDN'T you change your 'gender' when there are no drawbacks or costs? You can get preferential pricing, preferential hiring, preferential seating in university classes without having to compete against men... what's the downside again? You don't even have to dress like a woman.
Given that the Left has adopted transrights as the new holy grail, most of the mainstream media is terrified to go anywhere near any story of trans rights activists being abusive and stupid, much less violent, or of people who claim to be transgendered turning out to be perverts.
I have, for example, pointed out any number of times that almost all the shootings in Ottawa, when names become public, seem to involve Muslims, esp Somalians. Given the amount of press attention we've gotten for the shootings and murders, it would be perfectly normal for someone in the media to at least talk about this. But there hasn't been a peep. Everyone knows it. Whenever this comes up in conversation, or in the comment pages of local media, people allude to it (you can't actually say in the comment sections or your comment will be deleted).
The media, on the whole, are extremely PC, and will not touch stories which might, as they put it 'give ammunition to racists/homophobics/transophobics/islamophobics,etc". That's why, for the most part, we get happy-happy stories about refugees, not sad ones, and why trans rights are always mentioned in a positive light.
Isn't that basically the same as this, from a cite I posted a short time back?
Your 11-year-old granddaughter comes home from school upset. Changing after gym, another girl stood watching her undress and playing with her ****. (The girl in question is transgender, so yes, she has a ****.) When your family complains to the school, what happens?
In the second, it's not the girl with a **** who has a problem, it's the girl without one. She and her parents have wrongly assumed the child with the **** is 'not a real girl'. That error should be 'challenged through training and awareness raising' so your granddaughter is comfortable with her classmate.
Are you spreading a little more of your xenophobic fake news again?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/canadian-mass-murders-1.3958772
Why is it that even on the rare times you actually include a cite it usually winds up having absolutely nothing to do with what anyone is talking about? Is it that you're lazy or stupid, or both?
You try to pull your little fast ones and suggest that a Muslim is "involved" in a murder if they happen to be the one murdered and assume it must somehow be their fault, and not potentially a hate crime. So I think we know who is "stupid and lazy". Both typically accompany bigotry.
https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/city-homicides-for-2016-a-list-of-the-24
Meghan Murphy's ban from Twitter has attracted international attention, and the backstory behind it is easily discoverable. Do you really think it's likely that something like this has received international attention, yet reporters in Vancouver are unaware of this situation going on right in their back yard?
international attention? Outside of the 'blogosphere', TheGoogle said there were a couple of mainstream references... both opinion pieces appearing in the NYT and Guardian. But... both of those opinion pieces speak more to the U.S. 1st amendment & what the twitter change to their rules/policy (vis-avis banning for targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals) means in that context. The Murphy mention is little more than an example reference. In regards free-speech the NYT opinion piece speaks of trans persons viewing the twitter ban as a promotion of free-speech... that they'll speak up more if their existence isn't being questioned.
Uhhh, depending on perspective:
(https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foi68.tinypic.com%2F25ptoub.jpg&hash=201f39e870ebeb897e6fe14577cd59763c198bd2)
e.g. https://theprovince.com/news/canada/b-c-transgender-woman-who-was-denied-brazilian-wax-job-withdraws-human-rights-complaint/wcm/c9db76c0-9770-4bd9-86fb-da911f3857d8 ----- seems to have appeared in the dozen+ dailies across Canada (those within Postmedia world)
All I said was that a huge number of the street shootings involve Muslims, mostly Somalians. And they do. Mostly it's gang members shooting other gang members, so yeah, when the guy shot is a Muslim, it's mostly because he's a gang member.
More pretty pictures trying to make up for a lack of argument.
When both sides get to speak there's freedom of speech. Anyone who thinks freedom of speech means they get to talk and others don't get to disagree is the ****.
If you actually read the facts in the article you will see you are wrong. The majority of the people who were charged with murder in this string of killings were not Muslims.
c'mon... tonight's bingo night - get your mind on the game!
I have to say that's pretty much my favourite XKCD cartoon. (along with the "someone on the internet is wrong" one)
As long as it's okay for people to freely state who they believe to be assholes I don't see a problem.
The problem is the people who use memes like this are the ones who block doors, and pull fire alarms, and invade lectures and talks to scream abuse and blow horns and whistles, and commit acts of sabotage and call in bomb threats. They actually ARE assholes, not the people they're preventing from speaking.
I take it as a given that if you're so furious about someone who is going to talk that you want to stop them from talking, then you probably suspect they are way smarter than you are and your pathetic attempt to challenge them will only be met by public ridicule.
Oh, I agree. They're complete and utter assholes. Mindless poltroons without a brain cell between them with which to formulate an argument, so instead they throw up a safe space, plug their ears and shove a broomstick up their arses in order to reach the proper level of outrage. I would definitely show them the door.
If they hurt anyone, they should be charged, of course.
Post by: MH on December 01, 2018, 08:12:33 am
Our society could not function without the fact that most people, no matter what their politics, do the right thing. However, you are confusing the fact that people will follow rules and laws even if not forced to and expecting people to not take advantage of rules.
No - you are missing my point. Whether or not 'rules' exist, informal moral customs exist and are enforced culturally by all political types. You don't need to pass laws to prevent people from abusing the 'leave a penny/take a penny' jar. Public morality can handle that.
For example, changing gender to get lower insurance rates is a perfectly rational use of the rules yet it was not intended. Changing gender to get access to places for sexual gratification is another. At some point the potential for abuse is so large that some limits have to be put in place even if that means creating barriers for people who legitimately needed the rule change.
As I said in my previous post: morality exists.
Not the mainstream media, but the mainstream. John and Mary Q. Public.
*the* Lesbian website ? That would mean millions or at least hundreds of thousands would go there wouldn't it ? As such - what did the lesbians think ?
No - I'm making a wider point about morality: "Honour systems are abused all the time, but the public sphere absorbs that behaviour and either accepts it or doesn't, in the end."
People will not accept this... if it's unacceptable.
And - what do you think of that ?
It sounds like the mainstream is starting to wake up. That's a local ABC station right ? We're talking about whether 'activists' and such types are going to be able to ensconce rights victories that are unacceptable to the mainstream. I think it's still early days to say this is going to happen. They are still putting bathroom restriction bills on the ballot in the US, and proposing legislation in state assemblies.
What is the savings here ? $91/year ? If we're assuming they're lying about their status, they have to expose themselves to public ridicule for one thing, and likely have to engage in a prohibitive amount of paperwork.
Pfft. Stop it with the 'mainstream media is afraid to tell the truth' angle. We actually have new online media that are willing to lie to make things look WORSE. It's the opposite of what you say.
And yet you seem to know what their background is. Look, there's plenty of coverage of such things... the whole "right wing people are scared to speak" is a Trumpian trope that is beneath you. We had a damn straight-up racist candidate finish 3rd for mayor in Toronto - it's the golden era of far-right opinionating.
Stopping Faith Goldy from making speeches about protecting the White Race is a good idea, in my books.
Post by: guest4 on December 01, 2018, 09:30:25 am
Perhaps we should just not allow insurance companies to charge rates based on gender, as they have done in the EU. That way, a 'barrier' is created that will prevent men from changing their gender on paper to gain cheaper insurance rates, and it won't create barriers for those who really do need a rule change. Perhaps in the other situations under discussion there are also changes that can be made to the system to prevent abuse of rules, rather than the people who legitimately need and benefit from those rules. I'm not sure what changes might work, but I am coming to agree that submitting mere paperwork to change one's gender on government-issued ID is a bit lax; perhaps a demonstrated commitment to the 'other gender' identity needs to also be proven, and that this commitment must have been apparent for a significant length of time. Not that someone won't game that, too, at some point.
Of course, those born intersex and 'assigned' a sex at birth shouldn't have to go through the same onerous procedure given that it was the decision of someone else to impose a visual sexual identity. Paperwork demonstrating the sex assignment at birth should be available and acceptable for those people to quickly change the gender on government issued ID. And again, no doubt someone will concoct a way to game that, as well.
Thinking out of the box a bit, perhaps at age 21, all adults should be subjected to a test that determines what arouses them: naked men, naked women, naked children. This information could be included in government issued ID, and that could be used to determine access to public places where nudity may occur.
Or, perhaps we could simply change the morality within our society, so that 'nudity' becomes commonplace and not assumed to be a signal of sexual availability or interest.
Post by: TimG on December 01, 2018, 10:09:06 am
Quote from: dia on December 01, 2018, 09:30:25 am
I'm not sure what changes might work, but I am coming to agree that submitting mere paperwork to change one's gender on government-issued ID is a bit lax; perhaps a demonstrated commitment to the 'other gender' identity needs to also be proven, and that this commitment must have been apparent for a significant length of time.
Of course we could simply say that government ID has nothing to with with gender and only denotes the biological sex that can be proven with a scientific test. People who are biologically ambiguous would be the only ones allowed to change their biological sex after submitting the appropriate supporting documentation.
We also need to make it clear that when society allows segregation based on biological sex and/or gender that it is up to the organization that provides the segregated services to decide whether the segregation is based on biological sex rather than gender. i.e. if a organization says change rooms are for biological women only then transgender will have to accept they are not welcome.
What annoys me the most about the debate is the rank hypocrisy from transgender activists. On one hand they want everyone to accept that gender and biological sex are different but on the other hand they demand that governments punish people that want to treat biological sex as different from gender if that means transgender can't get access to facilities/programs intended for people of a particular biological sex.
Post by: bcsapper on December 01, 2018, 10:37:23 am
Quote from: MH on December 01, 2018, 08:43:26 am
How does the public go about not accepting it? It seems to me that the public that are affected by this are being fairly vocal about it.
Should all aspects of societal relationships regarding minorities be left up to the public?
Absolutely. I think if one is going to stop being a man and become a woman, or vice versa, it's a big enough deal to require a doctor's note.
Post by: SirJohn on December 01, 2018, 11:00:31 am
And how many ordinary people are exposed to such media?
First, I'm a news junkie who is semi-retired and has time on my hands. Second, the 'trope' you speak of is incorrect. Its not right wing people who are afraid to speak, it's the mushy middle who clamp their lips tight lest they cause offense, and of course, the left - which includes all the mainstream media (all the mainstream media are Left in their social views), who are terrified of an accusation of racism or islamophobia or transphobia or whatever. Third, that 'candidate' you spoke of got what, 2% of the vote? And she wasn't even allowed to advertise.
Why? Wouldn't she simply have appeared ridiculous?
Who would dare publicly ridicule a transgendered person these days? And it isn't just this, as I said. I pointed out in another thread how Algonquin college has set aside 30% of the seats in highly desirable tech courses for women - who will not have to compete with the hordes of men who want in. A man could simply say he's a woman and claim one.
Quote from: bcsapper on December 01, 2018, 10:37:23 am
1. How does the public go about not accepting it?
2. It seems to me that the public that are affected by this are being fairly vocal about it.
3. Should all aspects of societal relationships regarding minorities be left up to the public?
1. Lots of ways. They complain, they get legislation passed, they boycott, they make noise.
2. I dunno. Maybe? Would you say the 'Body Break' episode went to one side or the other ? Or was there compromise ? Is the Body Break episode proof that public engagement and discussion does not work ?
3. Well, I would say 'no'. But they are aren't they ?
Megan Murphy on her twitter ban, in what is becoming my favorite on-line magazine.
On November 15, I woke up to find my Twitter account locked, on account of what the company described as "hateful conduct." In order to regain access, I was made to delete two tweets from October. Fair enough, you might think. Concern about the tone of discourse on social media has been widespread for years. Certainly, many have argued that Twitter officials should be doing more to discourage the vitriol and violent threats that have become commonplace on their platform.
In this case, however, the notion that my commentary could be construed as "hateful" baffled me. One tweet read, simply, "Men aren't women," and the other asked "How are transwomen not men? What is the difference between a man and a transwoman?" That last question is one I've asked countless times, including in public speeches, and I have yet to get a persuasive answer. I ask these questions not to spread hate—because I do not hate trans-identified individuals—but rather to make sense of arguments made by activists within that community. Instead of answering such questions, however, these same activists insist that the act of simply asking them is evidence of hatred.
https://quillette.com/2018/11/28/twitters-trans-activist-decree/
Quote from: SirJohn on December 01, 2018, 11:00:31 am
How many 'ordinary people' subscribe to The Rebel or Facebook ? Lots of people but your filter of 'ordinary' is hard to discern.
She was allowed to advertise but couldn't find anyone to take her money. So the mainstream people are actually dying to voice right-wing views but are afraid to ? Still strikes me as paranoid/incorrect sorry.
There are lots of people being drawn to this stuff. The idea that public debate will squelch bad ideas has proven incorrect.
1. Who would dare publicly ridicule a transgendered person these days?
2. And it isn't just this, as I said. I pointed out in another thread how Algonquin college has set aside 30% of the seats in highly desirable tech courses for women - who will not have to compete with the hordes of men who want in. A man could simply say he's a woman and claim one.
1. That's a ridiculous idea. People can be criticized, nobody reasonable is saying that's out of bounds.
2. Again - it's an edge case and not worthy of consideration at this point.
Post by: kimmy on December 01, 2018, 11:12:18 am
Everyone understands that it's Twitter's right to ban Murphy if they wish.
However it's also being pointed out that it casts doubt on Twitter's claim of political neutrality. I haven't read the NY Times piece you mention, but your summary seems to indicate they think that Twitter can create more free speech by putting their thumb on one side of the scale. If that's what's happening here, that certainly contradicts what Jack Dorsey told the US Congress a couple of months ago.
It's also being pointed out how little it took for Murphy to get banned from a platform that is absolutely rife with hate speech and threats of violence.
Twitter's official position is that Murphy was banned for "misgendering" "JY"... this is a person who still identifies themselves as Jonathan and presents themselves with a look that looks more or less like Jared from Subway, but Murphy was banned for referring to them as "him".
Trans activists claim that misgendering someone is real violence, so Murphy's ban would be justified in their eyes. Meanwhile trans people talk about literal violence on Twitter with impunity.
1) What if they don't? Should there be no government involvement in societal relationships without a certain level of public outcry?
2) I'd have to read about that.
3) See 1)
You reckon without the fanaticism of progressives.
In many progressive corners of academic and online life, it now is taken as cant that anyone who rejects transgender ideology—which is based on the theory that a mystical "gender identity" exists within us, akin to a soul—may be targeted with the most juvenile and vicious attacks. "Punch TERFs and Nazis" has become a common Twitter tagline, as is the demand that "TERFs" be "sent to the gulag." (This latter suggestion was earnestly defended in a thread authored by students who run the official Twitter account of the LGBTQ+ Society at a British university. The authors went on to say that the gulag model would, in fact, comprise "a compassionate, non-violent course of action" to deal with "TERFs" and "anti-trans bigots" who must be "re-educat[ed].")
While it might comfort some to view these threats as performative or theoretical, that isn't always the case. On May 29, a lesbian named Taelor Furry was beat up outside the Grey Fox Pub, a gay bar in St. Louis, Mo. Her attackers were queer-identified women who had accused Furry of being a "TERF."
In April, a trans-identified biological male who goes by the name "Tara Wolf" was convicted of assault after beating 60-year-old Maria MacLauchlan, who had gathered with other women at Speaker's Corner in London's Hyde Park to discuss mooted gender-identity legislation. Prior to the gathering, this champion of progressive ideals had posted on Facebook, asking where the event would be taking place, as the assailant wanted to "**** some TERFs up."
At this year's Pride March in Montreal, biological males who identify as women led the parade, carrying a banner reading, "Transwomen first/Never again last." One participant carried a sign with the words, "Begone TERF," as if he were summoning his mystical powers to cast a hex on we TERFy witches. At Dyke Marches, lesbians who express reservations about making themselves sexually available to suitors who just happen to have penises are now commonly screamed at.
In Vancouver, Canada, where I live, a group of lesbians attended this year's Dyke March wearing t-shirts with the word "Lesbian" written overtop a drawing of a uterus, and carrying signs featuring their "lesbian heroes." Before the march began, they were approached by two members of the Vancouver Dyke March board, who told them they could not participate while wearing these t-shirts and carrying these placards, as they were "trans-exclusionary." They also were told that if any of their signs featured the venus symbol (which represents "woman") or "XX," symbolizing the fact that females have two of the same kind of sex chromosome, they would have to remove them. The group declined to follow these instructions, but joined the march anyway. As the women walked on, they were surrounded by trans activists, who shouted "TERF bigots," "Transwomen are women," "This is an inclusive march," and, "There is no room for hate at the Dyke March." One trans-identified male-bodied individual ran through their group repeatedly, yelling "Get your '**** TERF' pins!" at the women. (Afterwards, the Dyke March board published a statement, labeling the women "TERFs" and "a hate group": The Vancouver Dyke March, they said, is "upset, angry, and disappointed by the actions of those people who sought to reject and exclude valued members of our communities, including trans folks.")
What if they don't? Should there be no government involvement in societal relationships without a certain level of public outcry?
What if - in a democracy - people really don't like something and they do nothing about it ? I think you can answer that. Should there be no government involvement without outcry ? I would say the government can prioritize things and should, even without public interest. Again - you are asking really obvious questions.
A lot of this discussion involves you shuffling the deck constantly.
We're talking mostly about the 'public' and media viewed/consumed by the public. Now you are taking us back onto campus...
Let's simplify this: I say that if 'THE' public doesn't like something, they will say so. The idea that the emergence of trans rights, or Islamic terrorism destroys our system public dialogue and necessitates general alarm isn't true, IMO, from the evidence I have seen.
Almost nothing I've posted, including in the post you are replying to (and clearly have not bothered to read) has to do with 'campus'. It seems to me that a lot of this discussion involves your determined defense of the idea that anyone who declares themselves to be transgendered must be treated that way and blithely waving away any and all objections.
Let's simplify this: I say that if 'THE' public doesn't like something, they will say so.
The public has said in polls they don't like the number of immigrants and particularly Muslims coming in. But no one can say so as an individual or they'll be fired from their jobs, banned from their political parties, and hounded by 'anti-hate' activists. Why would you imagine people who object to this transgendered nonsense would dare to speak out? More importantly, if Megan Murphy is booted off Twitter, disinvited to speaking engagements and had her book publishing agreement cancelled all for questioning transgenderism just what platform do you imagine the public will have to express itself?
I'm willing to bet 90% of the public has no idea of all this stuff, and if and when individuals run afoul of it their anger and stress and arguments will largely go unreported and unnoticed.
The questions are obvious but the answers don't seem to be. (Your first sentence there is not something I asked)
Your main statement regarding prioritizing is making my point but seems to be a change from your previous points.
Post by: MH on December 01, 2018, 12:07:38 pm
Almost nothing I've posted, including in the post you are replying to (and clearly have not bothered to read) has to do with 'campus'.
"In many progressive corners of academic and online life..."
It seems to me that a lot of this discussion involves your determined defense of the idea that anyone who declares themselves to be transgendered must be treated that way and blithely waving away any and all objections.
Hmm ? "Anyone who declares themselves as X must be treated as X" seems like a general maxim you would follow in polite society. Why not ?
Alternately, a Muslim who behaves badly at school has their behaviour put on the national stage. A white supremacist is treated as a freedom-of-speech fighter when Rogers and BELL say no to her money. So where are we ?
Post by: bcsapper on December 01, 2018, 12:13:21 pm
Quote from: MH on December 01, 2018, 12:07:38 pm
I would have to say no, not really. Especially if they are not.
Post by: kimmy on December 01, 2018, 12:21:49 pm
I honestly don't know if they have millions or even hundreds of thousands of readers. It's just that it's the only website I know of specifically by and for lesbians.
They aren't big on the "trans lesbian" phenomenon in the first place, so they're predictably not sympathetic to a creepy dude posing as trans when he wants to hang out in the women's locker room. More generally they're annoyed at the redefining of "woman" and "lesbian" in particular-- they describe this as erasure.
Here's their column on Murphy:
https://www.afterellen.com/general-news/567199-twitter-bans-meghan-murphy-founder-of-canadas-leading-feminist-website
Another column by the same writer, talking about erasure:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-didnt-you-say-something-sooneryoure-asking_us_59d560dee4b085c51090ad64
People will decide what they will accept on an individual basis. There won't be a big public fight. People don't want to fight. Women in general don't want to fight and don't want to make other people feel bad. Most women aren't going to take action, especially if they're afraid of getting shamed on social media or ending up in front of an HRC panel. Most women will just say "I don't feel comfortable here anymore" and go somewhere else next time or stay home.
There won't be hard data. There'll be an accumulation of anecdotes. I've read quite a few anecdotes of lesbians who quit going to places that have become over run with pushy "trans lesbians" who want sex with cis women. This will be hard to quantify. Businesses will eventually see the results in their bottom lines. LGBT social groups might end up becoming GBT social groups if the Ts harass the Ls away. The results won't be obvious.
It's a tremendously equitable result! Everybody loses!
Creeps have discovered they can exploit this... the next step is finding out how many creeps will exploit it before the pendulum gets pushed back the other way.
I would say a white supremacist who behaves badly at school should have their behaviour put on the national stage, while a Muslim should be treated as a freedom-of-speech fighter when Rogers and BELL say no to their money.
I'm very fair when it comes to that sort of thing.
Post by: Omni on December 01, 2018, 12:35:36 pm
Quote from: bcsapper on December 01, 2018, 12:24:28 pm
It would seem the point you are missing is the difference as to what should perhaps happen and what actually does happen. You may recall, Trump claimed the white supremacists waving nazi flags in Charlottesville were "good people", and then he signs a bill banning trans people from signing up for military duty.
Quote from: Omni on December 01, 2018, 12:35:36 pm
It seems the point you are missing is that Trump is a twat. What he says or does does not really count with normal people.
He'll be gone in a short while, anyway.
Ah, Trump is the POTUS, what he says or does counts with a LOT of people. And he continues to maintain roughly the same base support he had when elected so, as much as I don't like the idea, he could well get a second term.
Yes, but there will always be governments doing things you may or may not agree with. Trump is an anomaly, a freak. Thankfully he does what he does in a country with systems in place that can arrest most of his more egregious excesses.
To get back to my original point, what one does matters more than what one says.
Well your "point" could easily be turned upside down in many cases. Depends on who says or does what. But that's a different discussion.
Well, sure. If I pet a puppy and you say "let's kill all the Jews, right now" I can see you have a point.
Post by: SirJohn on December 01, 2018, 02:25:03 pm
One part of one paragraph of one post. And I know you didn't bother to read the rest nor the cite. Your mind is already made up and not interested in further information.
When they're obviously NOT X then it's either an indication of dishonesty or serious mental illness.
Only a tiny number of people are actually transgendered, but now they're coming out of the woodwork as all the progressive idiots sieze on this as the latest fad and all sorts of mentally unbalanced people suddenly 'discover' that they're transgendered. Progressive mothers are probably desperately trying to get their children to wear clothing for the wrong gender so they can brag about how woke they are with their 'transgendered' child.
Alternately, a Muslim who behaves badly at school has their behaviour put on the national stage.
Yeah, that happens at least once or twice a year.
A white supremacist is treated as a freedom-of-speech fighter when Rogers and BELL say no to her money. So where are we ?
With you ignoring reality and ignoring the point I made COMPLETELY that people are not going to be able to gather together in their outrage and put a stop to this sort of lunacy because progressives now venerate the idea of transgenders and anyone who complains is subject to abuse and attack. Which you will shrug and ignore because, like, well, there's no stats on that.
Quote from: SirJohn on December 01, 2018, 02:25:03 pm
I think I will take the word of the American Psychiatric Association over yours as to transgender people being "mentally ill". Of course that's your usual type approach to anything you don't understand, or simply not like. As to them being dishonest, why would someone proceed down this path, only to be scorned by your type, if they weren't sincere as to how they feel? And you probably also think it's some sort of new issue when in fact it has been around, in various cultures since antiquity.
"The American Psychiatric Association, publisher of the DSM-5, stated that "gender nonconformity is not in itself a mental disorder. The critical element of gender dysphoria is the presence of clinically significant distress associated with the condition."
Post by: waldo on December 01, 2018, 05:16:22 pm
Quote from: kimmy on December 01, 2018, 11:12:18 am
"how little it took"... as I understand, Ms. Murphy had multiple suspensions prior to the outright ban (at least 2); in order to return from each suspension, she complied with requests from TheTwitter to delete particular tweets in question. Upon return from her final suspension, she appears somewhat "miffed" at TheTwitter... and was banned for the following tweet... not for what you describe as, "Twitter's official position on the Ms. Murphy ban (as she had deleted those particular tweets in order to return from suspension":
"This is f—— bull—, @twitter. I'm not allowed to say that men aren't women or ask questions about the notion of transgenderism at all anymore? That a multi-billion dollar company is censoring basic facts and silencing people who ask questions about this dogma is insane."
Quote from: waldo on December 01, 2018, 05:16:22 pm
It does seem odd that she would be banned for that. Still, I know nothing of tweets and such. Maybe they are especially delicate. Like poodles or something.
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on December 01, 2018, 11:36:43 pm
Only a tiny number of people are actually transgendered, but now they're coming out of the woodwork as all the progressive idiots sieze on this as the latest fad and all sorts of mentally unbalanced people suddenly 'discover' that they're transgendered.
You need to cite if you're trying to say that we have a surge of fake trans women 'coming out of the woodwork'. Seems like another fake crisis to me.
If someone says "I feel like I am a woman" I think the default is to agree with them, especially given the scorn, ridicule and especially physical violence that they are exposing themselves to. It's an unequal price to pay to be able to peer at women in locker rooms.
How often are fake trans women found out ?
The idea that our public system of dialogue is broken is chiefly held by people who want to break our public system of dialogue. Although there are many signs that such systems are readjusting to new media - the most recent presidential election being weighty evidence - there's no evidence I can see that these systems will now stop or be seized by special interests.
Simple arithmetic should suffice. They only constitute less than half a percent of the population. And of those I doubt more than 10% would be willing to put themselves in everyone's face and make outrageous demands. Yet there's been cite after cite posted here (none of which you will read, I know) showing how much they've intruded into the public sphere and into organized harassment of anyone who disagrees with them.
If someone says "I feel like I am a woman" I think the default is to agree with them,
And if I say I feel like a panda will you agree with me?
You know, the saying "I'm a lesbian on the inside" is an ironic one meant largely for amusement value by men, who basically are just saying they lust after women too. I never thought I'd see idiots actually claiming to BE women lesbians and demanding lesbians sleep with them. And I never thought I'd see anyone taking them seriously.
Sometimes you just have to say 'Bullshit".
Special interests took over our public systems long ago. Where have you been? You talk about the US? Poll after poll has shown what the great majority of people want, and their government has ignored it all for decades.
As to special 'social interests', political cowardice is the norm, not the exception.
On 21 November, a debate took place in the House of Commons about proposals to reform the Gender Recognition Act to make it easier for transgender people to self-identify as men or women. Among the public, this is a widely discussed issue, with most echoing the concerns of feminists about the risks of allowing biological males to enter women's changing rooms, etc. But until last week the issue hadn't been debated in the Commons, partly because MPs who have reservations about changing the law are afraid to speak out. Sure enough, nearly all the backbench MPs who contributed to the debate toed the line of the trans-rights activists.
The ex-lobby correspondent James Kirkup, now director of the Social Market Foundation, has become a must-read commentator on this issue and he recently disclosed he's been keeping a 'private list' of people who've told him they're deeply worried about gender self-identification, but haven't said anything: 'That list includes: more than a dozen government ministers (including cabinet members); several Labour frontbenchers; numerous backbench MPs (the majority female); lots of BBC journalists (some very famous); charity executives; senior business people; teachers, lawyers, doctors and other professionals; and lots of 'ordinary' women who can't understand why the potential implications of a law change are not being addressed.'
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/12/why-were-lying-to-ourselves-over-trans-rights/
Arithmetic without a cite isn't useful here. You have quoted .5% and 10% and on the other side "how much they've intruded into the public sphere" again with no numbers.
Well, yes. How can anybody tell you how YOU feel ?
I think telling people they are lying when they express their feelings to you, absent of other information, is arrogant and unhelpful.
I really regret using that term. Yes, the government ignores what people want ... but for a spectrum of reasons. I would say money is a clear corruptor of our democratic systems but there doesn't seem to be enough will to address that one. As such, I don't think trans women are a significant threat in proportion to that.
Well, I think the Spectator is a real paper, as I recall, so I will take your post as reasonable evidence in support of your thesis. But it is an opinion, and inflammatory at that: " Its high priests have mastered the art of creating the impression that their neo-Marxist beliefs are much more widespread than they really are." Neo-Marxism isn't part of this, unless the late Jim Flaherty was a Marxist. (He wasn't.)
Simply false. That is not the Tweet that got Murphy banned. This is the communication she received from them explaining her ban, referring specifically to her "misgendering" of the dude in question:
(https://i.imgur.com/yfNbvwo.png)
I can't vouch for the veracity of this figure from the UK, but an increase of 2500% in 9 years sounds like an epidemic.
The number of children identifying as transgender is on the rise. Referrals to the NHS's Tavistock Gender Identity Development Service have increased by an astonishing 2,500 per cent in the past nine years. Psychotherapist Bob Withers is concerned that large numbers of children are being transitioned unnecessarily, and that discussion of this phenomenon is being closed down by trans activists.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2018/11/30/we-are-experimenting-on-children/
Dr Withers expresses concern that many people are being transitioned unnecessarily, and that people who desperately want to transition are receiving coaching so that they can give psychologists the answers they want to hear to approve transitioning. He argues that while people may be strongly convinced that transitioning is the only answer to their problems, Dr Withers argues that for some or many, gender dysphoria is a symptom of other psychological issues that won't be addressed by transitioning. And, he is concerned that psychologists may be approving unnecessary transitions out of fear of being labeled transphobic.
Argus might "feel like a panda", but that doesn't mean the zoo is going to let him into the cage to eat shoots and leaves and waddle around with natal (Assigned Panda At Birth) pandas.
Rachel Dolezal is apparently convinced that she is black, even she has white parents and grew up as a decidedly pale little girl. Nobody accepts her self-identification as a black person, even though she changed her appearance to a degree that she was able to carry out the ruse for years.
Rachel Dolezal: "I just know that on the inside, I'm black."
Progressives: "That is so **** offensive! You grew up with white privilege, you don't have any idea what it is like to grow up as a black person in America. You're laying claim to history and heritage and experiences that you can't possibly understand! This cultural appropriation! You're turning black peoples' lives into a **** cosplay!"
Trans-identified male: "I just know that on the inside, I'm a woman."
Progressives: "Obviously! No problem!"
Quote from: kimmy on December 02, 2018, 01:53:22 pm
Simply false. That is not the Tweet that got Murphy banned.
no - your post is, as you say, simply false... notwithstanding your source is an "Irish comedian" tweet... your graphic speaks to 'suspension' (of which she had several), without regard to its permanence. Here, try this:
(https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foi67.tinypic.com%2F106gexe.jpg&hash=17521ecf664982f4b75fb828afb2a0fb1bbdc56f)
note: as I read/interpret, after that "f----bull---" tweet, there was one event/exchange before the ultimate perm ban pin was pulled; specifically, TheTwitter removed the verification symbol (blue check mark) from her account. Apparently, after Ms. Murphy tweeted that the 'verification symbol was removedl' from her account... she was perm banned.
For a new program... I would take out the first few years. There are 13.5 million children in Britain. at .1% you would have 13,500 kids asking about the program. As it is there are 2,500... up from 97.
Is there a surge ? Looks like maybe yes... but SJ's own numbers say .5% of people fall into this group.
Well that's a breach of ethics for the doctors involved, obviously.
Uh-huh.
I don't know what to say about the last two points. I stated my opinion on this a few posts ago and citing some abuses, or the Rachel Dolezal case doesn't seem to me to be relevant to what I posted.
Murphy's "f----- bull----" tweet was November 15, nine days before the "Yeeeah it's him" tweet for which she received her final suspension notice. Your time line is broken. Concede the point and move on along.
Meghan Murphy speaking at a room in the Vancouver Public Library in January, people calling for her to be cancelled.
https://www.straight.com/life/1171981/lgbt-activists-and-organizations-concerned-about-vancouver-public-library-event
Odds that she gets beat up by angry men in dresses?
Post by: wilber on December 02, 2018, 03:41:39 pm
Gawd. All this stuff is just eye rolling to me.
You think somebody who continues to call themselves Jonathan and presents themselves to society like this...
(https://i.imgur.com/JTGi2tl.png)
...is really in danger of danger of violence for being trans?
If this person gets scorn and ridicule when they go out in public, it's probably because they look like a nerd. But I doubt anybody actually guesses that Jonathan is actually a trans woman when he goes out around town.
Ditto the guy who decided he was female to save $91 bucks on his insurance. People seem to be under the impression that he's changed his whole gender identity to save $91. Why do you assume he did anything other than put an X in the "F" box on his application?
Maybe he did it to make a point about discriminatory insurance prices.
Maybe he did it to make a point about self-identification.
Maybe he was just being a smart-ass or a ****-disturber or "sticking it to the man".
I doubt he gets ridiculed for it. I bet his friends think it's hilarious. It's probably a great conversation starter. He's probably quite the wag. But I doubt he's done anything to identify as female beyond putting an X in the F box.
If trans rights activists are to be believed, there is no such thing as a "fake". "I am because I say I am" is their mantra. JY isn't fake, because he says he's a woman.
"scorn, ridicule and especially physical violence "
Yeah, but YOU know it. So, doesn't everyone now ?
I have no idea what he did. I made no assumptions but this makes sense.
Yes, they may indeed be naive in that case, I suppose.
I feel like you keep ringing the bell and the bellhop doesn't come. What are we doing here - are you just trying to figure out which scenario would upset me ? I'm not getting it.
put up the "Yeah it's him" dated tweet ... what you're implying as, 'nine days later'. (protip: just because your 'Irish comedian' tweets on Nov 25... that means diddly about the date of an embedded tweet he includes)
are you just trying to figure out which scenario would upset me ? I'm not getting it.
Different things upset different people. If there's one thing we know from participation in these sites, it's that.
Murphy was active on Twitter until Nov 24, well after the "f--- bull---" Tweet you mistakenly believe got her banned. The "Yeah it's him" was tweeted on Nov 24.
Your text image, which I notice you haven't even sourced, has either an incomplete or inaccurate timeline. Give it up. You're just making a fool of yourself.
You seem fascinated by the "Irish comedian" angle. Graham Linehan has been embroiled in the UK debate over changes to the Gender Recognition Act, where he has allied himself with women who are concerned about the impact on safety and privacy. This is how he got connected with Meghan Murphy, and he has been tweeting about her situation and has promised to tweet whatever Murphy sends him. Linehan is apparently a UK television figure of some profile, and has 30 times more followers as Murphy did, so he has actually brought more attention to her ban than she had when she was free to tweet on her own.
This tweet illustrates Twitter's bizarre thought process on what deserves a ban:
https://twitter.com/Glinner/status/1067102563818983424
scorn or ridicule him for what? He doesn't appear to do anything to present as feminine beyond getting a close shave.
How will transphobes even know that they're supposed to hate this guy, when there's no visible evidence that he's trans?
You think the kind of thugs who are apparently out there curb-stomping trans folks are reading feminist blogs?
"HEY! That's the tranny I was reading about on AfterEllen!! GET 'IM!"
I think the odds that some violent transphobe will recognize him on the street because some tiny portion of the internet has seen his picture are highly remote.
His name is out there now, and I think it's not out of the realm of possibility that somebody might seek him out to cause him harm of some kind, but if that happens I think it's far more likely that they would do so because of his expressed interest in approaching pre-pubescent girls to help them insert tampons. Some people might dislike trans people, but people dislike creepy pedophiles a lot more.
That's a good mental picture. ding? ding ding?
To me it seems like you're arguing that people wouldn't abuse gender self-identification because being trans is dangerous and scary. I'm pointing out that that someone using self-identification in bad faith doesn't really need to worry about those things. If a guy only presents as trans when he wants to go in the locker room at Spa Lady and spends the rest of his life living as male, what risk is he really taking? If a guy only identifies as female when he's filling out his insurance paperwork, what risk is he actually taking?
You asked why I mentioned Rachel Dolezal's case. Your view seems to be that if people feel they are something, the civil thing to do is to respect that feeling. The example of Rachel Dolezal shows that's not always how self-identification is treated. So why is Rachel Dolezal's self-identification invalid and offensive, while some male person's self-identification as a woman is perfectly acceptable? I'm trying to understand the difference here.
It has taken my whole adult life to this point to get somewhat comfortable with the term lesbian. So watching Riley J Dennis, a 22 year trans person, "mansplain" it to me on her youtube channel is pretty grating. She explains that if you're a lesbian you should love trans women because they're women and if you don't you're being transphobic, and being hung up on the genitals is unfair because of reasons, and so on.
(Riley also has another video where she apparently gives lesbians advice on how to pleasure all the fabulous lady-dick they're going to be servicing, but I don't think I'm gonna watch.)
I thought Riley was maybe an outlier or a flake, but apparently not.
I stumbled on this essay (https://sisteroutrider.wordpress.com/2017/07/01/the-vanishing-point-a-reflection-upon-lesbian-erasure/) by a woman from Scotland. The whole thing is rather long, but I wanted to quote some of her key points here. The Cole's Notes version is that lesbians are being accused of transphobia and pressured to rebrand as "queer" because "lesbian" is seen as being transphobic and TERFish.
Love is love, unless you happen to be a lesbian woman – in which case your sexuality will be relentlessly deconstructed under suspicion of being exclusionary.
Lesbian women are instead encouraged to describe ourselves as queer, a term so broad and nebulous as to be devoid of specific meaning, on the grounds that nobody in possession of a **** is read as being entirely outside of our sexual boundaries.
In a time when acknowledging biological sex is treated as an act of bigotry, homosexuality is automatically problematised – the unforeseen consequences of queer identity politics are wide and far-reaching. Or rather, it would be more accurate to say, lesbian sexuality is made problematic: the idea of women exclusively directing our desires and energies towards one another remains suspect. Somehow, the pattern of men centring men in their lives never receives the same backlash. Lesbians are a threat to the status quo, whether it's part of heteropatriarchy or queer culture. When lesbians dismiss the idea of taking on a partner with a ****, we are branded "**** fetishists" and "gynephiles" – given that lesbian sexuality is routinely pathologised in queer discourse, just as lesbian sexuality is pathologised by social conservatism, it's no surprise to me that so many young women succumb to social pressure and drop lesbian in favour of queer. Self-erasure is the price of acceptance.
As queer identity politics would have it, biological women being exclusively interested in being with other women is a sign of bigotry. Let's not waste paragraphs on equivocation. This world contains more than enough silences around the subject of gender, and it is invariably women who pay the highest price for those silences – in this case, women who love other women. And so I will say it: for lesbians to categorically deny the possibility of taking a partner with a **** is framed as transphobic by queer politics because it does not include transwomen in the sphere of lesbian desire. The inherent lesbophobia of reducing lesbian sexuality to a source of validation is, of course, given a free pass.
The idea that lesbians are transphobic because our sexual boundaries do not extend to accommodate **** is a phallocentric fallacy. And the pressure on lesbians to redefine those boundaries is frankly terrifying – it rests on an attitude of entitlement towards women's bodies, an entitlement that is part of patriarchy and now being replicated within queer space. Lesbian women do not exist as sex objects or sources of validation, but self-actualised human beings with desires and boundaries of our own.
Talking about queer politics with gay male friends my age is something of an eye-opener. I am reminded of two things: With men, no is accepted as the closing word. With women, no is treated as the opening of a negotiation. Most gay men in my life are in turns horrified and amused by the notion that the parameters of their sexuality could or should be expected to move in accordance with the dictates of queer politics. Some (the fortunate ones – ignorance here is bliss) are unfamiliar with the rabbit hole of queer theory. Others (the newly initiated) are, unsurprisingly, resistant to the queer problematising of homosexuality. One went so far as to suggest gays, lesbians, and bisexuals break away from the alphabet soup of queer politics and self-organise specifically around the lines of sexuality – given that numerous dykes have been subject to the TERF witch-hunt for making the same case, it was at once uplifting and depressing to hear a man outside of radical feminism voice the same views without fear of censure.
...when I check my Twitter notifications, it genuinely takes a moment to work out whether my being a lesbian has offended the alt-right or the queer left. Does it particularly matter? The lesbophobia takes the same format. The hatred of women is identical.
Over Pride, a picture of a smiling transwoman clad in a bloodstained t-shirt proclaiming "I punch TERFs" circulated on social media. The image was captioned "this is what gay liberation looks like." That those of us living at the intersection of gay identity and womanhood – lesbians – are often branded TERFs purely by virtue of our sexuality makes this claim particularly dubious.
"With men, no is accepted as the closing word. With women, no is treated as the opening of a negotiation."
That's why lesbians alone, among the alphabet soup alliance, are being pressured in this way.
For pretending to be a woman to save $90 ?
To me it seems like you're arguing that people wouldn't abuse gender self-identification because being trans is dangerous and scary. I'm pointing out that that someone using self-identification in bad faith doesn't really need to worry about those things.
No. I'm saying there's a disincentive to doing it. There are people who will do anything but do we need to worry about them ?
It's interesting that gay men can express doubt about how fast and how far this thing has spread without evident fear, just as conservative men can. In the UK, conservative women who have opposed it or expressed reservations get attacked just as much as gay women, but prominent conservative men who do the same are largely left alone. It seems to me that the harassment is being given to those the harassers know it will impact. Gay women being accused of bigotry and such are much more vulnerable, especially if their public and social life is in the progressive world. But there's not a hell of a lot the transgender set can do to someone like Jacob Rees-Mogg, so they don't even try.
You continue to bring that up to brush away the notion anyone would bother for such petty things.
How about pretending to be a woman so you can **** women? Does that sound like better motivation for some?
Post by: TimG on December 02, 2018, 09:09:41 pm
The guy in Alberta had an at fault accident on his record so the savings were over $1000/year. A significant sum for many.
It's interesting that gay men can express doubt about how fast and how far this thing has spread without evident fear, just as conservative men can.
I guess you have never heard of Sky Gilbert.
Yes and I have addressed that issue separately; I don't treat both questions the same.
Quote from: TimG on December 02, 2018, 09:09:41 pm
Well, ok. I find the story odd but not alarming.
yet you're, apparently, unable to present an image of the tweet with that date... even after pointed requests to do so. Wassup, hey!
(note: I didn't attach a date to that perm ban, but did speak to an incident after the "f---bull---" tweet that sources suggest was the 'straw that broke the...'. Again, as I stated: "note: as I read/interpret, after that "f----bull---" tweet, there was one event/exchange before the ultimate perm ban pin was pulled; specifically, TheTwitter removed the verification symbol (blue check mark) from her account. Apparently, after Ms. Murphy tweeted that the 'verification symbol was removedl' from her account... she was perm banned."
bottom-line: these exchanges have helped reinforce that Ms. Murphy has had a long run of offending (to TheTwitter) tweets... with many exchanges with TheTwitterAdmin and multiple suspensions before the ultimate perm ban. Apparently, transparency suffered in your push for her martyrdom!
And all Murphy's Twitter suspensions have the same theme: reported by trans activists for "hateful conduct" for "misgendering" someone or for disagreeing that trans-identified men are women.
If that's their policy then so be it, but they've certainly put their thumb on the scale, in contradiction of Jack Dorsey's claim of neutrality.
And as has been pointed out by many people, it's hilarious that "misgendering" and questioning the dogma of trans activists is considered worthy of suspensions and bans on a platform where threats of physical violence and hate speech are routine.
(https://i.imgur.com/vftLRQt.png)
Post by: waldo on December 03, 2018, 10:47:10 am
and yet - still no dated tweet from you... colour me shocked; shocked I tells ya! Oh... is this, as you say, you, "conceding the point and moving on"?
notwithstanding the clear pattern of repeated suspensions, your own neutrality in judging TheTwitter isn't at all suspect/coloured - at all! ;D Apparently, your interpretation of neutrality must be one where TheTwitter ignores repeat offenders and clear violations of established rules. You perceive an affront to "your team"; apparently... you want TheTwitter to be anything but neutral and side for "your team" - yes?
here's an update on your example:
(https://i.imgur.com/8ThIwzg.png)
the profile platforms are now in scramble mode, particularly with their grandiose failures related to Russian bots/election meddling - the focus on the possibility of regulat

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl