PDA

View Full Version : Breitbart



Woebot
29-01-2016, 10:11 AM
gotta admit this made my stomach turn. it is fascinating though.

http://www.breitbart.com/

there is an irrational paranoia to the extreme right which is, you gotta admit, deeply hilarious. they take common sense to the point to which it ceases to mean anything.

the topics: immigration, climate denial, minuscule government. almost like they are engraved in marble.

pretty much all the columnists are in fact trolls. the commenters (of which there are literally millions) are almost like bots. so sculpted and scripted are their responses.

if the guardian is the home of the online home of the virtue signaller then breitbart is home of the virtual redneck.

droid
29-01-2016, 10:20 AM
This is the future though. We're going to see a mainstreaming of the most despicable views of the right over the next few years as climate kicks in and the refugee crisis increases by orders of magnitude. We already have creeping fascism, with everything from subhuman accommodation for asylum seekers, wristbands, and other forms of forced public displays, naked displays of racism by public figures, open calls for extermination...

We can look forward to global feudalism, with the rich nations behind castle walls and the rich within rich nations in the keep, and the propaganda of the right will become the fig leaf to justify it all.

sadmanbarty
29-01-2016, 10:42 AM
With the multiplicity of news channels and websites these days, viewers gravitate towards niche news sources which confirm their beliefs rather than challenge them.

1:13:49

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvhL7-hPsro

trza
29-01-2016, 03:13 PM
i never understood who that milos guy with the long name was but his columns get forwarded to me a lot

comelately
30-01-2016, 05:27 PM
I was dealing with a recruitment agent a few months ago who I found out wrote for Breitbart on the side.

I lost a friend to Stefan Molyneux and his cultish nonsense a few months ago. Moly's arguments do sometimes hold a passing resemblance to Mr Tea's (I think specifically of a discussion around 'there are facts/there are no facts' a few years ago).

Mr. Tea
30-01-2016, 06:27 PM
Haha, you've got a real bee in your bonnet about me, haven't you?

trza
30-01-2016, 07:14 PM
Back in the nineties in the days of web 1.0 Andrew Brietbart was friends with Matt Drudge and Arianna Huffington and they even showed up to events together

comelately
31-01-2016, 09:50 AM
Haha, you've got a real bee in your bonnet about me, haven't you?

Er, not so much - there was a link, I pointed it out. But no, I don't think you're important honey.

craner
31-01-2016, 11:38 PM
Fuck, wrong thread!

droid
20-07-2016, 09:56 AM
i never understood who that milos guy with the long name was but his columns get forwarded to me a lot

Banned from twitter - rightfully so.

droid
20-07-2016, 09:58 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i05eXluAQ18

baboon2004
20-07-2016, 10:24 AM
what a fascist creep. unlimited self hate sprayed out at others (and then cloaked in a patina of self love, even when you're allying yourself with people who would have you killed if they had unlimited power) is the scariest thing.

Corpsey
20-07-2016, 10:55 AM
There's a lot of right-wing hucksters of opinion like this appearing nowadays, isn't there? Katie Hopkins is the first one that comes to my mind, but of course even Donald Trump is essentially an internet troll raised by personal wealth to the stature of a Presidential Candidate.

There's a reaction on the part of (mostly) white, straight, males to the steadily increasing rights accorded to women, gays (queers? don't know the correct term), ethnic minorities, etc. in the West, and to the 'political correctness' accompanying this shift.

One would hope that this would be an ever diminishing minority of morons, but - as droid points out - with mass migration, terrorist attacks, etc., that might not continue to be the case for long.

vimothy
20-07-2016, 11:11 AM
The trend is clearly increasing over time.

droid
20-07-2016, 11:27 AM
There's a confluence going on here as well, the Sam harris/Hitched/Fedora/Atheist 'rationalists' combined with the Michelle Malkin, Pam Grier, Fox News blatantly evil types + outrage junkies like Hopkins/Mackenzie/Littlejohn into a smorgasboard of cynically hateful vacuous commentary... a cultural & political Voltron of despicable bile.

Benny B
20-07-2016, 11:56 AM
.



There's a reaction on the part of (mostly) white, straight, males to the steadily increasing rights accorded to women, gays (queers? don't know the correct term), ethnic minorities, etc. in the West, and to the 'political correctness' accompanying this shift.



.


It's against women in general, particularly feminists of the more radical variety who regularly receive violent threats. You should see some of the hate dished out against them on twitter from 'liberal feminists' and transgender activists - pure misogynist hatred at its worst.

Mr. Tea
20-07-2016, 12:40 PM
It's against women in general, particularly feminists of the more radical variety who regularly receive violent threats. You should see some of the hate dished out against them on twitter from 'liberal feminists' and transgender activists - pure misogynist hatred at its worst.

In fairness it's not as if there are no radfems with crazy or repugnant views of their own - such as insisting that all trans-women are "attention-seekers" or "men pretending to be women" and should therefore be excluded from feminist discourse.

droid
20-07-2016, 12:46 PM
Thats just Germaine Greer.

Benny B
20-07-2016, 12:50 PM
In fairness it's not as if there are no radfems with crazy or repugnant views of their own - such as insisting that all trans-women are "attention-seekers" or "men pretending to be women" and should therefore be excluded from feminist discourse.


Tea you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Radfems do not hate trans people, they disagree with them over gender issues and receive torrents of violent misogynist threats as a result in place of actual coherent arguments.

Benny B
20-07-2016, 12:57 PM
Thats just Germaine Greer.



Greer disagrees that trans women are real women. She doesn't hate them.
I don't always agree with everything she says but she isn't crazy.

Benny B
20-07-2016, 01:02 PM
Not buying into liberal, individualist identity politics does not mean you are crazy, repugnant or hate trans people

baboon2004
20-07-2016, 01:05 PM
gays (queers? don't know the correct term)


This is interesting in the context of Yiannopoulus - he's gay but most definitely not queer. A middle-upper class white man who's desperately telling the most difference-phobic privileged white heterosexual men he can find that he's just like them except for one aspect of his being. Desperately seeking approval from those who would hate him if he wasn't constantly reaffirming that their other prejudices are correct. Hateful.

Mr. Tea
20-07-2016, 01:08 PM
Thats just Germaine Greer.

Yeah but it's not though, is it.

luka
20-07-2016, 01:11 PM
http://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/camille-paglia/

Camille Paglia: “Transgender Mania is a Symptom of Cultural Collapse” (video)

baboon2004
20-07-2016, 01:11 PM
Not buying into liberal, individualist identity politics does not mean you are crazy, repugnant or hate trans people

i'd agree with that. funny to me that mtf anf ftm transitions so often seem to be treated as if they can be talked about together, without any consideration of the differences between them. Whereas power realities dictate that they're not the same thing at all.

luka
20-07-2016, 01:13 PM
I agree with her entirely, well except for the bit where she talks about the danger of inflaming the opponents of Western culture and the spengler decline and fall stuff anyway. Lots of stable traditional cultures have a third sex, men dressed as women. It's very common.

vimothy
20-07-2016, 01:17 PM
Paglia has descended into much the same reactionary cesspit as Zizek.

Mr. Tea
20-07-2016, 01:19 PM
i'd agree with that. funny to me that mtf anf ftm transitions so often seem to be treated as if they can be talked about together, without any consideration of the differences between them. Whereas power realities dictate that they're not the same thing at all.

Also, how many trans-men actually are there? I know they exist, of course, but they seem to be greatly outnumbered by trans-women.

luka
20-07-2016, 01:24 PM
Paglia has descended into much the same reactionary cesspit as Zizek.
I thought you liked reactionary cesspits? I need one of those idiots guides to the thought of vimothy

vimothy
20-07-2016, 01:27 PM
Only joking - I love reactionary cesspits!

Mr. Tea
20-07-2016, 01:29 PM
Only joking - I love reactionary cesspits!

Sounds like it should be one of your unlistenable black metal bands.

Mr. Tea
20-07-2016, 01:30 PM
As opposed to all those smooth, radio-friendly black metal bands, I suppose.

vimothy
20-07-2016, 01:33 PM
Camile Paglia would be a good name for a black metal band.

luka
20-07-2016, 01:33 PM
Only joking - I love reactionary cesspits!

Lol! You had me worried for a minute. Why is Zizek tolerated anyway? Other than as a twitchy, hammy class clown.

Benny B
20-07-2016, 01:34 PM
Google search for an article called 'the emperor's new penis' by lierre Keith for an excellent summary of the radfem position on transgender and the hatemongering I was talking about. Highly recommended

Benny B
20-07-2016, 01:40 PM
And tea, you of all people should be critical of some of the pseudobiology that gets spouted by the transgender movement

droid
20-07-2016, 01:53 PM
Paglia has descended into much the same reactionary cesspit as Zizek.

Ah to be fair now, Pagila was digging that cesspit long before Zizek jumped in.

Corpsey
20-07-2016, 01:53 PM
The rise of 'telling it like it is' anti-PC commentary (on the right-wing and in atheist circles, e.g.) is surely connected to the erosion of certainties which increased knowledge (i.e. research, education) and empathy is forcing us to acknowledge and accept.

(Actually, I think this is one of Zizek's hobby horses: the revolt against 'common sense' and simple explanations, to the extent that he is moved (in mind and gesticulating body) to ask questions like 'what if Stalin was good?' I mean this is sort of the foundation of 'cultural theory', isn't it? Deconstructionism, Freudianism. Not telling it like it is, but telling us what it isn't.)

Anyway, that same fear (coupled with homophobia, of course) is aroused in transphobia, in the idea that 'a man is a man, a woman is a woman, a spade is a spade'.

Puts me in mind of the dual-mind theory (as written about in 'Thinking Fast and Slow'): the mental mechanism which predisposes us towards easy answers.

Perhaps also the internet has a role here? The profusion of unverified knowledge, theories and facts makes people long for a loud, confident voice to tell them 'ignore all this other shit, listen to ME.'

oh, and it should go without saying that white, straight males have inherited a 'common sense' invented for the most part by white, straight males, 'common sense' which of course privileges them and their values above everybody else, and so they're horrified to see that privilege being eroded along with their certainties. I think I feel this way too, without wishing to. I certainly feel impatience with certain aspects of the social justice movement, but perhaps that's just me unconsciously thinking 'the world seems alright TO ME, why complain about it?'

luka
20-07-2016, 01:54 PM
That was worth reading benny although they're preaching to the choir where I'm concerned. I'd be interested to read a rebuttal

baboon2004
20-07-2016, 01:54 PM
Also, how many trans-men actually are there? I know they exist, of course, but they seem to be greatly outnumbered by trans-women.

Dunno...I've met someone who I learned is planning to transition ftm, but yes, 90% of press coverage concerns mtf transitions so the impression is given that these transitions are way more common. No idea if that's true irl though.

edit: https://tgmentalhealth.com/tag/prevalence/ doesn't seem to be an awful lot of reliable info around

from that emperor's new penis article, this is a very good way of putting the main point of argument, albeit obvs should read: some trans activists:
"The disagreement is that queer/trans activists believe gender is a binary, and we believe it’s a hierarchy."

droid
20-07-2016, 01:57 PM
Greer disagrees that trans women are real women. She doesn't hate them.
I don't always agree with everything she says but she isn't crazy.

Yeah, I can really appreciate her thoughtful, measured disagreement


“Just because you lop off your d**k and then wear a dress doesn't make you a ******* woman. I’ve asked my doctor to give me long ears and liver spots and I’m going to wear a brown coat but that won’t turn me into a ******* cocker spaniel.

“I do understand that some people are born intersex and they deserve support in coming to terms with their gender but it’s not the same thing. A man who gets his d**k chopped off is actually inflicting an extraordinary act of violence on himself.”

luka
20-07-2016, 02:00 PM
She's Australian droid, that's how they talk. Don't be prejudiced

droid
20-07-2016, 02:06 PM
She did an interview here on TV a few years back alongside Daniel O'Donnell, who viciously and repeatedly put her down, leaving her completely nonplussed.. very funny. Id link it but it's not online.

luka
20-07-2016, 02:07 PM
I do worry about people who are potentially mentally ill chopping their dicks off. I mean surely you can see there's potential for a modicum of regret there.

luka
20-07-2016, 02:08 PM
Not even necessarily mentally ill. In pain, confused, anguished etc

droid
20-07-2016, 02:11 PM
Yeah, just chopping their dicks off in a moment of anguish - not after years of medical involvement, living like a woman, psychiatric evaluations and all of the many many hoops a trans woman has to go through before getting a sex change...

luka
20-07-2016, 02:13 PM
Each to their own and that. I wouldnt be up for it though

droid
20-07-2016, 02:16 PM
Of course not. After all, you'd have to be mentally ill, confused or in pain or anguish to even consider it.

luka
20-07-2016, 02:17 PM
Lol look at you trying to get an angle.Nice try.

droid
20-07-2016, 02:30 PM
I wasnt trying very hard, you made it easy, in fact.

From a rebuttal to the article Benny posted with which you agreed wholeheartedly.


Do you deny and exclude trans people in your organization? Do you call trans women names like “trans boys?” Do you identify them as “deeply misogynistic” men who are trying to undermine women? Yes, those are direct quotes.

Lierre, you stated, “Well, I’ve personally been fighting about this since 1982. I think ‘transphobic’ is a ridiculous word. I have no strange fear of people who claim to be ‘trans.’ I deeply disagree with them, as do most radical feminists.” In summarizing your view on trans people, Rachel Ivy states, “men insisting they are women is insulting and absurd.” This is the blunt denial of trans people that you put forward, and Ivey goes on to declare, “there is no debate” over this issue in DGR.

Benny B
20-07-2016, 02:34 PM
Which part of that article do you disagree with Droid?

droid
20-07-2016, 02:40 PM
I dont know anything about them, but one thing Ive learned about discourse down through the years is that when the focus of criticism is levelled at the unacceptable conduct of (presumably) a very small cohort of the opposition, then the people who are making the criticisms are usually not being particularly honest.

luka
20-07-2016, 02:44 PM
You're not being particularly honest by implying that my skimming an article and saying it seems reasonable but would like a rebuttal equates to unqualified support of everything the authors have ever said or done. But like I say, nice try.

Benny B
20-07-2016, 02:54 PM
I see that sort of abuse on twitter and in comments boxes of feminist blogs every single day.

Putting that aside, what part of the radfem position on transgender as explained in the article do you disagree with?

droid
20-07-2016, 02:59 PM
lol, 'preaching to the choir' wasn't it? Anyway it was your subsequent comments that were a bit dodgy... Still, laisse pisser, as they say.

droid
20-07-2016, 03:09 PM
I see that sort of abuse on twitter and in comments boxes of feminist blogs every single day.

Putting that aside, what part of the radfem position on transgender as explained in the article do you disagree with?

Their exclusive skinnerism primarily - that gender is exclusively the result of Operant Conditioning, their complete lack of empathy for trans people and their denial of even the possibility of any kind of biological basis for gender.

They're like people who say that race doesn't exist and therefore there cannot be racism.

Benny B
20-07-2016, 03:23 PM
Your strawmanning now Droid. You said yourself you don't know anything about deep green resistance, why not have a look at their website? They have a quite useful FAQ section that might enlighten you to their position.

They don't lack empathy for trans people at all, but they are entitled to respond to mindless misogynist abuse wherever it comes from.

Benny B
20-07-2016, 03:28 PM
There may be some biological basis for gender, the truth is there is a lot scientists don't know. However I think its fair to argue that the masculine/feminine hierarchy we have now is socially constructed and a lot of trans theory refuses to even consider it.

Mr. Tea
20-07-2016, 03:29 PM
And tea, you of all people should be critical of some of the pseudobiology that gets spouted by the transgender movement

I'm not sure biology, pseudo- or otherwise, has much to do with it. It seems to me to be an issue more of psychology (which can be useful, certainly, but is not in my view a science) and culture and society.

Look, I'm by no means the kind of headbanging trans-rights fanatic who gets furious when people say 'sex' instead of 'gender' or anything like that. As far as I can remember, I've fleetingly met two transgendered people in my life, ever. What puzzles me is the severe hostility - and I have seen reactions that are quite hostile - to the idea of including trans-women in feminism. Without getting deep into the arcana of gender theory, my objection to this position is mainly that it just seems so mean-spirited. What harm can it possibly do feminism to include this (in the scheme of things) tiny number of people who are not exactly likely to be undercover agents of Patriarchy?

Benny B
20-07-2016, 03:30 PM
Another good article on this to look for is sarah ditum's 'what is gender anyway'.

Corpsey
20-07-2016, 03:32 PM
I'm completely clueless about this subject (see: every subject other than Gucci Mane mixtapes circa 2009), so two minutes of Google research has enlightened me as to the possibility of a biological basis for gender 'dysmorphia': http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-something-unique-about-the-transgender-brain/

Mind you, I have no idea what I previously thought was the 'cause' of transgender identities. An aversion to all things masculine/feminine?

I'm not good at being a man, really, but I think I'd be even worse as a woman. Therefore I would say I identify as a domestic cat. I like lying around sleeping and I generally require feeding.

Benny B
20-07-2016, 03:36 PM
I'm not sure biology, pseudo- or otherwise, has much to do with it. It seems to me to be an issue more of psychology (which can be useful, certainly, but is not in my view a science) and culture and society.



Look, I'm by no means the kind of headbanging trans-rights fanatic who gets furious when people say 'sex' instead of 'gender' or anything like that. As far as I can remember, I've fleetingly met two transgendered people in my life, ever. What puzzles me is the severe hostility - and I have seen reactions that are quite hostile - to the idea of including trans-women in feminism. Without getting deep into the arcana of gender theory, my objection to this position is mainly that it just seems so mean-spirited. What harm can it possibly do feminism to include this (in the scheme of things) tiny number of people who are not exactly likely to be undercover agents of Patriarchy?


Something to do with the invasion of female-only spaces by men perhaps?
(among other things)

Benny B
20-07-2016, 03:39 PM
?



I'm not good at being a man, really, but I think I'd be even worse as a woman. Therefore I would say I identify as a domestic cat. I like lying around sleeping and I generally require feeding.


Taken to its logical conclusion, transgender identity politics would totally validate this.

Miaaaoww!

droid
20-07-2016, 03:42 PM
Your strawmanning now Droid. You said yourself you don't know anything about deep green resistance, why not have a look at their website? They have a quite useful FAQ section that might enlighten you to their position.


Er, no, Im not, Im judging them solely on the contents of that article. In their own words:


Our analysis is informed by a century and a half of feminist theory and activism. Our views are in no way unique. We believe that a social system of male domination starts with human beings who are biologically male or female and creates two social classes of people: men and women. Socialization to either group can be a brutal process.

Men are made by socialization to masculinity. Being a man requires a psychology based on emotional numbness and a dichotomy of self and other. This is also the psychology required by soldiers, which is why we don’t think you can be a peace activist without being a feminist.

Female socialization is a process of psychologically constraining and breaking girls—otherwise known as “grooming”—to create a class of compliant victims. Femininity is a set of behaviors that are, in essence, ritualized submission.

We see nothing in the creation of gender to celebrate or embrace. As feminists, we are abolitionists.

Gender is completely a product of environment, it does not exist outside the social - this is their argument and thats exactly what I claimed their argument was.


They don't lack empathy for trans people at all, but they are entitled to respond to mindless misogynist abuse wherever it comes from.

And presumably those who arent happy with what they would deem to be 'mindless transphobic abuse' are equally entitled to respond?

droid
20-07-2016, 03:49 PM
Taken to its logical conclusion, transgender identity politics would totally validate this.

Miaaaoww!


Reminds me of the arguments that were made against gay marriage here last year... ...taken to its logical conclusion what's to stop men marrying sheep, or women marrying cars?

Benny B
20-07-2016, 04:00 PM
What they 'deem to be' transphobic abuse is actually just disagreement with their position. I've never seen dgr say anything remotely transphobic. This is what I meant by strawmanning.

Like I said before, there is lots that science doesn't know about the biological basis for gender. Otoh, mainly thanks to feminist analysis, we know ALOT about the social construction of gender norms.

Benny B
20-07-2016, 04:03 PM
Reminds me of the arguments that were made against gay marriage here last year... ...taken to its logical conclusion what's to stop men marrying sheep, or women marrying cars?


Eh?

Corpsey
20-07-2016, 04:09 PM
Related? VICE talks to the 'Otherkin' http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/from-dragons-to-foxes-the-otherkin-community-believes-you-can-be-whatever-you-want-to-be (people who identify as non-human).


The distinction between otherkin and transgender is frequently outlined by users on Reddit; while there has been controversial research showing that being transgender might be caused by number of physical anomalies in the brain, including a difference in the brain's white matter, no such physical difference can be found for otherkin. While otherkin may protest that this is due to a lack of research, Azurel adds that "it's a significantly larger jump from 'other gender' to 'other species'".

droid
20-07-2016, 04:18 PM
What they 'deem to be' transphobic abuse is actually just disagreement with their position. I've never seen dgr say anything remotely transphobic. This is what I meant by strawmanning.


From a previous post.


Do you deny and exclude trans people in your organization? Do you call trans women names like “trans boys?” Do you identify them as “deeply misogynistic” men who are trying to undermine women? Yes, those are direct quotes.

Lierre, you stated, “Well, I’ve personally been fighting about this since 1982. I think ‘transphobic’ is a ridiculous word. I have no strange fear of people who claim to be ‘trans.’ I deeply disagree with them, as do most radical feminists.” In summarizing your view on trans people, Rachel Ivy states, “men insisting they are women is insulting and absurd.” This is the blunt denial of trans people that you put forward, and Ivey goes on to declare, “there is no debate” over this issue in DGR.

http://earthfirstjournal.org/newswire/2013/06/24/an-open-letter-to-lierre-keith-and-derrick-jensen-from-a-member-of-the-earth-first-journal-collective/

Claiming that the very existence of trans women is 'insulting and absurd' towards women strikes me as a phobic and abusive.

droid
20-07-2016, 04:19 PM
Eh?

The equation that someone who likes lying around so therefore should be able to become a cat with transsexuals.

Benny B
20-07-2016, 04:35 PM
That response is very long and don't have time to read it all now but I will later, promise. Don't see what is abusive about calling anyone out on their misogyny be they male, female, straight, gay, trans or whatever someone identifies as.

droid
20-07-2016, 04:37 PM
That response is very long and don't have time to read it all now but I will later, promise. Don't see what is abusive about calling anyone out on their misogyny be they male, female, straight, gay, trans or whatever someone identifies as.


“men insisting they are women is insulting and absurd.”

Is this idea that the very existence of trans-women is insulting to women transphobic?

Benny B
20-07-2016, 04:43 PM
The equation that someone who likes lying around so therefore should be able to become a cat with transsexuals.


Believe me I have seen plenty of transgender people (usually while berating women on twitter) using the argument "I am whatever I claim to be" and expect to be taken seriously in a debate. "transphobe" and "TERF" are usually used as slurs against women who don't agree with them and when their non-arguments fail to convince.

Mr. Tea
20-07-2016, 04:45 PM
Something to do with the invasion of female-only spaces by men perhaps?
(among other things)

Well that's fine if you take the commonsensical view that each person's gender is defined entirely by their biological sex. Obviously sex and gender coincide for the great majority but there are some people for whom that isn't the case.

If the purpose of feminism is to fight patriarchy, perhaps it would be a good idea to include people who are overwhelmingly likely to have been victims of patriarchal prejudice - perhaps to a greater extent than most cisgender women, even - and who have a strong interest in trying to bring about greater equality.

And "invasion" is sheer hyperbole - look out, sisters, the trannies are coming! Run for the hills!

luka
20-07-2016, 04:48 PM
A little hyperbolic perhaps but equally I can imagine some women do feel that way and if they want to reserve their space for women only then that's their prerogative I would have thought.

droid
20-07-2016, 04:48 PM
Believe me I have seen plenty of transgender people (usually while berating women on twitter) using the argument "I am whatever I claim to be" and expect to be taken seriously in a debate. "transphobe" and "TERF" are usually used as slurs against women who don't agree with them and when their non-arguments fail to convince.

Now THIS is strawmanning. Who cares?

And if youre arguing against people who claim your very existence is an insult, then I wonder - how exactly should you address them?

vimothy
20-07-2016, 04:50 PM
A good question.

Benny B
20-07-2016, 04:53 PM
Gotta go now, be back later.

A good article about feminism's problem with trans theory is "is transgender theory open to debate?" By Meghan Murphy. Highly recommended

droid
20-07-2016, 04:54 PM
Well my perspective is that this is such a minor issue, a minute intersection of a minority LGBT concern with feminism - that perhaps rather than pillory trans-people (who, in general have a pretty awful time of it) with awful exclusionary and abusive gatekeeping rhetoric on points of principle, that they should either support them - or if they cant do that - just ignore them.

Benny B
20-07-2016, 05:09 PM
Yes good idea, just ignore the death threats ladies, it doesn't really matter after all...

droid
20-07-2016, 05:14 PM
Yes good idea, just ignore the death threats ladies, it doesn't really matter after all...

...



And if youre arguing against people who claim your very existence is an insult, then I wonder - how exactly should you address them?

Mr. Tea
20-07-2016, 07:44 PM
Yes good idea, just ignore the death threats ladies, it doesn't really matter after all...

I'm aware that high-profile feminists quite often receive nasty threats, although I do have to wonder how many of them come from trans-women. I'd have thought the vast majority of the time it's just unpleasant men being unpleasant men.

And without wishing to downplay the seriousness of death threats, transgender people more frequently have to worry about actual violence, given that they tend to get beaten and murdered at a far higher rate than non-trans people of whatever sex or sexuality.

Benny B
20-07-2016, 08:02 PM
Really this idea that these nasty radical feminists go out of their to insult and oppress trans people is complete bollocks. They are against patriarchy, misogyny and socially constructed gender norms that oppress women. No wonder people feel uncomfortable with the gender norms they are socialized into. Feminists are not the problem here and neither are trans people...unless they start with the misogyny themselves.

And yes, the attacks by trans gender people are significant. Not only the threats on twitter etc, but also more importantly the no-platforming, bullying and silencing tactics that are really starting to get out of hand.

The fact is you can identify yourself as whatever you like, but you can't just 'choose' to be part of a social class. It is circumstances that put you there not choice. Now can you see why women might be insulted by this? Why these ideas are actually quite dangerous?

subvert47
20-07-2016, 08:17 PM
You've posted a lot about this, Benny. Rather than deal with your posts one by one, I'll collate them all here...


A good article about feminism's problem with trans theory is "is transgender theory open to debate?" By Meghan Murphy. Highly recommended

Trans "theory" isn't really a thing. Trans is generally about people's real lives.

And feminism as such doesn't have a problem with trans people – some feminists have a problem, some radical feminists – and not all radfems, some radfems.

Basically they take a monolithic view of gender: that gender is a social construct (of the patriarchy) and is the primary device through which women are oppressed – and that gender is nothing but that.

Trans feminists mostly agree with radical feminists about the oppressive nature of gender, but also use the word "gender" in another way, relating to "gender identity", which refers to a sense of self as being a particular "gender" (e.g. male, female, non-binary) contrary to that assigned at birth. This notion of "gender identity" is pretty much accepted scientifically now – and more and more politically and culturally – even though no one really knows what causes it.

I've actually used the word "gender" in three ways in that paragraph, which is somewhat problematic. But they only really conflict if you insist that words can only have one meaning.


What they 'deem to be' transphobic abuse is actually just disagreement with their position. I've never seen dgr say anything remotely transphobic. This is what I meant by strawmanning.

That's because what they say doesn't affect you personally, so it all seems "reasonable" and a valid subject for "debate". Analogies are quite easy to find there.


Radfems do not hate trans people, they disagree with them over gender issues and receive torrents of violent misogynist threats as a result in place of actual coherent arguments.

Because of their monolithic view of gender, these particular radfems regard trans people as gender collaborators, defenders, infiltrators, whatever - certainly the "enemy of women". Whether you want to call that "hate" is up to you, but their words and actions don't tend to differ much from any other kind of bigot.


Another good article on this to look for is sarah ditum's 'what is gender anyway'.

No, it really isn't. Here's a riposte to that: https://feministchallengingtransphobia.wordpress.com/2016/05/18/sarah-ditum-not-gender-critical-enough/


Really this idea that these nasty radical feminists go out of their to insult and oppress trans people is complete bollocks. They are against patriarchy, misogyny and socially constructed gender norms that oppress women. No wonder people feel uncomfortable with the gender norms they are socialized into. Feminists are not the problem here and neither are trans people...unless they start with the misogyny themselves.

These radical feminists actually do go out of their way to do that.


And yes, the attacks by trans gender people are significant. Not only the threats on twitter etc, but also more importantly the no-platforming, bullying and silencing tactics that are really starting to get out of hand.

No-platforming is a controversial tactic, but in this context it's basically just a way of saying "fuck off out of here with that shit". The people who tend to be no-platformed usually have many other platforms they can use anyway. Indeed, the only reason someone like you even knows about it is because of their massive platforms.


The fact is you can identify yourself as whatever you like, but you can't just 'choose' to be part of a social class. It is circumstances that put you there not choice. Now can you see why women might be insulted by this? Why these ideas are actually quite dangerous?

Your understanding of "gender identity" is pretty clueless. It's not about "choosing" to be part of a social class. Also, these rad fems don't speak for "women". They speak for themselves.

As Catherine McKinnon (another radical feminist) said: "Many transwomen just go around being women, who knew, and suddenly, we are supposed to care that they are using the women’s bathroom. There they are in the next stall with the door shut, and we’re supposed to feel threatened. I don’t. I don’t care. By now, I aggressively don’t care."


Yes good idea, just ignore the death threats ladies, it doesn't really matter after all...

When you spend your time abusing a particular community, sometimes you get angry replies. These are then used as "evidence" of their malfeasance. Most trans activists know better than to play these games. Obviously some people will get angry anyway, but most of such abuse of feminists actually comes from the usual sources: trolling men – which is where this thread started.

Benny B
20-07-2016, 08:30 PM
There's no way I have time to respond to all that now mate.im in my phone and catching a flight to UK early in the morning but will get back to you when I can.

Mr. Tea
20-07-2016, 08:41 PM
Good post, S47.

And to elaborate on the idea of "choosing" to be part of a social class - this sounds a lot like the idea that being gay is a "lifestyle choice" rather than an inherent facet of someone's psychological makeup. Similarly, religion: in theory one can choose to practice almost any religion, or no religion at all, but in practice the great majority of believers follow the religion they were brought up in, in which they have no more choice than they do in their sex or skin colour.

Benny B
20-07-2016, 09:15 PM
In my absence, can people please stop misrepresenting me. I did not say that I'm against gay marriage or that being gay is a lifestyle choice. It's dishonest and quite frankly it's fucking annoying.

Mr. Tea
20-07-2016, 10:47 PM
Misrepresenting you? Then why did you type "but you can't just 'choose' to be part of a social class"? That implies transgender people choose - at some level - to be transgendered. Why would anyone choose this? because it's cool, and fun? because trans people famously have an easy time of it, and society gives them loads of breaks?

Fair enough if you can't reply right now, so I'm going to leave it at that until you get back. By all means please ignore us and enjoy your trip, anyway.

Benny B
20-07-2016, 11:28 PM
Just quickly, I meant you can't just choose to be a female (meaning the feminist idea that women are an oppressed social class), not transgendered - I'm not denying that people don't genuinely experience gender dysphoria. I don't think people choose to be gay or choose whatever sexual preferences they have. You can't choose to be working class or upper class or be black or to be a cat etc...these are all things that are due to circumstances, not personal choice.



Time to go to bed. Goodnight all

droid
21-07-2016, 09:58 AM
Listen to Subvert. He knows a lot about this subject and as well as being an all round lovely person, he is one of the most informed people I know when it comes to feminism and gender.

john eden
21-07-2016, 10:45 AM
(apologies for probably not using the best words below, corrections welcome)

Two people who were born as biological men I know quite well have come out as trans / cross dressers over the last couple of years and I think this is something we are going to see a lot more of. So this isn't going away.

At the other end of the spectrum I have a friend who is fairly elderly who is a longstanding feminist (greenham common, lesbian activism etc). She's not exactly transphobic (certainly not aggressively) but I think separatism and female only spaces were a big part of her political and personal evolution. For her it's something she can't really get her head around and I've not pushed it too much but do remember her saying "but they behave like men" one time, which I took to mean that the trans activists she had encountered are domineering and aggressive.

For me this highlights why all this is so painful.

Most people agree that gender in theory can be non-binary. But the lived experience for most people is that it is actually exactly that - binary.

The lived experience of being a woman is overshadowed by being oppressed by men, with explicit or implicit violence.

The lived experience of being born into a man's body but not being comfortable with that (or with the roles that society imposes on Being A Man) is also one of being oppressed by men - with explicit violence in many cases if you do transgress the boundaries of what Being A Man entails.

I think that people need to recognise the real traumas that are at the heart of this conflict.

It is understandable that some women are suspicious of men generally. It's not too hard to understand why some women would treat people who were biologically men but now wish to identify as women with suspicion.

It is also understandable that trans people feel that they are getting shit from everyone. They are - and I don't think cis people can underestimate their lived experience of daily threats of violence and actual violence.

I think the only way this can actually resolve itself is if gender roles become even more fluid and we destroy patriarchy once and for all. Trans people are the vanguard of this.

baboon2004
21-07-2016, 03:46 PM
I think that's an admirably clear way of stating the issues, and that prioritising lived experience - and especially lived experience of violence, in all its forms - is really important, because that can get lost in discussion. Stemming violence against all parties (and in doing so supporting each person's right to live however the hell they want) must be the #1 aim, ahead of any theoretical discussion.

But - I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion that trans people are necessarily part of the vanguard of destroying patriarchy. Is it not completely dependent upon how the trans person in question views their transition? If a person is transitioning from being a man to being a woman because of being uncomfortable with the societal restrictions associated with Being a Man, then while I support a person's right to transition absolutely, I don't see that this should be confused with an act to destroy patriarchy. Surely it rather just confirms that men should be like *this* and women should be like *this*, adapting to society rather than changing it? While I am 100% behind someone's choice to transition (any other position would seem very hypocritical, as we all change to various extents according to societal edicts), then this doesn't entail that transitioning should necessarily be seen as a revolutionary act in a societal context.

(Also worth mentioning other contexts than the UK, cos not sure that these have been mentioned so far - it's no secret that one of the highest rates of transition in the world is in Iran, due to the death penalty for being gay. I realise this is an extreme national case, but it's simply to point out that intentionality is important in determining to what extent transitioning is an act contributing to fluidity/destroying rigid gender norms, or adapting to them in situations ranging from the very extreme/perilous to the less extreme)

Request for info - one thing I have no idea about is to what extent most trans people expect to 'pass' for their chosen gender (let's say talking about people in the West in this case), and to what extent is it important (both pragmatically and conceptually) to trans people that they do pass? I realise there's a huge spectrum of possible responses here, and it is situation-specific as above, but the question seems an important one to ask, to those with more knowledge than I have.

Benny B
21-07-2016, 03:56 PM
Now we're getting somewhere. Good posts, especially baboon

baboon2004
21-07-2016, 04:13 PM
Good post, S47.

And to elaborate on the idea of "choosing" to be part of a social class - this sounds a lot like the idea that being gay is a "lifestyle choice" rather than an inherent facet of someone's psychological makeup. Similarly, religion: in theory one can choose to practice almost any religion, or no religion at all, but in practice the great majority of believers follow the religion they were brought up in, in which they have no more choice than they do in their sex or skin colour.

Re sexuality and choice - I think it's very important not to conduct the debate on terms dictated by conservatives, whereby what is 'natural' or inherent' is the only thing worthy of being protected from discrimination and violence.

Sexuality is pretty clearly a combination of a whole plethora of influences (in my view childhood experience is critical, but that's a huge discussion), and one's sexual identity and choices, whether one identifies as 'gay', 'straight', 'bisexual' or any other of a rainbow of possibilities, are worthy of protection whether they are natural/inherent or not.

Also, to maintain that sexuality is 'inherent' in some way is to suggest that heterosexuality is inherently much more widely adhered to than any kind of sexuality, rather than this situation stemming from millennia of social control over people's sexualities.

john eden
21-07-2016, 04:25 PM
But - I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion that trans people are necessarily part of the vanguard of destroying patriarchy. Is it not completely dependent upon how the trans person in question views their transition? If a person is transitioning from being a man to being a woman because of being uncomfortable with the societal restrictions associated with Being a Man, then while I support a person's right to transition absolutely, I don't see that this should be confused with an act to destroy patriarchy. Surely it rather just confirms that men should be like *this* and women should be like *this*, adapting to society rather than changing it? While I am 100% behind someone's choice to transition (any other position would seem very hypocritical, as we all change to various extents according to societal edicts), then this doesn't entail that transitioning should necessarily be seen as a revolutionary act in a societal context.

I should probably expand on what I meant by that. I get what you mean by intentionality but that is not where I was coming from. People will transition for all sorts of reasons.

What I mean by saying that they are the vanguard is that trans people confront fixed gender roles by their very presence. This is why they make people so uneasy and why so much violence is directed against them. I think in the short term that there is some reinforcing of the binary gender divide going on, but it is undeniable that trans people and the technologies and communities that have developed around them allow a multiplicity of gender statuses to evolve.

I think this has to happen alongside other things, of course, but for me trans people are at the sharp end of publicly, physically questioning the idea that you are born into a permanent fixed gender.

john eden
21-07-2016, 04:30 PM
Re: choice

Lots of gay people "choose" to live as heterosexuals, with varying levels of success and psychological damage.

Similarly we probably all know people who had a one off fling with someone of the same gender (mainly women in my case, tbf) who don't particularly see themselves as being gay? (Hence the category "men who have sex with men").

droid
21-07-2016, 04:36 PM
Also, to maintain that sexuality is 'inherent' in some way is to suggest that heterosexuality is inherently much more widely adhered to than any kind of sexuality, rather than this situation stemming from millennia of social control over people's sexualities.

I dont think thats what was meant above - more that sexuality is inherently a part of someone's identity and is not something that is chosen or changed on a whim.

And yes, hetrosexuality is more widely adhered to. Thats just biology.

baboon2004
21-07-2016, 04:55 PM
Sure, I agree of course that the presence of trans people does very physically confront entrenched ideas about gender. Part of why I'm so interested in how people who transition/are going to transition see the issue of passing/not passing, and whether that is important, or whether the prospect of entirely new gender statuses is actively embraced (albeit with trepidation because of the high risk of violence to one's person)


I should probably expand on what I meant by that. I get what you mean by intentionality but that is not where I was coming from. People will transition for all sorts of reasons.

What I mean by saying that they are the vanguard is that trans people confront fixed gender roles by their very presence. This is why they make people so uneasy and why so much violence is directed against them. I think in the short term that there is some reinforcing of the binary gender divide going on, but it is undeniable that trans people and the technologies and communities that have developed around them allow a multiplicity of gender statuses to evolve.

I think this has to happen alongside other things, of course, but for me trans people are at the sharp end of publicly, physically questioning the idea that you are born into a permanent fixed gender.

john eden
21-07-2016, 04:56 PM
And yes, hetrosexuality is more widely adhered to. Thats just biology.

It's not "just" biology though is it? There are other factors, including the likelihood of being stoned to death for transgressing.

baboon2004
21-07-2016, 04:59 PM
Re: choice

Lots of gay people "choose" to live as heterosexuals, with varying levels of success and psychological damage.

Similarly we probably all know people who had a one off fling with someone of the same gender (mainly women in my case, tbf) who don't particularly see themselves as being gay? (Hence the category "men who have sex with men").

In both those cases I see the massive influence of societal norms constraining how people might choose to define themselves sexually

droid
21-07-2016, 05:08 PM
It's not "just" biology though is it? There are other factors, including the likelihood of being stoned to death for transgressing.

Sorry, I think the strange use of 'adhere' makes that unclear - I should have said 'prevalent'.

baboon2004
21-07-2016, 05:08 PM
I dont think thats what was meant above - more that sexuality is inherently a part of someone's identity and is not something that is chosen or changed on a whim.

And yes, hetrosexuality is more widely adhered to. Thats just biology.

Sure, understand that. However, for sake of argument/uncovering the logic behind all this - what changes if we do say that sexuality is something chosen or changed on a whim? (1) Are some people then less deserving of protection?; (2) This would also apply to those who define as heterosexual.

Hmm, I think this can't be argued away so easily. What about the argument that, just as 'whiteness' is a construction that is so solidly embedded in almost all social relations that it passes for fact, so is 'heterosexuality'?

Openly admit that I have done very little reading about this, but surely worthy of consideration?

john eden
21-07-2016, 05:09 PM
In both those cases I see the massive influence of societal norms constraining how people might choose to define themselves sexually

Well yes. So it seems logical to suggest that when we build a society which isn't hung up about this stuff there will be more non-heterosexual people?

baboon2004
21-07-2016, 05:12 PM
More people who openly display their non-heterosexuality, certainly.

john eden
21-07-2016, 05:14 PM
More people who openly display their non-heterosexuality, certainly.

Which is surely proportional to those who act out their non-heterosexuality in private but do not wish to display it in public?

john eden
21-07-2016, 05:15 PM
Sorry, I think the strange use of 'adhere' makes that unclear - I should have said 'prevalent'.

Well that is probably better but you seem to be arguing that heterosexuality will always be the most common form of sexuality? I'm not sure how you can know that?

droid
21-07-2016, 05:21 PM
Well, I dont see sexuality as a binary to start with, but even with making assumptions of a Kinsey type scale and acknowledging that the demographics of sexuality are difficult - even somewhere like San Francisco gives you about 15-16% based on surveys/estimates...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation#Change_over_tim e

Even if the real figure was twice that, hetrosexuality would still be more prevalent.

subvert47
21-07-2016, 05:22 PM
This thread is moving too fast for me to organize my thoughts. :eek:

A few comments on a couple of baboon's posts...


But - I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion that trans people are necessarily part of the vanguard of destroying patriarchy. Is it not completely dependent upon how the trans person in question views their transition? If a person is transitioning from being a man to being a woman because of being uncomfortable with the societal restrictions associated with Being a Man, then while I support a person's right to transition absolutely, I don't see that this should be confused with an act to destroy patriarchy. Surely it rather just confirms that men should be like *this* and women should be like *this*, adapting to society rather than changing it? While I am 100% behind someone's choice to transition (any other position would seem very hypocritical, as we all change to various extents according to societal edicts), then this doesn't entail that transitioning should necessarily be seen as a revolutionary act in a societal context.

You're right, it isn't. It's primarily about resolving personal issues. But it's not really about conforming to normative notions of what it is to be a man or a woman. Okay, there are conservative people within the trans community who believe that men are naturally "this" and women are naturally "that", but these views are no more prevalent than in society in general. Far less prevalent in fact, since the trans community as a whole is massively gender diverse, there is a definite gender freedom, as you'd expect from a community that has thought very seriously about gender for a long time.


Request for info - one thing I have no idea about is to what extent most trans people expect to 'pass' for their chosen gender (let's say talking about people in the West in this case), and to what extent is it important (both pragmatically and conceptually) to trans people that they do pass?

Hmm, "expect" to pass... You either do or you don't, at any given time. There are trans people who pass all the time, whether they want to or not. And others who almost never do. And if (when) you don't, you tend to find out pretty quickly. Passing certainly has practical value, in that you're recognized by default as what you are, and you're not hassled for what you're not. So trans people will often make an effort to pass, even when they don't really want to. It's a problematic issue.


Re sexuality and choice - I think it's very important not to conduct the debate on terms dictated by conservatives, whereby what is 'natural' or inherent' is the only thing worthy of being protected from discrimination and violence.

Sexuality is pretty clearly a combination of a whole plethora of influences (in my view childhood experience is critical, but that's a huge discussion), and one's sexual identity and choices, whether one identifies as 'gay', 'straight', 'bisexual' or any other of a rainbow of possibilities, are worthy of protection whether they are natural/inherent or not.

Also, to maintain that sexuality is 'inherent' in some way is to suggest that heterosexuality is inherently much more widely adhered to than any kind of sexuality, rather than this situation stemming from millennia of social control over people's sexualities.

I agree with most of that; and I'm not particularly keen on "born this way" narratives, with all their "we can't help it" connotations.

All the same, I'd probably tend towards the view that basic sexuality (i.e. straight, gay, bi) may be innate for most people, or so embedded that it makes no difference. But how we act on that, how it manifests itself is certainly determined by culture. There's no way, for instance, that a (certain type of) heterosexual man's desire for a woman in sexy lingerie could in any way be regarded as innate. This is a learnt response.

baboon2004
21-07-2016, 05:26 PM
@John : i think my last answer was a bad one - what I should have said is 'more people willing to acknowledge thoughts/possibilities of non-heterosexuality to themselves', rather than presenting it as a public/private divide in the sense of 'private' = actions in private.

Admittedly am feeling confused as to what I even think at this stage, so above may not make sense.

Mr. Tea
21-07-2016, 05:27 PM
Also, to maintain that sexuality is 'inherent' in some way is to suggest that heterosexuality is inherently much more widely adhered to than any kind of sexuality, rather than this situation stemming from millennia of social control over people's sexualities.

I'm not sure I get you - a society in which most people aren't attracted to the opposite sex is not really going to flourish, population-wise, is it.

subvert47
21-07-2016, 05:28 PM
Listen to Subvert. He knows a lot about this subject and as well as being an all round lovely person, he is one of the most informed people I know when it comes to feminism and gender.

Well, thank you :o :)

As a paid up associated member of the trans community myself, I have a lifelong interest in gender issues, and of course this is feminists' turf as well.

Mr. Tea
21-07-2016, 05:33 PM
I agree with most of that; and I'm not particularly keen on "born this way" narratives, with all their "we can't help it" connotations.


I recall an excruciatingly stupid article in New Statesman a few years back, in which the author described how she'd had a few unsatisfactory relationships with men while in her late teens/early 20s and had therefore made a more or less conscious decision when she was about 25 that from then on, she was going to be a lesbian, and that was that.

She then extrapolated (from this sample size of 1) to the entire human race, and declared that because she could decide her sexual orientation, anyone could.

(Perhaps society isn't ready for the awesomely radical idea that sexuality is determined by different combinations of factors in different people, and that for some people it really is set in stone, for some it's essentially a matter of choice and for others it's somewhere in between?)

baboon2004
21-07-2016, 05:36 PM
@subvert Thanks for these thoughts - I'm going to go away and think about this some more myself, as my ideas are v jumbled right now.

baboon2004
21-07-2016, 05:39 PM
I'm not sure I get you - a society in which most people aren't attracted to the opposite sex is not really going to flourish, population-wise, is it.

First off, heterosexuality (as usually understood) is far from the only configuration of sexuality that involves any kind of attraction to the opposite sex.

Secondly, in terms of numbers, what % would 'need' to be attracted tot he opposite sex for a society to flourish population-wise (open question, I haven't thought about this enough)?

baboon2004
21-07-2016, 05:50 PM
(Perhaps society isn't ready for the awesomely radical idea that sexuality is determined by different combinations of factors in different people, and that for some people it really is set in stone, for some it's essentially a matter of choice and for others it's somewhere in between?)

What does it actually mean for someone's sexuality to be set in stone, though? The whole concept doesn't make an awful lot of sense to me

Mr. Tea
21-07-2016, 05:57 PM
First off, heterosexuality (as usually understood) is far from the only configuration of sexuality that involves any kind of attraction to the opposite sex.

Secondly, in terms of numbers, what % would 'need' to be attracted tot he opposite sex for a society to flourish population-wise (open question, I haven't thought about this enough)?

I have no idea.

Does there need to be a "reason" why most people are straight, or more or less straight? Heterosexual attraction exists for obvious evolutionary reasons. Sure, same-sex attraction has been documented in loads of other animal species, and is particularly common in some of our species' closest relatives, so it presumably also fulfills some evolutionarily beneficial social function. But in terms of evolutionary pressures, this is going to be secondary to the basic fact of reproduction.

john eden
21-07-2016, 06:03 PM
@John : i think my last answer was a bad one - what I should have said is 'more people willing to acknowledge thoughts/possibilities of non-heterosexuality to themselves', rather than presenting it as a public/private divide in the sense of 'private' = actions in private.

Admittedly am feeling confused as to what I even think at this stage, so above may not make sense.

Ah ok, that makes sense - no worries :)

Mr. Tea
21-07-2016, 06:04 PM
What does it actually mean for someone's sexuality to be set in stone, though? The whole concept doesn't make an awful lot of sense to me

Well not necessarily even immutable, then, but beyond the person's conscious control, put it that way. I don't think it's at all common for people to 'choose' to be gay, at any rate. Of course some people can adapt to a gay lifestyle if they're in a same-sex environment for a long time (boarding school, armed forces, prison, whatever) and people with strong same-sex desires can suppress those desires, even to the point of marrying and having children, if they're in a society where it would be taboo or even illegal to act on those desires.

But that's not the same thing as being able, in effect, to flick a switch in one's head from 'straight' to 'gay' or vice-versa.

john eden
21-07-2016, 06:07 PM
Well, I dont see sexuality as a binary to start with, but even with making assumptions of a Kinsey type scale and acknowledging that the demographics of sexuality are difficult - even somewhere like San Francisco gives you about 15-16% based on surveys/estimates...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation#Change_over_tim e

Even if the real figure was twice that, hetrosexuality would still be more prevalent.

There is always the possibility that future generations will look back at San Francisco not as the high point of sexual freedom, but as the last vestiges of a repressed society before we entered into a new era of currently unimaginable human community and pleasure?

Mr. Tea
21-07-2016, 06:16 PM
Much of SF is a dystopian dump, in my (admittedly not extensive) exploration of it.

Some good restaurants, though.

baboon2004
21-07-2016, 08:44 PM
Well not necessarily even immutable, then, but beyond the person's conscious control, put it that way. I don't think it's at all common for people to 'choose' to be gay, at any rate. Of course some people can adapt to a gay lifestyle if they're in a same-sex environment for a long time (boarding school, armed forces, prison, whatever) and people with strong same-sex desires can suppress those desires, even to the point of marrying and having children, if they're in a society where it would be taboo or even illegal to act on those desires.

But that's not the same thing as being able, in effect, to flick a switch in one's head from 'straight' to 'gay' or vice-versa.

I think that any binary model is mistaken though - I don't think the question is one of adaptation, or at least not in any arduous sense. And I think it's near impossible to be true to one's own sexuality, in the sense of divorcing it from the crushing societal pressures that forge it - one of the most crushing being the edict that you have to have a clear sexual identity, that 'YOU MUST TELL US WHAT YOU 'ARE'!' .

People experience sexual attraction for all kinds of reasons, so it doesn't make sense to me that would be this clear division between attraction to men and attraction to women. I'm pretty convinced that any given person will have experienced feelings that do not sit easily with such a sharp division; the question is what they do about it and how they see their sexuality as part of their identity.

I find this area very complicated, because it brings up the core question of what the hell sexuality is anyways.

baboon2004
21-07-2016, 08:50 PM
I have no idea.

Does there need to be a "reason" why most people are straight, or more or less straight? Heterosexual attraction exists for obvious evolutionary reasons. Sure, same-sex attraction has been documented in loads of other animal species, and is particularly common in some of our species' closest relatives, so it presumably also fulfills some evolutionarily beneficial social function. But in terms of evolutionary pressures, this is going to be secondary to the basic fact of reproduction.

What if everyone fucked everyone (not literally, but you know what I mean)? you'd still have lots of reproduction, so I don't think that heterosexuality, tightly defined as ONLY fancying and fucking the opposite sex, has any specific function. Arguable that the predominance of heterosexuality only becomes imperative when the 1-1 marital relation is enshrined as one of the fundamentals of society.

Whether or not you agree with the above, then I think we can perhaps agree on the broader point that heterosexuality has rarely been held up to scrutiny - it's always 'deviations' from heterosexuality that are scrutinised closely. That's why I suggested possible (loose) analogy with whiteness - 'we' assume 'we' know what it means and it's very familiar, but it's not that clear at all really. It only assumes meaning in a historical context against a supposed 'opposite' that needs to be controlled in some way, or defined as 'lesser/deviant'.

Just a quick google, but this is interesting at least http://www.sfgate.com/books/article/Heterosexuality-More-Ideology-Than-Biology-3035001.php First use of 'heterosexual' in US in 1892?!
and http://www.salon.com/2012/01/22/the_invention_of_the_heterosexual/

Mr. Tea
21-07-2016, 09:15 PM
I think that any binary model is mistaken though - I don't think the question is one of adaptation, or at least not in any arduous sense. And I think it's near impossible to be true to one's own sexuality, in the sense of divorcing it from the crushing societal pressures that forge it - one of the most crushing being the edict that you have to have a clear sexual identity, that 'YOU MUST TELL US WHAT YOU 'ARE'!' .

People experience sexual attraction for all kinds of reasons, so it doesn't make sense to me that would be this clear division between attraction to men and attraction to women. I'm pretty convinced that any given person will have experienced feelings that do not sit easily with such a sharp division; the question is what they do about it and how they see their sexuality as part of their identity.

I find this area very complicated, because it brings up the core question of what the hell sexuality is anyways.

There's a lad I used to know on the b3ta messageboards who was 'technically' bisexual because he famously fancied two types of people:

a) girls, and

b) Tim Curry.

baboon2004
21-07-2016, 10:12 PM
lol

I'm getting off the web for a few days, so gonna resume chatting about this next week if the debate is still going...

droid
21-07-2016, 10:19 PM
There is always the possibility that future generations will look back at San Francisco not as the high point of sexual freedom, but as the last vestiges of a repressed society before we entered into a new era of currently unimaginable human community and pleasure?

lol. It always comes back to sexpol with you doesnt it?

There's a sequel to Forever Peace by Joe Halderman where the protagonist returns to civilisation after a war (stretched out to centuries because of time dilation from traveling at near light speed) where, due to population pressure and eugenics, homosexuality is the norm and heterosexuals are regarded as freaks.

Which brings me to my faint hope that perhaps we might all be saved by some evolutionary genetic switch which increases the ratio of gay to cis as a response to environmental pressures... overcrowding, increase in temperatures... like the Protandrous hermaphroditism you get in cuttlefish or garter snakes - or crocodile gender being determined by temperature. Based on unproven biological essentialism of course, but still... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/g-roger-denson/is-homosexuality-populati_b_784449.html

Mr. Tea
21-07-2016, 10:38 PM
I like the idea of 'SexPol' as this kind of international taskforce that relentlessly chases people from continent to continent, trying to capture them and bring them to justice for the crime of just being too damn sexy. Like, they'd be Austin Powers's nemesis if he were a villain.

john eden
21-07-2016, 10:40 PM
lol. It always comes back to sexpol with you doesnt it?

Only on here, for some reason. It's the eroticism of the discussions, I'm sure. :p

john eden
21-07-2016, 10:46 PM
I'm not sure I get you - a society in which most people aren't attracted to the opposite sex is not really going to flourish, population-wise, is it.

It really depends on what you mean by flourish. Plenty of ways to make babies these days.

Also some people seem to be forgetting that most heterosexual coupling doesn't produce children.

Mr. Tea
22-07-2016, 09:18 AM
It really depends on what you mean by flourish. Plenty of ways to make babies these days.

Also some people seem to be forgetting that most heterosexual coupling doesn't produce children.

Sure, but I'm talking historically, before IVF, surrogacy, reliable contraception and all that.

john eden
22-07-2016, 09:43 AM
Sure, but I'm talking historically, before IVF, surrogacy, reliable contraception and all that.

We must look to the future, Tea. All kinds of wonderful things are on the horizon.

Mr. Tea
22-07-2016, 11:36 AM
Babies grown in vats. Imagine the simultaneous sigh of relief from billions of vaginae.

vimothy
22-07-2016, 01:12 PM
There is always the possibility that future generations will look back at San Francisco not as the high point of sexual freedom, but as the last vestiges of a repressed society before we entered into a new era of currently unimaginable human community and pleasure?

That is surely a possibility.

vimothy
22-07-2016, 01:20 PM
Which brings me to my faint hope that perhaps we might all be saved by some evolutionary genetic switch which increases the ratio of gay to cis as a response to environmental pressures... overcrowding, increase in temperatures...

Doubtless this is just a joke, but any sub-population which somehow kills itself off will not reduce the long-run population of the earth, only the numbers of its own descendents within it.

droid
22-07-2016, 02:12 PM
It would do both surely?

If the numbers reversed and approx 85% of the population became homosexual, then you would see a huge decrease in birth rates - of course eventually, they would rise again.

vimothy
22-07-2016, 02:17 PM
If 85% of the global population suddenly became homosexual then obviously there would be a substantial dip in population growth, but in the long run that would disappear and the only effect would be to remove the 85% from the gene pool.

droid
22-07-2016, 02:21 PM
Sure, and when population growth reaches the same high levels, environmental pressures kick in and the gene switch is triggered again...

vimothy
22-07-2016, 02:25 PM
Assuming the gene switch exists any more, and didn't leave the pool with the last mass die-off . . .

droid
22-07-2016, 02:34 PM
Well, we dont know if there's a gene in the first place of course - but everyone retains all the genes, and if environment is a cause of gene regulation then theoretically the switch is also always there.

In theory - this could even be done manually through gene therapy... Surprised there's no right wing conspiracy about this actually, logical extension of feminisation via estrogen in food and water - NWO switching gay genes on using chemtrails...

vimothy
22-07-2016, 03:00 PM
Perhaps you should put it out there.

Mr. Tea
22-07-2016, 03:16 PM
The levels of oestrogens in water is actually a fairly major environmental headache.

droid
22-07-2016, 03:17 PM
Im sure it exists already, every other awful opinion or theory I can think of does.

Benny B
07-08-2016, 11:29 PM
Well my perspective is that this is such a minor issue, a minute intersection of a minority LGBT concern with feminism - that perhaps rather than pillory trans-people (who, in general have a pretty awful time of it) with awful exclusionary and abusive gatekeeping rhetoric on points of principle, that they should either support them - or if they cant do that - just ignore them.





Just popping in quickly to share this great article that shows how the legal implications of transgenderism and identity politics take this far beyond being a 'minor issue' or a 'point of principle'





Google search "rendering the sexed body legally invisible: How transgender law hurts women" by Erika bachiochi (sorry, don't know how to post links on my phone)









I challenge anyone to read this and not realize how serious a threat to women's rights transgender identity politics is.

droid
08-08-2016, 09:56 AM
Awful... just awful, sensationalist, right wing, quasi-religious gender essentialism with a side order of freemen-esque legal hysteria, that is barely able to restrain its contempt of trans people who are described as sick or disabled.


As Reilly-Cooper puts it: “The fact that some humans are intersex in no way diminishes the truth of sexual dimorphism, any more than the fact that some humans are born missing lower limbs diminishes the truth of the statement that humans are bipedal.”


Like the transgender’s attempt to alter his given body to better fit his ailing mind, the abortion activist seeks to distort women’s given bodies to fit into a culture ailing in its hostility to dependent children.

Benny B
08-08-2016, 10:58 AM
Yeah the abortion bit seems dodgy, admittedly didn't read to the end. Still agreed with most of it though. Obviously not written by a feminist. But the points about legal implications are good I think.

Benny B
08-08-2016, 11:31 AM
You do realize intersex and trans are not the same thing though right?

droid
08-08-2016, 11:57 AM
I have to be honest Benny, it was so bad, I did a little puke in my mouth.

Benny B
08-08-2016, 02:15 PM
Interesting you mention essentialism as this is precisely what trans identity ideology relies on. If, for example, a person that is born male biologically but who says their 'true self' is a woman, this is basic essentialism is it not? It is based on the idea that there is an essence of 'womanhood'. In fact the only way to avoid this is to admit that 'man' and 'woman' (gender) are nothing but social constructs which are assigned to biological males and females (and also a very small proportion of those people born intersex).

droid
08-08-2016, 02:22 PM
Which is the complete opposite of the POV expressed in the 'great article' you link to above that basically says that femininity is based more or less entirely on the physical fact that women can have children?

By gender essentialism I mean the idea that gender is defined purely by biology at birth and therefore, no matter what a trans person does, even if they change their physical appearance, they will still never be a 'real' man/woman.

droid
08-08-2016, 02:26 PM
But I really dont know why you are scraping the right wing barrel for provocative articles and then engaging me in punctilious semantic arguments when there are some thoughtful posts above which could do with some exploration.

Benny B
08-08-2016, 03:59 PM
I'll admit I'd just kinda skimmed the article last night. The good bits are actually quotes from radfems! (I'm obviously not a rightwing antiabortionist nut job).







Still, what's interesting to me is the point that identity politics (which are essentialist and prop up gender stereotypes even if they say they don't) have serious implications for women. As the feminist quoted in the article says, if 'female' now means 'anyone who believes they are female', how can feminists analyze the structural oppression of female persons as a class? Having a biologically female/male body determines which gender you are socialized into from birth (even if you resist it later in life), and this gender is what is used as the main tool of oppression (of females) in the patriarchy.



These are not just punctilious semantic arguments btw, they really matter.

droid
08-08-2016, 04:13 PM
Still, what's interesting to me is the point that identity politics (which are essentialist and prop up gender stereotypes even if they say they don't) have serious implications for women. As the feminist quoted in the article says, if 'female' now means 'anyone who believes they are female', how can feminists analyze the structural oppression of female persons as a class? Having a biologically female/male body determines which gender you are socialized into from birth (even if you resist it later in life), and this gender is what is used as the main tool of oppression (of females) in the patriarchy.


Wow, yeah you're right. The existence of a tiny minority of people who identify as trans pretty much completely removes the ability of feminists to do any kind of analysis. They must now lie paralysed in a kind of intellectual palsy, unable to undo the gordian knot of trans identity which has utterly dismantled their entire critical framework.

droid
08-08-2016, 04:15 PM
What a terrible fate to be cognitively castrated by the very existence of the trans other.

Female Eunuchs, rise up and reclaim your gender!

Benny B
08-08-2016, 04:20 PM
I think you underestimate how influential identity politics is becoming.

Benny B
08-08-2016, 04:22 PM
Also what you just said is kind of sexist but whatevs.

droid
08-08-2016, 04:34 PM
I think you underestimate how influential identity politics is becoming.

I think youre underestimating how awful your arguments are becoming.

Seriously.

Benny B
08-08-2016, 05:14 PM
I think you underestimate how influential identity politics is becoming.


As in:

Opening up of safe female only spaces (public restrooms in USA for example) to anyone who identifies as female

Publically funded surgery, hormone treatment and puberty blockers for very young adolescents (if you google detransitioned people for example you will see some heartbreaking testimonies).ie, people are taught that there is something wrong with their bodies rather than society. Often those that regret reassignment treatment have found the effects to be irreversible. That is why feminists are critical of medicalised approaches to gender dysphoria (just as they are of young women feeling the need to have plastic surgery/ boob jobs etc to fit into the patriarchal idea of what women should look like)

The point is its not just some minor issue and its not above criticism either
. And criticizing the ideology that supports these things does not mean you hate trans people.

Benny B
08-08-2016, 05:20 PM
I will also admit when I'm wrong - should have read the article properly before posting, and I don't endorse everything in it. Still I stand by the points I've made here.

droid
08-08-2016, 09:33 PM
As in:

Opening up of safe female only spaces (public restrooms in USA for example) to anyone who identifies as female

So? is there a single case of a woman being molested or interfered with in a toilet by a trans woman? This is another non-issue boosted by the hysterical right.


Publically funded surgery, hormone treatment and puberty blockers for very young adolescents (if you google detransitioned people for example you will see some heartbreaking testimonies).ie, people are taught that there is something wrong with their bodies rather than society. Often those that regret reassignment treatment have found the effects to be irreversible. That is why feminists are critical of medicalised approaches to gender dysphoria (just as they are of young women feeling the need to have plastic surgery/ boob jobs etc to fit into the patriarchal idea of what women should look like)

The point is its not just some minor issue and its not above criticism either
. And criticizing the ideology that supports these things does not mean you hate trans people.

Sure, and google 'abortion regret' and you will also find thousands of heartbreaking stories. Im also struggling to see how anyone is 'taught' to be trans. if society creates and imposes gender norms on people, then how does it also do the exact opposite at the same time?

BTW, could you please stop using the word 'feminists' without the qualifier 'some'?

Benny B
09-08-2016, 07:19 AM
So? is there a single case of a woman being molested or interfered with in a toilet by a trans woman?




Well yes actually there is, but that's not the point. It's not just about trans people (although listening to many trans activists you'd think the entire world revolved around them) it's about men in women's spaces. How on earth is a woman who is, quite understandably worried about indecent exposure/sexual assault in bathrooms and changing rooms, to know who is a genuine trans person who means no harm, and who is just a male sexual predator? (of which there are plenty of cases right?) Are they expected to be psychic? How is anyone to know?


Having exclusively all-gender bathrooms isn't the answer-look up what happened at Toronto university last year.


I totally empathise with trans people feeling uncomfortable and threatened in bathrooms too, but it should not come at the expense of female-only spaces.


I guess a possible solution is to have a mixture of all-gender and women-only bathrooms/changing rooms.


It's a tricky issue with no single answer that will please everyone, but for you to call it a non-issue just shows your own ignorance, sorry.

Benny B
09-08-2016, 07:32 AM
Sure, and google 'abortion regret' and you will also find thousands of heartbreaking stories. Im also struggling to see how anyone is 'taught' to be trans. if society creates and imposes gender norms on people, then how does it also do the exact opposite at the same time?





?


You really gonna conflate abortion with gender rreassignment? You're ok with drugging children who don't conform to gender roles? Nice one mate



Society doesn't teach anyone to be trans, it teaches gender conformity. The fact that people rebel against this is unsurprising. The problem is not people's bodies but society's intolerance of anyone who falls outside these roles.

droid
09-08-2016, 10:06 AM
Benny, Im finding your lack of rigour, use of fallacious arguments and reflexive resort to ad hominems unproductive. You post links to articles you haven't read. Your points get addressed and you either go away for long periods and then fail to address them when you come back or you simply ignore them and move onto the next scattershot argument.

Sure, if it makes you feel better, Im sexist and ignorant and fail whatever purity test you think applies - and feel free to continue to post your badly argued points - but FYI youre coming across as an unconvincing zealot with little or no understanding, empathy or compassion for this issue and the people it affects.

Mr. Tea
09-08-2016, 01:49 PM
Benny, Im finding your lack of rigour, use of fallacious arguments and reflexive resort to ad hominems unproductive. You post links to articles you haven't read. Your points get addressed and you either go away for long periods and then fail to address them when you come back or you simply ignore them and move onto the next scattershot argument.


Yeah come on Benny, you're starting to sound as bad as me! :eek:

droid
09-08-2016, 01:54 PM
I dont think that even you have posted links to right wing claptrap without realising it.

Mr. Tea
09-08-2016, 02:12 PM
I dont think that even you have posted links to right wing claptrap without realising it.

Yeah fair enough, I would only ever do that deliberately.

droid
09-08-2016, 02:17 PM
lol. I try to leave some things unsaid. Keep a bit of mystery in the world.

sufi
09-08-2016, 03:11 PM
Im sure it exists already, every other awful opinion or theory I can think of does.
here you go: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/aug/09/study-showing-decline-in-dog-fertility-may-have-human-implications

Mr. Tea
09-08-2016, 03:45 PM
Male fertility really is in quite steep decline, though. I don't think there's anything to be gained from politicizing it one way or the other, but it surely warrants research and a certain amount of concern.


here you go: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/aug/09/study-showing-decline-in-dog-fertility-may-have-human-implications


They tested 1,925 samples of ejaculate from a total of 232 different dogs at the rate of between 42 and 97 dogs every year.

That has to be someone's dream job, right there.

Benny B
13-08-2016, 02:33 AM
You've posted a lot about this, Benny. Rather than deal with your posts one by one, I'll collate them all here...



Sorry for the delay, I've finally found a bit of time to reply properly.


Trans "theory" isn't really a thing. Trans is generally about people's real lives.

Sorry, but this seems a pretty meaningless statement to me really. People do plenty of theorizing about trans, so I think trans theory is a ”thing”, though perhaps not a very coherent thing. It is possible to theorise about people's real lives.


And feminism as such doesn't have a problem with trans people – some feminists have a problem, some radical feminists – and not all radfems, some radfems.

Yes, I tend to just say ‘feminism’ to mean radical feminism (as I made clear earlier I think). I don’t generally agree with what liberal feminists have to say on gender, porn, prostitution, empowerment etc etc, and the ‘radical’ term gets hijacked by a lot of libfems (again, identity politics allows anyone to ‘identify’ with being radical without having to be actually, you know, radical).

Anyway, I think we all know by now who I’m referring to when I say radical feminists.


Basically they take a monolithic view of gender: that gender is a social construct (of the patriarchy) and is the primary device through which women are oppressed – and that gender is nothing but that.

Yes, i agree with this (though i’m guessing you’re using the Word ‘monolithic’ as a negative here). Isn't that enough?



Trans feminists mostly agree with radical feminists about the oppressive nature of gender, but also use the word "gender" in another way, relating to "gender identity", which refers to a sense of self as being a particular "gender" (e.g. male, female, non-binary) contrary to that assigned at birth

When radfems want to talk about identity, then funnily enough they use the word ‘identity’ – someone’s self perception regarding a particular feature of themselves. Of course, someone identifying as something does not necessarily really make them that thing.

“Sex” (male and female) refers to biological traits, through which we can identify bodies without culture/socialisation. In other words, it is not constructed.

“Gender” is placed onto physical traits by culture and socialization. It is a construction.

The term ‘non-binary’ is pretty meaningless. Queer/trans ideology often refers to gender as a ‘spectrum’, but surely that means that everyone is non-binary by definition? The reality is that hardly anyone fits perfectly into binary masculine/feminine stereotypes. And many feminist women who do not refer to themselves as non-binary understandably take offence at this label, implying as it does that they themselves must be 'binary' women who supposedly align with gender stereotypes and are perfectly comfortable with the patriarchal concept of womanhood placed upon them - which is obviously bullshit.

Assigning gender to people at birth is something that radfems generally would like to do away with of course.


This notion of "gender identity" is pretty much accepted scientifically now – and more and more politically and culturally – even though no one really knows what causes it.

A person can choose to identify as whatever they want, I don’t think science disputes that – doesn’t necessarily mean that person is that thing, and if that thing they are identifying as being relies on external circumstances for its existence then what what they 'identify' with has no real bearing on reality. This is the problem with identity politics in general. For example, Vanessa Beecroft ( a visual artist who works with kanye west) recently identified herself as black. An extreme example maybe, in relation to race rather than gender, but the logic is the same.


I've actually used the word "gender" in three ways in that paragraph, which is somewhat problematic. But they only really conflict if you insist that words can only have one meaning.

Semantic games confuse the issue and conflate very different things. You can talk about biological ‘sex’, ‘gender’ as socially constructed norms, and ‘identity’ as someone’s self perception of themselves. Problem solved.


That's because what they say doesn't affect you personally, so it all seems "reasonable" and a valid subject for "debate". Analogies are quite easy to find there.

What about the women who it does affect personally? Are they allowed to debate it? (if you're willing to mount a defence of non-platforming tactics against feminists then maybe you think they're not). I was talking specifically in reference to the people at dgr, many of whom are women, and of course radical feminist women who have been saying the same thing for decades.

Gender is an issue that affects everybody and should concern everybody.


Because of their monolithic view of gender, these particular radfems regard trans people as gender collaborators, defenders, infiltrators, whatever - certainly the "enemy of women". Whether you want to call that "hate" is up to you, but their words and actions don't tend to differ much from any other kind of bigot.

Nah, its not hate or bigotry. The ‘enemy’ is patriarchy, pure and simple. I call it having the courage to speak the truth.


Originally Posted by Benny B
Another good article on this to look for is sarah ditum's 'what is gender anyway'.

No, it really isn't. Here's a riposte to that: https://feministchallengingtransphob...itical-enough/

Yes I read this. It makes the same conflation of sex and gender as discussed above. Also defends the extremely worrying and ethically unsound medicalised approach to gender reassignment for young children, many of whom would grow up to comfortable with their bodies. Like I said before, I strongly disagree that we should be telling children that there is something wrong with their bodies just because thay don't conform to gender norms.


Originally Posted by Benny B
Really this idea that these nasty radical feminists go out of their to insult and oppress trans people is complete bollocks. They are against patriarchy, misogyny and socially constructed gender norms that oppress women. No wonder people feel uncomfortable with the gender norms they are socialized into. Feminists are not the problem here and neither are trans people...unless they start with the misogyny themselves.

These radical feminists actually do go out of their way to do that.

No, they are critical of the ideology and have have every right to raise questions about issues that affect them. I think many who agree with the feminist critique are afraid to speak out for fear of being mean, but that just implies that they don't think trans people would be emotionally equipped to discuss their assertions and ideology. Again, disagreement and open debate does not equal 'transphobia'.


No-platforming is a controversial tactic, but in this context it's basically just a way of saying "fuck off out of here with that shit". The people who tend to be no-platformed usually have many other platforms they can use anyway. Indeed, the only reason someone like you even knows about it is because of their massive platforms.

Nah, you can’t defend no-platforming like this. Aggressively closing down debate is always out of order, and I think you probably know this.

Anyway, I see just as many if not more articles in major online publications that support transgender ideology than radical feminist/trans-critical ones, so I can't agree with your point.

'Someone like me' has an awareness of these issues from blogs and very small, privately funded websites (like feminist current for example, which scrapes by on reader donations and writers who volunteer their work for free). They are not 'massive platforms'. They deserve to have a voice.

Benny B
13-08-2016, 02:33 AM
Your understanding of "gender identity" is pretty clueless. It's not about "choosing" to be part of a social class. Also, these rad fems don't speak for "women". They speak for themselves.

As far as I understand it, the radical feminist position (on transwomen identifying themseleves as women) is something like this:

Women form a subjugated social group (which they are assigned to on the basis of their biological sex), not through identification with it, but from external oppression – they can’t just opt out of it, though they may struggle against subordination. The experience is very different from a trans woman who struggles to exist and be part of that subjagated group - to be accepted as a woman. Women are therefore oppressed in a way that transwomen (who have been raised, educated and socialised as men until at least until the point of their transition in the vast majority of cases) are not. A person can't just identify their way into (or out of) a social class, they are put there by external circumstances.

This is not to say that trans people are not also unjustly oppressed and suffer under the gender norms imposed by patriarchy. In this at least, radical feminists and trans people have a common enemy.

As for radical feminists not speaking for women - all they are doing is identifying and applying political analysis to social classes that exist materially in the world (not just based on individual feelings and self-identification), which is why I think it has so much more potential to incite real, concrete change to systems of oppression.


As Catherine McKinnon (another radical feminist) said: "Many transwomen just go around being women, who knew, and suddenly, we are supposed to care that they are using the women’s bathroom. There they are in the next stall with the door shut, and we’re supposed to feel threatened. I don’t. I don’t care. By now, I aggressively don’t care."

Thanks, I’m already aware of Mackinnon and I admire her work. Her previously strong stance against liberalism and anti-materialism have lead her to be accused of being a TERF by the the transgender movement in the past, so I dunno really. I did find this piece (written by a post-op transwoman) that raises a few questions about it.

https://aoifeschatology.com/2015/04/13/ten-questions-for-catharine-mackinnon/

Anyway, it doesn’t change the fact that many women do justifiably feel threatened by losing safe sex-segregated spaces. I already mentioned this before so I'll say no more.


When you spend your time abusing a particular community, sometimes you get angry replies. These are then used as "evidence" of their malfeasance. Most trans activists know better than to play these games. Obviously some people will get angry anyway, but most of such abuse of feminists actually comes from the usual sources: trolling men – which is where this thread started.

Haven’t seen any radfems threatening rape and death on trans people, just criticism of their ideology and aggressive no-platforming tactics. I’m not convinced its all down to trolls, and I don’t see enough condemnation of this sort of behavior from the transgender community tbh.

Of course I’m not saying all trans people are like this, but its certainly an issue - which is where this thread started.

subvert47
14-08-2016, 04:31 PM
Benny, all you've done in all that is (mis)apply some radical feminist tenets: That sex is biological and immutable; that gender is cultural and constructed; that sex and gender are entirely different and separate things; and that those are fundamental and absolute truths.

Your particular favourite (anti-trans) feminists regard trans people as a de facto challenge to the absoluteness of those truths. Consequently, they consider trans people's lives and experiences to be inherently false, the result of an opposing "ideology" (as you've parroted numerous times), which is "harmful to women" and must be righteously attacked – or, as you put it, "debated".

But there's no point in debate, not when the "terms" of it (i.e. the fundamental truths) are fixed in advance. As indeed has been demonstrated many times, and is where no-platforming comes into play; i.e. we're not interested in your rigid and prejudiced opinions anymore. Fuck off.

And it's all bollocks anyway. Trans people are not a threat to anyone. Trans women are not a threat to cis women (this is just scaremongering with no basis in fact). Women's spaces are not made unsafe because trans women have access to them. Otherwise "normal" people are not being "led astray" by trans "ideology" (there's no need for a trans version of Section 28). Feminism is not threatened because some people are trans. As droid said here:


Wow, yeah you're right. The existence of a tiny minority of people who identify as trans pretty much completely removes the ability of feminists to do any kind of analysis. They must now lie paralysed in a kind of intellectual palsy, unable to undo the gordian knot of trans identity which has utterly dismantled their entire critical framework.

Quite. Or rather... NOT. Indeed, as I said before, trans feminists agree with radical feminists on most issues regarding gender anyway, just not on their single and rigid understanding of the actual word, which denies trans people's own self-knowledge. As you would know if your own sources weren't so completely biased...


'Someone like me' has an awareness of these issues from blogs and very small, privately funded websites (like feminist current for example, which scrapes by on reader donations and writers who volunteer their work for free). They are not 'massive platforms'. They deserve to have a voice.

Nevertheless, some of them do have big platforms in mainstream media. For example, Sarah Ditum's piece you linked to appeared in the New Statesman. And regarding my linked counter-article to that:


Yes I read this. It makes the same conflation of sex and gender as discussed above. Also defends the extremely worrying and ethically unsound medicalised approach to gender reassignment for young children, many of whom would grow up to comfortable with their bodies. Like I said before, I strongly disagree that we should be telling children that there is something wrong with their bodies just because they don't conform to gender norms.

It only does if you regard sex and gender as discrete entities, with single meanings. Most people understand that gender is more complicated than that. Like Sarah Ditum, you're "not gender critical enough". And no, young children are not at risk from gender affirming therapies. These are child-led, giving them space and time to develop, and don't force medical treatments on anyone.

Here's a recent piece by Julia Serano on that: Detransition, Desistance, and Disinformation: A Guide for Understanding Transgender Children Debates (https://medium.com/@juliaserano/detransition-desistance-and-disinformation-a-guide-for-understanding-transgender-children-993b7342946e#.i5ijchkfc).

But I doubt you're really worried about young children's gender issues, nor about people who detransition (as you exploit elsewhere). You're just "concern trolling" to further an agenda.

Incidentally, since you've also linked to Aoife, you might be interested in a more recent interview she gave about her involvement with "gender critical" feminism: Is Sadism Popular With TERFs? A Chat With An Ex-Gendercrit (http://transadvocate.com/is-sadism-popular-with-terfs-a-chat-with-an-ex-gendercrit_n_18568.htm).

Yes, they are motivated by hatred and bigotry. Just because they wrap it all up in feminist theory doesn't change anything.

Benny B
16-08-2016, 12:48 PM
Well I was going to write a longer reply but seeing as we can't agree on anything so fundamental as a definition of gender, it seems unlikely this conversation is going anywhere.

Instead I'm just going to leave a few links that say it better than I ever can.

Miranda Yardley - The trans conundrum – what is the real meaning of ‘gender’

https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/tb34eb2-miranda-yardley

and a great interview with Miranda http://mirandayardley.com/cosmopolitan-interview/

I mean, who can really argue with that?

Regarding the Julia Serano piece you linked to
http://www.transgendertrend.com/a-response-to-detransition-desistance-and-disinformation-by-julia-serano/

https://crashchaoscats.wordpress.com/2016/08/08/an-open-letter-to-julia-serano-from-one-of-the%E2%80%AD-%E2%80%ACdetransitioned-people-you%E2%80%AD-%E2%80%ACclaim-to%E2%80%AD-%E2%80%ACsupport%E2%80%AD/#more-441

droid
16-08-2016, 02:06 PM
You assert that gender is a wholly constructed concept that has nothing to do with biology. This is a minority opinion.

All behaviors are phenotypes.

subvert47
16-08-2016, 03:06 PM
Well I was going to write a longer reply but seeing as we can't agree on anything so fundamental as a definition of gender, it seems unlikely this conversation is going anywhere.

We can agree on a definition of gender within an applicable context. We can't agree that any such definition is applicable in all contexts because it won't be – including a radical feminist definition of gender as being entirely an oppressive construct (of the patriarchy) and nothing but that. Radical feminist gender critique is extremely important – a lot of what I know about gender I've learnt from radical feminists – but it is not applicable in all situations, nor does it need to be unless you're some fundamentalist dingbat.

As for your links: I already know what Miranda Yardley, Stephanie Davies-Arai and CrashChaos have to say about these things. I've no need to read them again. Davies-Arai has such a rabid anti-trans agenda, she's not worth reading at all. Miranda and Crash are more interesting, having their own personal experiences to draw on, but then they take those and apply them universally – i.e. what's true for me is therefore also true for you – which is always a huge mistake. If there's one thing I've learnt in my 52 years as a trans person it's that we can only speak for ourselves on these issues.

But anyway, what's your own stake in all this? You may have gathered that this is more than intellectual for me. So if it's merely that you believe your received opinions to be correct then, as you say, it's unlikely this conversation is going anywhere. And I've already read everything I want to by anti-trans feminists, from Janice Raymond to Sheila Jeffreys. They're wrong. Not completely wrong in all details, but so wide of the mark in general that it doesn't matter.

Benny B
16-08-2016, 04:13 PM
as i suspected this conversation is going nowhere so I'll just bow out now, agree to disagree and all that

Leo
17-08-2016, 08:30 PM
...annnnnnnnd, now its executive chairman is in charge of Trump's campaign. Can't make this stuff up, a match made in heaven. The next 80 days are gonna be very ugly.

firefinga
22-11-2016, 12:29 PM
Breitbart planning to expand to Germany :fire:

luka
22-11-2016, 12:45 PM
why dont we have a swastika emoji?

Corpsey
22-11-2016, 01:19 PM
PC gone mad

john eden
22-11-2016, 01:28 PM
It won't be long, now that Nazism is fashionable again.

Mr. Tea
07-01-2017, 08:42 PM
Not wholly Brietbart-related, but it might as well go here.

I read an excellent article earlier about David Icke (https://marlonsolomon.wordpress.com/2017/01/04/forget-the-lizards-david-icke-is-a-fascist/), of all people, and it seemed to fit pretty well with a lot of recent discussion, here and elsewhere, about the so-called alt-right, Fascism and neo-Fascism, and these groups' extremely tenuous relationship with both particular truths and the concept of 'truth' in general. Icke has apparently stopped using his alien-lizards-as-metaphor-for-Jews approach and gone for a more direct the-Jews-are-the-lizards line of attack. Hitler developed a decidedly postmodern approach to the idea of truth as long ago as the 1920s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie), and the Icke article provides another fascinating example:


When asked about the Protocols Icke retorted, “Just because Hitler used the knowledge for negative reasons doesn’t reflect on the knowledge itself.” Indeed when Hitler himself was told beyond all doubt the Protocols were fabricated he responded, ‘Well that proves the Jews wrote it.’

So the idea that the Protocols is a fake document is itself a 'false flag'! An idea ahead of its time, clearly, given the frequency with which people belonging notionally to both the far right and far left dismiss events as false flag operations, and even relatively mainstream commentators fall prey to assuming that any news source contradictory of the hated 'MSM' must be correct, and the explosion of fake news that's helped put Trump in the White House.

Then I recalled friend sufi helpfully suggesting I should sign up for www.stormfront.com because I wasn't having much truck with the idea of decolonizing the law of gravity, and it struck me as extremely odd that someone should associate a bias towards science, reason and objectivity with the far Right, when it's abundantly clear that the intellectual slant (if you can call it that) of Fascism and National Socialism right throughout history has overwhelmingly been Romantic, emotive, counter-Enlightenment and vigorously anti-science. Nor has this ever ceased to be the case: look at what the incoming Trump administration is already setting up to do the American academic, and especially scientific, establishment. Everything from climate change denialism to anti-evolutionism and young-earth creationism, appeals to obsolete racist pseudoscience regarding human evolution and genetics, the potential for public health disasters thanks to anti-vaccine propaganda and Aids denialism. I seriously wonder how much of this can be laid at the door of some of the alleged 'critiques' of science that zhao listed here many years back - I suspect a great deal. The tragedy is that this reactionary anti-intellectualism often wears the habits of intellectualism and frequently ensnares progressives, or at least, people who like to consider themselves progressives. This extends far beyond discussions of science, and manifests for example in people who regard themselves as "anti-imperialist" cheering on the atrocities of Assad and Putin while slandering the White Helmets as "terrorists". I recall zhao himself spouting "Obama created ISIS" nonsense on FB, apparently either not knowing or not caring that this is one of the foundation myths of the alt-right.

All of which makes this post look even more bizarre:



I lost a friend to Stefan Molyneux and his cultish nonsense a few months ago. Moly's arguments do sometimes hold a passing resemblance to Mr Tea's (I think specifically of a discussion around 'there are facts/there are no facts' a few years ago).

Here are my ideological bosom buddies at Breity being all unequivocally like, "yay science", lol.

http://www.dissensus.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=176&d=1483820722

http://www.dissensus.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=177&d=1483822325

As I said, perhaps the saddest part of the whole thing is seeing people with progressive instincts being swept along with all this. Someone I know, who is lovely but not the deepest thinker, shared this image on Facebook today:

http://www.dissensus.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=174&d=1483820693

without realizing that it's a symptom of a general cultural and intellectual malaise that's enabling a worldwide rise in authoritarianism, proto- and actual Fascism and religious fundamentalism, and may well destroy any hope we have of keeping large parts of the Earth's surface habitable by the end of the century.

sufi
06-02-2017, 02:49 PM
This is good
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/07/opinion/sunday/how-to-destroy-the-business-model-of-breitbart-and-fake-news.html

I already emailed Snowdonia windows (suspiciously white supremacist name for a business???), and some immigration shysters

(after switching off my adblocker and prvacy badger) i got lots of PPI adds too, which i expect it's pointless to follow up

hope this is the right mix of righteous outrage and potential blackmail/public shaming


Hi
I got to your site via an advert on the well-known American extreme right wing fake news website Breitbart.

I don't know whether you are aware that your products are being advertised on this hateful site, but I would appreciate it if you contact your ad agency and ask them not to feature your brand on that page. Please refer to this article if you're unsure what this is about https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/07/opinion/sunday/how-to-destroy-the-business-model-of-breitbart-and-fake-news.html

and feel free to drop me a line if you want any further info, screenshots etc,

Many thanks,

droid
06-02-2017, 02:51 PM
829 companies have stopped advertising with them so far thanks to the campaign.

sufi
06-02-2017, 03:44 PM
i wonder whether their income is affected too, ie the rates they can charge per ad if they are less desirable, i dabbled in google ads before iirc it can be very algorhythmy like that

baboon2004
21-02-2017, 12:35 PM
https://www.washingtonian.com/2017/02/20/breitbart-employees-threaten-walk-out-over-milo/

Hard to even process this one, save for being glad that there's a possibility that Milo's 'career' is over (with his book deal having been pulled as well, by the ethically-driven Simon & Schuster). Nasty piece of work, though obviously a deeply damaged and self-hating person too.

craner
21-02-2017, 12:42 PM
Or maybe he will carry on forever, like Taki.

droid
21-02-2017, 12:46 PM
Interesting to see that child abuse is beyond the pale, but scientific racism, sexism, transphobia, support for fascists, organised racist harassment etc is all within the boundaries of acceptable behaviour.

baboon2004
21-02-2017, 01:04 PM
Yep, exactly. And also what he said, whilst vastly problematic, for once didn't feel like it was coming from a place of hatred shorn of any other emotion - not that I have any interest in excusing anything he ever says, just pointing out the difference in register.

After reading about all this yesterday, I was thinking about why MY triggers visceral feelings of disgust (and yes, hatred) in me beyond almost any other public figure I can think of. No firm conclusions, but he's learned how to provoke in such a specifically odious way, because I don't think I'm the only one who feels like that. I feel repelled by him at a level way beyond the stupidity, bluster and route one bullying of Trump, say.

firefinga
22-02-2017, 12:10 PM
Interesting to see that child abuse is beyond the pale,

Paedophilia is one of the right's most obsessive topics.

Polanski=proof of liberal Hollywood's phaedophilia
"PizzaGate"
etc etc

And from my fav right wing twitter feed:
"In virtually every country, the top pedophile rings are elitists who are protected by the media. You don't have the moral high ground."

Corpsey
22-02-2017, 12:26 PM
Interesting to see that child abuse is beyond the pale, but scientific racism, sexism, transphobia, support for fascists, organised racist harassment etc is all within the boundaries of acceptable behaviour.

It's just politics ala The Sun, innit? Paedos are up there with muslims and feminists in terms of groups that need 'sorting out'. In fact, paedophilia is something I see Islamophobes persistently bring up as a criticism of the Qu'ran, so perhaps they feel they'll lose the moral 'high ground' if they're seen to endorse underage buggery?

Pretty much the only thing about Milo Yerman that doesn't fit the established pattern of right-wing anger is his homosexuality. His fans seem to tolerate/enjoy this aspect of him because it provides a useful shield for defending his bigotry ('how could a gay man be bigoted?'), and because he seems to be, or at least affects to be, ashamed of it himself.

droid
22-02-2017, 12:32 PM
This isnt a moral issue for the right, its business.

But it does expose that there are limits to liberal ideas of 'free speech'. Nobody has a problem with no platforming paedophiles, and if one hateful, damaging and dangerous worldview is beyond the realms of permissible discussion, then why aren't others?

After all, Naziism is, qualitatively and quantifiably, far more dangerous than paedophilia.

firefinga
22-02-2017, 12:43 PM
It's just politics ala The Sun, innit? Paedos are up there with muslims and feminists in terms of groups that need 'sorting out'.

Not at all. Clerical child abuse has been a constant topic in the western world for at least two decades. It may got a bit more quiet on that front recently but still - the average secular westener's first things when hearing "paedophile" was (and possibly still is) "priests"

luka
22-02-2017, 01:08 PM
https://www.instagram.com/p/BQyijpVD-E4/

Benny B
22-02-2017, 01:12 PM
funny, prominent transgender activist (and speaker at the Women's march) Janet Mock expressed more or less the same sentiments as Milo a couple of years ago and no one said anything.

vimothy
22-02-2017, 01:16 PM
funny, prominent transgender activist (and speaker at the Women's march) Janet Mock expressed more or less the same sentiments as Milo a couple of years ago and no one said anything.

Plenty of people have expressed the same sentiments as Milo, many of whom remain revered figures (e.g. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of_consent_laws))--but not to US conservatives.

Mr. Tea
22-02-2017, 01:48 PM
It's just politics ala The Sun, innit? Paedos are up there with muslims and feminists in terms of groups that need 'sorting out'. In fact, paedophilia is something I see Islamophobes persistently bring up as a criticism of the Qu'ran, so perhaps they feel they'll lose the moral 'high ground' if they're seen to endorse underage buggery?

You hardly have to be an 'Islamophobe' to find some of the Quran's content a bit iffy, any more than you have to be 'anti-Christian' to find bits of the Bible objectionable.


Pretty much the only thing about Milo Yerman that doesn't fit the established pattern of right-wing anger is his homosexuality. His fans seem to tolerate/enjoy this aspect of him because it provides a useful shield for defending his bigotry ('how could a gay man be bigoted?'), and because he seems to be, or at least affects to be, ashamed of it himself.

I think he's also tried to use his sexuality to worm out of accusations of racism, to whit: "I eat darkie-dick for breakfast, lunch and dinner, so how can I be racist?"

luka
22-02-2017, 01:51 PM
You hardly have to be an 'Islamophobe' to find some of the Quran's content a bit iffy, any more than you have to be 'anti-Christian' to find bits of the Bible objectionable.


But Corpsey didn't say that. He said Islamophobes constantly bring up paedophilia wrt Islam. Which any skim through YouTube comments will verify.

It's a worthwhile point to make I don't know why you feel the need to qualify it.

josef k.
22-02-2017, 02:49 PM
If you are a Christian living in the Middle East is it permissible to fear Islam?

luka
22-02-2017, 03:09 PM
Fear is an emotion. You can't legislate against it.

josef k.
22-02-2017, 03:11 PM
Fear is an emotion. You can't legislate against it.

This is the point, and problem with this concept.

luka
22-02-2017, 03:13 PM
But in as far as it's rational, what do you think? What are you afraid of in that scenario? Islam as giant non representational blob, or mob violence, official state discrimination, popular demagogues, etc etc

sadmanbarty
22-02-2017, 03:16 PM
If you are a Christian living in the Middle East is it permissible to fear Islam?

My uncle's missus is a jordanian christian. She's lived in the uk for decades and is deeply islamaphobic. It's understandable, she shouldn't be punished for it, but that's not to say her assesment of islam is accurate.

Mr. Tea
22-02-2017, 03:20 PM
But Corpsey didn't say that. He said Islamophobes constantly bring up paedophilia wrt Islam. Which any skim through YouTube comments will verify.


Because many people make an equation in their heads that goes 'criticism of any aspect of Islam/the Quran = deep-seated problem with Islam as a whole = hatred of all Muslims = racism'. I don't think for one second that Corpsey thinks that, but it's such a common fallacy that I think it's worth flagging up.

josef k.
22-02-2017, 04:04 PM
But in as far as it's rational, what do you think? What are you afraid of in that scenario? Islam as giant non representational blob, or mob violence, official state discrimination, popular demagogues, etc etc

Personally I don't fear Islam - I don't want to live my life in fear.

But I can see that fear of Islam is now very widespread. Breitbart is really all about that. Not only Breitbart but the new European Right (of course they are entangled) is anchored in a growing fear of Islam.

The Left employs the term "Islamophobia" similarly to how it uses "racism", as if it negated those politics, and those feelings, but that is not the case. In fact, it only silences discussion - that is, removes the Left from meaningful discussion, which nonetheless continues outside of Leftist earshot, only to surprise them later.

People outside of the liberal circles I imagine most of us usually inhabit are happy to admit to Islamophobia, racism, in more or less sophisticated terms.

What do people fear? Breitbart provides a pretty comprehensive picture: Demographic change, cultural change, sexual violence, terroristic violence, Shariah Law... many of these fears are not well-grounded, and others aren't connected to Islam directly.

What I do think is true, though, is that there's been an effective suppression of free speech - and therefore both a disregarding of people's fears/concerns, and a removal of the social/democratic ability to manage them - under the sign of Islamophobia.

droid
22-02-2017, 04:12 PM
What I do think is true, though, is that there's been an effective suppression of free speech - and therefore both a disregarding of people's fears/concerns, and a removal of the social/democratic ability to manage them - under the sign of Islamophobia.

Youre right. Suppression of free speech and failure to address concerns about Islam is a major problem.

http://www.islamophobiawatch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Times-and-Express-front-pages.jpg
http://www.trueactivist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/dailymailreal1.jpg
http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/373674/slide_373674_4352054_free.jpg
http://www.blogistan.co.uk/blog/images/daily-spew-shariah.jpg
http://www.islamophobiawatch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Birmingham-Mail-jihadist-plot-front-page.jpg
http://5pillarsuk.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/sun-final.jpg
https://mediadiversityuk.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/sunfrontpage.jpeg
http://www.blogistan.co.uk/blog/images/sun-front-page.jpg
http://www.islamophobiawatch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Sun-Halal-Secret-of-Pizza-Express.jpg
http://www.barenakedislam.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Daily-Express-Muslim-Plot-to-Kill-Pope.png

luka
22-02-2017, 04:27 PM
Over the years some people have noticed humans have an unfortunate and largely anachronistic tendency to form tribal groups and to designate other tribal groups as The Enemy. Whether these groups identify on grounds of nationality, religion, ethnicity or something else entirely is immaterial. The danger lies in the psychological mechanism itself.

The problem being it inevitably leads to death, destruction and suffering, sometimes on a small scale, like the recent mob violence directed against Zimbabweans in South Africa, or on a large scale, such as the wars in the Balkans in the 1990s, or on an unprecedented and world changing scale, as happened under Hitler.

A lot of energy has gone into short-circuiting this mechanism since the end of the second world war. Because it seems to be innate, constant vigilance is required to prevent it from being triggered. Now you may think this is all in vain, and that Man shouldn’t set himself against Nature, but I disagree. Whatever the shortcomings of Liberal Humanism, I think that in this regard it is Noble and Necessary.

When ‘leftists’ squawk and flap and denounce Trump, for example, as Hitler, or as a Fascist, this may seem hysterical but ultimately it is a response to seeing someone reaching for the big red Tribal Passions button. We know what happens when that button gets pressed. It’s not pretty.
There’s lots of issues around this subject to talk about and squabble over, and I'd enjoy doing that, but there’s also something non-negotiable at its heart.

luka
22-02-2017, 04:30 PM
good post droid. let's not drift too far from the shores of reality. Looking at that collection of headlines the propaganda seems so crude as to be comedic and yet you can hardly argue its been ineffectual.

droid
22-02-2017, 04:43 PM
That post could probably have been longer than every single thread on this forum. There is an inexhaustible supply of examples of criticism of Islam from the West, its virtually pathological - so much so that I cant believe I even need to make this claim.

droid
22-02-2017, 04:46 PM
But once again we see the fantasy world of the right where racism, Islamophobia & fear of the other are all normal concerns for everyday people, and therefore the real victims are those whose free speech is being suppressed by liberal censorship of these legitimate impulses.

An almost total inversion of reality, demolished instantly by even a glance at objective, verifiable evidence, and yet the idea persists.

Mr. Tea
22-02-2017, 04:55 PM
That post could probably have been longer than every single thread on this forum. There is an inexhaustible supply of examples of criticism of Islam from the West, its virtually pathological - so much so that I cant believe I even need to make this claim.

Well if I wasted my breath needlessly telling Corpsey that it isn't inherently racist to criticize the Quran, I like to think you're not telling anyone anything new by pointing out that the right-wing press has a tendency to demonize Muslims.

I say like to think - I guess firefinga is the person here with views closest to some of those expressed in those headlines, though I'm sure he'd accept that at least some of them are grossly inflated or gratuitously inflammatory.

droid
22-02-2017, 04:59 PM
Well if I wasted my breath needlessly telling Corpsey that it isn't inherently racist to criticize the Quran, I like to think you're not telling anyone anything new by pointing out that the right-wing press has a tendency to demonize Muslims.

Well, its not just the RW, its also governments, the centre, large swathes of liberalism... but sure, it shouldn't need to be said - hence my surprise at Josef's post.

firefinga
22-02-2017, 05:25 PM
I say like to think - I guess firefinga is the person here with views closest to some of those expressed in those headlines, though I'm sure he'd accept that at least some of them are grossly inflated or gratuitously inflammatory.

Hu? These are just headlines - the contents of the articles (which I haven't read) may or may not be accurate.

So in Austria there have been repeated cases of people joining the Islamic state. These made the headlines. Is it "islamophobic" that this makes the headlines? Hardly. And yeah, not exactly a big fan of leftists islamophilia.

josef k.
22-02-2017, 06:06 PM
Well, its not just the RW, its also governments, the centre, large swathes of liberalism... but sure, it shouldn't need to be said - hence my surprise at Josef's post.

Those headlines are... Islamophobic, would you say?

My point relates to the reality of people's fears - and the Leftist reaction to these fears (= racist and irrational).

In the absence of discussion, what you get is propaganda.

Mr. Tea
22-02-2017, 06:36 PM
What does and doesn't count as "Islamophobia" could fill a thread by itself, or even a book, or many books, and still not be answered. Take that Times headline about more British Muslims joining ISIS than the army. It is, presumably, a factually correct statement, but without any context or figures, it's potentially inflammatory and misleading. I mean, it says as much about how few UK Muslims are joining the army than it does about how many are joining ISIS, and given recent history, is it really surprising that they're not thronging in their thousands to join the armed forces? By itself, it could easily give the impression that British Muslims as a whole are supportive of ISIS.

subvert47
22-02-2017, 07:46 PM
funny, prominent transgender activist (and speaker at the Women's march) Janet Mock expressed more or less the same sentiments as Milo a couple of years ago and no one said anything.

Citation needed.

And not via posts from Gallus Mag or some such.

Benny B
22-02-2017, 07:55 PM
"Gallus mag or some such" meaning anyone who's transgender critical i suppose. Anyway its on her own website

Mock also seems fond of referring to females as 'fish' right?

Mr. Tea
22-02-2017, 08:50 PM
I think you two should politely agree to disagree. No good at all is going to come of getting into this again. (Yeah yeah, says me...all the same.)

Benny B
22-02-2017, 08:52 PM
I think you two should politely agree to disagree. No good at all is going to come of getting into this again. (Yeah yeah, says me...all the same.)

I already did agree to disagree i think.

luka
22-02-2017, 09:16 PM
It's pretty funny how subvert appears like candyman every time benny says transgender three times though

Mr. Tea
22-02-2017, 09:28 PM
I think once does the trick.

droid
22-02-2017, 10:05 PM
Yeah, funny how the only trans poster on Dissensus responds to someone who consistently criticises trans politics.

droid
22-02-2017, 10:10 PM
In the absence of discussion, what you get is propaganda.

No need to chose. This thread is evidence that you can have both.

Benny B
23-02-2017, 06:36 AM
Propaganda? Thats a bit dramatic. I made a relevant point in the context of the discussion about milo. It was more about liberal double standards than trans anyway.

droid
23-02-2017, 09:50 AM
I was referring to Josef's antediluvian regurgitation of right wing talking points.

IdleRich
23-02-2017, 04:11 PM
Yeah, funny how the only trans poster on Dissensus responds to someone who consistently criticises trans politics.
Not the only one.

droid
23-02-2017, 04:13 PM
Apologies - of the dozen or so people who still post there, the only one that I know of.

subvert47
23-02-2017, 04:24 PM
"Gallus mag or some such" meaning anyone who's transgender critical i suppose. Anyway its on her own website

Specific link to comment please. I can't be arsed to look for what you've probably misunderstood anyway.


Mock also seems fond of referring to females as 'fish' right?

The term "fish" comes from a particular black lesbian subculture. They can run their own critiques of how problematic it may or may not be.


I already did agree to disagree i think.

So you did. But it's not really a question of there being two equivalent sides of an argument which we can "disagree" about. You're just wrong.

subvert47
23-02-2017, 04:29 PM
It's pretty funny how subvert appears like candyman every time benny says transgender three times though

I was pointed this way first time.

This time I just happened to pop in :)

Mr. Tea
23-02-2017, 05:56 PM
BTW subvert47, I realize this


I think you two should politely agree to disagree.

may have sounded a bit forum-police-y, my apologies if so.

Benny B
23-02-2017, 06:20 PM
Specific link to comment please. I can't be arsed to look for what you've probably misunderstood anyway.



Well, you're probably not gonna like this but it really is easier to just link to gallus mag cos its got a collection of quotes from Mock herself, taken from her website and vlogs. Apparently child prostitution can be 'empowering' and a pathway to 'liberation'. Not really too far from what Milo was saying about sex between adults and children.

I understand that, coming out of that world of child prostitution, Mock was abused herself. But calling child prostitution 'sex work' and 'empowering' is not something I imagine most people would agree with. Anyway, whatever your views on this issue are, that's what Mock said.

And if you want to call gallus mag transphobic or a TERF or whatever, thats up to you. I 'politely disagree' with you (in advance). People can read what she's got to say if they want and decide for themselves. Probably best comes with a trigger warning though

https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/janet-mock-on-the-underground-railroad-into-child-prostitution-for-transgender-youth-and-why-he-thinks-thats-a-good-thing/


The term "fish" comes from a particular black lesbian subculture. They can run their own critiques of how problematic it may or may not be.



hmm, fairly sure that 'fish' was a misogynist slur used by some gay males ('tuna' was another one). Wherever it originated, the lesbians I know think its horribly offensive and would never use it. Honestly don't know about black lesbians using it, but it certainly has currency in portions of the transgender community to refer to a M2F who passes as a woman particularly well.

Anyway, Janet Mock is not a lesbian.


So you did. But it's not really a question of there being two equivalent sides of an argument which we can "disagree" about. You're just wrong.

Oh come on, is that really going to be your argument?

subvert47
23-02-2017, 11:44 PM
So you are now seriously posting links to gender trender?

ffs :rolleyes:

You don't know shit about trans or the trans community – or anything else – apart from the bigoted garbage you suck up online.

And as I said before...


When you spend your time abusing a particular community, sometimes you get angry replies.

So, no, I don't politely disagree with you. You're just a fucking tool.

Benny B
24-02-2017, 08:41 AM
Its not really a good look to be calling feminist women bigots when you've just said


It's not really a question of there being two equivalent sides of an argument which we can "disagree" about. You're just wrong...

So, no, I don't politely disagree with you. You're just a fucking tool.

and regarding this;


You don't know shit about trans or the trans community – or anything else – apart from the bigoted garbage you suck up online.

I have close friends directly affected by these issues actually. These things don't exist in a bubble, there are knock-on effects.

subvert47
24-02-2017, 10:43 AM
Its not really a good look to be calling feminist women bigots

When the shoe fits... The terms "feminist" and "bigot" aren't mutually exclusive. In the case of gendertrender, et al, "bigot" is the most apposite. They're like some ridiculous "alt-right" hate site. Even Julie Bindel refers to them as "mad fems".


I have close friends directly affected by these issues actually. These things don't exist in a bubble, there are knock-on effects.

Some of my best friends...? Okay, maybe you do, but you'd have to expand on "directly affected" for that to be meaningful.

Why am I replying again anyway? I mean gendertrender ffs. :rolleyes:

Benny B
24-02-2017, 12:06 PM
When the shoe fits...

Are you not aware that when you shut down a discussion with 'you're just wrong so fuck off' you might be perceived as bigoted or intolerant of other views yourself?


The terms "feminist" and "bigot" aren't mutually exclusive. In the case of gendertrender, et al, "bigot" is the most apposite. They're like some ridiculous "alt-right" hate site. Even Julie Bindel refers to them as "mad fems".

TBH I'm struggling to think of any radical feminists who would agree with transgenderist ideology. Being gender-critical or abolitionist is practically the definition of radical feminism - they don't accept gender identity as innate. So I guess they're all bigots and transphobes then - even a transwoman like Miranda Yardley. (http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/08/kellie-maloney-newsnight-and-debate-transgender-community-refused-have)

And no, gendertrender is not like an alt-right hate site. I've seen several articles supporting Julie Bindel on there, don't know about the 'mad fems' quote. Anyway, I suppose you could say they're 'angry' mad, but they're not 'insane' mad.


Some of my best friends...? Okay, maybe you do, but you'd have to expand on "directly affected" for that to be meaningful.

My partner is a feminist activist, so I know women who have been called misogynist slurs online by transactivists, been called terfs, transphobes and bigots simply for disagreeing with the idea that gender identity is innate, women that have been bullied and shouted down in political debates by transactivists (not just online), women who do not want to share a changing room with potentially any male who identifies himself as a woman, a friend who's worried about her brother transitioning etc etc. Forgive me if I don't go into details.

subvert47
24-02-2017, 01:44 PM
Are you not aware that when you shut down a discussion with 'you're just wrong so fuck off' you might be perceived as bigoted or intolerant of other views yourself?

I am quite intolerant of certain prejudicial views, yes. And sometimes "fuck off" is the only meaningful response. Especially to people who derive their opinions and get their "facts" from sites like gendertrender.


TBH I'm struggling to think of any radical feminists who would agree with transgenderist ideology.

Probably because transgender is not an ideology to be agreed or disagreed with. There are just transgender people.


Being gender-critical or abolitionist is practically the definition of radical feminism - they don't accept gender identity as innate.

Critiquing how gender functions is sensible. Abolishing gender is... a nice idea. Whether "gender identity" (however defined) is innate... is unknown. It's certainly not an axiom of trans ideology. One, because there's no such thing as trans ideology. And two, because many of us in the trans and queer communities have huge problems with "born this way" narratives, either for gender or sexuality. And, speaking personally, I couldn't give a flying fuck why some people are trans, or gay, or bi, or straight, or whatever.


a friend who's worried about her brother transitioning etc etc. Forgive me if I don't go into details.

Fine. I can imagine how much support you're being there.

That's me finished by the way. I won't reply again. And to keep from being tempted, I won't look at this thread again either.

Benny B
24-02-2017, 02:39 PM
sometimes "fuck off" is the only meaningful response.

That's me finished by the way. I won't reply again. And to keep from being tempted, I won't look at this thread again either.

.

Fine, if thats all you've got to say to me or anyone who disagrees with you. Not really sure why you bothered wasting your time

vimothy
26-02-2017, 01:04 AM
Doug Henwood interviews Angela Nagle on the subject of the alt-right: http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Radio.html#S170223

Corpsey
07-03-2017, 11:23 AM
https://psmag.com/on-the-milo-bus-with-the-lost-boys-of-americas-new-right-629a77e87986#.v02k4y6qj

'However they may bluster online, the new right and the alt-right hate being called Nazis. They’ve all seen too many movies for it not to matter somewhere deep down where they tell themselves the story of their own heroism. In fact, ever since Inauguration Day, the alt-right has been in meltdown, splitting and splintering in cascading identity crises as only a formerly underground movement can when it attains power. Of course, it’s not my job as a reporter to give activists advice, but if it were, I’d say: No, they’re not all fascists, and not everyone reacts to being called one by changing their tune. But the strategic application of Nazi-shaming works. The real pity is that conservative hypocrisy seems to work faster.

It turns out that some words do hurt. You may have noticed that, in this piece, I have not explicitly described Yiannopoulos or the movement that has made him famous as white supremacist, Neo-Nazi, fascist, or racist. The main reason for that is that it has been made explicitly clear to me that, were I to write such a thing, a libel suit the size of Mar-A-Lago would drop on me, and Yiannopoulos would use every trick in his surprisingly defensive playbook to prize out an apology, because that’s what friends are for. He’s done it to other reporters. He’s not the only one. In fact, a defining feature of the new-right populists is their ability to build a reputation as rhino-hided truth-sayers while flailing their hands in panic if anyone uses whatever words happen to hit them where it hurts. So, for legal reasons, I must state that Milo Yiannopolous, possibly alone of all the smug white people in the world, is not a racist. For moral reasons, however, I must state that Yiannopoulos’ personal beliefs are irrelevant given that he’s built a career off peddling bigotry in public. What about sexism? “Sexism I don’t have the energy to wrestle with you over,” says Yiannopoulos, who, I can personally confirm, is the maple-cured bacon of misogynist piggery — oily and sweet and crass and, on a gut level, dreadful for your health.

It seems perfunctory to point out the hypocrisy of building a movement and a career on the back of insulting people — Muslims, migrants, women, people of color — while nursing a hair-trigger sensitivity to any personal attack you haven’t pre-approved. That hypocrisy, though, does not appear self-evident to anyone within this movement, because a fundamental tenet of far-right pro-trolling is that it’s only other people’s feelings that are frivolous. Their own feelings, by contrast, including the capacity to feel shame when they’re held accountable for their actions, are so momentous that infringing them is tantamount to censure, practically fascism in and of itself. These are men, in short, who have founded an entire movement on the basis of refusing to handle their emotions like adults.'