Last edited by subvert47; 23-02-2017 at 03:27 PM.
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
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.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.
Anyway, Janet Mock is not a lesbian.
Oh come on, is that really going to be your argument?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.
So you are now seriously posting links to gender trender?
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...
Its not really a good look to be calling feminist women bigots when you've just said
and regarding this;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.
I have close friends directly affected by these issues actually. These things don't exist in a bubble, there are knock-on effects.You don't know shit about trans or the trans community – or anything else – apart from the bigoted garbage you suck up online.
Why am I replying again anyway? I mean gendertrender ffs.
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.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".
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.
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.Some of my best friends...? Okay, maybe you do, but you'd have to expand on "directly affected" for that to be meaningful.
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.
Doug Henwood interviews Angela Nagle on the subject of the alt-right: http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Radio.html#S170223
'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.'