EPTUK Politics Mega-thread - Page 612
| Forum Index > General Forum |
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk | ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2605 Posts
| ||
|
justanothertownie
16325 Posts
On January 27 2023 14:40 gobbledydook wrote: This situation is a mix of the Tories wanting to fight a culture war, and the SNP trying to use this as a chance to further their cause of independence. The SNP chose the course of action that was most likely to provoke a battle with the Tories. They’re both cynical to the core. This. The topic is blatantly weaponized by both sides imo. | ||
|
Melliflue
United Kingdom1389 Posts
@Artisreal: Such people definitely exist, but a lot of the discussion has been toxic, and there have been men on the other side of the debate being hostile towards women voicing concerns about women's safety. In an earlier post I quoted Lloyd Russell-Moyle's response to Miriam Cates. When the feminist Rosie Duffield spoke about women's issues during the debate she was jeered, mainly by men. (I think it is fair to say that Rosie Duffield is anti-trans but nevertheless she shouldn't be jeered while speaking in the Commons, and a bunch of men should not jeer a woman speaking about women's issues.) @Jock: I will split your post into two. On January 27 2023 04:41 Jockmcplop wrote: I think the latter group is very unlikely to vote for a socially liberal party and since the collapse of UKIP there has been no socially conservative rival to the Conservative Party, so I think the Tories are targeting the former group, hoping to draw some into the latter group. But I am only speculating here.The thing is the quiet people who wonder about issues are not the people the tories are trying to win votes off with their attacks. Its the people who are so backward in their thinking and so insecure in their own self that they have to attack anyone who is different from them. Its very easy to tell the difference between the two groups. Remember this is not me trying to convince someone of something, its me pointing out the way our government works, what their priorities are, and how people are victimised by them playing on the fear and insecurity of the idiot vote. Logically what you're saying makes sense, but i'm not going to tread on eggshells to avoid upsetting people who, if they're upset by that, i don't have any chance of getting through to anyway. I could do, and it wouldn't take much, if any, effort on my part to be more respectful of these people, but i've dealt with enough of them that i quite enjoy calling them morons, because they are, and i don't think anyone should take anything I say seriously enough to expect that me doing so would have any consequences at all on the quiet wonderers. While that may apply to an anonymous individual on-line it certainly does not apply to politicians or activists. How do you feel about the Lloyd Russell-Moyle quote? The jeering of Rosie Duffield? | ||
|
StasisField
United States1086 Posts
| ||
|
Melliflue
United Kingdom1389 Posts
On January 29 2023 03:24 StasisField wrote: I didn't figure this needs to be explained but a rapist who wants to attack a woman who just went to the women's bathroom will either go in and rape the woman in the bathroom or wait for her to leave and rape her outside the women's bathroom. They don't need to be pretend to be a trans woman to do it, these spaces don't have forcefields around them that keep violent male criminals out, and anyone parroting this fear-mongering take is being anti-trans full stop. And it would be great if that was the response given when such views were aired. (Except for calling them anti-trans.) This discussion about language started with me saying I fear it is the combative attitude of many progressives that will prevent them from getting meaningful political influence. I was arguing that we shouldn't just dismiss people who voice any concerns or questions about progressive ideals as bad people, but instead try to win them over with arguments, not insults. (Ps, playing Devil's advocate: If biological males were never allowed into women's only spaces then someone who is visibly male walking into a women's toilet/changing room could draw attention and any woman could immediately leave or scream to attract attention. Also, that argument doesn't solve the problem of prisons, or women's shelters.) | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Melliflue
United Kingdom1389 Posts
On January 29 2023 04:03 JimmiC wrote: What percentage of rapes are commited by trans women and what percentage are not? What percentage are done by doctors and dentists? Should we not allow all male doctors and dentists to with women? Edit: if people really cared about violence against women there are 1000s of problems to solve first. People bring up the miniscule percentage of trans women violence because they feel like it justifys and is a socially acceptable reason to be bigoted. Stay out of other peoples personal business, if they identify as what ever, who cares let them. If they like men, women, both, feet, balloons, so on and it is consentual let them. If it is not consentual that is bad regardless of what gender the person was born and what they identify with. Everything else is a smokescreen for prejudice. As I have said (I think a few times now) I am in favour of self-identification. I have really only tried to make two points in the last few pages. 1) I think the SNP wanted to start a fight over Scottish independence. 2) I think people should not assume the worst of people they disagree with, attach a label such as "bigot" to them, and then dismiss the entire person as bad. (Although, one thing I want to point out: I believe a woman is allowed to request a female doctor if it involves intimate issues.) | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States43964 Posts
On January 29 2023 03:53 Melliflue wrote: (Ps, playing Devil's advocate: If biological males were never allowed into women's only spaces then someone who is visibly male walking into a women's toilet/changing room could draw attention and any woman could immediately leave or scream to attract attention. Also, that argument doesn't solve the problem of prisons, or women's shelters.) No, it would actually make it harder to distinguish. The proposed tolerant system is that women, both cis and trans, go into the women’s bathroom. So someone appearing male would stand out. Trans women don’t typically dress as men. What conservatives want is all people assigned female at birth, so cis women and trans men, to use the women’s bathroom. They’re trying to force these shaven headed bearded men into women’s bathrooms and make us treat that as normal just because of how they were assigned at birth. The fact that they’re obviously men doesn’t matter to those conservatives. So now when men walk into a woman’s bathroom we have to play “is that a cis man or a trans man because cis men are all rapists whereas trans men are just using the biologically appropriate bathroom in accordance with my weird beliefs”. It’s fucking nuts. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11817 Posts
On January 29 2023 05:14 KwarK wrote: No, it would actually make it harder to distinguish. The proposed tolerant system is that women, both cis and trans, go into the women’s bathroom. So someone appearing male would stand out. Trans women don’t typically dress as men. What conservatives want is all people assigned female at birth, so cis women and trans men, to use the women’s bathroom. They’re trying to force these shaven headed bearded men into women’s bathrooms and make us treat that as normal just because of how they were assigned at birth. The fact that they’re obviously men doesn’t matter to those conservatives. So now when men walk into a woman’s bathroom we have to play “is that a cis man or a trans man because cis men are all rapists whereas trans men are just using the biologically appropriate bathroom in accordance with my weird beliefs”. It’s fucking nuts. With this discussion, i always wonder: Has there actually been a case where a trans woman committed sex crimes in a womans bathroom? Because conservatives act as if that is a major problem that needs to be addressed. But i don't think it actually happens? Because if there were even a single case of it, conservatives would never, ever shut up about it. | ||
|
Melliflue
United Kingdom1389 Posts
On January 29 2023 05:14 KwarK wrote: No, it would actually make it harder to distinguish. The proposed tolerant system is that women, both cis and trans, go into the women’s bathroom. So someone appearing male would stand out. Trans women don’t typically dress as men. What conservatives want is all people assigned female at birth, so cis women and trans men, to use the women’s bathroom. They’re trying to force these shaven headed bearded men into women’s bathrooms and make us treat that as normal just because of how they were assigned at birth. The fact that they’re obviously men doesn’t matter to those conservatives. So now when men walk into a woman’s bathroom we have to play “is that a cis man or a trans man because cis men are all rapists whereas trans men are just using the biologically appropriate bathroom in accordance with my weird beliefs”. It’s fucking nuts. [Still playing Devil's advocate] A man can grow his hair long and wear a dress while still identifying as a man. A woman can shave her head and still identify as a woman. We shouldn't be relying on such gender stereotypes. I was thinking of physical traits such as height and body shape. If someone the size of Tyson Fury walks into a women's changing room I doubt a woman will be reassured by the Fury lookalike wearing a wig. | ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3943 Posts
On January 29 2023 18:06 Melliflue wrote: [Still playing Devil's advocate] A man can grow his hair long and wear a dress while still identifying as a man. A woman can shave her head and still identify as a woman. We shouldn't be relying on such gender stereotypes. I was thinking of physical traits such as height and body shape. If someone the size of Tyson Fury walks into a women's changing room I doubt a woman will be reassured by the Fury lookalike wearing a wig. Oh, changing rooms are now limited by height and body shape? What is the max height for a women's changing room? How much are they maximum allowed to be able to lift? Female bodybuilders, as absurd as they look, are generally not allowed there anymore? Your point is getting more absurd every moment. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9842 Posts
On January 29 2023 03:04 Melliflue wrote: While that may apply to an anonymous individual on-line it certainly does not apply to politicians or activists. How do you feel about the Lloyd Russell-Moyle quote? The jeering of Rosie Duffield? The jeering of Rosie Duffield isn't exactly an outlier in Parliament. Its standard behaviour when someone says something you disagree with. Parliament as a whole acts like assembly at a private school before the head starts speaking. The RUssell-Moyle quote is pretty much dead on, if its the one i'm thinking of. I can't find your post where you quote it: ‘The idea of linking trans people with predators is disgusting and you should be ashamed,’ he told Cates, before accusing his fellow MP of delivering what he claimed was ‘one of the worst transphobic dog-whistle speeches I’ve heard in an awful long time’. I think he's absolutely dead on. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
On January 29 2023 03:53 Melliflue wrote: And it would be great if that was the response given when such views were aired. (Except for calling them anti-trans.) This discussion about language started with me saying I was arguing that we shouldn't just dismiss people who voice any concerns or questions about progressive ideals as bad people, but instead try to win them over with arguments, not insults. (Ps, playing Devil's advocate: If biological males were never allowed into women's only spaces then someone who is visibly male walking into a women's toilet/changing room could draw attention and any woman could immediately leave or scream to attract attention. Also, that argument doesn't solve the problem of prisons, or women's shelters.) Im 99% sure you can find a clip of Sturgeon sayin exactly that in the last 3 months of interviews and FMQs | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11817 Posts
On January 29 2023 18:49 Jockmcplop wrote: The jeering of Rosie Duffield isn't exactly an outlier in Parliament. Its standard behaviour when someone says something you disagree with. Parliament as a whole acts like assembly at a private school before the head starts speaking. The RUssell-Moyle quote is pretty much dead on, if its the one i'm thinking of. I can't find your post where you quote it: I think he's absolutely dead on. I remember a particularly disgusting rightwing strategy. You take statistics of people "involved in sex crimes", and you will notice that trans people are indeed "involved in sex crimes" a lot more often than cis-people on average. Of course, this makes you think that they are the perpetrator if you don't investigate any further. But then it usually turns out that yes, trans people are indeed "involved" in sex crimes more often. Usually as the victim. | ||
|
Elroi
Sweden5600 Posts
Also, this particular debate is about the legal/administrative recognition of gender, right? (not access to surgery etc.) That makes me wonder why it matters what it says in your passport if you behave/feel/act like a woman? | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18280 Posts
On January 29 2023 22:45 Elroi wrote: I don't understand why this discussion is about bathrooms. If people get to chose their own gender freely I'd be more worried about stuff like calls to mammography scans going out to biological men instead of women, inmates deciding they'd rather be in a women's prison, or male athletes deciding they want to compete against women. It seems to me that it's mostly hysterical liberals who talk about bathrooms. Also, this particular debate is about the legal/administrative recognition of gender, right? (not access to surgery etc.) That makes me wonder why it matters what it says in your passport if you behave/feel/act like a woman? That doesn't make much sense. What it can say in your passport is fundamentally about whether the government recognizes your gender. A lot of things cascade out from there. Similar to how gay people fought for their right to get married. They were allowed to be gay and live together, so what does marriage matter... well, quite a lot. It means the government recognizes you as a family, which is very important for all kinds of things. Similarly, your (officially recognized) gender is also important for all kinds of things. One of those is which bathroom you can go to (and judging from the quotes of the House of Commons it is not liberals being hysterical about them). Although, let's face it, what man hasn't found a woman in the men's room when there's a long queue for the ladies'? And I'll freely admit I have snuck into the ladies when the men's room was busy/broken/disgusting. It really does seem like a complete non-issue already, regardless of what my officially recognized gender is: given the number of actual trans people, their impact on cross-sex bathroom usage seems extremely negligible. As for a biological male being called up for a mammogram: so what? Seems more problematic that they *won't* be called up for a prostate exam. But that seems like some bureaucracy that should be easily fixed... | ||
|
Elroi
Sweden5600 Posts
What are the ramifications of people being able to change their juridical gender? The use of bathrooms surely isn't one? I mean, when have you ever shown your passport when entering a bathroom? To me that seems like a separate issue. Juridical gender seems to have more to do with stuff like being called to mammography, how surgery is performed on you, access to professional competitions, or which prison you'll end up in if you're a criminal. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9842 Posts
On January 30 2023 06:22 Elroi wrote: Juridical gender seems to have more to do with stuff like being called to mammography, how surgery is performed on you, access to professional competitions, or which prison you'll end up in if you're a criminal. What a weird collection of examples. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43964 Posts
| ||
| ||
